  53059959Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | cant be that expensive like they do now with dish and directv, they install it for you and provide you with a few recievers. I doubt it really costs that much to wire a home since they do thousands everyday, besides they make it up by signing the customer to a yearly contract. | |
|
 | | | Re: cant be that expensive Seems like making everything wireless makes the most sense to me.....put that MIMO gear to some actual work... | |
|
| | | | Re: cant be that expensive security, bandwidth, lag, security, there are like 500 diffrent types of wireless, security, interferance, security.... hmmm. Looks like there are still way too many problems with wireless. | |
|
| | | | | Re: cant be that expensive Security? Does my Discovery Duck special in HD really need more than WPA2?
Run an ethernet line to your desktop.... | |
|
| | | |  SmokeyI'd rather be skiingPremium
join:2003-05-20
Wild West | Re: cant be that expensive But think of the QOS issues Im sure that will bring.
--
Plvres crapvlas qvam gladivs | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: cant be that expensive The bottleneck is going to be the pipe coming into the home if companies insist on using ADSL2+ and compression to serve multiple HD feeds.... | |
|
| | | | | | SmokeyI'd rather be skiingPremium
join:2003-05-20
Wild West Reviews:
 ·Verizon Wireless..
| Re: cant be that expensive True, but I'm thinking more of what happens when I move my lappy from the room with the ap, to backyard and the like. I can only imagine that a strong signal will be needed to feed TV over wireless, and what happens when all your neighbors have the same setup? I'm sure solutions can be found, but why not just come up with a way to interface the IPtv with coax at side of the home?
--
Plvres crapvlas qvam gladivs | |
|
| | | | | | | | I install wireless internet based on 802.11b, and I would be the first one to tell you thast wireless is worthless for streaming HD, packet loss when you turn on the microwave or your new Whirlpool HT Dryer or your 2.4ghz phone. At $.06/foot and $.23/connector I would run Cat 5 and be done with it. Even a traditional 100mb network would stress streaming 3 full HD streams. Let alone the 6 that would be required for my home, you better bring me a 1gbps connection if you want to deliver me HD over IP. I don't want that compressed crapo either, I would just watch SD if that were the case. | |
|
| | | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: cant be that expensive That's just it, in cases like with SBC, to fit HD streams under the 24Mbps roof they'll be all compressed anyway....
Not saying wireless is a good answer (I think coax and sat service already own the niche), but just an answer...
Fiber is the future. | |
|
| | | | | |  TopmounterSent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO | The bottleneck is going to be the pipe coming into the home if companies insist on using ADSL2+ and compression to serve multiple HD feeds....
BINGO!!!! | |
|
| | | | | | | |
|  imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | I agree. If it takes the idiot installing the IPTV service 8 hours to run a total of 3 outlets he should be fired. It's not rocket science. | |
|
| | | | Re: cant be that expensive Wow, 8hrs service for $50. per hour thats comes to 400 bucks. Hey I can do it for half price;) | |
|
| |  SteveConIBEW 2222 Boston, MAPremium
join:2004-09-02
Boston, MA | said by imrf:I agree. If it takes the idiot installing the IPTV service 8 hours to run a total of 3 outlets he should be fired. It's not rocket science. Sheesh - you remind me of people that started telling me how I could fix/install what they wanted by saying "All you have to do is ..."
Any idiot with a staple gun can install three jacks by stapling along a baseboard in an hour, but a quality installation fishing walls, attics etc. can take all of 8 man/hours and more than likely longer. Its not rocket science, but its not easy and rarely goes as planned, either. That's why an "hourly rate" is often quoted instead of a "price for the whole job". I don't know anyone who can see through walls and can determine every obstacle to be encountered. | |
|
| | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI
1 edit | Re: cant be that expensive said by SteveCon: but a quality installation fishing walls, attics etc. can take all of 8 man/hours and more than likely longer. Yes, if you don't know what you are doing, sure. I have worked with installation companies for many years. I have seen a 7500sq. ft. homes wired with 6 outlets or more in less than 4 hours fishing 4 stories up, with two guy each working by themselves. Don't tell me 3 outlets in a average run of the mill home will take 8 hours. | |
|
| | | | SteveConIBEW 2222 Boston, MAPremium
join:2004-09-02
Boston, MA | Re: cant be that expensive said by imrf:said by SteveCon: but a quality installation fishing walls, attics etc. can take all of 8 man/hours and more than likely longer. Yes, if you don't know what you are doing, sure. I have worked with installation companies for many years. I have seen a 7500sq. ft. homes wired with 6 outlets or more in less than 4 hours fishing 4 stories up, with two guy each working by themselves. Don't tell me 3 outlets in a average run of the mill home will take 8 hours. C'mon now. *1* person.. 4 story pulls.. 3 outlets.. all in 4 hours? I'm a licensed electrician with 30 years experience who has fished more tel, data, catv and power cables than I care remember; I bet a wiring inspector would have a field day citing code violations on *that* job.
Sure, you might get a "bunny" 1st floor install of 3 jacks in 4 hours once in a while - but that certainly is not going to be the rule. Working safely and doing a quality install in a neat and workmanship-like manner is going to take longer. More often, the install will be required in the upper levels of a multi-floor or worse yet, multi-family dwelling.
Sending one person to fish walls and ceilings alone is a waste of time and money for a company - it can be done, but it's not cost effective. 8 man hours is a more realistic expectation. | |
|
| | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: cant be that expensive said by SteveCon:C'mon now. *1* person.. 4 story pulls.. 3 outlets.. all in 4 hours? I'm a licensed electrician with 30 years experience who has fished more tel, data, catv and power cables than I care remember; I bet a wiring inspector would have a field day citing code violations on *that* job. I bet that you are 100% wrong. There were absolutely no code violations. Why do you find it hard to pull 3 lines in 4 hours. With the proper tools and not constantly taking breaks it can easily be done, and it has been done many times. Telecom workers always claim this can't be done because they just listen to what their union tells them.
Working safely and doing a quality install in a neat and workmanship-like manner is going to take longer. Sure quality work takes time, but not an entire shift. That's just plain laziness.
Sending one person to fish walls and ceilings alone is a waste of time and money for a company - it can be done, but it's not cost effective. No, a waste of money is sending in multiple techs that still complete the job in the same amount of time. I have rarely seen telephone techs work any faster with multiple techs then it would have taken if they were by themselves.
8 man hours is a more realistic expectation. Not really. That's a ridiculous amount of time to do 3 outlets. It's just as sad as the time it takes to do a FIOS install. It shouldn't take 6 hours to do it. It really sounds like Verizon needs better training for their techs if they all think this is reasonable. | |
|
| | | | | | wow i didnt know any companys still ran wires behinds walls bith comcast and direct tv rather just staple wires along the side of your houe then drill a hole in the wall I dont think i';d mind paying more for a nice clean install | |
|
| | | | | SteveConIBEW 2222 Boston, MAPremium
join:2004-09-02
Boston, MA | Re: cant be that expensive said by mustang03282:wow i didnt know any companys still ran wires behinds walls bith comcast and direct tv rather just staple wires along the side of your houe then drill a hole in the wall I dont think i';d mind paying more for a nice clean install The FiOS install is just that - fished walls/ceilings from NI to wall plate/jack. The cost? FREE. No installation fee. Is it taking a while for an install - yes, it is. Will install time get shorter - absolutely. The TelCo guys have really never fished walls before, and for years your TelCo CS rep suggested that you call an electrician for tel wiring. Now, the TelCo guys are doing the CAT5e wiring. I still say the average install will be well in excess of 4 man hours, but that's just me. | |
|
| | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: cant be that expensive Fios install is free for one PC. It's $75 for each additional PC, and extra to install a wireless router, yes?
There's also been some rumbling about charging a $75 install fee for one PC, but I haven't been able to confirm that. Any truth to that? (assuming your avatar means you work for them?) | |
|
| | | | | | | SteveConIBEW 2222 Boston, MAPremium
join:2004-09-02
Boston, MA | Re: cant be that expensive said by Karl Bode:Fios install is free for one PC. It's $75 for each additional PC, and extra to install a wireless router, yes? There's also been some rumbling about charging a $75 install fee for one PC, but I haven't been able to confirm that. Any truth to that? (assuming your avatar means you work for them?) Yes, I'm a VZ technician - but not in I&M (installation & maintenance group). When my FiOS was installed, they wired one PC and offered to connect and configure any other PC to the router in the same room for free (I had 2 others there). I suspect that was via patch cable, not a wall jack & fished walls.
A 4 port D-Link wired router is included, however a 4 port wireless "G" (54Mb) version is available for an additional cost (I think about $60 if I remember correctly). They recommend using the D-Link - but you can use any one you like. I heard from the installer that only the D-Link is supported as it has special firmware. I wanted to use my Linksys 8 port router instead, and swapped it out after the install techs left. I was surprised to find that the FiOS tech support reps helped me customize my Linksys router settings in spite of not supporting it.
Lastly, I imagine that if you wanted them to fish from the router to other PCs that there would be additional fees. The wireless route would be the way to go in this case - unless you were paranoid about security. | |
|
|  extreme50Formerly TwoKDialupPremium
join:2002-06-07
Coloma, MI | Everything from a telco is expensive. They are experts at running the bill up. Cha-ching!
For example, CallerID w/name is ~$9/mo and Call Forwarding runs ~$5/mo. I was quoted over $200/mo for Ameritech's 128kb ISDN. Before VoIP over cable came along, I remember paying 28 cents per minute for long distance to a town 15 miles away. No thanks, I'll pass on telco IPTV.
Comcast is the bargain of the century! | |
|
| | | That's right, lets piss all over vdsl, dsl2+gsuperduper obsolete equipment in favor of FIBER! we need bandwidth and we need it NOW! If verizon can push out hundreds of line miles of fiber per day, so can others! Once docsis 3.0 gets underway, sbc will be in a far more precarious situation if their set-top boxes have to be changed and add costs of fiber node expansion to the home, plus a new standard based on fiber delivered broadband. It would be interesting if states without fiber rollouts fall behind economically because of this, but i'm no expert on such things, | |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ | The future of IPTV The future of IPTV is to embrace new technology and new consumer habits.
i.e. forget the exisiting OTA and even Cable TV of "watch it when we broadcast it" system. Move IPTV to recording devices which will serve as network severs throughout a home. This way multiple TVs will be able toa ccess the serve when the consumer wants to watch previously recorded material. The only issue will be how IPTV handles commercials. This can be achieved by placing such ads before and after programming (and maybe in the middle) rather than the "old" system of haivng Ads every 12 minutes or so.
Cost would be either cabling throughout the home or use of highspeed wireless to dumb boxes at each TV in the home.
Existing technology can make this work today. It's just that for now the market has been comparatively small (home high speed networks) and consumers are being overcharged for the functionality. Strangely Microsoft supports IPTV and with their media center PCs could easily build such a system, if they wanted.... | |
|
|  DaSneaky1Done wall to block them allPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou | Re: The future of IPTV You did read the article, right? | |
|
| | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: The future of IPTV It's obvious he didn't. | |
|
| |  going back to the 80's
and then, the fcc which apprently once actually protected consumers instead of industry, passed laws making it illegal to charge for extra outlets or require cable boxes
seems the entertainment industry is just bringing us back a few decades with the promise of new technology ... be it iptv or digital-only cable - the BOX is BACK and more expensive than ever.
--
"Here you go America - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!" - Hicks | |
|
| |
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Well if what you say is true then Time Warner Cable is, and has been, in violation of federal law for years. All TWC customers pay between $3.95 and $9.95 for each additional cable box they get. This is nothing new, in fact they have always charged per box.
--
I like dogs, guns, and cheeseburgers. Whats your malfunction? | |
|
| |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: going back to the 80's said by wifi4milez:Well if what you say is true then Time Warner Cable is, and has been, in violation of federal law for years. All TWC customers pay between $3.95 and $9.95 for each additional cable box they get. This is nothing new, in fact they have always charged per box. You're missing it I think.
The cable company used to charge for each additional OUTLET.
They have the right to charge for each additional box. | |
|
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: going back to the 80's I dont debate that cable co's no longer charge per outlet. However what he said was;
"remember the 80's, when cable companies used to make you rent their cable box, and it was expensive and they charged for each additional outlet
and then, the fcc which apprently once actually protected consumers instead of industry, passed laws making it illegal to charge for extra outlets or require cable boxes"
Everything mentioned above is still common practice except the per outlet charges. The cable co's require you to rent a cable box if you get digital cable, and they still charge per box.
--
I like dogs, guns, and cheeseburgers. Whats your malfunction? | |
|
| | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: going back to the 80's said by wifi4milez:I dont debate that cable co's no longer charge per outlet. However what he said was; "remember the 80's, when cable companies used to make you rent their cable box, and it was expensive and they charged for each additional outlet and then, the fcc which apprently once actually protected consumers instead of industry, passed laws making it illegal to charge for extra outlets or require cable boxes" Everything mentioned above is still common practice except the per outlet charges. The cable co's require you to rent a cable box if you get digital cable, and they still charge per box. I guess you've got me stumped. The bottom line is that you aren't charged per cable outlet anymore--that's been outlawed for a long time.
Where did anyone say that charging for boxes is illegal? | |
|
| | | | Aleck79
join:2003-07-23
College Station, TX | First of all, the only reason why they would require you to have a black box is because most of the time you will have a "High Definition Ready TV". This is a TV that CAN display high def. pictures but does not have a built in tunner. The Black box is required to view the High Definition channels because it is the only thing that will convert what the cable company feeds thru the coax to a visual signal to your TV.
Also most, if not all cable companies allow for a little card that you can stick in the back of a TV with a built in High Definition Tuner. This is is called a CableCARD, used in order to implement proprietary decoding. The only problem is that it is a one way system, you cannot order PPV or On demand video with it.
So how are you REQUIRED to buy a black box? I can get all the cable I want without a black box, and do.
...please check your facts before you post, as you obviously don't know what your talking about. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: going back to the 80's
Ummm...What the FCC did is to standardize the frequency lineup that was used and require that all new TV sets be capable of recieving them with a standard channel heirarchy. Up to that time there were varying systems (standard, HRC, IRC...)and VCR's and TV's had a varying amount of cable channels built in.
When you use a cable co box, they can assign any channel number they want to any frequency. However, you will notice that when you are using just a TV or a older, non descrambler cable box, the channel number shown will allways correspond to the same station.
They did this to stop the then current practice of charging for a REQUIRED cable box to use the cable syatem, since before this, the cable company could use any channel number/frequency scheme they wanted (such as HRC, which comcast still uses today and IRC which has pretty much died out, for example)And to standardize the system for consumers. This, also is during the time FM service on cable was dying out. | |
|
| | SmokeyI'd rather be skiingPremium
join:2003-05-20
Wild West | They don't require a box for basic cable. They can charge a box for expanded cable, or premium channels.
--
Plvres crapvlas qvam gladivs | |
|
| | |
See 8 replies to this post |
| | | Would be nice if you could disconnect the cable line from the street and connect the "box" to a cable line in your house, then get service from any of the cable jacks. | |
|
| |  lupiniaPremium
join:2004-08-24
Harrisonburg, VA
1 edit | Re: going back to the 80's That could theoretically work. Cable TV uses coaxial cable, which isn't directional, and as long as you had a strong enough transmitter to make up for any splitters, you wouldn't really have a problem. They used to use coax for networking, it's the same concept.
The main obstacle is that devices like that aren't usually meant to be used with splitters, and each split in the line degrades signal strength, so you may have to tweak the transmitter in the source device to get it to look good.
Radio nerds could make it work 
[EDIT: Issue #2 is that home TV equipment doesn't transmit multiple channels, but it'd be nice if IPTV device makers could sell one that simulcasts all available channels, like a tiny cable company.) | |
|
 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1 | IP for TV makes no sense This whole idea of using a point-to-point protocol to replace a broadcast protocol is inefficient and stupid IMHO.
What is the actual benefit of this? | |
|
|
See 15 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Regrets Bellsouth is going to regret wasting their time with adsl+ (or whatever they want to call it) 5-10 years down the road when they're being buried because their lines can transmit only one television station at a time.
I can just imagine the advertising from cable and satellite companies pointing out the drastic limitations of their foolish service.
They should be working on distributing fiber as fast as they can RIGHT now. Not upgrading DSLAMs to handle slightly faster (but still heavily distance limited) next gen adsl. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
| | Proper Home video distrobution IPTV and Digital cable have the same problem and the same damn solution if someone would just open their damn eyes and start doing it.
Place the decoder/encoder(for interactive upstream services) at the Entry bridge to the house, decode everything the customer is suppoed to have decoded.
Have a Channel changing/Interactive settop box at the TV. Use good old COAX cable to (which many houses are already or easily can be wired with) send the signal to the settop box. Its function is to provide the high number channels most TVs can't tune to, and to control the interactive stuff by communicating with the decoder/encoder at the entry bridge. | |
|
| Mr Dip
join:2005-02-28
Lisle, IL | Re: Proper Home video distrobution Good idea in theory, but expensive. Now, to hook 1 TV to digital cable (or IPTV), you need not 1 box, but 2 boxes - a set top and then a box at the entry point.
IPTV is great on paper and in theory, but when I can go to my local Best Buy and get a digital cable ready TV and free CABLECARD from my cableco, I just don't care about it that much. IPTV via fiber sounds great - IPTV over ADSL2 sounds suspect. I trust my ADSL for gaming and surfing, but for TV, nothing beats my good old fashioned analog cable (or satellite for some). I don't want to set up 3 TVs for IPTV ADSL and on TV 3 get a "Sorry, TV1 and TV2 are both on and you are out of bandwidth - please try watching again later". | |
|
| |
| | Media converter is likely $450 for two extra boxes? Wow!
I think that you will likely see some type of media converter where you can terminate the ethernet connection and convert it to a signal that will work on coax which can be fed through existing wiring.
It may be done this way years from now, but like the article says...cost prohibitive for now.
peace | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Mentioned this before Ok, Most people want only 1 or 2 TV's, Set-Top boxes are not much more difficult to set-up than a VoIP service box, Stereo, or VCR. Always OPT for Self Install and save yourself the outrageous install fees, call a relative or friend to set it up if you know any (otherwise you might have to do the $300 setup option).
The picture below explains why standard phone like twisted pair POTS lines could support this service fairly reliably for the 1-2 TV setup. If not you'd have to set up additional phone lines, Most recently wired homes support up to 8 or more analog lines (single pair), cable lines, or even fiber , and most older homes can support 1-4 analog lines (usually 2).
With the pictured throughput at about 6500 feet from the CO one could achieve:
14976 kbs down/2216 up on 2 pair analog
29952 kbs down/4432 up on 4 pair analog
59904 kbs down/8864 up on 8 pair analog
Way more than enough needed for 1-2 TV's on the 2 pair configuration. And this is using standard ADSL, NOT ADSL2+ specification.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
|
| Mr Dip
join:2005-02-28
Lisle, IL | Re: Mentioned this before In theory it sounds fine - but what about the leftover bandwidth for the computer? Isn't MPEG4 HDTV stream about 6mbps give or take? 2 TVs would then take 12mbps of your 14.9 theoretical. That leaves all of 2.9mbps for surfing - or what I have NOW. Add in the 3rd TV and you are done. Didn't I read something about SBC and FCC talking about how they are only rolling out in expensive communities - or communities that most likely have 4-6 TVs in the home?? I think SBC won't be bonding, not sure about BS, so we're only talking the one pair here - looking at more bandwidth over more wires is just theory. 25-30mbps via ADSL2 for the upper/middle class home with 4 TVs (and even Dish and DirecTV have 4 TV packages) - it won't work. | |
|
| | JonR800Premium
join:2003-08-06
Farmington, MI | Re: Mentioned this before I suppose they could run a seperate line for internet and TV? That might get them some extra headroom. But again, that's just a total stab in the dark.
SBC needs a good smack. They've left themselves no headroom. | |
|
| ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN Reviews:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| Theres plenty of headroom, They just don't want to part with it unless they can make more money. We all know they could give every DSL subscriber max sync with little extra cost to them, and not stress the network because it's built on a much larger backbone. The picture above is not a fake one, It is from a client of mine, therefore at least 2 pairs in not theoretical, but actually happening. I've yet to install more than that myself, but have had some interested companies. Also if you were to use my homes max sync of 8128Down/1088up, you would have even more bandwidth. and I'm sure that if they charged $35-$45 for basic services:
People want News, Weather, Sports, Movies & Music. The basic 5, and I can think of about 20 channels that would fit that role quite well without all the junk channels like Home shopping ripoff channel (this $10 toaster can be yours for only 20 easy payments of $9.99) junk.
--
ASUS SK8N nForce3 - 8GB PC2700 - AXP 64 3400+ - nVidia 6800 Ultra w/512mb - CL Audigy 2 PP - WD SATA150 36GB + Hitachi GST 250GB - Plextor PX708A + Sony CRX300A - Dual 600 Watt PSU's. | |
|
|
|  sporkmedrop the crantini and move it, sisterPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ
·Optimum Online
| Re: Coax in the house That's clever. Most homes (or in cities, apartments) have coax to all rooms that want TV.
It's interesting how much easier it is for the cable companies to provide phone than it is for the phone companies to provide TV. Having a set top box that plugs into existing coax which goes back to a telco-provided "gateway" that does all the video processing would make for a simpler install.
--
Bush/Cheney '04! - Scared Straight
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." | |
|
| | Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
|  Re: Coax in the house
But I will probably subscripe to IPTV when it's out..(at least I think so right now) | |
|
| | | | said by sporkme:It's interesting how much easier it is for the cable companies to provide phone than it is for the phone companies to provide TV. That's a solid point and why if the Telco's get this wrong it will really hurt. Comcast's CEO claims they haven't scratched the surface of what their loops can handle.
Another advantage Cable has is that new voice subscribers are brand new revenue. For the Telco's, since their core business is declining, when a new IPTV customer signs up they could just be at break even due to price degradation. Robbing peter to pay Paul so to speak. | |
|
| | How is this any different than cable in 1980-5? That also involved wiring (coax), installing STB (receivers), wear & tear on the installer's vehicle, and so on and so forth.
Also, I would not doubt that the cost for entry will drop once they start to get millions on subscribers no tap. Television is something that interests more than just DSL-heads.  | |
|
| | Since when is this news? I have been saying this for months but people are basically brainwashed by big marketing budgets and false hopes I guess.
The article is BANG on. Actually, never mind the main points. The last couple points are the biggest "dirty little secrets" IMHO. NO WAY IPTV can do HDTV or more than 2 or 3 TV's in standard definition. Then of course you have infrastructure and distance limitations. It's just not technically practical IMHO.
Let's bury this BS and get on with the slow....very slow fiber expansion. IPTV is just a stupid half assed half way, half thought out interm idea to keep downsizing traditional telcom company employees busy and motivated. | |
|
jdir
join:2001-05-04
Santa Clara, CA | why not slap on a wap at the dsl modem? Instead of wiring the house - get one of those $29.95 802.1(b,g,n,etc) access point and let the home owner buy those Linksys wet-11 or something similar.
The big question is - can the RBOC deploy fast enough DSL for IPTV - some of us can't even get DSL (for example - my former place) | |
|
| | | Re: why not slap on a wap at the dsl modem? wireless has too many issues w/ non sustainable bandwidth, interference for this to work....however possible solution may be in the mpeg2/4 streams of video as it is more compressed or using powerline networking technology.... eventually there will no longer be individualized services such as internet/cable/satellite/power/telephone... it will all be integrated under a major technology... if the power companies hurry their ass up and develop the powerline technology to it's maximum capability (possibly similar to fiber) then they will be the leaders....otherwise I believe mah bell will be holding the cards... offering every service under the sun on one technology medium. | |
|
|
|
