Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Networking Communications The Internet Hardware

Cable Wants to Cut the Cord 216

Posted by CowboyNeal from the wireless-for-the-masses dept.
skatephat420 writes "Wired News has featured an article on how "the cable industry wants you to chuck your cable -- at least when you're outside the house. The addition of a fourth wireless component to the cable package is now affectionately known as the 'quadruple play.'" With this addition to the standard package of voice, video and data, how long is it going to take DSL to compete?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cable Wants to Cut the Cord More

Cable Wants to Cut the Cord

Comments Filter:

  • I'd put my money elsewhere (Score:4, Funny)

    by Monte ( 48723 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @06:59PM (#13191129)
    Cable access wherever I go? I think this is actually the wrong direction for them to persue - my strategy would be to first add some sort of uber-addictive MMORPG (which ought to be trivial) along with some other video games (subscription based, of course), and then the hard part: pizza, caffeine and beer delivery on-demand.

    Then I would have no reason to leave the house, ever. I don't need to take it with me 'cause I ain't leaving.
    • my strategy would be to first add some sort of uber-addictive MMORPG (which ought to be trivial) along with some other video games (subscription based, of course)

      oh, you mean like SegaTV or The Sega Channel or whatever-the-hell-it-was-called? That flopped miserably, I might add...
    • I see a bunch of people below saying how great their cable service is and that they'll never change. Most of them, from what I can tell, seem to be using Cox cable.

      I was in a similar situation a few years ago. Had a great cable service that was quick to repair, had helpful techs that knew what they were doing. It was called AT&T. But that all changed when Comcast bought them out of the cable division. It quickly went downhill from there.

      Don't be surprised if Comcast were to buy out Cox in the future. Th
    • I sure could cut the cable cord for alot less than they could. Of course, I'd use something more along the lines of some sidecuts, but hey!

      Luke
      -----
      Have a teaching-about-computer-basics website? Maybe you might want to swap links with ChristianNerds.com [christiannerds.com]?

  • Battle of the Elephants: Wireless vs. Telcos. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ohmster ( 843198 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:00PM (#13191130) Homepage Journal
    The "quadruple play" is already a well understood investment play on Wall Street over the last few months. The big battle ahead is cable and what used to be the regional telcos. They're both arming themselves with everything they can think of, including faster and faster, two-way broadband, internet telephony, cellular and broadband wireless services, along with hundreds of content channels...and each side is committing to spend billions to do it. What investors are trying to understand is who remains standing with a semblance of a profitable business at the end of it. Each side is desperately trying not to end up being a "dumb pipe", but have a valuable "walled garden" of services to keep customers paying $50, 100 or more per month per household. Someone is going to end up losing these multi-billion dollar bets. More here: http://mp.blogs.com/mp/2005/07/on_wilting_wire.htm l [blogs.com]

    • DSL is still ahead in my book. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DaedalusHKX ( 660194 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:13PM (#13191204) Journal
      I can run a server on 29.99/mo DSL...

      39.99+all sorts of fees = 54.00 / mo cable does NOT allow me to run ANY servers, and block most of the default service ports for unix... (most still allow windows, but I'm not about to buy IIS to run a simple site on that huge clunking POS).

      Of course if I manage to get around it by shifting ports around, they threaten to cut off my service if I do not disconnect the server within 5 days of being notified. (if it happens a second time, they DO cut off the service as they have done to me before)

      In my book, DSL is still light years ahead of cable for what ***I*** need!

      For browsing its a tad slow, but they don't have nearly as many DNS outages as the providers in my area.
      • Here's the thing. Comcast (shut up about what the ToS says, really) allows you to do that.

        When they started to crack down on spam, they didn't just kill off :25. They watched the traffic for huge amounts of e-mail, scanned the e-mails, and then cut off the spammers.

        They could have shut off :25 in the blink of an eye, but instead they invested actual money into fixing the problem without pissing off their competent user base. I would know, I'm part of that user base. Additionally, I have some friends working Comcast tech support, and they can likewise vouch for what I've said.

      • Re:DSL is still ahead in my book. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Phreakiture ( 547094 ) on Friday July 29, 2005 @08:03AM (#13193934) Homepage

        39.99+all sorts of fees = 54.00 / mo cable does NOT allow me to run ANY servers, and block most of the default service ports for unix... (most still allow windows, but I'm not about to buy IIS to run a simple site on that huge clunking POS).

        Of course if I manage to get around it by shifting ports around, they threaten to cut off my service if I do not disconnect the server within 5 days of being notified. (if it happens a second time, they DO cut off the service as they have done to me before)

        This is completely opposite my experience.

        My experience is that cable delivers the goods, and the local telco (which is a large, national telco that begins with a V) cannot extract their collective crania from their collective recta long enough to provision DSL for me. I waited --get this-- five months while they dicked around trying to set me up.

        When finally I'd decided I had had enough, I called up the cable company, who promised me service in five days. The service was on in four.

        As for fees surcharges, etc., the cable company prices their service at $44.95, and the bill I get says $44.95 in the amount due box every month. I do not purchase any service from them except internet (I get TV by satellite).

        My phone bill, on the other hand, for wireline service, is priced at $15/mo for service and $15/mo for unlimited long distance. Do you think my phone bill is therefore $30? No, of course not! It's more typically $48.

        Back to the cable co, while theoretically, they have the right to block me from running a server, they do not. I do know that they have raised hell with people for running mail servers (because of spam issues), but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been shut down for running a web server. This is with Time-Warner, who I am naming because I have been very pleased with thier service.

      • Exactly. I want a dumb pipe. In fact, I don't even really need email or Usenet (although I really like having them provided, and consider them a plus). I certainly don't want 'free' web space (I'm paying for it anyway if it's included, and since I've already a significant investment in my own hardware...). I don't really care about any local 'value-added' services. What I want is:
        • The ability to access my home box from anywhere in the world via SSH, HTTP, HTTPS or any other protocol I want
        • A static I
    • fortunately, the someone to lose will probably not be a consumer.

      it's bizarre to see capitalism work in practice as well as theory, but considering the telcos have had their monopoly for almost 100 yrs now perhaps it's time.

    • What investors are trying to understand is who remains standing with a semblance of a profitable business at the end of it. Each side is desperately trying not to end up being a "dumb pipe", but have a valuable "walled garden" of services to keep customers paying $50, 100 or more per month per household.

      Problem with that is that, as far as I can see it, the last thing a customer wants is a walled garden. They're always very limited and boring, and expensive.

  • Mobile video? yeah right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lordkuri ( 514498 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:01PM (#13191138)
    letting them access video content on their mobile device as seamlessly as they access "video on demand" programming at home.

    So how long will they wait for the cellular & PCS companies to get somewhere near up to speed to be capable of live video? And no, Sprint's bullshit 15fps mobile "tv" doesn't count.

  • how long is it going to take DSL to compete? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rob_squared ( 821479 ) <rob@rob - s q u a red.com> on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:02PM (#13191142)
    I think that's FiOS's job.

    • ...seeing an ad on a truck about two months ago saying that Verizon Fios "is here." Obviously, I checked their web site to see that it was not available in the Bronx yet.

      I know a lot of game players in the land of Poe and Yankees who would love to have something of that speed to combat the "mad lag" they see. Sadly, some of them also chuck the boatload of dough to Cablevision. I hate them and cable companies who promote "triple/quadruple play" packages in general; it's like Microsoft, but with a monthl

  • Wow! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:03PM (#13191148)
    Wireless television! Who would've thunk it?

    Oh, wait. [wikipedia.org]

  • SBC already bundles this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SydShamino ( 547793 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:03PM (#13191149)
    SBC already offers a bundles package of:
    Home phone service
    Long distance
    DSL internet service
    Dish Network satellite TV
    Cingular Wireless phone service

    It seems that the cable companies are trying to catch up to DSL, not the other way around.

    If cable can integrate their content onto the phones as the article suggests, maybe they will pull ahead.

  • Dammit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, frankly, I don't want to give a single cent to the cable company. I don't have any interest in television service. I don't have any interest in talking to the idiotic telephone monopoly that controls DSL service in this town. But, if I want broadband internet, I HAVE to go with either the telephone monopoly, or the cable monopoly-- even though

    About the only service I'm satisfied with is my cell phone service. I continue happily using my cell phone, and juggle switching between cable internet (but

    • Re:Dammit (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:10PM (#13191191) Homepage Journal
      Hopefully, if you're lucky, from Verizon or T-Mobile. All you need is a bluetooth phone and a USB bluetooth module- and once 3G networks roll into your neighborhood cell towers, you can unplug completely.

      • Re:Dammit (Score:3, Funny)

        by argent ( 18001 )
        once 3G networks roll into your neighborhood cell towers, you can unplug completely.

        And with the cellular airtime charges, you'll end up paying as much as if you'd bought Cable and DSL as backups to each other.

  • Bypassing the Incumbents (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SolarCanine ( 892620 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:06PM (#13191161) Journal
    It's obvious that all these large companies with massive infrastructure want to extend the use of said infrastructure as much as possible.

    But what I'm really waiting to see is whether or not any new/fringe players will make a move to implement a WiMAX grid that has decent redundancy and large-scale coverage and move away from the "ground-based" bandwidth carriers.

    IMHO, that's where the really interesting dynamics come into play. FTTH, increased cable speed/features, expanded DSL offerings, that's all great. But show me a completely tetherless solution for my voice/data/entertainment needs with mass coverage and you've got me hooked for your hundreds a month, with probably less cost to you than to (insert cable co./telco here).
  • On an old Windows box, I have BeyondTV and a TV Tuner card, but you could do this just as easily with MythTV or just about anything else given the right codecs. Copy the files to a flash card for use in my PDA- and I've got TV on the bus, usually shows that I can't stay awake for due to my work hours.

  • Convergence (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:07PM (#13191170)
    From TFA:

    "They want this phone to do everything that their TV does and everything that their PC does."

    So I guess my phone will now gets viruses, worms, spyware, while it's busy playing mindless advertising interrupting my conversation every 5 minutes?
  • In the areas where cable is available, DSL also tends to be available. And competitive. BellSouth is the government sponsored DSL monopoly competitor to Cox, the government sponsored Cable monopoly here. Cox currently offers a slightly faster connection in theory but no static IP. And of course I actually talked to a Cox rep. Sure they offer a 6mb down (unknown up) plan, but they only have 24mb serving the whole fscking city. Sign my ass up now! Of course I'd be the only iso scarfing file leech in to

  • Self Delusion (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scareduck ( 177470 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:15PM (#13191220) Homepage Journal
    Check this quote:
    "The wireless phone is becoming the third screen of [consumers' lives]," said John Garcia, Sprint's senior VP of sales and distribution. "They want this phone to do everything that their TV does and everything that their PC does."
    Does this guy even get out and talk to anybody who isn't a marketroid or a self-serving company flack (often the same people)? I have never -- not one time -- met a person who's demanding this. If anything, what I've encountered is people who don't want their phone to be anything other than a phone. This is self-interested wanking from a company praying for yet another captive customer base.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • What i'd like in a phone

        Take calls, play mp3's, browse web, with hdd for downloading, the latest linux distro, keeps me warm in the winter, keeps me cool in the summer, Mega Massage setting for when I'm very tense, Those crazy electric muscle exerciser thingies, heart monitor, video games, High speed gyros for force-feedback during games, video camera, regular camera, multi-format flash card reader, usb connector, RS232 serial interface with data logger, corkscrew, penknife, extra-sharp knife, toothpick, bo
    • You're correct. I've never met anyone who wants their phone to do this for free, much less at the nickle a pop or $5/month/service the telcos think folks will spend.
    • Actually, I'm rather fond of my phone having a complete addressbook and using a different ringtone depending on who is ringing. That's available now.

      Since I've had to manually enter that all into the computer in order to sync the cellphone anyway, I'd be pretty keen on the phone also syncing the information off the computer. That's the direction I'd like to see phones develop.
      • That's still just a phone working like phone though. The integrated address book is an obvious extension to make it easier to use. These people are talking about stuff like on demand video on your phone.
    • I have never -- not one time -- met a person who's demanding this.

      I demand this. I've often used my Treo as a PC substitute while on the go, for checking email, reading slashdot, ssh-ing, storing files, chatting on IRC and IM, watching the occasional TV episode, and listening to OGG files. It's been quite a lifesaver on many an occassion.

  • DSL Does Compete (Score:2, Informative)

    by Dracos ( 107777 )

    When the DSL provider says you're getting X bandwidth, that's what you and only you get. When the cable company says you get X bandwidth, you're actually sharing it with up to 253 neighbors.

    • Re:DSL Does Compete (Score:3, Informative)

      by topham ( 32406 )

      Great, so I get X bandwidth between me, and the local telco switch... at which point it's merged with 253 neighbors.

      Me, I get better bandwidth on Bad days than anyone I know with residential DSL service in this city.

      (500-800KBytes per second on downloads).

      • Actually the backbones connecting COs to major backbones are usually vastly underutilized since voice calls leave such a small footprint comparitively speaking. What can happen is if your neighborhood is remote and connected by a fiber backhaul to the CO. In that case, you are sharing that backhaul with your neighbors and are at the mercy of how much bandwidth it can carry.

        With cable, you are undoubtedly more at the mercy of sharing, but chances are your cable provider has plenty of bandwidth to spare as we
    • Well, I do dsl tech support. And i'm here to inform you that your dsl has a percentage of your line that's being used to maintain that sync.

      And most likely, your ISP doesn't give a damn if its 50% or even 80%.

      What does that mean to you? Well, if you have 1.5MBps and a 66% relcap (to make things easy) you get .5MBps to use. Then you factor the overhead ...

      Its very common to see 20-50% and that's a significant hit on your bandwidth ...
      • I have done DSL support in the past; this is true. Basically, as the quality of your phone line goes down, the speed you can reasonably expect to get also goes down. If your speed is capped at 1Mbps and you have a good phone line, maintaining sync won't take much bandwidth. If you have a crappy phone line, maintaining sync will take much more - unless your line is capped at a slower speed; then maintaining sync will use a reasonable percentage again.

        I've seen a DSL line that was accidentally capped at 20
    • DSL is commonly oversubscribed at 20:1 and 50:1 ratios to the backbone bandwidth. It's true, look it up. When my cable ISP says "You have 10mbps download." I pull 1200KB/sec off an FTP. The line drops me on an average of less than once a YEAR. Beat that!

      Cable bandwidth delivers, it's just the upstream that sucks.
  • ...who think watching <insert your favorite reality tv show> on the freeway is a good idea.

  • Been here, got that (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:36PM (#13191319) Journal
    and I pay SBC a lot less than the cable company wants or will want.

    Better, SBC is going head to head with cable, trying to get cable channels unbundled.

    Let's see:
    1. charging more
    2. trying to sell what's already available
    3. pulling a poor sales job to make it look like it's their idea
    4. doing their damnedest to make sure I have to buy tons of crap with the few things I want.

    There's your cable quadruple play.

  • What I want: TV via Internet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:43PM (#13191365) Homepage
    Here's what I want. If anyone out there works for a cable company, please feel free to pass this along. Currently when I subscribe to cable, not only do I get access to all the shows they air, but I also get limited access, through Comcast's Digital Cable, to something vaguely PVRish... I can watch a select number of shows at any time for free. I can pause them and rewind them as I see fit. If this service is already available, I don't see any reason why I can't have the following feature:

    I would like to be able to go online, log into my cable company's webpage, and download any show that's aired since I began my subscription. These are all shows I theoretically have access to already (I could have taped them), so why not allow me to watch them when I want. Give me a username and a password; go ahead and keep track of when I joined and only give me access to content I'm entitled to. Bittorrent distribution is fine, I don't mind contributing a little bit of bandwidth to this scheme.

    In addition, I want to be able to schedule downloads of new shows in a PVR like system. So, anytime I decide I like a show, I can download the whole back catalogue since I started my cable subscription, and download every new episode that airs automatically.

    Also, I should be able to access this content anywhere, at any time. This would actually be a big selling point if I were presenting this idea to a cable company because it means you could sell something of a discounted product to people outside of your traditional market. Why do I need to deal with Comcast when I can subscribe over the internet to Time Warner, even though they're not in my area? Suddenly, all the cable companies will be competing against each other to provide the best selection of programming at the best price with the most ease of service... something that isn't really happening today.

    I'm sure there's legal issues with this from the point of the content producers. All I know is that I'd be happy to download shows via bittorrent with commercials directly from my cable company if they allowed me to do so. I'd be happy to switch away from my local cable company if someone else on the internet could provide me with a better deal. The cable companies already have the rights to distribute the content to end users... this scheme would require a renogotiation, but it's within their power (unlike some crazy startup).

    Anyone else interested in this sort of service?
    • Anyone else interested in this sort of service?

      I hear that P2P has gotten pretty popular, yes. Was this what you were asking?

      • Essentially... but legal. When btefnet was shut down, I couldn't schedule downloads anymore. I'd like to have a reliable service that isn't going to be sued out of business, and isn't going to get ME sued. A pipe dream, I know.
        • I was being flippant, but what you say should be available. I'd call it a TV subscription version of iTunes, actually.

          But you know the usual problems -- DRM, copyright, etc. I suppose there is the minor technical limitaion of getting everything ever shown on TV in some digital format that's easily downloadable, but it'd be just a massively parallel version of Tivo, which ought to be doable in today's world of 500GB HDDs.

    • How about the following:

      Cable company installs a router at my residence. It has wired and 802.119(%) access for me.

      It also has a separate channel which runs a much longer range signal that acts like a short range cell tower.

      I get a discount (perhaps packet priority, perhaps not) they get to charge for the service to the cell folks.

      Perhaps, because I have an access point at home, I get free wireless internet while on the road

  • Vertical Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @07:47PM (#13191385) Homepage Journal
    I don't want to rely on the same company for my Internet connection, both wired and wireless, and the voice, data and video coming over it. Especially one so hostile to customer service as my cable company. Each of those services should be delivered by a competing company, not some monolithic monopoly which controls all my access to information. Which can censor info it doesn't like, like "obscene" or "terrorist" websites. Which can eavesdrop on my calls. Which can cross-reference all my info together. Which can cut off my wired (and unwired) life completely as leverage behind an "accidental" SNAFU in billing me for one service.

    There's all kinds of integrated billing / customer service systems that already bundle multiple outsourced services into one bill, one "help desk". That's what cable and phone companies already use to bundle the services they market and control into one "customer relationship". These bundled services are like Microsoft controlling the markets of OS, apps, development and content. And cable companies have even less minority competition to "keep them honest". Bundling like this proposal should be prohibited, to protect consumers. And to create opportunities for entrepreneurs, like an independent "customer care" service that wraps up billing and customer care into one contact. Without creating a bottleneck through a cable company that's guaranteed to fail, with devastating results, all the time, all over the country.

  • Verizon has come out of nowhere (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tkrotchko ( 124118 ) * on Thursday July 28, 2005 @08:03PM (#13191452) Homepage
    A few years ago, I thought Verizon was cooked. Long distance was dead, and they were not one of the leaders in wireless, and DSL has always been a bit of a joke outside of heavily populated areas.

    But in the Washington DC area, we've seen in the past few years:

    1) Verizon Wireless has become one of the leaders for voice.
    2) Verizon Wireless offers their 1X service which gives 90-110K web service in most areas of the country
    3) in metro areas their EVDO service is now offering mid-speed internet access
    4) They still offer DSL
    5) In the Washington DC area, they're rolling FIOS out to everybody, far beyond their DSL offering, and they're spending money faster than I've seen anybody short of the military spend money on this rollout. Its amazing.
    6) In the process of this rollout, they're getting rid of 40 year old copper infrastructure.
    7) Using this fiber they'll be offering increasing video services that strike right at the heart of the cable companies.

    Seriously, Comcast should be scared. They looked to be in the driver's seat 3 years ago, but Verizon has come on strong and now Comcast has to come up with an answer. Maybe they'll even start offering decent help desk and helpful employees.

    Nah. I think they'd rather go out of businss.

    • Re:Verizon has come out of nowhere (Score:5, Informative)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Thursday July 28, 2005 @09:19PM (#13191750) Homepage
      Mod parent up!

      Verizon has made a tremendous investment into their infrastructure, and is rolling out their fiber network faster than they rolled out their DSL network. I've had FIOS for about 3 weeks now, and I must say that it's anything short of amazing.

      Where Verizon has really delivered, though, is on price. Unlike Cable, Verizon actually has competitors. Cable TV loves price-fixing, and it's rare to see a community with more than one cable franchise, allowing the companies to charge exorbitant rates while gouging their customers. The remarkable thing about Verizon's DSL/FiOS offerings is that they're significantly cheaper than anything else out there. I pay $35/month for 5/2mbps fibre, while getting 3/.768 service from my cable co. costs $60/month. The STATEWIDE franchises that the cable companies have been granted are striking fear into the hearts of the cable companies. I fully expect a huge legal battle to come out of this debating the legality of such franchises to begin with -- Cable is and always has been a legal monopoly. Healthy competition (Verizon in this case) drives prices down. Hopefully once FiOS-TV is rolled out, the cable co's will be forced to cut their rates and start expanding their HD offerings -- FiOS-TV is said to have 300 channels, about 75 of which are in HD.

        I suppose Verizon expects a huge return on their investment in the fibre network. It's costing them a mint. A typical fios install takes 3 installers about 6-8 hours per residence just to do the premesis wiring and termination. On the up-side, the new network will cost them a lot less to operate than their old copper network. Reduced power draw, smaller local COs, and increased reliability to name a few, not to mention that they've finally rid themselves of copper wiring.

      Hopefully this and satelitte will finally kill off the corrupt cable-tv industry.
    • Keep in mind, however, that while they are mutually vested in each other, Verizon and Verizon Wireless are separate companies.

      I agree with you completely, however. Verizon isn't really on my radar as I don't have DSL service nor do they have a local telco in my area, but Verizon Wireless is a major player (as it is in most major eastern US cities).

      Just recently, Verizon Wireless started offering a new plan for their NetworkAccess cards, a $59.99/month plan for regular NA (not the BroadbandAccess that's only
  • It's the Quintuple Play! It's a wireless cable modem phone MUSIC PLAYER!

    And it's edible, with Zero Carbs! Just don't nibble on your phone before your two year service agreement is up...
  • With all this talk of DSL vs Cable, howcome my cable bill is still like $80/month for sub-par service?

    I use maybe 3 channels of cable, and that part of the bill costs 50 bucks! Not to mention, they block my service internet ports and ask me to pay bajillions for a business account to run a personal website.

    The DSL around here sucks. The cable around here sucks. Satellite isn't an option because I want 99% reliable internet.

    I don't want a land-line. I don't want any web-portal, pop-up blocker tools, tech
    • Disconnect your TV from your cable service. Only idiots pay $50/month to have commercials and pseudo-information shoved down their throats. Download, ad-free, the TV shows you want to watch, and be fucking done with it. Why people PAY to watch TV, I'll *never* understand.
  • Instead of POTS over cable, how about a "cordless" phone that works all over town, within x distance of the cable system. Most of us spend the majority of our time somewhat close to our homes (the average commute is about 15 miles, if I recall). It would be somewhat easy to develop a phone that would act as an extension/intercom all over town. I really think that the first cell/mobile phone company that makes it very easy and free to call phones under the same account (much like extensions on wired phones),
  • http://adsl.free.fr/ [adsl.free.fr] offers a DSL modem with voice, video, internet and wifi...
  • In france, I subscribe to Free (www.free.fr)
    I have Video, Data (20Mbit), TV, and wireless.. and it's been available for months now.
    It all comes over the adsl connection.. (which does not necessarily imply a France Telecom subscription)

    If I decide I don't like free.fr, there are at least 2 other competitors on the market with the same package..

    So what's the big deal? Once you have the bandwidth to the user, its just software that provides the services.. (and a little hardware - the freebox)

    Why is a cable com
    • France has slightly more than 1/17th the land area of the United States. It also has roughly 3.6 times the average population per unit area.

      It is to be expected that small, dense countries should be able to build infrastructure more quickly than larger, emptier ones.

  • The only line in the article that says anything concrete:

    the addition of a wireless component to the cable bundle of services is primarily in the planning stages
  • ...if they want to go wireless.

    Stop referring to themselves as CABLE (which is simply a wire) companies.

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close