Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

Cable Boxes with 802.11 126

Posted by michael from the look-ma-no-wires dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable Boxes with 802.11 More

Cable Boxes with 802.11

Comments Filter:

  • w00t! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @05:42PM (#3874093)
    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.
    • I am sure there will be some practical, easy to administer method of restricting the MAC addresses that access your 80211 connection. 80211 security protocols are getting better (after the first embarassing flops). Besides if nothing else works, install a Palladium "Fritz" chip on your box and restrict your bandwith that way ;)

      • Re:w00t! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dattaway ( 3088 )
        Changing the MAC address is trivial and can be done through the command line in a linux shell. All a person has to do is wait until the victim powers off their computer, leaving the airwaves open for attack. Or overpower the poor victim with a much stronger signal and DOSing him too.

        Best security would be mandatory strong encryption. The kind our Ex-President Clinton signed an executive order to ban from everyone. Only then will we be safe from terrorist haxors.
    • "In addition, with such a combination, a neighborhood with many 802.11-equipped cable boxes could become one large wireless network in which each house serves as a node. Theoretically, then, one could surf the Net and receive cable TV just by being within the confines of the network."
      Hmm. To surf the net, you'd eventually need a way out of the LAN and onto the backbone. I can't think of too much that would motivate me to wirelessly share the cable connection I pay for, with my neighbor who doesn't. Just because it's possible - doesn't mean it'll happen. On the other hand, local wireless lan games of CS or Q3 or Tribes or whatever with neighbors in the immediate area would be fun, if the ping times were reasonable. If you were in a generous mood - avoiding the rest of the cable network and wirelessly sharing your MP3's, movies, or whatever with your neighbors could get interesting.

    • Re:w00t! (Score:3, Flamebait)

      by Da Schmiz ( 300867 )
      This kind of FUD irritates me to no end. Modern cable systems do not have any trouble with file sharing security (read the spec [cablemodem.com]) -- and if you've got NetBIOS open to the world, you're a security hazard waiting to happen. Nope, I don't feel sorry for you.

      And, as regards the bandwidth thing: your average DSL line gives you what? 1.5 Mbps? In one 6Mhz channel, cable can deliver 27Mpbs of bandwidth. There's a reason why most cable companies throttle bandwidth down to DSL speeds: it makes bandwidth much more consistent. Even without throttling, depending on your provider, it's highly unlikely that you'd be getting less than 512-1024 Kbps even during peak access hours. Compare that to DSL -- contrary to popular belief, everyone in your neighborhood is still sharing a single T3 trunk (sometimes less), so your neighbors can still impact your bandwidth during peak hours.

      I mean, come on. On any network, when you have almost every host accessing data simultaneously, available bandwidth will drop. If the bottleneck isn't in the system itself, it's in the gateway out from there. Having used cable happily for several months now, I can say that I've never experienced these "slowdowns" that everyone talks about. And you can bet I'm on during "peak hours" -- isn't that about what time it is now (4:45 p.m. PDT)?

      Ah, wait! I get it! You're nothing more than a cleverly disguised troll. My apologies, everyone. I won't feed him next time.

      • 1.5 Mbps from DSL? Most are 256/512kbps or 1 Mbps. My cable downstream from Time Warner is about 3 Mbps peak, and even in the evening when it supposedly is "crowded" I see no slow down at all. I can get the same speeds any time of day. My upstream is about 512 kbps, most of friends with DSL have far less than that. I think I'll take my cable over your DSL anyday.
        • Peyna wrote:
          1.5 Mbps from DSL? Most are 256/512kbps or 1 Mbps.
          You're very correct. For the sake of argument, I was using very generous estimates. (For the record, DSL technically has a maximum bandwidth of about 8Mbps, but I've never heard of anyone actually getting that much.)
          I think I'll take my cable over your DSL anyday.
          So would I. Oh, wait, you don't have DSL... I don't have DSL... the @#$%&* telco can't even provide DSL in my area... who are we talking about trading with here?

  • cable box (Score:4, Funny)

    by LinuxCumShot ( 582742 ) <lcs.rabien@com> on Friday July 12, 2002 @05:44PM (#3874103) Homepage Journal
    what about a cable box the provided good tv instead of crappy tv
  • What ever happened to the cable companies cracking down on wireless users who chose to make their internal networks available to the public? In the eyes of cable companies, this would make such a thing a lot easier to accomplish.
  • 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.
    • FWIW, my linksys router/firewall can spoof MAC addresses for just this purpose. Of course, my ISP [airmail.net] is decent enough that I don't have to.
      • Thats just my point....you can do it with a router with wireless, just like you can now with regular connections.
        • Sure, but it's that much more seperate "stuff". The combo of a cable modem, router, firewall, and wireless access point is attractive, you have to admit. Well, perhaps not to us old hands that like to separate functionality, but cirtainly to the newbies this is designed to attract.
    • You just automatically get charged per MAC. They control the WAP now. :-)
      • Exactly. I saw all these posts about neighbors spoofing your MAC address to steal bandwidth and setting up home LANs. The main points that come to mind are:
        • they probabaly give you a NIC and register its MAC
        • their access point probably only allows your MAC address
        • when "soft" MAC addresses are applied at the OS level, they typically occupy the range from "400000000000" on up, not the burned-in range
        • although I believe PRISM2 cards can spoof ANY MAC address
        • being able to spoof MACs with your Linksys is of no use since there won't be an ethernet port
        having said all this, there's nothing stopping anyone from putting a PCI to PCMCIA adapter for the NIC in a Linux box and making that the new firewall.
    • Yeah, but what happens when everyone on your block gets one of those wireless cable modem boxes? I'm not an expert at this, but my 802.11b wireless network has a rather limited number of channels, and even fewer if you want to use 11Mbps. I'd think if you have more than a couple of these in any neighborhood they're going to start stepping all over each other. It'll still work, but throughput will suffer. In densely populated areas it may slow to a crawl.

  • For how much... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by taliver ( 174409 )
    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.
    • 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.

    • 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.

      Sure it is -- now. Just wait until these boxes start rolling out into the market and the cable companies take the next logical step of making it explicitly against their TOS to use any wireless networking products with their service except the ones they provide.

      They're already able to sniff out people stealing cable by driving around in their vans with detection equipment. It'd be even easier (heck, downright trivial) to detect that you're using an unapproved 802.11 access point.

  • My DSL (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @05:47PM (#3874130)
    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.
  • its still going to be shared bandwidth... offer me value that DSL can't? I highly doubt it.. I'll keep my DSL thanks.
    Tried cable once.. never again.

  • A link [he.net] to pictures of my neighborhood network complete with cat5 stapled to the fence.

    before you ask, yes I posted this before

  • I think this would be easier and more controllable
    by just putting your cable modem onto a linksys
    router/switch with wireless. They aren't all that
    expensive anymore, and it will do dhcp and nat for
    your whole home network.

    works with dsl too
  • 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.

    • Re:I'd buy it (Score:5, Informative)

      by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @06:04PM (#3874222) Homepage
      Instead of shutting wireless networks down, this seems like an opportunity for them to charge MORE money. Some ISPs (such as Speakeasy [speakeasy.org] 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).
      • Actually, I'm with speakeasy. IANAL, but the way I read their TOS (http://speakeasy.net/tos/), sharing is not encouraged.

        I still recommend Speakeasy. I live a few blocks from their main office. The service is great, the network is well maintained, and their staff are intelligent and professional.

        They're a lot better than the ISP I used to work for ;)
    • Earthlink's AUP actually says

      "Earthlink may terminate this account, password, or use of services FOR ANY REASON, including but not limited to..."

      Guess I better not piss off one of their 'tech support' people!!
      • I've been in a shouting match with an Earthlink broadband support maggot before. Such an idiot. What happened is after explaining my problem he responded in a way which showed me he had no grasp of what I had just said, so I repeated my problem using a different approach. Still no go. So, realizing I was getting nowhere I asked to speak with his supervisor/manager, politely but definitely. His response? "Why?" "Because I requested an escalation." "There is nothing my manager will say that I wouldn't." "That's fine, give me your manager." "No." And so I began the slow ascent into a shouting match.

        I hung up called back and the queue, which was noexistent for the previous call was now "over an hour." I hung up and called using a different phone line and again got through immediately (coincidence or is there selective "queuing" for specified incoming calls?) and spoke with a very fine and reasonable support person who recognized my problem right away and went the 4th mile to remedy the situation.

        No point, just telling the story...

  • Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mgrochmal ( 567074 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @05:56PM (#3874177)
    the San Diego-based startup raised a $40 million second round from investors including AOL Time Warner ... In addition, with such a combination, a neighborhood with many 802.11-equipped cable boxes could become one large wireless network in which each house serves as a node. Theoretically, then, one could surf the Net and receive cable TV just by being within the confines of the network.

    Time-Warner Cable recently sent out cease/desist notices [slashdot.org] 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.

  • Tivo... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brass1 ( 30288 )
    ...802.11a/b/g and what happens to Tivo?

    Well, this [9thtee.com].

  • I bet the 802.11 will be configured to only allow one machine to connect to the internet with it.
  • I'd rather have just the Internet access for cheaper.

  • The only catch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gusnz ( 455113 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @06:04PM (#3874220) Homepage
    Funny, I always thought cable companies were opposed to WiFi connection sharing [slashdot.org]?

    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 [slashdot.org]), 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:
    a neighborhood with many 802.11-equipped cable boxes could become one large wireless network in which each house serves as a node.
    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...
  • of course they are trying to shut everyone else out. if they do end up marketing thiw wifi box, it will have some sort of authentication (its AOL timewarner isnt it) to make sure only poeple who are allowed to can use it.

    i bet they even make it so that you can roam anywhere there is one of these boxes and market it as a feature for all their users.
    • Not only authentication, but probably some bastardized version of 802.11x as well.

      If they do that, you'll probably have to install some drivers/software to get it to work. Any guesses as to what OSes will be supported?

      I'll give a hint: it won't be Linux.

  • "network neighborhood"...

    it reminds me of that utterly useless icon/feature in windows which hangs my computer ever time i accidentally click on it! ;-)
  • Satellite is becomming more of an answering. Recently, for businesses, the price has been dropped to be competitive with services like cable internet and ADSL. It has a 400kbps downstream and a new upstream through ADSL (I believe). I think it's becomming a good alternative to the ever over-powering cable companies which keep charging more and are now going to begin capping internet transfer amounts.
  • When you can help me hack the Motorola DCT-2000 to suit?
    [24.125.76.224]
    Some preliminary info

    ;) Let's do the stuff they're too scared to do right...

  • DSL and Tivo have nothing to worry about (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kasparov ( 105041 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @06:23PM (#3874311)
    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).
  • Screw wireless. I already have it and it's entirely too easy to get it bundled with other things (ala cable/dsl router).

    What I want from my next cable box is a way to directly record the mpeg stream to either my tivo or the dvd+rw recorder I've been lusting after. Going from mpeg to analog s-video into the tivo to be re-mpeg encoded sucks. Not to mention that I can't record my favorite show (Jeremiah) in Dolby Digital.

    When's this coming?

    Danny
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Mommy, what's fact checking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @06:29PM (#3874335)
    "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 [2wire.com], which not only has a DSL modem and an integrated WAP, but also supports ethernet and phoneline networking.

    *sigh*
  • They still throttle bandwidth, block incoming ports 80 and 25 even though they deny it, and have pretty crappy customer service, so they're pretty useless anyways. I've switched to DSL and would never go back to cable.
    • I would go with DSL but for the fact they try to force you to use PPPoE - which is something that clearly shows why telecommunications companies are all going under. The ISP's in my area that provide DSL have the balls to say "PPPoE helps preserve the dial in experience." Who the hell wants to preserve the dial in experience?!?!?! I won't go to DSL because of this. (yes I know you can use a Linksys router to hold your settings but to most ISP's, that is a violation of their TOS). I have to deal with too many people who unfortunately chose Verizon as their DSL provider and now can't use VPN to work without buying an external router - and most of them get so pissed they have to buy something they should have had in the first place - it just becomes a nightmare! I believe that telecommunications companies have no idea what they are doing - which is one of the reasons for the problems with the internet. ISP's rarely care unless they are losing money - then they want more money. That is obvious with the article about CAT vs NAT. Imagine how great the Internet would be if ISP's had a clue?
      • 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
      • Yeah... I agree completely. I have pacbell, and I pay extra for 5 static IP's.
        When I originally set up, they screwed up my order and gave me PPPoE. I called them up and they wanted to know why I needed something other than PPPoE. I told them that I have political reasons against running PPPoE and the sales rep laughed pretty hard (It turned out that he was a linux newbie). Pacbell (in my experience) has been pretty good about customer service and has had good reliability, at least in my area.(Sacramento)
      • Interesting. Here in Southern California, Verizon does NOT use PPPoe.

        While we're on the topic, can someone explain how exactly the ISP benefits from requiring PPPoe? I mean, I've only got one DSL, shouldn't they just believe that whatever is on the other end is me? What exactly do they gain?

        To me, it seems worse in every way, just another thing someone can break, necessitating a call to tech support...

  • DSL (Score:1)

    by Dark0n3 ( 568223 )
    DSL Companies can do the same thing. They could provide box's with wireless access built into them. Also if cables companies are really going to do this, your neihbor can mooch of your inet...
  • When will a cable/personal video recorder/router/mp3 jukebox/DVD player/etc... be available?
    Right now, its called a PC with various add-on boards, but when will it be available for under $200 and the size of a VHS tape? Is there a company working on said device?

    • Re:All in on box? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      it will be available when some company/individual decides to make a pc for under $200 and the size of a vhs tape.
  • Okay, let me get this straight. Cable companies have already [slashdot.org] shown their disapproval of sharing of WiFi networks.

    So now they're just adding insult to injury by saying "Hey, not only can you NOT share this... but we'll provide it, so you don't even have the rationalization of 'Well, I guess I won't spend the money on that nice equipment' anymore"

    Does anyone else want to kick someone right about now?

  • Isn't the 802.11 spectrum supposed to be public? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @07:05PM (#3874459) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • "My english feels a little off today, scuse me."

      "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... ;-)

    • 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!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Qwest offers VDSL using Nextlevel boxes, that delivers broadband and video services to residential customers in Phoenix and Denver.

    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.

  • Per connected pc makes no sense (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sheddd ( 592499 ) <<jmeadlock> <at> ... beachresort.com>> on Friday July 12, 2002 @07:40PM (#3874604)
    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).
    • Uh, yeah. Let's try this:

      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).
  • Recall the recent slashdot article [slashdot.org] where it was stated that cable companies do NOT like wifi sharing. I wonder how this will workout?
  • Serious there is a list of hundreds of things that can be put into a set-top box, TiVO style HD, browsing, heck a playstation, . The issue is that cable companies aren't willling yet to put up the capital (at least $350 per sub) to put a new set-top box in everyone's house.
  • 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.
  • <deliberately farcical>
    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>

  • 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.

  • Saw the Motorola Box (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jratcliffe ( 208809 ) on Saturday July 13, 2002 @12:21AM (#3875431)
    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.
  • I used to have a cable modem and was very happy with it. Then a few months later I started getting dropped from Everquest two or three times a night when playing. The connection light on the cable modem would go out and I couldn't access anything on the net for 45 - 60 seconds, then it would start working again. Six months later I started getting dropped for an hour at a time. A few months later my connection started going down each morning before 10:00 and staying down until 8:00 or so at night.
    There was absolutely nothing AT&T could do for me. I tried calling every time it was down but soon got so frustrated with their tech support (every time they would make me check my connections, turn off my cable modem, turn off my computer, unplug them, plug them back in, etc., etc., etc.) that I wanted to smash my cable modem into a million pieces.
    Thank God for DSL! The maximum download speed is quite a bit smaller (~60kb/s compared with 400kb/s), but the upload speed is double (30kb/s compared with 15kb/s). That doesn't really matter to me though, at least I have a connection to the internet that I can actually use! I've never been disconnected from Everquest because of a network problem on my end, the service did go down one weekend and another time that I know of for an hour, but hasn't in a good 6 months now.
    Jason Goemaat

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Close