Cable modem TV antenna experiment

[Texas Dawg]

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

 

[Smarty]

On 1/11/2013 4:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

This will not work.

Connecting a TV antenna to your coax input on a cable modem will not
bring in a neighbor's anything. It especially will not bring in another
cable modem configured the same way at your neighbor's house.

A waste of time and money.

 

[mike]

On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.

 

[alonzo]

On 01/11/2013 03:40 PM, mike wrote:

On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.
Cable TV doesn't reach this far out of town. I wouldn't

be able to steel cable if I wanted to, which I don't.

I think you don't understand what I was talking about.

 

[Texas Dawg]

On 01/11/2013 03:34 PM, Smarty wrote:

On 1/11/2013 4:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

This will not work.

Connecting a TV antenna to your coax input on a cable modem will not
bring in a neighbor's anything. It especially will not bring in another
cable modem configured the same way at your neighbor's house.

A waste of time and money.

It was just a thought. I have Internet through ERF wireless, where

their antenna on my roof is pointed at a tower twelve miles away
at the nearest town.

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

 

[Dave Platt]

In article <tpidnes9q9LsBG3NnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Texas Dawg <td@dawg.nettttttttt> wrote:

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants. They would operate on different
channels from one another so as to not interfere. One run of Cat-5
Ethernet cable between them, a bit of setup on each end and you'd be
good to go.

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

 

[mike]

On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, alonzo wrote:

On 01/11/2013 03:40 PM, mike wrote:
On 1/11/2013 1:26 PM, Texas Dawg wrote:
The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

There are lots of ways to steal cable.
That additional expense you incur might be for lawyers.
Cable TV doesn't reach this far out of town. I wouldn't
be able to steel cable if I wanted to, which I don't.

I think you don't understand what I was talking about.

My bad.
Just use a wireless modem and a cantenna or some such to
increase the range.

 

[nvic]

On Jan 11, 4:26 pm, Texas Dawg <t...@dawg.nettttttttt> wrote:

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

This might turn out to be an unnecessary expense for me
to try it, if it didn't work, so, I thought someone on
this group might already have the equipment to try it,
without incurring additional expense, or, you might
already know if it will work.

I thought it would be an interesting experiment.

What do you think?

Doing this with a cable modem would never work, for lots of reasons.
If your intention is to create a wireless bridge for sharing internet
service with somebody, use a wireless bridge or long-range wifi
network.

Wifi can be added easily if doesn't already exist, and if distance is
an issue, get a bigger antenna. I've done it: Had two neighboring
farms sharing an expensive satellite internet subscription. Used two
access points driving signal amps with outdoor dish antennas on poles.
One end provided a secured wireless network, other was client. Wasn't
overly fast, but did what was needed and it blew dial-up (only other
option) out of the water. Works well aside from issues caused by
severe weather (dish alignment). Put in several years back, still in
use as of November.

If the intention is to steal cable internet or TV, what you suggested
isn't even remotely close to being a way of doing either.

 

[isw]

In article <jKGdncJ644MTHm3NnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Texas Dawg <td@dawg.nettttttttt> wrote:

The other day I was surfing the web and saw an ad for a
cable modem, which won't do me any good because I don't
have cable, but, the thought crossed my mind, If someone
hooked up a cable modem to a TV antenna, pointed it at
their neighbors house where they had the same setup...
Would you be able to get a network connection between
those two houses?

No, for several reasons:

Cable modems expect very strong signals; far stronger than you could
ever collect with an antenna.

Cable modems are two-way devices, and will not function at all if the
"upstream" signal doesn't make it back to the headend. You'd probably
need a several-thousand-watt "booster" and a VERY LARGE antenna to send
that signal wirelessly to your neighbor.

All cable modems are "registered", and the provider knows where each and
every one is on the network, in terms of how long it takes the signals
to travel between the modem and the headend. No modem with a time delay
or a registration they didn't have on file would ever be allowed to
operate.

Isaac

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Using the internal Ubiquiti benchmark tests, I was getting about
150Mbits/sec thruput in both directions (one at a time) and splitting
it in half for full duplex simulation. When the radios were both on
the setup bench, I was getting over 200Mbits/sec. Using Jperf, I was
only able to get about 120Mbits/sec in TCP, half duplex. Some
tweaking should bring it up. Note that is two MIMO streams, one
vertically polarized, and the other horizontally. This is MUCH better
than what I typical get with 2.4Ghz links. Highly recommended.
<http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm>
Hint 1: Make sure all the radios are running the same firmware or
nothing works right.
Hint 2: With bridging, make sure there's exactly one DHCP server
running on the network. You're life will be miserable if there is
more than one.
Hint 3: The mounting bracket does NOT come with the package. The 24v
PoE box is included.

Drivel: Every muscle aches, my cold/flu/crud is far worse, I left my
ladder at the site, got involved in some brush removal to improve the
LOS, and spilled much of my toolbox all over the hillside. I didn't
know that poison oak was active in January. There's a Motorola SP10
walkie talkie somewhere on the hillside. No photos because I left my
camera at home and my Droid X micro-SD card was full. The setup was
fairly easy. The physical installation, not so easy. Sometimes, I
wonder if internet connnectivity is worth the effort.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants.

Nope. The Ubiquti Nanostation Loco M5 supports WDS (wireless
distribution service), where the radio supports both access point
features and store-and-forward repeater features. More specifically,
WDS is bridging. I was connecting through the local bridge radio,
with my dual band wi-fi equipped laptop, to the other end of the link.
Running bridging, where everything runs at the MAC address level
(layer 2), made connectivity to everything quite easy. They were
rather pleased when I was able to print to a remote laser printer, and
not so pleased when I connected to their Roku streaming media player,
iPod, iPhone, etc via the network. The VLAN configuration is the next
step in order to isolate parts differnt parts of the network (and
reduce broadcast traffic across the wireless link).

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

Yep. Note that section "E" shows the setup as "access point WDS"
which Ubiquiti lingo for bridging. That should be the device closest
to the main internet router. The client end(s), should be setup as
"station WDS". With this arrangement, you can also have more than one
station.

As for the cable modem antenna idea, it won't work. It will be
spewing the entire 40-1000Mhz CATV spectrum and not just the channel
that you're watching. It's like watering your lawn with a fire hose
at full pressure. Colateral damage (interference) is inevitable. The
cable also works both directions. Ingress (where the cable picks up
over the air radio stations which mix in the cable amplifiers, is a
major problem for the cable company. Ingress will show up on the
management software or fly-over survey, making discovery of your
abomination quite likely. It's futile anyway, because you'll need a
legal cable box to watch digital channels. Analog TV channels are
slowly going away. Also, the signals on the cable are such a low
level, that you'll need an RF power amplifier in order to transmit
more than a few inches. Building a suitable RF power amp with
sufficient linearity to not trash the video is not a trivial exercise.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The simplest solution is to find someone with a wireless router who hasn't
done anything to prevent unauthorized access.

By the way... It's possible (and quite easy) to set up your local network so
that it will communicate only with devices that you've supplied the MACs for.
This isn't 100%-foolproof, as it's possible for someone to read the MAC when
it's transmitted, then mimic it. But for the average user, it makes your
network effectively inaccessible.

 

[mike]

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number

for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

 

[mike]

On 1/11/2013 4:06 PM, Dave Platt wrote:

In article<tpidnes9q9LsBG3NnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Texas Dawg<td@dawg.nettttttttt> wrote:

My nearest neighbor lives 1000 feet away, he's old, and sick.
He likes my Android tablet, so, I was thinking about getting
him one, but, he doesn't have Internet. I thought maybe I could
get him Internet that way, where he could watch Netflix and surf
the web without him paying for Internet at $41.11 per month.

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.
But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

Your neighbor would have two WiFi devices in his house (one for the
bridge, with a directional antenna, and a second access point or
router indoors with an omni antenna to provide a base for the tablet
and any other device he wants. They would operate on different
channels from one another so as to not interfere. One run of Cat-5
Ethernet cable between them, a bit of setup on each end and you'd be
good to go.

http://wiki.ubnt.com/How_to_bridge_internet_connections

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:29:05 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number
for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

Actually, I haven't added it up yet. Note that this system is for
sharing internet, not remote video.

Prices are off the top of my head as I'm too lazy to look them up and
the pile of receipts are scattered all over my office.
<http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm>

Quan Item Unit cost Exten cost
2 Ubiquity Nanostation Loco M5 $ 90 $180
2 Mounting brackets $ 8 $ 16
1 100ft CMXT (gel filled) CAT5 $ 10 $ 10
2 Through the wall hardware $ 10 $ 20
1 Linksys E2500 wireless router $ 35 $ 35
1 Power strips, wall plates, RJ45 plugs, $ 20 $ 20
sinkers, "P" clamps, etc.
1 Satellite TV "J" mount $ 20 $ 20
===========
Total $301
Add about 12% for sales tax and shipping.
Add about $40/ea for Nanostation M5 HP, if you need more range.
The Linksys E2500 is for redistributing the internet inside the
house on both 2.4 and 5.6Ghz. It is setup as an access point, not as
a router. Price is for a refurb on eBay while retail would be about
$65.

To add remote video, add a Slingbox for $180:
<http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350>
and a 2nd CATV digital receiver for whatever the local cable company
charges. Currently, video from the DLNA video server is being watched
on a Roku 2 XS streaming media player:
<http://www.dlna.org>
<http://www.roku.com/roku-products>

The internet connection is wireless via Etheric networks in an area
where both cable and DSL are not available. Previous experience with
satellite internet was deemed a waste of money:
<http://ethericnetworks.com/service-plans/residential-broadband/>
At about $180/month, sharing the cost is certainly a good idea.

I haven't worked out the charges yet. Ignoring several diversions and
stupid mistakes (including getting a cardio workout by chasing the
escaped house cat through the bushes for about 15 minutes), and since
the owner did all the endpoint preperation, I'll probably only charge
for 3 hrs at $75/hr = $225 in labor. About half of that is
preperation, ordering, travel time, and RTFM, which were not directly
involved in the actual installation.

I'll be going back later to add some ethernet lightning arrestors
which did not arrive in time. When the smoke clears, I would guess
that the total will be about $600 for everything including the inside
network, wiring, configuration, SNMP monitoring setup, "training",
system documentation, backups, and of course testing by watching about
15 minutes of a movie on Netflix.

If you do it thyself, it can be done with zero labor cost, scounged
hardware, wire scraps, and used equipment for some savings.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:40:40 -0800, mike <ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.

I have 5.7GHz links that are 1.0 miles, 1.5 miles, and 3 miles. They
run a mix of Ubiquiti hardware. Zero problems with the link part of
the puzzle. In the past, I used 2.4GHz links, with bit 24dBi barbeque
dish antennas. Add some interference, and it simply didn't work.
5.7Ghz fixed that. 1000ft (1/5th of a mile) is a no brainer.

But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

If he can get a wireless or wired bridge running, one of these should
be able to provide the necessary video:
<http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350>

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

I know very few people who a willing to watch an hour or two long
movie on a tablet screen. Large screen LCD TV's are more common.
Plugging the big LCD TV into the iPad or Android tablet via an HDMI
cable works. At that point, might was well get a streaming medial
player from WD, Netgear, Roku, and others, instead, and leave the
tablet for other things.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 06:17:00 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

By the way... It's possible (and quite easy) to set up your local network so
that it will communicate only with devices that you've supplied the MACs for.
This isn't 100%-foolproof, as it's possible for someone to read the MAC when
it's transmitted, then mimic it. But for the average user, it makes your
network effectively inaccessible.

Actually, it's trivial to hack into a wireless router with MAC address
filtering enabled. Just sniff the traffic to/from that wireless
router and collect the MAC addresses that are being used. The MAC
addresses are NOT encrypted. Then, just change the MAC address of
your computer to one of them, and you're on.
<http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac>
MAC address filtering might be effective for the clueless user, but
the average user usually knows someone more knowledgable who can help.

For a wireless router, the only real and effective security is WPA2
encryption. All else, including MAC address spoofing, IP filtering,
SSID hiding, and the disgusting guest mode, are only minor additional
obstacles, which can eventually be circumvented with minimal effort.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[mike]

On 1/12/2013 4:06 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:40:40 -0800, mike<ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

1000 feet is gonna be more than you want to deal with.

I have 5.7GHz links that are 1.0 miles, 1.5 miles, and 3 miles. They
run a mix of Ubiquiti hardware. Zero problems with the link part of
the puzzle. In the past, I used 2.4GHz links, with bit 24dBi barbeque
dish antennas. Add some interference, and it simply didn't work.
5.7Ghz fixed that. 1000ft (1/5th of a mile) is a no brainer.

I submit that "no brainer" for you is way more than he would want
to deal with. Spending $600 to redistribute ethernet service and
netflix service in violation of TOS seems like a lot to deal with.

And, with these threads, there seems to always be a gotcha.
50 posts into the thread the OP volunteers, "There's a huge ass
metal building in the way...does that matter?"

But more importantly, how far to HIS nearest neighbor.
Maybe it's more feasible for him to steal their netflix and internet.

If he can get a wireless or wired bridge running, one of these should
be able to provide the necessary video:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350

I'm just too cheap to comprehend stuff like this.
My wireless bridge is a $1 WRT54G with tomato firmware.
I expect 1000 feet would be a stretch. But I can't see more
than about 200' without running into a forest or a big ass metal pole
building.

I administer my neighbor's system. I have many ways to steal his
netflix, with or without his permission...but it puts him at risk
and it's just wrong.

For movies, you can load the movies onto a flash card and deliver
it to his tablet.

I know very few people who a willing to watch an hour or two long
movie on a tablet screen. Large screen LCD TV's are more common.
Plugging the big LCD TV into the iPad or Android tablet via an HDMI
cable works. At that point, might was well get a streaming medial
player from WD, Netgear, Roku, and others, instead, and leave the
tablet for other things.

 

[mike]

On 1/12/2013 3:55 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:29:05 -0800, mike<ham789@netzero.net> wrote:

On 1/11/2013 10:17 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:06:53 -0800, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Rather than trying to relay the cable signal via antennas (which would
in effect be creating an unlicensed TV transmitter, and could cause
all sorts of legal and technical grief) you'd be better off setting up
an 802.11 bridge. A 1000-foot link is definitely possible with a gain
antenna on each end, if you have a clear line of sight between the two
houses. That sort of solution would be legal, as long as you
pick 802.11 radio-and-antenna systems which have been properly
certificated. Ubiquiti is one vendor of these sorts of devices.

I just came back from a very similar install. 800ft using two Ubiquti
Nanostation Loco M5. The M5 is the 5.7Ghz version, not the 2.4GHz
version. The main application was shared internet access, but also to
stream a common media server for HD movies via wireless.

Maybe I just missed it. Could you repeat the total customer cost number
for the install including the links at both ends and installation?

Actually, I haven't added it up yet. Note that this system is for
sharing internet, not remote video.

Prices are off the top of my head as I'm too lazy to look them up and
the pile of receipts are scattered all over my office.
http://www.ubnt.com/airmax#nanostationm

Quan Item Unit cost Exten cost
2 Ubiquity Nanostation Loco M5 $ 90 $180
2 Mounting brackets $ 8 $ 16
1 100ft CMXT (gel filled) CAT5 $ 10 $ 10
2 Through the wall hardware $ 10 $ 20
1 Linksys E2500 wireless router $ 35 $ 35
1 Power strips, wall plates, RJ45 plugs, $ 20 $ 20
sinkers, "P" clamps, etc.
1 Satellite TV "J" mount $ 20 $ 20
===========
Total $301
Add about 12% for sales tax and shipping.
Add about $40/ea for Nanostation M5 HP, if you need more range.
The Linksys E2500 is for redistributing the internet inside the
house on both 2.4 and 5.6Ghz. It is setup as an access point, not as
a router. Price is for a refurb on eBay while retail would be about
$65.

To add remote video, add a Slingbox for $180:
http://www.slingbox.com/go/slingbox-350
and a 2nd CATV digital receiver for whatever the local cable company
charges. Currently, video from the DLNA video server is being watched
on a Roku 2 XS streaming media player:
http://www.dlna.org
http://www.roku.com/roku-products

The internet connection is wireless via Etheric networks in an area
where both cable and DSL are not available. Previous experience with
satellite internet was deemed a waste of money:
http://ethericnetworks.com/service-plans/residential-broadband/
At about $180/month, sharing the cost is certainly a good idea.

You are fortunate. Around here, the providers prohibit redistribution
of their service. I could save a bunch of money by
hooking up the whole cul-de-sac to one cable connection.

I haven't worked out the charges yet. Ignoring several diversions and
stupid mistakes (including getting a cardio workout by chasing the
escaped house cat through the bushes for about 15 minutes), and since
the owner did all the endpoint preperation, I'll probably only charge
for 3 hrs at $75/hr = $225 in labor. About half of that is
preperation, ordering, travel time, and RTFM, which were not directly
involved in the actual installation.

I'll be going back later to add some ethernet lightning arrestors
which did not arrive in time. When the smoke clears, I would guess
that the total will be about $600 for everything including the inside
network, wiring, configuration, SNMP monitoring setup, "training",
system documentation, backups, and of course testing by watching about
15 minutes of a movie on Netflix.

If you do it thyself, it can be done with zero labor cost, scounged
hardware, wire scraps, and used equipment for some savings.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Actually, it's trivial to hack into a wireless router with MAC address
filtering enabled. Just sniff the traffic to/from that wireless
router and collect the MAC addresses being used. The MAC
addresses are NOT encrypted. Then, just change the MAC address of
of your computer to one of them, and you're on.

http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=security/changemac

That's assuming there's no data encryption. I use both encryption and MAC
filtering.

Nevertheless, I appreciate this information, as the book I read indicated that
you needed hardware to spoof a MAC address. (Perhaps the author was talking
about what was required to sniff it.)

A friend of mine remarked that both he and I were relatively safe from such
attacks. "Why would anyone be interested in accessing //our// computers?"
Indeed. This is true for most users. Of course, it's no excuse for not taking
simple steps to protect yourself.

 

[Leif Neland]

William Sommerwerck udtrykte prćcist:

Nevertheless, I appreciate this information, as the book I read indicated
that you needed hardware to spoof a MAC address. (Perhaps the author was
talking about what was required to sniff it.)

Changing the macadress is usually no problem.

A friend of mine remarked that both he and I were relatively safe from such
attacks. "Why would anyone be interested in accessing //our// computers?"
Indeed. This is true for most users. Of course, it's no excuse for not taking
simple steps to protect yourself.

Often, it is not your computers which are interesting.
More often it is your connection, so somebody will break into your
network will use it just for not having to pay for internet access, or
worse, to break into other computers, to do illegal filesharing or to
down/upload kiddyporn.
Which could get you in trouble if it is traced back to your network.
On the other hand, it could be your defence, because "Judge, it could
be anybody, because my network is not encrypted".

Leif

--
Husk křrelys bagpĺ, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.