Charter Spectrum Community Wi-Fi

Started by PatrickO1 • 12 replies • 1668 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

PatrickO1 (Michigan)
Posts: 13

Posted:

I'm researching providing bundled internet service to co-owners in our 80 unit site condominium development. As a site condo development we do not have a manager and no one person has access to all the units. Complicating matters is the majority (80%) of the co-owners use and maintain their units as second residencies. There is only once or twice a year when 50+% of the units are occupied at the same time.

If you have experience with coordinating the installation of the Charter Spectrum Community Wi-Fi product in a site condo development I have a question. How did you coordinate with the co-owners the placement of the box in each unit -- the installation of the box by an electrician and the installation of the media distribution unit by Charter. This seems like a logistical nightmare to try and coordinate this with 80 "independent" property owners since this is a site condo development. I don't want to try and collect 80 keys and accept responsibility for an electrician cutting into someone's wall to install a box. If this development was apartments it would make it much easier.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Patrick

Have the owners agreed that a bundled service is what they want?

PatrickO1 (Michigan)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Not yet. We are still working out the details to present to the co-owners for consideration. I don't want to present it as an option if we cannot figure out how to also tell them how the installation will be coordinated. At the Annual Meeting this year they asked the Board to investigate the option. Since Internet service is not part of the current dues structure the additional service / cost will have to be approved by 60% of the co-owners. Currently 55% of the Co-Owners have individual internet service. If we go with the option we are investigating it would substantially reduce the overall cost, but would require all owners to pay for the service. While the internet service is from the same provider as our cable it is not technically a bundled service. It is priced separately and is contracted for via a separate addendum.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

This sounds like a scam.

I used to work in IT although I had no direct experience with networking or telecommunications. A decade ago I lived in West Sacramento and found that my PC really preferred the Wi-Fi from the Holiday Inn Express across the street over the signals coming from my crappy AT&T-supplied DSL modem. Today, my smart phone picks up Wi-Fi signals from my cable modem as well as signals from at least four neighbors. (I have the password for my own Wi-Fi but not for any of the others.)

My point is that receiving Wi-Fi does not require hardware to be installed in my home. Computers and smart phones are quite able to pick up Wi-Fi without a bunch of additional hardware. This sounds like a cable provider trying to milk unnecessary fees from your residents. Look into installing a hotel-type Wi-Fi where you have a single cable connection broadcasting a signal throughout your condo complex.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

Larry,

2 points:

1. Wi-Fi is typically 'preferred' by a 'device' because it is SLOWER than a 'hardwire'

2. Many people (myself included) do NOT use or want a milliwatt radio signal when a simple wire will connect BETTER - eg. wireless mouse and keyboard sitting on the desk IN FRONT OF the 'tower' and monitor

Why were your COMMERCIAL IT networks not Wi-Fi (except as a provision for the 'public's' use)?

Surely you are not claiming that Wi-Fi is as good as a Cat 5 cable ?

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 08/27/2016 5:52 AM

Surely you are not claiming that Wi-Fi is as good as a Cat 5 cable ?

Depending on the type of Wi-Fi used, they support good speeds:
802.11b offers up to 11 megabits per second (Mbps)
802.11a and 802.11g offer up to 54 Mbps
802.11n offers up to 300 Mbps
802.11ac offers up to 1 Gbps (1000 Mbps)

However, the performance of Wi-Fi networks practically never approach these theoretical maximums. 802.11b networks, for example, generally operate no faster than about 50% of theoretical peak, around 5.5 Mbps. Likewise, 802.11a and 802.11g networks generally run no faster than 20 Mbps. And even though 802.11n rates at 300 Mbps compared to wired Fast Ethernet at 100 Mbps, the Ethernet connection can often outperform 802.11n in real world usage.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Sorry, I forgot to include the source of that info: http://compnetworking.about.com/cs/wireless/f/wirelessspeed.htm

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By PitA on 08/27/2016 5:52 AM
Surely you are not claiming that Wi-Fi is as good as a Cat 5 cable ?

No. What I am saying is that Wi-Fi does not require hardware inside the space it will be used. Of course cable is faster but the OP indicated that the provider wants to install hardware for WI-Fi.

PitA
Posts: 1,416

Posted:

Larry,

For your curiosity and entertainment:

I once owned an IBM 'desktop' running DOS-3.

I 'upgraded' to Win-95.

Long story how, but, I corrupted the 'firmware/BIOS' (not proper terminology, but short and quick).

I called IBM and, after 2.5 hours, the kindly tech had me plug an extension phone line into the actual machine (bypassing the external modem) and re-loaded 30 megs in 4.1 seconds OVER AN ORDINARY PHONE LINE using a direct connection.

I had to place and pay for ($1.35 from memory) the long distance 'call' from my CPU to theirs.

This was circa 1995

The tech (must have been a slow boring day) then explained that the modem was simply designed to SLOW DOWN the connection speed so the 'big commercials' could sell the consumer unused band-width from the 'network' and help pay for the infrastructure WHICH NEEDED BUIDING ANYWAY to eliminate human clerks. The 'honey' was local connection numbers to 'intermediary' computers (ISPs)eliminating additional phone charges beyond local calls.

Now we all are hooked (pun intended).

Smile. It is free.

LetA (Nevada)
Posts: 2,679

Posted:

What is your communities goal? Do you want to provide "free' wi-fi to your gated community? This is also s piggy back way
if your ultimate intentions is to have surveillance cameras at select locations in your community.
Right now our MC and the BOD won't listen to reason when it would cost less than $2500 for a few
yagi style antennas and 2 repeates to bounce a wi-fi signal to both entry exit gates. The BOD wants
to spend $75 per month per gate for internet access for the surveillance system..

PatrickO1 (Michigan)
Posts: 13

Posted:

The goal is to reduce the spend per unit for internet access. Today if you want internet access you individually contract directly with Charter for the service. We do not have a property manager and the majority of the co-owners do not reside here. I looked into a central antenna approach years ago and the challenges were many -- not enough bandwidth to the antenna, installing repeaters on a number of individual units that are all privately owned, someone to maintain the system, etc. We are located in a small town in northern MI. Contractors of any type are not plentiful and often not reliable.

The Charter service offering is not a scam. They sell it for many different purposes such as apartment buildings. If we were not a site condo development and/or the majority of the co-owners resided here it would be much easier to deal with the installation issues.

BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002

Posted:

PatrickO1 Mich You respectfully may also want to also consider 3 further aspects if not done already :

1- Is there a 'supplier' in place already with some kind of exclusive contractual monopoly to end users on your site, howsoever in restraint of trade.

( The telecom industry in my jurisdiction long lost its legal battles to control undocumented or sloppy original physical lines from long past decades. But with government platforming they deluged many condo boards with ensnarement agreements. Telecom companies from time to time have here also litigated vigorously to keep monopolistic concessions in place where dubious bribes or inducements failed to revive monopolies ).

2 For whichever number of conversions and lacking a manager, is the board prepared to address having bonded supervision in place for whatever physical changes ?

Unit by unit access claimed needed in 2016 ? Letting quicky independent installers get their hands on common element kiosques is risky enough. Emergency access to fight pipe rupture in one unit is a different scenario. Unit by unit balcony reconstruction is also a different scenario.

But if somehow ( ? ) a physical access would today be needed inside each unit, how many owners would be comfortable with that possibly unsupervised & by whom ? Not me.

3 Are "bundled" services really cheaper ? LOTS of skepticism about that argument, and non resident owners may already have "bundles" from elsewhere. Or a healthy skepticism about claimed 'savings'

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here