Broadband is a *disaster*- anyone else? what to do?

> Hi All and Happy Holidays. We recently got broadband internet and
> phone
> (through cable, not DSL), and what a *disaster*.
> Had to get rid of the phone part immediately, because it made me
> so agitated
> and I absolutely could not sleep. I am not talking about using the
> phone; if
> the cable was connected (the same cable connected computer and
> phone) I could
> not be in the house.

>I have often wondered if my broadband digital TV, digital cable,
>digitial phone (all over cable) causes problems, but I haven't been
>able to think of any particular reason how it could, so haven't taken
>the time to disconnect it and see if it helps. In my case, that
>would mean we lose phone service also.
>
> Coaxial cables are "supposed" to be quite shielded and the signal
>levels are very very low even if they are leaky, but I've heard
>others say they have reaction to sattelite dishes and feeds, which
>have similar properties and extremely low signal levels. If indeed
>we react to cable telephone service and cable internet service, then
>it seems that something must be going on well outside the realm of
>just signal strength and frequency. Something very odd indeed. The
>signals from cable or sattelite won't even come close to the strength
>of signals in the air like tv transmitters and cell phones, and in
>fact are undetectable by measuring equipment unless the equipment is
>attached to the cable. If they bother people (and it seems they do
>some people) it begs the question of what is going on? I'm curious
>if Vinny or Charles have any experience here.
>
>The one thing in common to satellites and cable internet/phone is the
>sheer quantity of information that is being carried. I have no
>knowledge of a physical principle where people would be sensitive to
>that, however, so at this point I don't understand how people would
>be sensitive to it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Maybe
>someone knows something more about this aspect and can comment
>further. Is this possibly related to the quantum noise phenomenon
>that I don't yet understand?
>
>Garth
>
>On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:57 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Hi All and Happy Holidays. We recently got broadband internet and
> > phone
> > (through cable, not DSL), and what a *disaster*.
> > Had to get rid of the phone part immediately, because it made me
> > so agitated
> > and I absolutely could not sleep. I am not talking about using the
> > phone; if
> > the cable was connected (the same cable connected computer and
> > phone) I could
> > not be in the house.

> Hi Garth:
>
> Well, two things come to mind here regarding CATV and broadband
> cable: Most coax cables (except for solid metal outer sheath cables,
> which I have used sometimes in designing systems for weak-signal
> reception work at UHF frequencies, and which cost about ten dollars
> per foot!) do allow a small amount of RF EMF field to escape, but the
> amount of escaped EMF energy is incredibly miniscule, usually from 52
> to 90 dB below the already-low signal level on the CATV cable. Also,
> however, a type of "common-mode" stray RF singal can sometimes travel
> along the outer sheath of coaxial cables; this signal may have little
> or no relationship to the actual desired signal traveling inside the
> cable, and may instead have been created by ground loops or by stray
> signal pickup and/or resonance. Usually, grounding a coax cable
> really well to a really good ground (a really good ground at RF
> frequencies will almost always involve more than one ground rod and
> perhaps other ground means as well) at one end, or placing one of
> those hinged-type ferrite sleeves over the outer shell of the cable
> at one end, will eliminate much of the strength of these stray fields.
>
> Lastly, and this is where things get a bit esoteric, but we ARE
> getting to the fringes of Western science here at times: some coaxial
> cables, along with some types/designs of capacitors, seem to be very
> good at acting as transducers/radiating antennas for converting a bit
> of the desired fields/energies in them into what some folks call
> noisy "scalar fields" and what others (such as Glen Rein) tend to
> call noisy "quantum waves", and what I tend to call noisy
> "sub-quantum fields", and thus may emit way more of such noisy
> subquantum fields than would otherwise be expected for a given signal
> level.
>
> with care,
> --Vinny
>
> At 09:52 PM 12/2/2006, you wrote:
>>I have often wondered if my broadband digital TV, digital cable,
>>digitial phone (all over cable) causes problems, but I haven't been
>>able to think of any particular reason how it could, so haven't taken
>>the time to disconnect it and see if it helps. In my case, that
>>would mean we lose phone service also.
>>
>> Coaxial cables are "supposed" to be quite shielded and the signal
>>levels are very very low even if they are leaky, but I've heard
>>others say they have reaction to sattelite dishes and feeds, which
>>have similar properties and extremely low signal levels. If indeed
>>we react to cable telephone service and cable internet service, then
>>it seems that something must be going on well outside the realm of
>>just signal strength and frequency. Something very odd indeed. The
>>signals from cable or sattelite won't even come close to the strength
>>of signals in the air like tv transmitters and cell phones, and in
>>fact are undetectable by measuring equipment unless the equipment is
>>attached to the cable. If they bother people (and it seems they do
>>some people) it begs the question of what is going on? I'm curious
>>if Vinny or Charles have any experience here.
>>
>>The one thing in common to satellites and cable internet/phone is the
>>sheer quantity of information that is being carried. I have no
>>knowledge of a physical principle where people would be sensitive to
>>that, however, so at this point I don't understand how people would
>>be sensitive to it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Maybe
>>someone knows something more about this aspect and can comment
>>further. Is this possibly related to the quantum noise phenomenon
>>that I don't yet understand?
>>
>>Garth

>Hi Garth:
>
>Well, two things come to mind here regarding CATV and broadband
>cable: Most coax cables (except for solid metal outer sheath cables,
>which I have used sometimes in designing systems for weak-signal
>reception work at UHF frequencies, and which cost about ten dollars
>per foot!) do allow a small amount of RF EMF field to escape, but the
>amount of escaped EMF energy is incredibly miniscule, usually from 52
>to 90 dB below the already-low signal level on the CATV cable. Also,
>however, a type of "common-mode" stray RF singal can sometimes travel
>along the outer sheath of coaxial cables; this signal may have little
>or no relationship to the actual desired signal traveling inside the
>cable, and may instead have been created by ground loops or by stray
>signal pickup and/or resonance. Usually, grounding a coax cable
>really well to a really good ground (a really good ground at RF
>frequencies will almost always involve more than one ground rod and
>perhaps other ground means as well) at one end, or placing one of
>those hinged-type ferrite sleeves over the outer shell of the cable
>at one end, will eliminate much of the strength of these stray fields.
>
>Lastly, and this is where things get a bit esoteric, but we ARE
>getting to the fringes of Western science here at times: some coaxial
>cables, along with some types/designs of capacitors, seem to be very
>good at acting as transducers/radiating antennas for converting a bit
>of the desired fields/energies in them into what some folks call
>noisy "scalar fields" and what others (such as Glen Rein) tend to
>call noisy "quantum waves", and what I tend to call noisy
>"sub-quantum fields", and thus may emit way more of such noisy
>subquantum fields than would otherwise be expected for a given signal level.
>
>with care,
>--Vinny
>
>At 09:52 PM 12/2/2006, you wrote:
> >I have often wondered if my broadband digital TV, digital cable,
> >digitial phone (all over cable) causes problems, but I haven't been
> >able to think of any particular reason how it could, so haven't taken
> >the time to disconnect it and see if it helps. In my case, that
> >would mean we lose phone service also.
> >
> > Coaxial cables are "supposed" to be quite shielded and the signal
> >levels are very very low even if they are leaky, but I've heard
> >others say they have reaction to sattelite dishes and feeds, which
> >have similar properties and extremely low signal levels. If indeed
> >we react to cable telephone service and cable internet service, then
> >it seems that something must be going on well outside the realm of
> >just signal strength and frequency. Something very odd indeed. The
> >signals from cable or sattelite won't even come close to the strength
> >of signals in the air like tv transmitters and cell phones, and in
> >fact are undetectable by measuring equipment unless the equipment is
> >attached to the cable. If they bother people (and it seems they do
> >some people) it begs the question of what is going on? I'm curious
> >if Vinny or Charles have any experience here.
> >
> >The one thing in common to satellites and cable internet/phone is the
> >sheer quantity of information that is being carried. I have no
> >knowledge of a physical principle where people would be sensitive to
> >that, however, so at this point I don't understand how people would
> >be sensitive to it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Maybe
> >someone knows something more about this aspect and can comment
> >further. Is this possibly related to the quantum noise phenomenon
> >that I don't yet understand?
> >
> >Garth
> >
> >On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:57 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All and Happy Holidays. We recently got broadband internet and
> > > phone
> > > (through cable, not DSL), and what a *disaster*.
> > > Had to get rid of the phone part immediately, because it made me
> > > so agitated
> > > and I absolutely could not sleep. I am not talking about using the
> > > phone; if
> > > the cable was connected (the same cable connected computer and
> > > phone) I could
> > > not be in the house.
>

>Hi folks:
>
>A minor errata in my earlier note below about coaxial cable. I
>believe that due to the very late hour of night at which the missive
>was penned, I may have accidentally used the wrong term for the
>signals which can travel down the outside of the coaxial cable outer
>shield (versus inside the cable, where we desire them to be), when I
>called the undesired signal a type of "common mode" signal. I am
>still hunting for just the right term for the signal traveling on the
>outside of the coax cable, but "common mode" just does not feel
>right. What I was really describing is where the outside coaxial
>shield of the cable is accidentally acting in itself as a kinda
>single-wire transmission line, and thus radiating some signal, or
>even where it is acting as a part of an accidental antenna system, as
>can happen in some ham radio and CB transmitting antenna systems and
>even occasionally (and hopefully briefly) at some commercial AM, FM
>and TV transmitting sites on the coax cable traveling from the
>transmitter to the antenna where there is a tremendous impedance
>mismatch between the impedance of the signal in the feedline and the
>impedance of the antenna, causing a high voltage standing wave ratio
>(VSWR), and this can cause high amplitude out-of-phase signals to
>travel on the outside of the coax cable, radiating as well into space.
>
>However, this scenario does not seem to happen often with
>consumer-signal distribution coaxial cables used for CATV and for
>broadband/CATV cable, as the power levels are rather low and the
>equipment made and marketed for these markets usually employs rather
>good impedance matching and also employs pretty good shielding of
>signal-processing stages, largely for reasons of economy, efficiency,
>and to avoid running afoul of the FCC and irate customers
>experiencing interference to other devices.
>
>BTW, if and when your coax cable IS acting significantly as an
>"antenna radiator" due either to high VSWR or to unintentional
>resonances or poor grounding techniques, it is usually rather easy to
>detect: any fairly-sensitive EMF detector device, if its probe is
>brought to within a distance of anywhere from one-half inch to two
>feet from the coax cable outer shield, will register a significant
>and noticeable increase in EMF field readings or in RF E-field
>readings (and somewhat less-often in RF magnetic field readings. If
>the leakage energy is over the level of a few watts, it will also
>light a small flourescent bulb held by one end in one hand if the far
>end is placed near the "leaky" coax cable.
>
>with care,
>--Vinny
>
>At 12:14 AM 12/3/2006, you wrote:
> >Hi Garth:
> >
> >Well, two things come to mind here regarding CATV and broadband
> >cable: Most coax cables (except for solid metal outer sheath cables,
> >which I have used sometimes in designing systems for weak-signal
> >reception work at UHF frequencies, and which cost about ten dollars
> >per foot!) do allow a small amount of RF EMF field to escape, but the
> >amount of escaped EMF energy is incredibly miniscule, usually from 52
> >to 90 dB below the already-low signal level on the CATV cable. Also,
> >however, a type of "common-mode" stray RF singal can sometimes travel
> >along the outer sheath of coaxial cables; this signal may have little
> >or no relationship to the actual desired signal traveling inside the
> >cable, and may instead have been created by ground loops or by stray
> >signal pickup and/or resonance. Usually, grounding a coax cable
> >really well to a really good ground (a really good ground at RF
> >frequencies will almost always involve more than one ground rod and
> >perhaps other ground means as well) at one end, or placing one of
> >those hinged-type ferrite sleeves over the outer shell of the cable
> >at one end, will eliminate much of the strength of these stray fields.
> >
> >Lastly, and this is where things get a bit esoteric, but we ARE
> >getting to the fringes of Western science here at times: some coaxial
> >cables, along with some types/designs of capacitors, seem to be very
> >good at acting as transducers/radiating antennas for converting a bit
> >of the desired fields/energies in them into what some folks call
> >noisy "scalar fields" and what others (such as Glen Rein) tend to
> >call noisy "quantum waves", and what I tend to call noisy
> >"sub-quantum fields", and thus may emit way more of such noisy
> >subquantum fields than would otherwise be expected for a given signal level.
> >
> >with care,
> >--Vinny
> >
> >At 09:52 PM 12/2/2006, you wrote:
> > >I have often wondered if my broadband digital TV, digital cable,
> > >digitial phone (all over cable) causes problems, but I haven't been
> > >able to think of any particular reason how it could, so haven't taken
> > >the time to disconnect it and see if it helps. In my case, that
> > >would mean we lose phone service also.
> > >
> > > Coaxial cables are "supposed" to be quite shielded and the signal
> > >levels are very very low even if they are leaky, but I've heard
> > >others say they have reaction to sattelite dishes and feeds, which
> > >have similar properties and extremely low signal levels. If indeed
> > >we react to cable telephone service and cable internet service, then
> > >it seems that something must be going on well outside the realm of
> > >just signal strength and frequency. Something very odd indeed. The
> > >signals from cable or sattelite won't even come close to the strength
> > >of signals in the air like tv transmitters and cell phones, and in
> > >fact are undetectable by measuring equipment unless the equipment is
> > >attached to the cable. If they bother people (and it seems they do
> > >some people) it begs the question of what is going on? I'm curious
> > >if Vinny or Charles have any experience here.
> > >
> > >The one thing in common to satellites and cable internet/phone is the
> > >sheer quantity of information that is being carried. I have no
> > >knowledge of a physical principle where people would be sensitive to
> > >that, however, so at this point I don't understand how people would
> > >be sensitive to it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Maybe
> > >someone knows something more about this aspect and can comment
> > >further. Is this possibly related to the quantum noise phenomenon
> > >that I don't yet understand?
> > >
> > >Garth
> > >

>Hi folks:
>
>A minor errata in my earlier note below about coaxial cable. I
>believe that due to the very late hour of night at which the missive
>was penned, I may have accidentally used the wrong term for the
>signals which can travel down the outside of the coaxial cable outer
>shield (versus inside the cable, where we desire them to be), when I
>called the undesired signal a type of "common mode" signal. I am
>still hunting for just the right term for the signal traveling on the
>outside of the coax cable, but "common mode" just does not feel
>right. What I was really describing is where the outside coaxial
>shield of the cable is accidentally acting in itself as a kinda
>single-wire transmission line, and thus radiating some signal, or
>even where it is acting as a part of an accidental antenna system, as
>can happen in some ham radio and CB transmitting antenna systems and
>even occasionally (and hopefully briefly) at some commercial AM, FM
>and TV transmitting sites on the coax cable traveling from the
>transmitter to the antenna where there is a tremendous impedance
>mismatch between the impedance of the signal in the feedline and the
>impedance of the antenna, causing a high voltage standing wave ratio
>(VSWR), and this can cause high amplitude out-of-phase signals to
>travel on the outside of the coax cable, radiating as well into space.
>
>However, this scenario does not seem to happen often with
>consumer-signal distribution coaxial cables used for CATV and for
>broadband/CATV cable, as the power levels are rather low and the
>equipment made and marketed for these markets usually employs rather
>good impedance matching and also employs pretty good shielding of
>signal-processing stages, largely for reasons of economy, efficiency,
>and to avoid running afoul of the FCC and irate customers
>experiencing interference to other devices.
>
>BTW, if and when your coax cable IS acting significantly as an
>"antenna radiator" due either to high VSWR or to unintentional
>resonances or poor grounding techniques, it is usually rather easy to
>detect: any fairly-sensitive EMF detector device, if its probe is
>brought to within a distance of anywhere from one-half inch to two
>feet from the coax cable outer shield, will register a significant
>and noticeable increase in EMF field readings or in RF E-field
>readings (and somewhat less-often in RF magnetic field readings. If
>the leakage energy is over the level of a few watts, it will also
>light a small flourescent bulb held by one end in one hand if the far
>end is placed near the "leaky" coax cable.
>
>with care,
>--Vinny
>
>At 12:14 AM 12/3/2006, you wrote:
> >Hi Garth:
> >
> >Well, two things come to mind here regarding CATV and broadband
> >cable: Most coax cables (except for solid metal outer sheath cables,
> >which I have used sometimes in designing systems for weak-signal
> >reception work at UHF frequencies, and which cost about ten dollars
> >per foot!) do allow a small amount of RF EMF field to escape, but the
> >amount of escaped EMF energy is incredibly miniscule, usually from 52
> >to 90 dB below the already-low signal level on the CATV cable. Also,
> >however, a type of "common-mode" stray RF singal can sometimes travel
> >along the outer sheath of coaxial cables; this signal may have little
> >or no relationship to the actual desired signal traveling inside the
> >cable, and may instead have been created by ground loops or by stray
> >signal pickup and/or resonance. Usually, grounding a coax cable
> >really well to a really good ground (a really good ground at RF
> >frequencies will almost always involve more than one ground rod and
> >perhaps other ground means as well) at one end, or placing one of
> >those hinged-type ferrite sleeves over the outer shell of the cable
> >at one end, will eliminate much of the strength of these stray fields.
> >
> >Lastly, and this is where things get a bit esoteric, but we ARE
> >getting to the fringes of Western science here at times: some coaxial
> >cables, along with some types/designs of capacitors, seem to be very
> >good at acting as transducers/radiating antennas for converting a bit
> >of the desired fields/energies in them into what some folks call
> >noisy "scalar fields" and what others (such as Glen Rein) tend to
> >call noisy "quantum waves", and what I tend to call noisy
> >"sub-quantum fields", and thus may emit way more of such noisy
> >subquantum fields than would otherwise be expected for a given signal level.
> >
> >with care,
> >--Vinny
> >
> >At 09:52 PM 12/2/2006, you wrote:
> > >I have often wondered if my broadband digital TV, digital cable,
> > >digitial phone (all over cable) causes problems, but I haven't been
> > >able to think of any particular reason how it could, so haven't taken
> > >the time to disconnect it and see if it helps. In my case, that
> > >would mean we lose phone service also.
> > >
> > > Coaxial cables are "supposed" to be quite shielded and the signal
> > >levels are very very low even if they are leaky, but I've heard
> > >others say they have reaction to sattelite dishes and feeds, which
> > >have similar properties and extremely low signal levels. If indeed
> > >we react to cable telephone service and cable internet service, then
> > >it seems that something must be going on well outside the realm of
> > >just signal strength and frequency. Something very odd indeed. The
> > >signals from cable or sattelite won't even come close to the strength
> > >of signals in the air like tv transmitters and cell phones, and in
> > >fact are undetectable by measuring equipment unless the equipment is
> > >attached to the cable. If they bother people (and it seems they do
> > >some people) it begs the question of what is going on? I'm curious
> > >if Vinny or Charles have any experience here.
> > >
> > >The one thing in common to satellites and cable internet/phone is the
> > >sheer quantity of information that is being carried. I have no
> > >knowledge of a physical principle where people would be sensitive to
> > >that, however, so at this point I don't understand how people would
> > >be sensitive to it. That doesn't mean it isn't happening. Maybe
> > >someone knows something more about this aspect and can comment
> > >further. Is this possibly related to the quantum noise phenomenon
> > >that I don't yet understand?
> > >
> > >Garth
> > >
> > >On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:57 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi All and Happy Holidays. We recently got broadband internet and
> > > > phone
> > > > (through cable, not DSL), and what a *disaster*.
> > > > Had to get rid of the phone part immediately, because it made me
> > > > so agitated
> > > > and I absolutely could not sleep. I am not talking about using the
> > > > phone; if
> > > > the cable was connected (the same cable connected computer and
> > > > phone) I could
> > > > not be in the house.
> >
>
>
>Vinny Pinto
>[hidden email]