Appreciation post: Found out the real reason we use RG-6 over RG-59

Honestly, I was just poking around on some old telecom engineering forums the other night, trying to figure out a signal loss issue for a long run in an old apartment building. I always knew RG-6 was the standard now, and the old-timers just said 'it's better.' But I found a spec sheet that broke it down with actual numbers. Ngl, it surprised me. RG-6 has a solid copper center conductor, not copper-clad steel like a lot of RG-59 did. That alone cuts down on signal loss, especially for higher frequencies like satellite and broadband. The spec said RG-6 can handle up to 3 GHz, while a lot of the old RG-59 topped out around 1 GHz. I found a direct quote from a retired engineer that said, 'The shift wasn't just marketing, it was about future-proofing for digital.' It makes sense now why we rip out all that old cable during upgrades. Has anyone else run into a job where the existing RG-59 was causing major issues with modern services?

2 comments

2 Comments

christopher_ross11d ago

That 3 GHz spec is the real key. I saw a satellite install fail because the old landlord used cheap RG-59 in the walls, and the tuner couldn't lock onto the signal. The tech just ran a new RG-6 line outside and it worked fine.

-1

jason32811d agoMost Upvoted

Actually, satellite signals usually run below 3 GHz, so the cable's shielding is often more important than its top rating. RG-59 is just too thin and loses signal strength over distance. The RG-6 fixed it because it's a thicker cable with better construction.