Cable Boxes with 802.11

foniksonik writes "'Cable providers are upping the ante in the competition for broadband subscribers. By combining cable TV, broadband service, and wireless connectivity in one set-top box, cable companies could soon offer consumers value that DSL firms won't be able to match.' 802.11a/b/g and what happens to Tivo? The most interesting part is the potential for 'network neighborhoods'." I'd suspect the cable boxes will end up using a variety of proprietary crud.

Comments

My DSL

[Wyatt Earp]

I get 5 static IPs from my DSL provider in Portland OR.

When the cable companies allow me that flexablitiy, I'll think about a switch.

DSL and Tivo have nothing to worry about

[kasparov]

What would DSL providers have to do to compete? Offer DSL modems with 802.11. No big deal there. I fail to see how it affects Tivo at all. You still use the Tivo they way you always did--hooked up to your cable box. Just because there is a network device and broadband connection attatched doesn't really change anything for the Tivo (at least as far as I can tell).

Isn't the 802.11 spectrum supposed to be public?

[t0qer]

I see some huge hairy problems with this.

Let's say grandma down the street who doesn't use the internet has one of these boxes acting as a network repeater. That steals away from the availiable spectrum I can use right?

My english feels a little off today, scuse me. What i'm trying to say is let's say I have 802.11 equipment that I want to use, but I can't because AOL time warner has sucked up the spectrum with thier gabillions of cable boxes. I.E. a corporation is eating up public property. Something just seems wrong.

Let me put it another way. If this goes through without some kind of goverment intervention it would be like you couldn't go camping at Yosemite because AOL has all the campsite.

Man my engrish is bad today... Anyone else in San Jose gettin dizzy from this heat?

Per connected pc makes no sense

[sheddd]

There's no way pricing per connected pc will work unless the FTC lets the big guys monopolize broadband (and if they did that, they'd probably 'proprietary'ize it as well). It just doesn't make sense. If they want to bill 'per pc connected', they need to define some things. Definition of connected(yes or no to these items): My laptop which I occasionally plug into my router 10 friends who come over for a lanparty My pda when browsing via usb via my broadband connection? Defenition of PC (yes or no to these items): Router Hub Linux PC functioning solely as a router Webserver GameServer Console Game Systems WiFi Access points It doesn't make sense. Cable and DSL companies need to come up with a new model. How about this unoriginal thought, "Price it according to cost and overhead". Here's my guide :) For all below, you need to mark it up x% for your current overhead (estimating your revenue) and perhaps even farther to grow your infastructure (if your business is healthy). Charge your cost for tech support! (When it's not the ISP's fault) Charge people to set up their accounts (most already do) Webhosting is an extra charge at cost (you can't compete with the big and/or free guys; why try) Email is an extra charge at cost (see above) News is an extra charge at cost (see above) Charge cost for IP's Charge for dynamic IP's by the minute (should equal = the cost for a static IP per minute). Let users who aren't on 24x7 share their dynamic ip with others so you don't have to have as many. You could charge less at non peak times. Don't get greedy! I'm spoiled at the moment with a ~1500Kb up / 1000Kb down connection for $30 a month with a static IP and 4 to 5 machines on it. I upload ~12GB per day (gigabytes). I really wonder how much this bandwidth costs the ISP (ignoring overhead).