This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single internet
service, using wireless, which would give every unit a connection. Actually,
you probably could do that without the server even knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

On Jan 18, 11:00*am, "Ray" wrote:
This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

In the apts I've lived in, each apt had it's own cable box. Why
would the cable company allow one service for the entire building?
Each apt is a seperate household and they want to bill accordingly.
Also, each apt needs at least one cable box, (except for some cases
where you can receive bare minimum channels without) so it's not even
clear what you mean by "one service".

I'd say from the cable companies point of view it's very different
from one single family residence with service in 6 rooms. If you
follow your logic, why would 6 seperate apts be much different than me
wanting to combine my account with my neighbor's house, so we could
save money?

I don't have experience with sat, but doubt it would be different.



I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single internet
service, using wireless, which would give every unit a connection. Actually,
you probably could do that without the server even knowing it.

Yep, you could. But I bet if you check out the cable company
contract for service, it prohibits it. And if you want to do it
anyway, ask yourself if you want to be the actual real account
holder? Not only do you have possible criminal issues just for doing
it, but who knows what the guy in apt 5 is doing on the internet,
which shows up as activity by YOU.

There are some wireless internet providers in certain areas who are
setting up networks outside the phone/cable companies in some very
select areas. If you happen to be in the right area, that could be a
possibility, but I'm not sure you'd save enough to make it worthwhile.




But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

"Ray" wrote:

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

No. Any attempt to share a cable or sat connection would be viewed as a
violation of the TOS and would lead to rather expensive legal action.

But you knew that.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:00:08 -0500, "Ray"
wrote:

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single internet
service, using wireless, which would give every unit a connection. Actually,
you probably could do that without the server even knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

I dont have a clue about the cable tv, but as far as the internet,
what would they do, each unit gets 4 hours per day (times 6 units = 24
hours). Plus they would need at least 6 email addresses (unless they
all use yahoo, hotmail, or gmail "web" type addresses.

Robert Neville wrote:
"Ray" wrote:

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

No. Any attempt to share a cable or sat connection would be viewed as a
violation of the TOS and would lead to rather expensive legal action.

But you knew that.
Lots of apartments provide basic cable or satt as part of the rent. Satt
or cable company charges based on the number of units. Just have the
owner call they up and ask. It'll have to be the owner- they won't allow
the renters to do it on their own.

--
aem sends...

Robert Neville wrote:
"Ray" wrote:

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a
single cable or satellite service for the entire building --
obviously at lower cost? It would seem to me no different than
getting service in a single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

No. Any attempt to share a cable or sat connection would be viewed
as
a violation of the TOS and would lead to rather expensive legal
action.

But you knew that.

Uh, how do you know what the policies of the cable services in his
area are? Have you contacted them and asked?

He should contact the cable company, explain the situation, and ask
what his options are. One presumes that he is speaking as the
property owner or his agent rather than simply as a resident of the
property. They may very well have discounted basic service
specifically for multi unit rental properties. You really think that
hotels spend full boat individual-subscriber retail for every room?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I should have said that we are a coop apartment building -- each resident
owns an equal share of the building.

But it would seem to me that if building service is available to rental
apartments, no reason it shouldn't be available to coops. The question is
whether we could get a discount price that way.


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Robert Neville wrote:
"Ray" wrote:

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

No. Any attempt to share a cable or sat connection would be viewed as a
violation of the TOS and would lead to rather expensive legal action.

But you knew that.
Lots of apartments provide basic cable or satt as part of the rent. Satt
or cable company charges based on the number of units. Just have the owner
call they up and ask. It'll have to be the owner- they won't allow the
renters to do it on their own.

--
aem sends...

"Jimw" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:00:08 -0500, "Ray"
wrote:

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet
service, using wireless, which would give every unit a connection.
Actually,
you probably could do that without the server even knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

I dont have a clue about the cable tv, but as far as the internet,
what would they do, each unit gets 4 hours per day (times 6 units = 24
hours). Plus they would need at least 6 email addresses (unless they
all use yahoo, hotmail, or gmail "web" type addresses.

I don't think there would be any problem over allocation of hours of service
if you use wireless. It would be like a motel, which gets one wireless
signal and it's available to all units simultenously.

For that matter, my neighbor has an unsecured wireless network which I could
use without anyone knowing it. I hasten to add, I don't do that.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 11:00:08 -0500, "Ray"
wrote:

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet
service, using wireless, which would give every unit a connection.
Actually,
you probably could do that without the server even knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

A cable companies will negotiate a rate for the whole building, basic
cable plus a movie pack, but you will need everyone in the building to
agree. They did this in a condo I owned, using the existing "house
antenna" cables. It lasted a while until we had a few residents who
wanted to opt out. Then the cable co came in and ran separate cable to
each unit.

As for sharing the internet connection, technically a violation of TOS
but hard to prove or even avoid if you got sloppy and ran your router
in the open. The down side. It would be S-L-O-W if several people were
banging it at once.

My wife and I each have laptops and we occasionally are online, wireless, at
the same time. I haven't detected any slow-down. But if six were
simultaneously online, it probably would be different.

It is all about the specific entity who will be paying the bill. Owner,
Co-Op president, or Co-Op treasurer. If payments stop, who will be
called into small claims court. What recourse will the cable TV company
have to recover any back owed cash, and who's credit rating will take the
hit.

I have lived in places that received a very basic cable TV connection.
As part of the rent, the owner installed his own distribution service of
that basic connection, one outlet per apartment. I didn't like the
service for reasons too long to go into here. Such a system would not
allow Cable Modem for Internet unless owner had two way broadband
amplifier at head-in; not likely to happen. DSL would be the Internet
option.

I much preferred each apartment renter being responsible for own bill.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

Uh, how do you know what the policies of the cable services in his
area are? Have you contacted them and asked?

Don't need to. I'll buy you your favorite adult beverage if you can provide one
example of a cable TOS that permits the sharing of a single cable TV signal
amonst 6 unrelated families in a multi unit dwelling.

"Phil Again" wrote in message
m...
It is all about the specific entity who will be paying the bill. Owner,
Co-Op president, or Co-Op treasurer. If payments stop, who will be
called into small claims court. What recourse will the cable TV company
have to recover any back owed cash, and who's credit rating will take the
hit.

I have lived in places that received a very basic cable TV connection.
As part of the rent, the owner installed his own distribution service of
that basic connection, one outlet per apartment. I didn't like the
service for reasons too long to go into here. Such a system would not
allow Cable Modem for Internet unless owner had two way broadband
amplifier at head-in; not likely to happen. DSL would be the Internet
option.

I much preferred each apartment renter being responsible for own bill.

The directors could vote to make the cable/satellite service a part of the
monthly maintainence fee -- just as we do with heat and water.

On Jan 18, 6:57�pm, Robert Neville wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote:
Uh, how do you know what the policies of the cable services in his
area are? �Have you contacted them and asked?

Don't need to. I'll buy you your favorite adult beverage if you can provide one
example of a cable TOS that permits the sharing of a single cable TV signal
amonst 6 unrelated families in a multi unit dwelling.

Called MDU, the owner pays a flat fee per number of units! Offered not
only by cable but both satellite providers. I used to be a dish
dealer.

I dont drink but much prefer a nice juicy rare steak dinner

Motels and prisons, school dorms and nursing home get bulk packages,
called free to guest or MDU. often a bare minimum of channels. the
upfront cost to the dealer for a receiver for each channel plus
modulators etc can be a killer.

theres money to be made by the satellite dealer, who gets nice
residuals.based on the monthly fee for the life of the customer.

wrote:
Motels and prisons, school dorms and nursing home get bulk packages,
called free to guest or MDU. often a bare minimum of channels. the
upfront cost to the dealer for a receiver for each channel plus
modulators etc can be a killer.

theres money to be made by the satellite dealer, who gets nice
residuals.based on the monthly fee for the life of the customer.

I would hope they have a cards-in-a-rack gang receiver for such
applications, versus a stack fussy black boxes. That is what ****es me
off so much about my current setup- it could all easily fit in one box,
or even in a card cage built into the TV. I miss the stone-age analog
cable in the apartments I used to live in. No damn box, cable went from
wall to TV, no muss no fuss. They had their own head end, and a couple-3
big dishes, looked like 3 meter diameter or so. My current dish setup
has 200 channels, but once you exclude the
music/shopping/religion/sports channels, it has no more 'real' channels
than the analog system. And outside of the dozen or so I actually watch,
the rest are useless to me anyway.

--
aem sends...

On Jan 18, 8:31�pm, aemeijers wrote:
wrote:
Motels and prisons, school dorms and nursing home �get bulk packages,
called free to guest or MDU. often a bare minimum of channels. the
upfront cost to the dealer for a receiver for each channel plus
modulators etc can be a killer.

theres money to be made by the satellite dealer, who gets nice
residuals.based on the monthly fee for the life of the customer.

I would hope they have a cards-in-a-rack gang receiver for such
applications, versus a stack fussy black boxes. That is what ****es me
off so much about my current setup- it could all easily fit in one box,
or even in a card cage built into the TV. I miss the stone-age analog
cable in the apartments I used to live in. No damn box, cable went from
wall to TV, no muss no fuss. They had their own head end, and a couple-3
big dishes, looked like 3 meter diameter or so. My current dish setup
has 200 channels, but once you exclude the
music/shopping/religion/sports channels, it has no more 'real' channels
than the analog system. And outside of the dozen or so I actually watch,
the rest are useless to me anyway.

--
aem sends...

theu use receivers in a rack mount, one receiver per channel, plus
racks of modulators one for each channel creating a old style cable TV
system

"Ray" wrote:

The directors could vote to make the cable/satellite service a part of the
monthly maintainence fee -- just as we do with heat and water.

True, but you can bet the cableco will not charge a single family residence rate
for that situation.

" wrote:

Called MDU, the owner pays a flat fee per number of units! Offered not
only by cable but both satellite providers. I used to be a dish
dealer.

Ah yes, but that flat rate per unit times 6 is not the same as a single familay
residential, which is what the OP was looking for.

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
...
"Ray" wrote:

The directors could vote to make the cable/satellite service a part of the
monthly maintainence fee -- just as we do with heat and water.

True, but you can bet the cableco will not charge a single family
residence rate
for that situation.

I wouldn't expect the cable company to charge a single-family rate for six
units. But instead of charging six times the family rate, they might just
charge five times. That's the whole point of my inquiry.

"Ray" wrote in message
...
This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info at http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue. You could have
20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service. Even
if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I doubt
you would see a slow. However if you had one user downloading data from a
usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

Cheers,
Jim

On Jan 21, 2:57*am, "Jim2009" wrote:
"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem and
a wireless router. *Many routers allow up to 50 connections. *You might want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). *Linksys is the
best brand. *Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in their
PC. *PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, *most new laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network or
better yet password protect your network and *provide approved users with
the network password. *Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.




*You could have
20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service. * Even
if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I doubt
you would see a slow. *However if you had one user downloading data from a
usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?



Cheers,
Jim

wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:
"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors. "Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers. And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do.
Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs.

2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps. Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! How many times will 56K go into 1.5 M?

Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your bandwith
is limited to your provider level. Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. In the router set-up you can restrict (limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) Something to be worked among friends. And just use Yahoo, or Hotmail
for email.


You could have
20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service. Even
if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I doubt
you would see a slow. However if you had one user downloading data from a
usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size of
that file is very small. When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you
will have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! The user is not limited to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. These users are downloading complete CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). They might easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will create
slows. :-)

Cheers,
Jim

On Jan 21, 3:58*pm, "Jim2009" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:





"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) *No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors. *"Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers. *And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do.


I wouldn't be too sure about that. Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Is it highly likely? Probably not. But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?


Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs.

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.




2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) *My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps. *Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! *How many times will 56K go into 1..5 M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. But it's not the typical scenario today. What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.




Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your bandwith
is limited to your provider level. *

Yes, but so what? I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. I periodically benchmark it. Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.


Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. *In the router set-up you can restrict (limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways





3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) *Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.





4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) *Something to be worked among friends. *And just use Yahoo, or Hotmail
for email.


Friends? The guys is talking about 6 apartments. Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?





You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL




Even
if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL


However if you had one user downloading data from a
usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) *Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) *When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.




*When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you
will *have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! *The user is not limited to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. *Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. *These users are downloading complete CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). *They might easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will create
slows. *:-)


Welcome to the real world. To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.



Cheers,
Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 21, 5:42�pm, wrote:
On Jan 21, 3:58�pm, "Jim2009" wrote:





wrote in message

....
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) �No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors. �"Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers. �And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do..

I wouldn't be too sure about that. �Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. �I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Is it highly likely? � Probably not. � But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. � You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?

Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs..

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.



2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) �My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps. �Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! �How many times will 56K go into 1.5 M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. �But it's not the typical scenario today. � What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.



Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your bandwith
is limited to your provider level. �

Yes, but so what? � I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. � I periodically benchmark it. � Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. � I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.

Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. �In the router set-up you can restrict (limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways



3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) �Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. � Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? � Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. �My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. �I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.



4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) �Something to be worked among friends. �And just use Yahoo, or Hotmail
for email.

Friends? � The guys is talking about 6 apartments. � Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?



You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL

Even

if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL

�However if you had one user downloading data from a

usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) �Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) �When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? �There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. � �At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. �Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.

�When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you

will �have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! �The user is not limited to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. �Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. �These users are downloading complete CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). �They might easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will create
slows. �:-)

Welcome to the real world. � To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.





Cheers,

the verizon tech needed to chgeck something on line, so he drove up
the street looking for a open router.........

wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 3:58 pm, "Jim2009" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:





"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a
single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at
lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server
even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might
want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in
their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new
laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your
USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network
or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors. "Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers. And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not
like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do.


I wouldn't be too sure about that. Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Yeah, I pretty sure these is a difference between tracing a physical shared
cable and a wireless connection that you can not see.

Is it highly likely? Probably not. But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?

What's been going on? He hacked my router, hacking is a criminal offense!

Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs.

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.

Oh, so you recommend he should just set up an OPEN router and let other
discoved it, OK.


2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps. Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! How many times will 56K go into 1.5
M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. But it's not the typical scenario today. What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.

Your not downloading **** unless your using a binary news reader with
multiple connections.



Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors
even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your bandwith
is limited to your provider level.

Yes, but so what? I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. I periodically benchmark it. Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.

Larger files.... LOL.... give me some sizes? Even if you could find a
large file on the internet, you would still only be using one connection,
one connection can only use so much bandwith. You been watching too many
Cable company commercials where they keep trying to sell you faster and
faster speeds when you don't need them.

Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. In the router set-up you can restrict
(limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share
bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways

That statement makes no sense. First of all you not splitting it 6 ways,
your sharing it 6 ways.



3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.

You obviously know little or nothing about todays extended routers and how
easy they are to setup. If you buy something and it does not work take it
back to Bestbuy and get a refund. You don't get out of the house much huh?
Your typical home router is based upon commerial hardware that has been in
use for years before people at home starting installing them. Buy Linksys!

So the hotel had poor service, so what, thier pool probably had **** in it
too. How old is your PC?

Cable companies don't give away anything for free. If they did it would be
junk.


4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) Something to be worked among friends. And just use Yahoo, or Hotmail
for email.


Friends? The guys is talking about 6 apartments. Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?

Who knows? Only the OP knows, and who cares about future tenants, figure
that out as it goes. It's not like the future tenant is going to see the
wireless signals and call the cable cops. Yeah, I think I heard some
Internet sharing going on last night.

He could just share with the guy accross the hall or at the other end of the
building. Hey times are tough for some and manys families with kids need
Internet. Maybe this guy will share without charging. It's not like a bank
job! The prices they charge for high speed internet is rediculous becuase
they have a monopoly until fiber optics becomes wide spread.



You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL

Even
if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I
doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL


However if you had one user downloading data from a
usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size
of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.

Those movies are compressed video and your polling them with one connection.
They take a 5 GB movie and compress it to about 1.5 GB. I'm sure everyone
in the building is going to want to down compressed movies at the same time,
but even if they did with a 20Mbps connnection 6 users could do anything any
everything they wanted without slows (as long as no one was using a binary
news reader with 10-20 conns).


When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you
will have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! The user is not limited to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. These users are downloading complete CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). They might easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will create
slows. :-)


Welcome to the real world. To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.

Yeah right, keep watching those cable commercials and attending those
tradeshows. I think it's time you upgraded your service. You will get
extra emails accounts for a limited time only. LOL.

You have no idea what a heavy load is until you use a binary news reader.

You got hotels, book stores, coffee shops, and even gas stations with
wireless access. Don't you think they ever have 6 more people accessing the
same router at the same time? How many routers do you think they have at
the local Starbucks? Or Barnes and Noble? One!

Cheers,
Jim

wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 5:42?pm, wrote:
On Jan 21, 3:58?pm, "Jim2009" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and
satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a
single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at
lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server
even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable
modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might
want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is
the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in
their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new
laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your
USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network
or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users
with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) ?No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors.
?"Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers.
?And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not
like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. ?Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. ?I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Is it highly likely? ? Probably not. ? But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. ? You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?

Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared
deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs.

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.



2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) ?My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps.
?Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! ?How many times will 56K go into
1.5 M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. ?But it's not the typical scenario today. ? What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.



Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors
even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your
bandwith
is limited to your provider level. ?

Yes, but so what? ? I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. ? I periodically benchmark it. ? Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. ? I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.

Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. ?In the router set-up you can restrict
(limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary
depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share
bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet
simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways



3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) ?Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of
equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. ? Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? ? Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. ?My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. ?I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.



4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) ?Something to be worked among friends. ?And just use Yahoo, or
Hotmail
for email.

Friends? ? The guys is talking about 6 apartments. ? Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?



You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people
only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL

Even

if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I
doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL

?However if you had one user downloading data from a

usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) ?Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) ?When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size
of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? ?There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. ? ?At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. ?Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.

?When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you

will ?have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like
NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! ?The user is not limited
to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. ?Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for
servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. ?These users are downloading complete
CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). ?They might
easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they
have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS
and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will
create
slows. ?:-)

Welcome to the real world. ? To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.





Cheers,

the verizon tech needed to chgeck something on line, so he drove up
the street looking for a open router.........

LOL....now that's funny! :-)

Cheers,
Jim

On Jan 22, 12:08�am, "Jim2009" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 5:42?pm, wrote:





On Jan 21, 3:58?pm, "Jim2009" wrote:

wrote in message

....
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and
satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a
single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at
lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the server
even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable
modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You might
want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is
the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in
their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new
laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into your
USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the network
or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users
with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) ?No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors.
?"Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers.
?And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's not
like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can do.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. ?Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. ?I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Is it highly likely? ? Probably not. ? But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. ? You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?

Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared
deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by techs.

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.

2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) ?My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps.
?Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! ?How many times will 56K go into
1.5 M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. ?But it's not the typical scenario today. ? What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.

Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors
even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your
bandwith
is limited to your provider level. ?

Yes, but so what? ? I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. ? I periodically benchmark it. ? Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. ? I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.

Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. ?In the router set-up you can restrict
(limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary..

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary
depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share
bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet
simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways

3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) ?Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of
equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. ? Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? ? Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. ?My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. ?I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.

4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) ?Something to be worked among friends. ?And just use Yahoo, or
Hotmail
for email.

Friends? ? The guys is talking about 6 apartments. ? Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?

You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people
only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL

Even

if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I
doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL

?However if you had one user downloading data from a

usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) ?Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) ?When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total size
of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? ?There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. ? ?At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. ?Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.

?When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you

will ?have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like
NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! ?The user is not limited
to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. ?Typical ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for
servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. ?These users are downloading complete
CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). ?They might
easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they
have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS
and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will
create
slows. ?:-)

Welcome to the real world. ? To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.

Cheers,

the verizon tech needed to chgeck something on line, so he drove up
the street looking for a open router.........

LOL....now that's funny! �:-)

Cheers,
Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 12:08?am, "Jim2009" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 5:42?pm, wrote:





On Jan 21, 3:58?pm, "Jim2009" wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Jan 21, 2:57 am, "Jim2009" wrote:

"Ray" wrote in message

...

This query seeks experience of others on cable, digital, and
satellite
TV
services.

We live in a six-unit apartment building. Is it possible to get a
single
cable or satellite service for the entire building -- obviously at
lower
cost? It would seem to me no different than getting service in a
single-family residence with TVs in six rooms.

I suppose I could also ask if it might be possible to get a single
internet service, using wireless, which would give every unit a
connection. Actually, you probably could do that without the
server
even
knowing it.

But, as Richard Nixon so eloquently said, "that would be wrong."

Sharing an Internet connection is easy, all you need is your cable
modem
and
a wireless router. Many routers allow up to 50 connections. You
might
want
a router with extended coverage (see wireless standards). Linksys is
the
best brand. Each user must then have a wireless adapter installed in
their
PC. PCI Adapters for desktops, PCMCIA (cards for laptops, most new
laptops
have built in wireless) or a USB wireless adapter that plugs into
your
USB
port and can be used with any PC.
See more info athttp://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/home

You could run the Router OPEN, meaning anyone could access the
network
or
better yet password protect your network and provide approved users
with
the network password. Security for wireless networks use to be more
difficult to setup, thus there were many OPEN networks, but todays
software
makes it quite easy to accomplish a secure WAN.

Having mulitple users on the same network is not an issue.

There are actually multiple issues:

1 - Is it permissible in the contract with the cable company?

1A) ?No, it would have to be a hush-hush deal with your neighbors.
?"Open'
access (unprotected router) are not allowed by many cable providers.
?And
sharing of a PSW protected router is I'm sure a no-no too, but it's
not
like
your sharing a physical cable, so there's little a cable company can
do.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. ?Various states have specific laws
covering cable service and what constitutes theft of service. ?I would
not be surprised to find that in some cases, that in addition to civil
exposure, you might actually have the possibility of criminal
prosecution.

Is it highly likely? ? Probably not. ? But suppose the guy in 6b gets
****ed off at you, decides to rat you out, and calls the cable company
and tells them what's been going on. ? You want to be the guy with the
contract with the cable company for one legitimate internet service?

Apartment people do this all the time, but it's usually not a shared
deal,
just a few non-techs with Open Access being taken advantage of by
techs.

Someone getting into your wireless service without your knowledge and
permission is an entirely different situation from you getting one
legitimate service and then sharing it by becoming the network
administrator, collecting the payments from others, etc.

2 - How much bandwith the service provides versus what loads all the
different users will be placing on it.

2A) ?My cable provider has 3 levels, 1.5 Mbps, 8 Mbps, and 20 Mbps.
?Many
people still use dial-up at 56 Kbps! ?How many times will 56K go into
1.5 M?

Sure, just as I'm sure there are many people still running Win98 on a
386. ?But it's not the typical scenario today. ? What is more typical
is to have users downloading r/t video, large video files, or other
heavy demands.

Your sharing the bandwith of the cable anyways with all your neighbors
even
if they all had separate paying accounts, but with one modem your
bandwith
is limited to your provider level. ?

Yes, but so what? ? I have around 1.5mbits up, 4.5 down and the system
can handle that with the typical load of all the others on the entire
cable system. ? I periodically benchmark it. ? Even so, it can take
some time to download larger files. ? I would not want to split my
bandwith with 5 other users.

Even at a 1.5 Mbps account, several
surfers would get along fine. ?In the router set-up you can restrict
(limit)
the banwith of each user if needed but this is probably not necessary.

Here is a cut and paste "Did you know your cable speed will vary
depending
on the usage pattern of your neighbors? Cable modem services share
bandwidth
among subscribers in a locality. The same cable line connects to many
households. If many of your neighbors access the Internet
simulataneously,
it is a distinct possibility that cable speeds for you (and them) will
decrease significantly during those times."

Yes, which is a good reason why you probably don't want to take the
bandwith that you already have and split it 6 ways

3 - Can you get good coverage for all the apts?

3 A) ?Thats not an issue with todays hardware, proper placing of
equipment
may be needed. For example it would be best if the router was near the
center of the building and not down in a corner basement.

That is precisely the issue. ? Who's gonna screw around to find the
right solution and the right place to put it? ? Suppose you buy a
bunch of gear and it don't work where you thought you could put it?
Of course you can ultimatley deliver a wireless solution. ?My point
was you may not be able to cover 6 apartments with a typical home
router, ie the kind many cable companies give you for free, or an easy
solution, etc. ?I've been in plenty of expensive hotels with wireless
where coverage was spotty and speed was poor.

4 - Who's going to administer the network and be the guy that gets
called when the guy in 6b says his wireless internet is out, or
someone wants to change their email address, etc.

4A) ?Something to be worked among friends. ?And just use Yahoo, or
Hotmail
for email.

Friends? ? The guys is talking about 6 apartments. ? Who knows who is
in any of them now or the future?

You could have

20 or more users surfing the net and not notice a slow. Many people
only
use
a fraction of their bandwith, even with the lowest tier of service.

LOL

Even

if several users were downloading songs or Utube videos, at once, I
doubt
you would see a slow.

LOL

?However if you had one user downloading data from a

usenet binaries newsgroup, using a binary news reader with multiple
connections (8-10) then you would definitly experiece some slows.

5) ?Why would downloading from a usenet binary be any worse than
downloading videos?

5A) ?When your downloading through the internet (surfing) with say MS
Internet Explorer and you click on that Utube video or download a
trial
program, you only have one connection requesting data and the total
size
of
that file is very small.

The total size of videos is small? ?There are companies on the
internet now offering full Hollywood movies streamed to your TV. ? ?At
CES this month, there were lots of products to marry TV with
broadband. ?Sure wouldn't want to do that with the typical single user
internet service split 6 ways.

?When you open your newsgroups with Outlook you

will ?have only one connection to the news servers.

A Binary usenet user would be using a "binary news reader" like
NewsbinPro
or Newsleecher, these are downloading machines! ?The user is not
limited
to
1 connection but may have up to 20 simultaneous connections (see
Usenetserver and Giganews) depending on the news server. ?Typical
ISP's
allow 4 connections (if they have bin news groups), while paid for
servers
usually allow 10-20 connections. ?These users are downloading complete
CD's
(650MB) , DVD's (4-8 GB), and even HD videos (8-30 GB). ?They might
easily
add 20-30 GB's of files to their download que, hit enter and now they
have
10-20 simultaneous connections requesting data from HIGH SPEED SERVERS
and
not just for a minute or two but for hours or even days. This will
create
slows. ?:-)

Welcome to the real world. ? To have users today that place a heavy
load on a network, whether downloading from newsgroups, movies,
videos, or similar isn't unusual at all.

Cheers,

the verizon tech needed to chgeck something on line, so he drove up
the street looking for a open router.........

LOL....now that's funny! ?:-)

Cheers,
Jim- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but 2 of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim

[snip]


Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but 2 of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim


When I first set up wireless there were three open networks around
here, and all were named "linksys".

"Gary H" wrote in message
...
[snip]


Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox
caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but 2
of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim


When I first set up wireless there were three open networks around
here, and all were named "linksys".

That is the default router name used by linksys. If you have a linksys
also open your internet browser and enter 192.168.1.1 in the url, this will
enter the routers config settings and you can change your router name. You
can also turn off broadcasting with most routers so your not showing up on
everyone else's list.

Cheers,
Jim

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:25 -0600, "Jim2009"
wrote:


"Gary H" wrote in message
.. .
[snip]


Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox
caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but 2
of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim


When I first set up wireless there were three open networks around
here, and all were named "linksys".

That is the default router name used by linksys.

And THAT is the reason I consider it the worst choice.

If you have a linksys
also open your internet browser and enter 192.168.1.1 in the url, this will
enter the routers config settings and you can change your router name.

You can change the routers name, but that is distinct from the
wireless network name (SSID).

I forget who made it, but there was a post on another group about
someone who unknowingly configured and used someone else's router
because of this. This sort of thing is one reason your initial setup
of a router should be done with a (faster, more secure, more reliable,
etc...) WIRED connection.

If you are not using wireless, it should be DISABLED instead.

You
can also turn off broadcasting with most routers so your not showing up on
everyone else's list.


Yes, although this should always be IN ADDITION TO setting up WPA-AES
security with a good password.

Cheers,
Jim

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:25 -0600, "Jim2009"
wrote:


"Gary H" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]


Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox
caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but
2
of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim


When I first set up wireless there were three open networks around
here, and all were named "linksys".

That is the default router name used by linksys.

And THAT is the reason I consider it the worst choice.

I would assume that every router has a default name. Linksys is a very good
brand.


If you have a linksys
also open your internet browser and enter 192.168.1.1 in the url, this
will
enter the routers config settings and you can change your router name.

You can change the routers name, but that is distinct from the
wireless network name (SSID).

No, it's the same thing.


I forget who made it, but there was a post on another group about
someone who unknowingly configured and used someone else's router
because of this. This sort of thing is one reason your initial setup
of a router should be done with a (faster, more secure, more reliable,
etc...) WIRED connection.

If you are not using wireless, it should be DISABLED instead.

You
can also turn off broadcasting with most routers so your not showing up on
everyone else's list.


Yes, although this should always be IN ADDITION TO setting up WPA-AES
security with a good password.

Cheers,
Jim

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:02:35 -0600, "Jim2009"
wrote:


"Mark Lloyd" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:25 -0600, "Jim2009"
wrote:


"Gary H" wrote in message
...
[snip]


Yeah I asked him why am I bothering to buy this? When I could just get
it for FREE????

He remarked EVERY neighborhood has some open connections.....


My parents had 3 Open routers near them months ago. I'm guessing Cox
caming
sniffing and sent them a letter. Now all 3 are password protected, but
2
of
the 3 used the name of their router for the passkey. LOL.

Cheers,
Jim


When I first set up wireless there were three open networks around
here, and all were named "linksys".

That is the default router name used by linksys.

And THAT is the reason I consider it the worst choice.

I would assume that every router has a default name. Linksys is a very good
brand.


Meaning their choice of default (linksys) will be more common, and so
a bad choice for router name.


If you have a linksys
also open your internet browser and enter 192.168.1.1 in the url, this
will
enter the routers config settings and you can change your router name.

You can change the routers name, but that is distinct from the
wireless network name (SSID).

No, it's the same thing.


No, it isn't.

BTW, my router is named "ROUTER" and the SSID is "notstupid1".


I forget who made it, but there was a post on another group about
someone who unknowingly configured and used someone else's router
because of this. This sort of thing is one reason your initial setup
of a router should be done with a (faster, more secure, more reliable,
etc...) WIRED connection.

If you are not using wireless, it should be DISABLED instead.

You
can also turn off broadcasting with most routers so your not showing up on
everyone else's list.


Yes, although this should always be IN ADDITION TO setting up WPA-AES
security with a good password.

Cheers,
Jim


[stale sig snipped]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"The government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian religion."