I have 4 channel masters I plan on giving to my worst enemy next Christmas.
I have been using Tablo for a month and mostly really like it singing gets
stuck on a blank screen. Haven't tracked that down yet. Might be due to
marginal signal.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 9:04 PM Chuck McCown wrote:
>
When you get it, please let me know how I can get the content off of it without
using wifi, if possible.
From: Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 7:45 PM
To: AFMUG
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT cynical
You don't need a sling subscription (or at least not a paid one), and it does
have
Two downsides I see:
1)It wants you to subscribe to SlingTV. While I do subscribe I don’t want
to have to subscribe. That makes me not want to buy it.
2)It delivers content via wifi. It probably would not talk from my
basement to my upstairs. If it has the ability to deliver via lan
I just ordered one of these:
https://www.airtv.net/products/airtv/
The only downside I see compared to the Amazon thing is that it's only got
two tuners instead of four, but it's a lot cheaper and it works with a
roku. You do need a USB hard drive for dvr functions, since it doesn't have
one
Yeahbut, I need OTA DVR. I use Roku for almost everything else.
From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 6:53 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT cynical
I've really been liking Roku for a streaming device.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:32 PM Chuck McCown
I've really been liking Roku for a streaming device.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:32 PM Chuck McCown wrote:
> Tivo send me an ad trying to get me to upgrade to their latest box. I
> have a Roamio. I own it. I don’t pay them anything monthly. After the
> upgrade deal went away, my Roamio
the original 100M length was a timing issue
there could be 5 hubs propogating signal, & adequate time was required for the
signals to propogate 5 segments before collisions.
in theory switches would change the equation
Roland
> I figured this was the best place to ask this question:
What is
That's true. The 100m comes from the notion of having 90m between patch
panels and then two patch cords up to 5m each.
Anyway, to the original question: there's no expectation of being
limited to 100mbps at 100m.
Cat5e should run gigabit all the way to 100m (and often it works farther
as
Actually, the standards specify 90 meters for the long run with two
patch cords on either side that can be up to 5 meters long.
Ken Hohhof wrote:
There is a timing consideration if running half duplex, the guard
interval will not be sufficient if the cable distance is > 100 meters.
You may
I finally got a good source for most of the interconnects,din rail and
wire management stuff.
I always like good clean boxes.. Awesome!
On 1/14/2019 3:41 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
Starting year off busy...
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
There is a timing consideration if running half duplex, the guard interval will
not be sufficient if the cable distance is > 100 meters.
You may be able to go a little farther than 100 meters on cable with excellent
attenuation and crosstalk characteristics (e.g. Cat6) if using full duplex.
That originated back in the day of coaxial cable based ethernet. 10 Base 5 10
Mbps, 500 meters.
It used a Collision Detection Multiple Access protocol. An ethernet adapter
would come on line, blindly transmit and if it did not get an ACK it would back
off for a random amount of time and
Yeah, I installed a 461' link the other day and it runs at 1Gbps
fine and has solid SNRs (about 27.5). That's why I was curious about
there the 100 meter (328') limitation originated and, I suppose
separately, if it's even a valid distance limitation today on CAT5e
and
I had a ~450ft 1Gbps link using Cat5e work just fine. We had run both fiber
and ethernet. One day, the fiber
just died. The link auto-magically switched over to ethernet and ran just
fine until we could fix the fiber.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:13 PM Jesse DuPont
wrote:
> Well, I meant Ethernet
Well, I meant Ethernet generically. Regardless of 4-wire vs 8-wire,
in general, the purported safe distance for an Ethernet over copper
(as opposed to fiber) connection is 100 meters. What drives this
safe distance limitation spec?
I presume you are talking about 4 wire Ethernet because we do GigE all the time
on copper.
GigE uses all 8 wires and has data flowing both directions.
100 Mbps E uses 4 wires (2 pair) with TX on one pair and RX on the other pair.
GigE uses advanced modulation methods as well.
Does that
I figured this was the best place to ask this question:
What is the primary reason for the 100M limit on copper Ethernet
links? Is it related to bit errors/SNR or is there a timing element
involved? Something else?
Thanks!
--
yea.. bout that..
I threw away my remaining 5.25" floppies this weekend
On 1/14/19 11:04 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Can’t talk about “binders” anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binders_full_of_women
You could keep the data on a Verbatim 5.25 inch floppy disk like
Sheldon’s mortal enemies
Interesting,
A click through from the above link to the original article :
https://www.ericsson.com/ne/en/press-releases/2019/1/deutsche-telekom-and-ericsson-achieve-fiber-like-results-with-wireless-backhaul
says:
"The round-trip latency performance of the link tested was less than 100
It's likely using most, if not all, of the 70/80ghz band to do that. I
think the 10Gbps radios all use 2000mhz wide channels.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 10:34 AM Adam Moffett wrote:
> .and is it spectrally efficient? There are hundreds of mhz that count
> as "5ghz".
>
>
> On 1/14/2019 11:29
Can’t talk about “binders” anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binders_full_of_women
You could keep the data on a Verbatim 5.25 inch floppy disk like Sheldon’s
mortal enemies list.
From: AF On Behalf Of dave
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:31 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re:
.and is it spectrally efficient? There are hundreds of mhz that
count as "5ghz".
On 1/14/2019 11:29 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Could be a typo... maybe it was supposed to be 1ms. Or it's just
stupidly written... afterall, 0.001ms is less than 100ms. If "5G's
goals" are less than 100ms,
Im with Lewis on this one LOL!
I used to have and still do. A ton of archived data on misc drives and
drive spaces.
I have since consolidated much of it in one giant nas using Owncloud for
access.
Yes, The binders are what keeps everyone from asking me questions about
certain sites and
Could be a typo... maybe it was supposed to be 1ms. Or it's just stupidly
written... afterall, 0.001ms is less than 100ms. If "5G's goals" are less
than 100ms, than it meets that.
40Gbps doesn't seem particularly impressive to me anyway... that's been
possible for awhile with e-band radios. I
Must be a typo... maybe 100 us ?
On 1/14/19, 10:13 AM, "AF on behalf of Chuck McCown" wrote:
They send each packet 100 times and vote on the most likely values.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
>
They send each packet 100 times and vote on the most likely values.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 14, 2019, at 6:15 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Maybe they meant 100 microseconds?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF On Behalf Of Robert
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 11:01 PM
> To:
Maybe they meant 100 microseconds?
-Original Message-
From: AF On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 11:01 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ericsson and Deutsche Telekom have developed a wireless
40 Gbps backhaul for 5G - TechSpot
1.8 miles with "less than 100ms"
27 matches
Mail list logo
