Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

Intermixing Cable TV and Internet Service? 39

Posted by Cliff from the getting-connected dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intermixing Cable TV and Internet Service? More

Intermixing Cable TV and Internet Service?

Comments Filter:

  • Say... (Score:2, Funny)

    by shunnicutt ( 561059 )
    Does Microsoft own your apartment building?

  • Simple Answer: (Score:2, Troll)

    by GeckoX ( 259575 )
    Move.

    You signed a stupid rental agreement, live with the consequences or move.
    • 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.

  • You need to install a CMTS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Southpaw ( 31273 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:17PM (#5191277)
    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).

    • Doesn't require CMTS (Score:5, Informative)

      by nosilA ( 8112 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:09PM (#5191760)
      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
      • No, the poster is asking how the apartment complex can be their own cable internet provider -- reread the quesion:
        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?

        - Peter
        • yes, but he said that what he really wants to do is buy cable internet from his cable company. This is prohibited by his building.

          A CMTS is very expensive (around $80k) and this solution is very cheap (around $5). Sure you have to buy connectivity from the cable company on top of that equipment cost, but we are still almost certainly ahead of the game buying from the cable company.

          -Alison
          • Actually, the Cisco uBR 7111 is only around $8k. As for getting service from a cable company, and combining the cable modem signal onto the internal cable, would any cable provider do it? Since the cable company would only be allowed to insert the docsis signals, they would you need to use some kind of windowed filter set for the specific frequencies they use. That would have to be custom made. And when (not if) the docsis carrier is moved to another frequency, or another frequency is added, a new custom windowed filter would have to be made. Depending on the cable company, they may be willing to install a small CMTS at the apartment complex and insert directly into the aparmtment complex, but at that point you'd probably be looking at a cost around the same as getting a small cmts yourself.
            • Band pass filters are cheap... that's the $5 part I was talking about. You can even do it as a lowpass filter that cuts above 54Mhz. That will give you all of the DOCSIS channels without any of the video channels.

              I don't see why a cable company wouldn't do that, since they would still be able to charge each customer individually for their connection. It's just a matter of working out the details with the people in charge. Of course, the people in charge have a way of being hesitant to try new things, but this one seems like it's incredibly easy for them.

              -Alison
              • The problem is the DOCSIS won't be only 55MHz. That is the one that will need a custom made window filter to isolate that 1 channel. Some Band pass filters are cheap, but for something like this you would need a filter with a very sharp frequency cutoff in order to isolate a single channel without allowing any bleeding of adjacent channels. That type of tolerance will not be found in a simple $5 part. Why won't the cable company do that? That would be alot of work for a small number of customers. For the prices most cable companies charge for cable modem service, would the extra support needed for this 'non-standard' setup be worth the returns? I would think that most cable companies wouldn't even consider it
                • Sorry, should have hit preview, part of my replay got cut (Must remember don't use angle brackets). It should look like this:
                  The problem is DOCSIS won't be only using frequencies below 55 MHz. The upstream frequency will, but the downstream frequency will be above that. That is the one that will need a custom made window filter to isolate that 1 channel. Some Band pass filters are cheap, but for something like this you would need a filter with a very sharp frequency cutoff in order to isolate a single channel without allowing any bleeding of adjacent channels. That type of tolerance will not be found in a simple $5 part. Why won't the cable company do that? That would be alot of work for a small number of customers. For the prices most cable companies charge for cable modem service, would the extra support needed for this 'non-standard' setup be worth the returns? I would think that most cable companies wouldn't even consider it
                • That problem can still be fixed fairly cheaply. Assuming the PCO has unoccupied channels, which is a pretty fair assumption, they can leave the adjacent channels to the DOCSIS downstream unoccupied. Then they can use any crappy bandpass filter for the upstream. $5 was a lowball assumption, I admit, but it's still significantly cheaper than setting up their own ISP.

                  -Alison
    • I don't know if they're still on the market, but you used to be able to buy a CMTS that was just a bridge, not a router. At the time, they were significantly cheaper. We used one as part of a traveling demo arrangement. A single Linux host provided all of the software that a DOCSIS system needs to function:
      • DHCP
      • TFTP serving config files
      • timed using UDP (some modems won't work unless they have a time server)
      • syslogd accepting network messages (some modems want to report problems)
      Some custom software did the routing since we wanted not-quite-normal behavior. The same box was visible on the DOCSIS subnet and provided Samba file-sharing and print services. All on a laptop with a 120 MHz Pentium and 16 MB of memory!

  • different frequencies = different services (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:22PM (#5191327)
    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.

  • Pirated? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by 74Carlton ( 129842 )

    they distribute programming from their satellite system to the residents

    I wonder if the satellite company knows they are redistributing their signal?

    • Re:Pirated? (Score:3, Informative)

      by karrde ( 853 )

      I wonder if the satellite company knows they are redistributing their signal?

      Something tells me I should be moderating this as troll, but I'll respond since I don't have the points.

      You've probally never lived in suburiba if you are asking this question. Many of the "condo" type aprtment complexs have this setup. They have several big dishes on the complex, converters and multiplexers in a room somewhere, and they provide cable TV to the whole complex. The cost is usually built in to your rent, and it includes a limited number of channels compared to your local analog cable service. Although it does usually include a Movie channel or two.

      They have contracts with the networks/satalite people to do this, and it is very wide spread.

      • limited number of channels

        kinda cool though, my wife's grandparents live in a retirement center and one of the channels they get piped in this way is the feed from the video camera at the front gate. of course even i had trouble making out the different cars coming in, but it's something...

        • one of the channels they get piped in this way is the feed from the video camera at the front gate

          And with a $40 modulator, and whatever the cost of the camera, you could splice that kind of thing into you own cable.

    • Actually, a lot of appartment complexes contract out to sattelite service providers to distribute a feed to all it's appartments. There should be no pirating going on... it'd be easilly caught if someone actually tried to order real cable.

      I lived in an appartment complex where this one company serviced every appartment with 'cable' (the feed was comming from their sattelite dish). It worked out okay.. except they didn't even carry all the local channels, which I know is illegal these days. This was also the beginning of cable modem days... and DSL wasn't around yet. Talk about getting ticked off at your apartment complex. Moved out for that reason.

      I know since then, however, they changed over to real cable (Comcast).

  • 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.

  • Expensive? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:50PM (#5191585) Journal
    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.

  • In a word, yes. (Score:3, Informative)

    by zsazsa ( 141679 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @05:56PM (#5191653) Homepage
    I live in an apartment community [apt4u.com] 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.

  • Restraint of trade? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Thursday January 30, 2003 @06:57PM (#5192114)
    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.
    • 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.

      • 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.

        • The building owner(s) is not providing cable, they're providing satellite. The cable agreements with cities are mostly about the rights-of-way to run the physical cables throughout the city. That's not an issue within a building. The cable company may not be able to refuse an individual cable customer but the building owner *can* refuse to let the cable company run the cables within the building. I'm sure the city agreements could not force a cable company to link up to the existing cable plant of the building to solely provide Internet service.
    • The lease is probably enforceable, unless there are unusual laws in the local jurisdiction. The landlord owns the apartment complex, and can choose to allow or disallow any company access to the common areas (i.e. the hallways, stairwells, roofs etc. All parts not inside your actual unit). So, the landlord can choose not to allow the local cable company to run wires around the complex, or to bring their service in from the street.

      We have a choice of two cable companies in Washington D.C. (Comcast and Starpower), but our building decided not to make a contract with Starpower because they refused to share distribution lines with Comcast. This means we would have had to allow them to run a second (redundant) set of cables from each stairway junction box to every unit. They won't even share cabletrays. Comcast might offer us a better pricing package, but they will insist on exclusive access. The only other option would be for the building to install its own wiring system between the apartments and the stairways (expensive, especially in a historic building), so we stick with the tyranny of Comcast for now.

  • I am on the board of my condominium, and we have struggled with this issue for a while. We would like to offer the residents something more than the standard Comcast cable/internet service (which is expensive, and not very good).

    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...).

    • It would be more than cost effective. First off, unless you have a building full of Kazaa junkies a T-1 for 150 systems is probably adequate. But lets assume you need 4x that much. You have 150 users, each paying ~$40.00 for Comcast cable now = $6K/mo. T-1 service will cost ~700/line/month = $2800/mo. Factor in a small upfront cost for a router, firewall, and switch, say ~$10K and it's not only cost effective, but potentially quite profitable for the apartment operators.

  • 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 [speakeasy.net] or cable modem (yuck, evil) connection.

    stop putting yourself at the mercy of your apartment complex management company.

  • Verizon Avenue (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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
    • the only reason that "verizon avenue" might be any good is because:
      "Verizon spent $295 million to acquire OnePoint in December 2000, and renamed the company Verizon Avenue. The subsidiary provides DSL access to condominiums and apartments throughout the country, competing with rivals BellSouth, SBC Communications, and Qwest Communications."

      I had OnePoint at my apartment in 2000, and right after the buyout, my prices went way up. OnePoint was the only company in Northern VA to compete for local phone service. So much for antitrust regulation.... verizon sucks.
  • Nemo CMTS Cable Modem Network [ebay.com] Presto, instant cable internet

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Close