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
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.
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
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 -->
Instead of shutting wireless networks down, this seems like an opportunity for them to charge MORE money. Some ISPs (such as Speakeasy HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!) don't mind if you share your broadband connection with your neighbors. They can charge for tiered bandwidth. If I am sharing my connection with my neighbors and they are a major bandwidth hogs, then I will either upgrade to a more expensive bandwidth tier or shut my neighbors out and then they will buy their own connection from the same ISP (to avoid losing their email or whatever).
cpeterso
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
You just automatically get charged per MAC. They control the WAP now. :-)
May we never see th
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.
"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?
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).
"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
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.