CAT6 cables don't break that easily, however it is less flexible than CAT5.
What lemonade says is not true per se, however it is true that most all-in-one products are lower end products which often are less reliable (this basically only applies to the wireless part) If you require a reliable wireless connection investing in a decent AP might not be a bad idea. However, if you only use wireless to do some interwebbing on your laptop you shouldn't care
Besides, most cheap devices offer all options you require, they can filter on MAC address, they support NAT, and can therefor also block ports of choice. What "HTML redirect" is I wouldn't know, as HTML has nothing to do with networks or routers.
As for the hub sniffing things, it does no such thing, it is basically a multi port repeater. Signal comes in and goes out on all other ports. The hub has no clue what it forwards or to where. A switching hub (which most devices are nowadays) has some more intelligence and forwards to the right ports, lowering network load by a huge factor when there are more than 3 devices.
@easyrhino, an external IP isn't more "real" than an internal one. A hub doesn't do anything on IP level either, nor split anything. Perhaps it helps if you explain your situation, ie existing cabling, computers, location of devices.
Draw a map of your home and tell us where everything is located.
Originally Posted by Mussels
i'm going to answer rhinos post, and ignore others for now. sorry guys. I am technically Cisco certified as a network engineer, except that the course was cancelled due to lack of students so we never got the final certificate. I do understand all the various methods used by people for these setups, so if people have questions, i can answer them.
The 'advantage' is that users connected to the switch get IP addresses from the modem directly (assuming the modem gives out more than one local IP, meaning its really a router itself)
Otherwise, systems after the wireless would be on a seperate network, and features such as port forwarding would not work.
Cable router -> switch (cable routers IP range) -> wireless router -> any connected systems are from the wireless routers IP range.
a wireless access point would do the same task, without adding an extra IP range.
That is of course not true per se, I have a wireless AP downstairs doing close to nothing. It has router functionality and all which I don't use. It is connected to my network using the built in switch, since the internal DHCP server is disabled all DHCP requests go to the same DHCP server as the rest of the computers in my network. I can access anything connected wireless like any other machine.
You're assuming the internal network is connected to the WAN port of those devices, which has never been suggested.