Slashdot Mirror
Intermixing Cable TV and Internet Service?
AlphaSys asks: "I live in a small apartment community in the Southeast US. Broadband offerings are great in the area (both xDSL and cable). But the management company for the complex has their own 'cable' system in place by which they distribute programming from their satellite system to the residents. The rental agreement forbids anyone from getting cable service from any other provider (except DirecTV, etc.), which also negates our getting cable internet from anywhere, limiting us only to DSL. Here's where I'm going with this: is there any way the front office folk could get broadband service (T1 or fractional) which they could (via a router and multiplexer) then send down the wire with the regular TV signal like cable companies do? I work in networking but have no knowledge of how cable companies roll the two signals together or how you split it out at the customer end -- I just do Cat5/e/6 and fiber but I want to know if these guys can use their existing wire for this. I've searched Slashdot and googled my eyes out but I really can't find any pertinent information on how something like this is done. Does anyone have any information on how something like this is done?"
Does Microsoft own your apartment building?
Move.
You signed a stupid rental agreement, live with the consequences or move.
No Comment.
Since the management company essentially has there own cable plant, they can add anything they want to it. In order to have cable modem service, they will need to install some kind of CMTS (Cable Modem Termination System) and use that. CMTS are basically routers with RF catv ports on them. The CMTS will have at least 2 RF ports, one for upstream and one for downstream. Both of the ports will need seperate RF channels, although the upstream channel does not need to be on a channel used by normal tv signals. Most CMTS systems will provide the downstream signal on an intermidate frequency and need a seperate upconverter to translate the signal to a frequency that can be combined with the standard tv signal. For a single apartment complex, try looking at a Cisco 7111 uBR(IIRC the 7111 is one of the few Cisco CMTSs that have a built in upconverter).
It is fairly easy to implement what you are asking. What you would need is a Cable Modem Termination System (CMTS) - like a Cisco UBR, ARRIS CMTS1500, Cadant C4, etc. - and feed your internet connection through it. Essentially, a CMTS is an Ethernet to Coax gateway. The T1 would be terminated at the apartment with a router, and the router would feed the CMTS. Then, you would essentially splice the Coax feed from the CMTS into the Satellite feed serving the apartment units. By setting the CMTS to operate in an open frequency band not used by the satellite feed, the Cable Modems should be able to register with the CMTS without much difficulty.
they distribute programming from their satellite system to the residents
I wonder if the satellite company knows they are redistributing their signal?
Hey, you get the CMTS and the T1, and I'll come out and hook up your whole complex, from cable modems in the apartments to CMTS and router configurations.
I have misplaced my pants.
Maybe its just me, but I'd be willing to bet it would be cheaper to create a wifi network than this. Expecially considering the code of a wifi card versus a cable modem on each persons computer.
I live in an apartment community and they're about to roll out cable internet on their own private cable system real soon now. I have my standard DOCSIS cable modem and I'm just waiting for them to flip the switch, so to speak.
The only reason they would need a CMTS is if they wanted to get their own OC3 or DS3 or whatever and provide their own access. The poster simply wants to get cable internet from the local cable company. This cable company may be willing to feed them the DOCSIS portion of the cable spectrum, which the apartment complex could then do a reverse split into their own system.
The only problem with this scenario is that most PCOs (private cable operators) use the bare minimum amount of amplification needed for a decent signal and don't control signal leakage well. This means that the signal strength an carrier to noise ratio in the apartment may be insufficient. But this would be a problem whether or not the PCO installed their own CMTS.
-Alison
Is that lease enforceable?
You might want to call up the local cable company and ask them what your options are. Just be sure that they agree to keep your identity confidential if the shit hits the fan (and it very well may, if your apartment complex is violating a legally mandated monopoly) - it would be easy (albeit stupid) for your landlord to attempt to retaliate if your legitimate desire for broadband access ended up costing them big bucks in fines.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
The cable company would have to either use the existing cables or run their own through the building. The building owner(s) doesn't have to let the cable company do either one just to make this guy happy. His lease probably also says that he can't put holes in his walls or floor either which would of course be necessary to do the installation within the apartment.
Why does the owner care? The satellite "cable" is probably a perk that draws tenants and the price to the owner is probably contingent upon its exclusivity. If the owner had to let another company run their own cables or use the existing ones (which could work for Internet only but not for TV), the cost of the sat. feed would go way up, enough that the cost combined with people choosing cable instead could lead to the cancellation of the sat. feed.
This is nowhere near a monopoly, this guy can just live somewhere else. If all the apartments in town were owned by the same company and all had the same rule, then would probably be a monopoly.
This guy probably won't get anywhere with the cable company. Even though it's technically possible, it's probably not worth it to them to implement and deal with a relatively oddball arrangement. He'd probably have better luck convincing the building owner to get something like a T-1 but it's costly and really, what makes it worth it just to avoid DSL? He can get good bandwidth from DSL, if he has some big problem with the service and wants Internet over cable, he can move.
But here is the problem as I see it. A T1 line just isn't all that much bandwidth when it comes right down to it. Don't quote me (I'm Not A Techie), but its on the order of 1.5Mbps. Thus, if you hooked up 150 apartments, and assume that 10% might be using it simultaneously (a low estimate), you are talking about a meager 150Kbps per user (I'm over simplifying, I know). But anyway, wouldn't this be pretty slow? Anything wider than a T1 is going to drive the cost per unit up enormously, right?
I get DTV DSL (not for much longer) and am switching to a new DSL service at the cost of losing my dry pair (dedicated line), meaning I'll have to share my DSL with my voice line (yuk!). However, even though I know something about this, and I am in a position to actually do something, I just don't see any economical options.
If anyone can suggest options that would make sense for a building of 150 units, I'm very interested! (If this generates enough interest I may resubmit as an Ask Slashdot...).
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
where the fuck are the trolls and AC's?!?
are they with Josh, beating off to goatse?
most of them overcharge and have poor service while at the same time forcing you to use them because the agreement will require that you use their slow overpriced system rather than get your own DSL line from one of many DSL ISPs or cable modem (yuck, evil) connection.
stop putting yourself at the mercy of your apartment complex management company.
"In many cases the cable company has a monopoly agreement with the city. They are the only cable TV company allowed in town, and in return they will provide cable to every house/building in town. (Including houses where the cost to run cable is more than the income from residents who subscribe) If that is the case, then the apartment is breaking the local law by providing cable TV."
Incorrect. For the purposes of law, an apartment complex is a business, and is private property. They can make independent contracts with cable providers, or they can provide their own. The agreements most cities have are concerning quality and right of way issues. Not exclusive agreements which BTW are illegal Otherwise DirectTV and others would be breaking the law.
One of the bright spots of Verizon is a relatively new division called Verizon Avenue. They specialize in providing voice and Internet service to apartment buildings. For a situation such as yours they would run a T-1 or larger to the premises and terminate it at a DLSAM. The DSLAM bridges across the incoming phone lines and multiplex the data onto the line into the customer premises. Best of all this group also provides services in areas where Verizon is not the incumbent local exchange carrier.
I understand that they provide a solid product at rates highly competitive with the cable modem
www.verizon.com/avenue
Nemo CMTS Cable Modem Network Presto, instant cable internet
My potato gun was confiscated by the United Nations. They said I wasn't allowed to have weapons of mash destruction.
I hate to sound trollish, but we as consumers have more options than "take it or leave it".
We can look for alternatives in our present situation.
We can share information about alternatives.
We can tell providers/vendors/paid-pushers that their terms are limited by our needs, not the other way around (and they can "take it or leave it").
We can educate each other on ways we have found to make our living places better by ourselves, rather than moving until we find someone willing to offer what we need, and not take it away later.
I think that's why a lot of us are reading and writing here.
Still, I think yours is an interesting perspective.