# New guy with questions about satellite tv for new house



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

First, let me say hello to everyone here and admit at the outset that I am not much of a "tech" person. I have always has cable tv since grad school and usually just went with the flow. I have always been much more concerned with music than television, but times have changed. I want to "step up" and get the best deal out there for HD tv now that flat panel televisions are becoming so affordable. 

My wife and I are building a new modular home in a suburb of Pittsburgh, and I have been intimately involved with the design of the home. Eventually, I got around to thinking about tv/home theater options, and that is when I started to consider switching to satellite tv. We had comcast at our old place, and I really disliked their service and constant price increases. 

So now I am trying to figure out how to configure the new place (which is about to begin construction in a few short weeks). Ideally, I would like to put televisions in four rooms (kitchen, great room, master bedroom, and upstairs guest suite). 

Here is my dilemma:

I definitely want HD programming on at least two tvs (master bedroom and great room). 

I definitely want at least one HD DVR so that my wife and I can both record shows. But I want to be able to view those shows in different rooms in HD. 

Here is where I get confused: I have heard that one HD box can control two televisions, and that you can avoid a $5 fee by plugging the box into a phone line. Does this mean that I should have phone jacks installed at each tv jack? 

And can one HD DVR work for both the great room and master bedroom, or would it be preferable to get two HD DVRs so that she can use one, and I can hog the other one? 

I am confused as to how many receivers I will actually need. As I said, we are looking at four tvs. The kitchen and upstairs suit tvs would not need HD boxes- just the standard issue. Does that mean I could just get one standard box to control those two tvs? 

I apologize if these are really stupid questions, but that is why I joined up- I need help! Thanks in advance to all who reply and please be kind....


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Well the first thing you're going to have to decide is DirecTV or Dish network. There are a couple threads you can read about the differences. Each is in it's respective general forum. 

Each company will have it's pro's and cons based on what you want. I would do some research on the company and decide then start asking about technical information as this thread is destined to become a dish vs dtv equipment war until you make a decision.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

I really don't see how it would become a Dish vs. Direct Tv debate. I am simply asking how should I configure the receivers/outlets to achieve my stated goal, and I think that is clear from the original question. 

I will decide Dish vs. Direct Tv when the house is built, I get an occupancy permit, and I check to see who is offering the best deal at that time.


----------



## chainblu (May 15, 2006)

To answer one of your questions, as long as you are pulling cable, yes go ahead and run phone lines to your cable outlets. Both companies like for their receivers to be connected to phone.


----------



## redfiver (Nov 18, 2006)

If it's new construction and you have the ability to add, I'd pull at the minimum, coax, phone line and ethernet to every room you think you'll ever need a TV or computer or phone in. Which, to me, means every room besides the bathroom. Make each run unique back to a central switching room/closet.

Depending on the room and type of equipment I'd buy, I'd consider stacking satellite boxes in the switching room and use RF remotes to control them all. Then, I would have to pull different cables than coax, such as HDMI cables to each of the rooms.

No matter what I'd pull at first, I'd put smurf tubing in, and have a multi-port jack in each room, with the ability to expand to more ports, in case I change my cableing ideas in the future. But that's just me as I'm crazy about that stuff. It's MUCH harder to set this up after construction is done.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jcdle said:


> I will decide Dish vs. Direct Tv when the house is built, I get an occupancy permit, and I check to see who is offering the best deal at that time.


It is a fair question since the two systems use different wiring plans ... but the plans are similar enough that if you run cables from a central point to each place where you will ever want a TV/receiver (regardless of provider) you will be able to do more in the future. Both systems work with a central distribution point (although with SWM, DirecTV can do multi-drop - one coax can serve multiple receivers or multiple rooms.

Plenty of cable going from a central point to all TV locations will work.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

redfiver said:


> If it's new construction and you have the ability to add, I'd pull at the minimum, coax, phone line and ethernet to every room you think you'll ever need a TV or computer or phone in. Which, to me, means every room besides the bathroom. Make each run unique back to a central switching room/closet.
> 
> Depending on the room and type of equipment I'd buy, I'd consider stacking satellite boxes in the switching room and use RF remotes to control them all. Then, I would have to pull different cables than coax, such as HDMI cables to each of the rooms.
> 
> No matter what I'd pull at first, I'd put smurf tubing in, and have a multi-port jack in each room, with the ability to expand to more ports, in case I change my cableing ideas in the future. But that's just me as I'm crazy about that stuff. It's MUCH harder to set this up after construction is done.


Good info, thanks. I am definitely going to inquire about the cost of adding ethernet connections. I mentioned ethernet to my contractor once before, and he told me that I can do everything I want to do with a wireless router. He didn't realize (and I didn't know at that time) that the receivers have to be hard wired for ethernet.

I don't have a switching room in the house plan. Our kitchen/dining room/living room is one giant open space, and all of the other rooms/closets on that floor are spoken for. I was planning on having all of the cables wired from one central location, the area in the living room where we are going to install a large LCD HDTV. I figured I would hide all the hardware (a/v receiver, DVD player, cable or satellite box or TIVO HD DVR) in a nice BDI cabinet. Should I have all the wires dropped into the unfinished basement and have them rough-in a closet-type room down there?

RF remotes for everything would be nice. I already have a quote for one (a Home Theater Master Programmable LCD remote) to control our dual-zone Yamaha a/v receiver. A little pricey, though.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

James Long said:


> It is a fair question since the two systems use different wiring plans ... but the plans are similar enough that if you run cables from a central point to each place where you will ever want a TV/receiver (regardless of provider) you will be able to do more in the future. Both systems work with a central distribution point (although with SWM, DirecTV can do multi-drop - one coax can serve multiple receivers or multiple rooms.
> 
> Plenty of cable going from a central point to all TV locations will work.


Thanks for setting me straight. I did not understand why the Direct Tv/Dish Network distinction was so important.


----------



## redfiver (Nov 18, 2006)

jcdle said:


> Good info, thanks. I am definitely going to inquire about the cost of adding ethernet connections. I mentioned ethernet to my contractor once before, and he told me that I can do everything I want to do with a wireless router. He didn't realize (and I didn't know at that time) that the receivers have to be hard wired for ethernet.
> 
> I don't have a switching room in the house plan. Our kitchen/dining room/living room is one giant open space, and all of the other rooms/closets on that floor are spoken for. I was planning on having all of the cables wired from one central location, the area in the living room where we are going to install a large LCD HDTV. I figured I would hide all the hardware (a/v receiver, DVD player, cable or satellite box or TIVO HD DVR) in a nice BDI cabinet. Should I have all the wires dropped into the unfinished basement and have them rough-in a closet-type room down there?
> 
> RF remotes for everything would be nice. I already have a quote for one (a Home Theater Master Programmable LCD remote) to control our dual-zone Yamaha a/v receiver. A little pricey, though.


Wireless is fine, but it's still nice to have ethernet wired everywhere. Makes things easier (and cheaper) for devices that don't have built in wireless capability.

I would each room uniquely to the basement or some place similar where you can store all your switches and internet connectivity type stuff. This would make it much easier to makes changes in the future, and even the initial set up. For example, with DirecTV, you can have a SWM lnb on your dish and bring one wire down from the dish into your basement, hook that to the power inserter, then use a pretty simple splitter to send direcTV to each of the rooms (since this is a new install, I'm assuming all the satellite boxes will be SWM enabled, as all new boxes are supposed to be this way....).

Then, if you need multiple DVRs in one room, you can just use another splitter in that room to move your one COAX in that room to two, so you can run both DVRs in there. Same with ethernet, if you need more than one connection in any room, you can get a simple hub/switch and hook up multiple hard wired devices (such as DVRs, xbox, wii, etc.).

Also, when you're running wire, it's not that expensive to add in ethernet cable. The wiring is relatively cheap and the labor is minimal since you're already pulling other wires.

Man, I'd love to build a new house and wire it all exactly as I want! My house is 90 years old... so nothing was already there.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

jcdle said:


> Thanks for setting me straight. I did not understand why the Direct Tv/Dish Network distinction was so important.


Welcome to the forum! Let me see if I can help you out, but it will be from a D* standpoint, as I don't know too much about E* or their equipment.

1 receiver to run 2 TVs is an E* DVR, not D*. Though from what I have heard, the primary TV can be HD, but the second TV is SD only.

You have 4 locations for TVs, run a phone line (mostly for caller ID and PPV ordering), at least 1 RG6 (but I would run 2 just in case...1 maybe fails in the future, or you may want to run OTA to all locations), and run Cat6 as well (you will need this to enjoy Directv on Demand, this can also act as your line to order PPV from the DVR if you don't run a phone line). Directv on Demand is ONLY available on HDDVRs....so for PPV ordering, you need a phone line for SD receivers or SDDVRs.

You will enjoy an SWM setup, which means that only 1 RG6 is needed to each DVR (SD or HD) and you can still enjoy recording 2 programs at once.

Guest room and Kitchen.....maybe you run RG6 to guest room from your central location, then an RG6 from guestroom to Kitchen and use an RF remote and leave the SDDVR in the guest room (as the kitchen may not have a desirable area for a receiver). If you go with an HDDVR in the guest room, you must run HDMI, Component, or composite to the Kitchen as there are no coax outputs on the HDDVR. The RF remotes typically come with HDDVRs, but, if you need more, or one for an SDDVR, they are $25 I believe from D*.

D* did use to have flat panel TVs available (even carried at BB) that had the D* receiver built in to them (ideal for kitchen)....haven't seen them in awhile, and NOT sure they are SWM compatible?!?

Any questions, feel free to PM me or post here......good luck.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

As far as the contractor saying all can be done wirless with a router, yes it can. BUT, with the HDDVR you would need to add a game adapter to setup that access point of communication with the HDDVR to your network...at like $100 a pop!! Run the wires.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Welcome to the forum!

Definitely at least have RG-6 running to every room going back to a central location where all cables come together. The central location will allow you to patch signals however you want. I have 4 runs to each room but you can probably get away with just two. Don't let the contractor split any of the runs. Make sure they all run straight through.

Running Ethernet is expensive and if you don't want to absorb that cost, wireless will work just fine even to the satellite receivers. At the time we built our house, I couldn't afford the Ethernet runs. For the past 5 years have been doing just fine with wireless. The satellite receivers use a wireless bridge and everything else (Netflix box, Apple TV, Computers etc) are doing just fine. Sure, a direct line to each location would be great but quite frankly I haven't missed them. Great deals on wireless bridges can be found. I've seen them for $50 or less.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

Whoa, lots of info to absorb. :lol: Which is exactly what I was hoping for...


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

BTW, since we are talking about "ethernet cable," would this stuff fit the bill?

http://www.optimization-world.com/products/catid/8.html

It's called cat-6 ultra high-speed ethernet cable. I obviously have no clue and don't want to get ripped off. I think I could definitely swing a roll of this stuff if it would work in the new house. The manufacturer is already running telephone lines and tv jacks to each room, so I don't think the installation price would be that high.

Again, thanks for all the responses and suggestions. Keep'em coming.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Wireless may SEEM fine, but it is 2009, and you are just starting to see the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to moving large amounts of data around the house. People are already discovering that WiFi-G isn't fast enough for reliable streaming from an HD-DVR to a single PC. Soon they'll discover that in many cases, WiFi-N isn't fast enough to support 3 or more wireless devices trying to do the same thing (MRV).

1000' of CAT6 is $125, and is probably enough to wire the entire house. Since wires are already being pulled to these locations, not running CAT6 borders on insanity, IMO. No wireless connection can come close to the throughput or reliability of a wired connection, and remember: every wireless device you add has to share the same bandwidth, so 4 wireless devices means each potentially has only 1/4 of the total bandwidth.

I've never met anyone, ever, who has regretted running wires. I know a ton of people who regret NOT running wires. Many of them simply have to go without services that they could otherwise be enjoying, because either running them after the fact is so much more expensive, or because their wife or landlord won't let them do it the way it has to be done.

IMO, 2 RG6 and 2 CAT6 cables to every outlet should be an absolute MINIMUM. The cost of cabling is tiny compared to the decades of utility that you will get from them.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Chris Blount said:


> Running Ethernet is expensive and if you don't want to absorb that cost, wireless will work just fine even to the satellite receivers.


Running Ethernet cable is relatively cheap. It also doubles as phone, intercom and speaker wire in a pinch. If the walls are open or you've got to run something else anyway, taping on a couple of Ethernet cables is always useful.


----------



## SDizzle (Jan 1, 2007)

IIP said:


> Wireless may SEEM fine, but it is 2009, and you are just starting to see the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to moving large amounts of data around the house. People are already discovering that WiFi-G isn't fast enough for reliable streaming from an HD-DVR to a single PC. Soon they'll discover that in many cases, WiFi-N isn't fast enough to support 3 or more wireless devices trying to do the same thing (MRV).
> 
> 1000' of CAT6 is $125, and is probably enough to wire the entire house. Since wires are already being pulled to these locations, not running CAT6 borders on insanity, IMO. No wireless connection can come close to the throughput or reliability of a wired connection, and remember: every wireless device you add has to share the same bandwidth, so 4 wireless devices means each potentially has only 1/4 of the total bandwidth.
> 
> ...


Very well put.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

IIP said:


> No wireless connection can come close to the throughput or reliability of a wired connection, and remember: every wireless device you add has to share the same bandwidth, so 4 wireless devices means each potentially has only 1/4 of the total bandwidth.


Any two devices talking to each other can easily consume 100% of the bandwidth in a basic wireless scenario. Wired switches allow two devices to communicate without the rest of the LAN even noticing.

I've got CAT5e throughout my home with two gigabit switches and I've got less than $200 tied up in it including switchgear, wire and termination. The only time the wireless gets used is when the nieces bring the Wii.

Some will doubtless go so far as to recommend low voltage conduits if the sheet rock isn't up yet.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

You guys are all correct about running Ethernet cable. That's always the best way to go. But just buying a spool of Cat5 and doing the work yourself is not always an option. Most contractor require that they do the work to keep everything in code. If you run the wires yourself and something happens to the house because of the wiring you did, the home owners insurance will not cover the damage. 

All I'm saying that if the cost of running Cat5 is not an option, the wireless option will work. Also, don't count out wireless-N running at 5GHZ. It works wonders for speed and realiability.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Depending on the design of the house you may consider conduit. Pull whatever technology comes along. Expensive but it can save cutting into walls later when you need to go fishing.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

harsh said:


> Any two devices talking to each other can easily consume 100% of the bandwidth in a basic wireless scenario.


That's my point. Someone may get streaming working just fine on an N network with MRV or DirecTV2PC, UNTIL another wireless computer decides to download an update, or someone in the house emails some pictures. All of a sudden, the streaming video becomes unwatchable for 10 minutes until the other computer finishes.



> Wired switches allow two devices to communicate without the rest of the LAN even noticing.
> 
> I've got CAT5e throughout my home with two gigabit switches and I've got less than $200 tied up in it including switchgear, wire and termination.


I'm also Gigabit here for most devices (slower stuff is on a 10/100 switch). MRV isn't going to be a problem, no matter what else is going on.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

James Long said:


> Depending on the design of the house you may consider conduit. Pull whatever technology comes along. Expensive but it can save cutting into walls later when you need to go fishing.


This conduit is the "smurf tube" mentioned earlier in the thread, correct? And one would run it from the basement to where? To every room with an ethernet/RG6 connection?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

An Ideal setup would be to run 2 coax lines and 2 ethernet cables to each room if it's in your budget. If it's not then the minimum would be 2 coax lines and 1 ethernet cable to every major room. Then you could add a wireless bridge someone convenient to add wireless as an option in the house to save overall costs.

Conduit can get costly and overall is overkill depending on your home layout. A piece of conduit running from your central box to the outside is good and one running up to the attic and one to the basement is a good idea. You can then easily run new lines to the central box. 

The biggest factor really is just going to be how much you're going to spend, home layout, and what type of service you want to have. It's much much cheaper to spend the extra cost now and have a good plan for the ability to expand. So even if you can't afford to do everything now the preparation of how to do it in the future can save you a lot of cost and frustration.


----------



## jcdle (Feb 2, 2009)

We are going to run RG6 and one ethernet cable to each tv jack. The cables are going to be dropped down to the unfinished basement area. So my final question is: where is the best place for the "central location" for all of these cables in the basement? Can I have them placed near the electric service box or will that create interference? 


Thanks for all of your input, guys. I am truly grateful.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

jcdle said:


> We are going to run RG6 and one ethernet cable to each tv jack. The cables are going to be dropped down to the unfinished basement area. So my final question is: where is the best place for the "central location" for all of these cables in the basement? Can I have them placed near the electric service box or will that create interference?
> 
> Thanks for all of your input, guys. I am truly grateful.


The best place really is just based on your home. You of course want it to be a place that is easy to access. Depending on what you want to have setup in there as well. Are you going to use anything rack mount like a switch for ethernet? If you plan on having any equipment in there you're going to want to have it in an area that gets decent ventilation. Inside the interior of the home is always better then say a garage but a garage can be viable depending on where you live and the type of system you install.


----------

