Slashdot Mirror
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.
Yeah, cable providers now make it even easier for the guy down the street to eat all of your bandwidth (and possibly files).
Sorry guys, DSL's fine for me.
what about a cable box the provided good tv instead of crappy tv
-- OMFG = Oh My Floatse Goatse
They will do the same thing they do now...make you give them a MAC address to connect with any given ethernet card. You could put a router in front of it if you want, I suppose. In other words nothing has changed. But for the average consumer this could be very cool....part of the problem with cable modem is that it only connects one machine and then you have to build your own home network. Now you can just get more wireless cards, which have become cheap, and you're all set.
Likely around $90/month for the "Total Package", or even higher. Remember, Time-Warner wants your cable bill to be around $200/month by around 2004.
Is $90/month worth it? Would any of us get it? Why would you, when you can build an easier and cheaper solution by yourself. And since it's possible, maybe a side business of doing just this could be set up...
Want all the glamour of the wireless set top box but hate paying through the nose? Why not pay me $100 once, and I'll make your monthly bill around $50/month.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
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.
A link to pictures of my neighborhood network complete with cat5 stapled to the fence.
before you ask, yes I posted this before
I pay $300/mo for 1.54 sDSL, and I want to share with my neigbors. My terms of use _prevents_ me from sharing my connection. I can use the entire 1.54Mbit both directions and my ISP doesn't care, but if I string a connection to my neighbor and my ISP finds out, I risk losing my connection.
I would love to support a neigborhood wireless network, and wouldn't mind sharing some of my ample bandwidth (network trafic aggregates well), but I can't because my ISP already aggregates between customers like me and because of the complications of who gets in trouble if my neighbor uses my net to attack someone.
It's going to take a large grassroots effort to free up "the last mile" from institutional control.
Time-Warner Cable recently sent out cease/desist notices to people sharing bandwidth with WiFi, but they're working on putting WiFi in their own devices?
Part of me understands that the potential for revenue is there with a company-sponsored(controlled) wireless network. Another part is confused by said company's act of stopping other people doing something similar on their own.
I would be interested in it if I already didn't put down the money to make my own 802.11b network. I ahven't received a letter yet because I made an effort to secure it. I just hope that, if TWC implements this network, it doesn't require or force users to use their proprietary network. I'd hate to have the time and money I put into my network to be unusable with RoadRunner.
This
Well, this.
I'd rather have just the Internet access for cheaper.
If they do go ahead with this, you can't help but wonder what WiFi encryption and authorisation routines will be used here. Given that big businesses have had such trouble securing their own networks (leading to practises like warchalking), the average home user will probably have a lot more trouble unless decent encryption is in place out of the box. It could well become the script kiddy sport of the future, watching the neighbourhood from their basement.
However the most interesting bit of the article is this: If set up right, this could provide neighbourhoods with sufficient 802.11 densities to make the often-mooted idea of a peer-to-peer ISP feasible. Provided, of course, the DMCA isn't used to prevent customisation of the cable boxes, the cable companies could be contributing to the demise of commerical ISPs as we know them...
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
With Time-Warner it's already $35/mo for "extended basic" cable (i.e. you get local channels, CNN, MTV, CSPAN, etc., but no movie channels or premium channels or sports channels) and $40-$45/mo for standard cablemodem service. That's already $75-$80/mo currently. You can bet if they add some newfangled wireless service to it you'll be paying at least $100 total.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Some preliminary info
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).
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
So... I can pay $60/month for cable and internet from the cable company or I can pay $30/month for DSL... Considering I don't want cable, I fail to see the "value" here. And of course, if I try to tell the cable company that I don't want cable, they bring that down to $50. "Value"? I don't think so.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I work at Charter and from what I hear support for wireless networks is in the works and will not be the free standard support currently available. Still I'm glad we are embracing wireless technlogies instead of hiding from them like some of our competitors.
"cable companies could soon offer consumers value that DSL firms won't be able to match."
I go to 2Wire's website, I look at their home gateway products, and what do I see? Why, it's their HomePortal 1000W, which not only has a DSL modem and an integrated WAP, but also supports ethernet and phoneline networking.
*sigh*
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?
cable companies could soon offer consumers value that DSL firms won't be able to match.
yeah...like the ability to charge you for each computer you hook up to your connection.
simply make the wireless access proprietary enough to be incompatable with standard 802.11 cards and it's no longer possible to connect without a special piece of hardware. the proprietary 802.11 could even be made to interfere with regular a regular 802.11 setup so you wouldn't be able to share your connection that way anymore.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
So tivo will still have a special place in our homes. Cable companies want to provide you local and long distance telephone service, internet, and television. Incidentally, providing these devices is part of the game plan for the big network companies like cisco; For instance, the pace set top boxes use the cisco reference design with their own hardware glommed on for cable services. Incidentally, sony and samsung (among others) use the cisco design; motorola and others use the General Instruments reference design, which is crap, or at least that's been my experience.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One box acts as the broadband gateway and it servers up to three TVs. Not sure if it also doe the telephony, but it probably could.
Not every DSL provider makes you use PPPoE, doesn't a non-monopoly-telephone-company offer DSL in your area?
Here in Philly, Verizon calls the shots with their lame-ass DSL, but I got Covad DSL through Speakeasy, and I'm really happy with it. I've got three static IPs, run my own mail, web, and other servers, and hook up as many computers as I want to it.
The transaction went something like this:
Me: "Here's some money."
Them: "Here's your bandwidth! Have at it-- just don't run any pr0n servers, please."
~Philly
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).
It seems to me that cable companies are cracking down on people running their on Wireless networks because. They have no wasy of knowing how many computers are connected. It is easy enough to use Wireless APs to spoof the MAC address of an "authorized" machine and thus make it look like only one computer is connected. With this they will have the ability to have their cable boxes "phone home" every night and report how many machines were connected at a given time. With this information they can charge even more for services that cost them nothing extra. When I worked Tech Support at AT&T@Home that additional ips went for about $5. Imagine if someone was using your AP without your knowledge and you got charged or a lan party on a wireless network made them think you had ten computers connected. This could get extremely expensive, and with the usual Agreements that users sign without ever looking over users would have no way out to pay the extra fees or have their credit ruined.
So, cable companies are looking to move to metered usage at the same time they're offering WiFi boxes. Co-incidence? I don't think so. Anyone get the feeling these boxes'll be deliberately insecure?
"Yes, that's right Sir. Your access bill really is fifteen thousand, three hundred and seventy two dollars, eight-six this month. You had a near consistent 1500kbps all month... What, secure our boxes? Why would we want to do that Sir?"
And, conveniently, the competition all goes away because why pay for another ISP when you can piggy back your neighbour's? They don't care if they themselves only sell one account per neighbourhood because DAMN does it pay well!
</deliberately farcical>
"What i'm trying to say is..."
"Let me put it another way."
Man my engrish is bad today...
All this posted by t0qer. Dude, you need to lay off the brown weed... ;-)
LOAD "SIG",8,1
LOADING...
READY.
RUN
and what if grandma buys a Panasonic 2.4Ghz cordless phone? Of the young couple next door buys a 2.4Ghz baby monitor (which works pretty nice as long as I don't use my wireless :)
Only real difference is that AOL has the ability to mass market. I would also home that they would have the ability to disable the 802.11 parts of the receive if you don't have broadband, thus negating most of these worries - otherwise I'm gonna move near a huge deployment of these and surf from my iPaq EVERYWHERE!
Two things:
ONE, If you know how to put the box in diagnostic mode you can check the IP of your DIGITAL cable box. It is usually in the 10.x.x.x range. I guess they could just put twice the hardware in dual IPs. That private IP is needed for the communication of digital boxes with the local hub(not ethernet hub its the cable office hub) They have to have the private IP private because of communications needs also if it was public people could hack your cable box.(i doubt it would be hack proof) The second IP would be for the public for the net...you know what thats for.
TWO, people are talking about the cable co wanting people to have a $200 bill. well I'm not sure about that...of course they wouldn't complain about that profit. BUT if you knew all the sevices that they are going to start offering it is impressive all the stuff you could get from one provider. (telephone video on demand, free demand stuff which is really neat if you know what it is) Your charge per item is often fair, just cumulative up to $200, not to bad considering all the stuff you get. Ask me if you want to know more about the potentially cool stuff coming out.
LinuxWorx
Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
I saw the Motorola cable modem + integrated WiFi at the most recent Society of Cable Television Engineers show in San Antonio last month. I was interested to find out how they're handling the issue of multiple devices behind a router that's keeping the cable operators from charging per PC, as they'd like to. Turns out, the Motorola box will transmit the MAC addressses of anything on the home side of the box up to the cable company's management system, so that the cable company knows what's behind the box, unlike with the 3rd party router/firewall combos a la Netgear or D-Link. Very ingenious.
hey it's got nothing to do with weed, we've had a heat wave last 3 days and no air conditioning in san jose. Now that it's 1:30am and cooled off i can think.
--toq
If the cable box takes the cable connection in, and then broadcasts the internet connection over WiFi, how can a user put a firewall before the WiFi Access Point? (NOTE: I'm still on a dial-up connection, so this is based on what I've read -- not on what I've done.)
AFAIK, currently, a user's cable connection feeds into a cable modem which which feeds into a 10Base-T connection which could feed into a firewall which provides a "cleaned" connection to a hub / switch / router / WiFi / whatever.
Under the proposed arrangement with the built-in WiFi, it seems to me that each connected "device" would need its own firewall capability, with all the attendant issues in keeping them synchronized and up-to-date.
So I ask: How could a user insert a firewall into their proposed system?
--
The same thing, in two different places, soon isn't.
You have a mesh of wireless NAN (Neighborhood Area Nework) where every packet is tagged from request to reply.
Takes care of the "last mile" problem.
Whoever controls the medium (the wire itself) can rake it in PER PACKET from the actual owner of the actual client device.
The infrastructure owner can be cablecos, which are area segregated monopolies, telcos, virtual monopoly on coerced-shared infrastructure or Fred's coops using carrier pigeons.
With telco COs being less then a mile apart in urban areas, I can imagine the addition of Watt capable 802.11 antennas to the building eating the lunch of wireless router manufacturers.
You're going to pay PER PACKET just like the users of Bell Canada's X.25 network did in the late 80s, early 90s (when IPv4 was "good enough.")
If they don't know where to send the bill or from which bank account to draw the money, the packet gets dropped from the infrastructure owner's routers.
The closer you cozy up to the provider (the more you pay per month,) the better your bandwidth.
ISPs which piggybacked on top of the existing infrastruture will disappear shortly after the deployment of IPv6.
Having owning/operating a server would become a cheap no-brainer because the cost of the transmission could be borne by the client requestor.
More likely the the curent cell phone business model of charging both ends of the n-alog will be used to multiply revenue for the carrier.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.