|
Grex > Agora56 > #63: the near future of networked homes? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 290 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 45 of 290:
| 
Jan 23 02:51 UTC 2006 |
I use Linksys and D-Link stuff and haven't had any more problems than peooke
I've heard using other brands.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 46 of 290:
|
Jan 23 03:49 UTC 2006 |
I have a Linksys router, and connect to it using a linksys pcmcia card
on my laptop, and a microsoft PCI card on my PC. I also have an orinoko
pcmcia card for when I get the temporary urge to put linux on my laptop.
All three have not had problems.
This afternoon my desktop PC discovered a new wifi network in the
neighborhood.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 47 of 290:
|
Jan 23 03:49 UTC 2006 |
I haven't used any D-Link equipment but the Linksys products are quite
decent for what they are.. However, keep in mind that there's a bit of
a difference between professional grade networking hardware and a wireless
access point that you can buy at Meijer for $40 after rebate..
I use Linksys at home and am mostly happy with it, though I have replaced
the manufacturer-provided firmware image with an upgraded Linux-based
firmware from a company called Sveasoft.
|
twenex
|
|
response 48 of 290:
|
Jan 23 04:17 UTC 2006 |
Re: #45. peooke=people. WEIRD typo.
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 290:
|
Jan 23 04:45 UTC 2006 |
re #37
Are you anywhere near the pipelines? They might be doing WiFi blackouts.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 50 of 290:
|
Jan 23 05:48 UTC 2006 |
Are your neighbors using open systems (with the SSID broadcast)? Why would
they do that? Or can you detect closed networks?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 51 of 290:
|
Jan 23 05:58 UTC 2006 |
Nope. I am within a few blocks of an electrical substation, which I
suppose could be involved in some way. But really, on the frequency
ranges which are used for tons of different applications by tons of
different people, there's going to be problems once in a while. Nothing
too surprising or exciting.
Not sure what the future of spectrum use for unlicensed devices like
this will look like. There's been some increase in the spaces available;
2.4 GHz being the most popular, but some growth in 5 GHz space. Heck, I
remember when Ricochet, which used the 900 MHz band to get network speeds
comperable to a dialup, seemed pretty cool. Anyway, there are
incremental improvements in ways to use the spectrum efficiently, but
the demand is also exploding. It seems reasonable to speculate that
there will come a point where we have wrung all the performance we can
out of the technology, but the demand continues to grow, particularly in
densely populated areas.
|
ric
|
|
response 52 of 290:
|
Jan 23 13:58 UTC 2006 |
I don't think I've ever noticed my wifi go down. Cable goes down sometimes
(not often) so we lose internet access (and phone service) but the wifi always
works.
|
keesan
|
|
response 53 of 290:
|
Jan 23 16:44 UTC 2006 |
Should I link this to the do it yourself conference and if so, please remind
me how.
|
tod
|
|
response 54 of 290:
|
Jan 23 17:25 UTC 2006 |
I' suspect a flaky router if you're losing signal for extended periods.
|
slynne
|
|
response 55 of 290:
|
Jan 23 17:44 UTC 2006 |
resp:53 I believe that if you go to the do it yourself conference, you
can link this simply by typing 'link agora 63'
|
marcvh
|
|
response 56 of 290:
|
Jan 23 17:47 UTC 2006 |
I find it unlikely that my neighbors' routers and mine all are flaky and
all happened to flake out at the same time. But I suppose it's possible
one of them is flaky and caused interference which masked the signals
from the others.
Re #55: the ironing is delicious
|
nharmon
|
|
response 57 of 290:
|
Jan 23 17:57 UTC 2006 |
I agree with Marc that this does sound like some extreme interference.
You could always call the FCC and tell them there is some equipment
nearby that is interfering with your network. Who knows, they might have
plenty of spare time now that Howard Stern is off the air.
|
gull
|
|
response 58 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:8: Right now the cable companies seem to be using the switch to
digital cable as a way to try to force people to pay more money for the
same content. If it had price parity with analog cable I might be more
tempted, but otherwise it just looks like another rate increase. I
also haven't been terribly impressed with the demo HDTVs at places like
Best Buy. Yeah, the picture is really sharp when there's nothing going
on, but when there's much action on screen the JPEG blockies start to
show up.
Re resp:19: There are two problems with predictions like that. One is
that they're solutions looking for problems. How many consumers have
actually *asked* for their refrigerator to tell them when they're out
of milk, or their toaster to tell their washing machine when they make
toast so it can pre-configure itself to remove jelly stains? The other
problem is that most people can't or won't deal with complex systems
like that. Sure, it's possible to load all your DVDs into a central
computer and watch them anywhere in the house, but the average
consumer, who can't even program his VCR timer, isn't going to want to
fuss with trying to figure out how to use it. Until it can be made
easy and reliable, at least.
There are horror stories of people who have bought "smart homes" and
have never been able to get everything working right. Think about how
often your computer doesn't behave properly. Now imagine the same
unreliablity applied to your lights, heat, and garage door opener, and
you have an idea of the problem.
Re resp:31: Maybe the older X10 stuff was better. The stuff I've
bought in the last ten years or so has all been unreliable junk.
Re resp:57: The 2.4 GHz band that wireless network stuff operates on is
unlicensed. The tradeoff with not having to have a license is the FCC
won't help you if you have an interference problem -- they only care
about interference to licensed services. If you look at the
documentation for any given wireless device, you'll find this verbiage:
"This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is
subject to the following conditions: (1) this device may not cause any
harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept interference
received, including interference which may cause undesired operation."
The 2.4 GHz band is sort of a combination of the Wild West and a
garbage dump. You may get interference from cordless phones, amateur
radio operators, microwave ovens, and even weather radar. WiFi uses
spread-spectrum technology to avoid most interference from other
services, and it actually works pretty well, but the potential for
problems is built in.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:46 UTC 2006 |
Sorry about the crummy formatting. I forgot that "lazy HTML" ignores
line breaks. I'm too used to LiveJournal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 60 of 290:
|
Jan 23 19:58 UTC 2006 |
re #58:
> Right now the cable companies seem to be using the switch to
> digital cable as a way to try to force people to pay more money
> for the same content.
And don't forget: less convenience.
Set-top boxes suck, but they're what we're going to be stuck with
for at least this generation of TV technology.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 61 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:11 UTC 2006 |
Re #58: I'm not sure what cable company you're talking about, but
Comcast (as an example) generally provides digital versions of its
standard "analog" content for no extra charge, including HD versions of
local channels. You'll need to provide your own tuner, of course, and
it won't be as polished a viewing experience as you could get with a
Comcast STB or DVR.
They're certainly hoping that digital cable will be a way to bump you
up to a "more channels" package and that they'll make money off you
with VOD and other services, but the digital content itself isn't
encrypted on the wire and so you don't have to pay anything extra to
see it. So I don't really think it's accurate to say that you're being
charged more for the same thing.
Best Buy (and other stores of that genre) is famous for having crappy
HD feeds. But the underlying point is true -- there is a lot of
mediocre HD content out there. All the DBS providers downres and
recompress into mediocrity, and a fair amount of NBC OTA is mediocre
because they suck away bandwidth for their stupid "Weather Plus"
channel, and so on. We can hope that when HD movies on disc come out
later this year they'll be able to take advantage of the medium's
storage capacity to allow fewer compromises.
Re #60: True enough. Alas, the alternative to STBs seems to be
CableCARD, which (so far) sucks more.
|
ric
|
|
response 62 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:14 UTC 2006 |
I dispute both of those.
I find digital cable to be more convenient because of the built in guide.
I also get more content with digital cable because I'm able to get a bunch
of digital channels that aren't available on standard cable, like ESPNNews,
DIY, and my daughter loves Boomerang and Toon Disney.
I also get a ton of "on demand" channels free where I can watch shows at any
time.. Food Network On Demand is great, DIY On Demand, Golf on demand, cartoon
network on demand, etc.
And I often also listen to the digital music channels when I'm cleaning the
house or doing other kinds of work. Lately, I've been tuned into the Arena
Rock channel.
Most important though, is that my digital cable box has a built in DVR, which
I could no longer live without.
|
ric
|
|
response 63 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:16 UTC 2006 |
(#61 slipped in)
i do pay extra for my HD cable box... which included the HD local stations
and Discovery HD and TNTHD. I pay extra for the "HDSuite" which includes
HDNet, HDNet Movies, inHD, inHD2, etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 290:
|
Jan 23 20:33 UTC 2006 |
re #61
Whats a good tuner(decoder) and where can I get one? >;)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 65 of 290:
|
Jan 23 21:05 UTC 2006 |
If you crunch the numbers I suspect you'll find it's better to rent than
buy at this point. For example, if you want a digital cable DVR, you
can buy one for between $500-1000, or you can rent one for like $10/mo;
renting is a no-brainer. The only reasonably-priced QAM tuners I've
seen have been PCI cards.
Someday all TV sets will be DCR (digital cable ready) but we're not
there yet, and by the time we get there they will probably have
developed some new modulation technique which will make them obsolete
anyway.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 290:
|
Jan 23 21:15 UTC 2006 |
Thanks. It looks like for now, there are QAM tuners built into high end
televisions but there is no guarantee that the channels aren't scrambled or
set to only be received by their receivers...
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 290:
|
Jan 24 01:53 UTC 2006 |
Part of what makes digital cable such an uninspiring idea is that I
have three TVs, so having to use a set-top box is kind of a
non-starter.
I also work in some casinos that use Comcast's digital cable feed for
background music (as well as for video), and I've noticed the digital
channels are less than reliable. There are long stretches of time when
the music feed channels are silent, with a black screen that says "this
channel will be available in a few minutes." In light of that, I find
their ads about the unreliability of satellite service pretty funny.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 68 of 290:
|
Jan 24 03:20 UTC 2006 |
re #62: your mileage may vary depending on your own cable company.
Here in Ketchikan when our cable company went all-digital they
actually removed channels from their basic line-up and began charging
their customers an extra $5 per television per month to cover the
costs of the set-top boxes needed to provide this "improved service."
Meanwhile their quality is notably bad and gets even worse whenever
a vessel with radar passes through the harbor.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 69 of 290:
|
Jan 24 04:34 UTC 2006 |
Yup, more money for no improvement is a pretty good example of how not
to deploy things. Re #67, I've seen occasional audio dropouts for a
couple of seconds but haven't experienced what you describe. Sounds
lousy.
Cable companies are kinda stuck. On the one hand, they have early
adopters whose main priorities are digital transmission (way better for
DVR) and lots of high-quality HD content. They are willing to pay a
premium price but they expect a premium product, and when they're forced
to watch a crappy analog static-filled feed of the SciFi channel they're
not happy.
On the other hand, you have foot-draggers who still use analog cable
with old cable-ready TVs. They enjoy watching whatever their favorite
channels are, CNN or ESPN or whatever. They don't particularly care
about picture quality as long as it doesn't totally suck, and they're
not particularly interested in new services. Their main priority is not
seeing their bill go up; they already feel like they pay too much for
the service they get.
I don't particularly envy the kinds of decisions that cable companies
are forced to make in figuring out how to service both crowds. Soon
DirecTV will roll out local feeds in HD, and a ton of new HD channels
will launch (National Geographic-HD, MTV-HD, HGTV-HD, and so on.) Early
adopters will expect their cable systems to make at least some of them
available. Foot-draggers will expect nothing to change. Not sure it's
possible to meet both expectations.
|