Topic 'Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband' in forum 'Wireless Users Chat' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23233483 en Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:00:56 EDT Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:00:56 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23453002
This is why some customers do not understand why their wireless connection doesn't work the same as s previous cable or DSL connection they once had.

The problem with most wireless, fixed or not, the backbone/pipe feeding it is simply not comparable to your major wired services. Without paying * A LOT * more money to your wireless provider you'll likely never see that service level.

But in many places there is hope even with wireless. Fiber lit areas are popping up all over the country now. T1 prices are dropping considerably and bandwidth costs/options and capacities are looking better. Our company just secured a 100meg fiber pipe for our services and we are now able to provide a much better service.

Wireless technology has it's limits. It always comes back to $$$ anything is possible if you have it. People expect too much from most WISP's and do not understand. WISP's need to directly point out what they can and cannot provide. Don't fall victim to speedtest claims, they simply do not define what connection you'll be receiving.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23453002 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:07:09 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23445826
I currently pay $300 for a T1 equivalent, ie uncapped 1.5 Mbps up/down. I can watch Netflix/Youtube no problem.

You can get this same service on any WISP provided you have LOS and pay for the radio installation, about $6K in my case.

Prior, I had Hughes but that was a joke it never worked right even on the highest tiers and 2W commercial setup.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23445826 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:12:56 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23375980 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23375980 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:25:38 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23308454
1. Caps are only commonplace right now on 3G service (CDMA or HSPA). However you can get uncapped service for $70 from Sprint and T-Mobile.
2. There are some providers who have caps on their service that are fixed WISPs. This is mostly because bandwidth is expensive on their end as well.
3. When run correctly, wireless networks can put DSL (and sometimes even cable) to shame. Just depends on what equipment you're using.
4. Clear WiMAX is 51% owned by Sprint, who has their own Tier 1 backbone network and doesn't have to play ball with the cablecos if it doesn't want to. That said, by having cable companies in on the deal, Clear is able to (probably) get cheaper bandwidth to their towers, allowing for high speeds to the customer as long as signal levels are good (a big issue with Clear WiMAX unfortunately).
5. Wireless broadband costs on the ISP end vary MUCH less with subscriber distance, and are lower to start with, versus cable and fiber buildouts. So more rural areas get wireless, unless you're in an area where the incumbent telco or cableco is willing to spread ROI over the long term. Wireless last mile techs tend to (but don't always) have less capacity than a DSL or cable headend, and thus the lower capacity is passed onto the customer.

So yes, fiber beats wireless. Otherwise we'd have wireless backhauls as our national backbones. However it's surprising how many situations exist where wireless is actually "good enough" for Joe Average.

There are lower-end WISPs whose speeds max out at 2 Mbps, whose networks are overloaded and who haven't upgraded much of their equipment in the recent past. However others with the latest technology have no problem delivering a $35 1.5/512 connection, a $45 3/768 connection or a $60 5/2 connection out beyond where cable goes, and those connections are surprisingly decent for most activities.

Could things be better? Yes, but I'm not quite sure that tacking on a USF everywhere possible is going to make that work. I'm currently straddling the digital divide...I'm writing this post from a 22/5 Comcast connection in the middle of town (where Qwest only offers 5 Mbps DSL) however I spend my school breaks back home, $9000 (at $4 per foot) too far for cable. There I've got a choice between Sprint 3G (1.3/700), Verizon 3G (1000/500), AT&T 3G (1500/1000) and the local wireless operation (somewhere above 512/512 but not much due to tower congestion). Crossing my fingers hoping Verizon DSL will make it to me when they roll it out at the end of the month, though I'm sure it'll top out at 1 Mbps or maybe just 768 kbps. We'll see...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23308454 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:57:48 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23295132 said by seagreen:

Fixed wireless offers real broadband to many rural users, myself included. In many cases the speeds are excellent, the cost reasonable and I've never had capped service from a fixed wireless ISP (which is not to say they don't exist).

Sorry for the confusion on this. The original post was included within the Cricket thread. My comments were really focused more on wireless mobile broadband from companies like Cricket and others, and not as much about WISP service.

WISP caps will start appearing if wired broadband tries to make them commonplace, unless a WISP is trying to compete with wired providers and looking for a competitive advantage.

From every indication from the policymakers to the business plans of major providers who are now monetizing the usage cap and overlimit fee, even next generation wireless technology will continue to carry a usage cap in the 5-10GB range because most of the national carriers now see users exceeding that as revenue opportunities, whether the network is congested or not. We've already seen that with the near-universal 5GB cap on current service plans. I am privy to some recent focus group tests from carriers who are testing 10 and 20GB premium service tiers testing add-on pricing of $19.95 to $29.95 extra respectively, so their attitude seems to be $60 for 5GB, $80 for 10GB and $90 for 20GB will be with us for some time.

Clear could be a spoiler, but their part ownership by Comcast and Time Warner Cable will not allow them to be a significant competitor to either. Instead, you'll see cable companies offering Clear as a wireless optional add-on.

For rural America, we are pushing for USF fund reform, which means that portion of customer bills paid to help rural telephone customers enjoy reasonable levels of service needs to increasingly fund broadband projects that would never get built if left to the "free market" approach, just because Return on Investment would take too long. We just want to make sure rural America isn't left with overpriced and underperforming "good enough for them" slowest speed ADSL service for the next 30 years.

If I had my way, we'd be building out fiber networks to every home in America just as we wired electrical service to near every home decades ago. Yes, it would be expensive, but fiber is so scalable, it would be with us for a very long time to come. It also assures everyone has access at near equivalent speeds, instead of what we have now -- 1-3Mbps rural America speeds, 7Mbps suburban speeds, and far faster speeds in selected cities where fiber prevails.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23295132 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:03:58 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23251568
Two college kids using a lot more that just email too. If you are trying to watch movies, or do some hi def gaming, you may be right, this may not be for you.

We use an MBR1000 router from '»www.wirelessnwifi.com/', less than $200 and works flawlessly.

We RV travel 6-7 weeks a year, and the Sprint 597u with the router work out great on the road as well. We are on a business account and have exceeded slightly the 5G limit twice, but have never been charged. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23251568 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:50:17 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23244462
3G/Mobile/etc service is decent for some applications and horrible for others. I gotta admit youtube where I am works great on 3G and I can hit some pretty awesome speeds, but again the reliability, and bill associated with it, sucks.

For WISP, well myself as a sysadmin for a WISP can tell you, we offer speeds far superior to that of cable and DSL with a higher uptime. We don't openly offer a higher uptime, but it just so happens ours seems to work better. You will however, come across many many many wannabe WISPs, who don't know what they are doing. Sadly these seem to be cropping up everywhere more and more commonly, when some bonehead thinks that hooking a wireless AP up to some Linksys router, makes him a WISP. These guys tend to burn people and leave a real sour taste in client's mouths. These guys aren't true WISP operators by any means, and never should be.
--
Justin - DSLR resident grouch and Mr Negativity
TSI Fanboy - "Dontchya wish your 'net was hot like mine! Ohhh Dontchya!"
Have a nice day!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23244462 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:11:52 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23240399 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23240399 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:49:23 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23240322 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23240322 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:34:02 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23239847
I don't get your

quote:
but I am very surprised to see people wasting their time and energy on peer to peer services, gaming, or downloading enormous files

I use p2p(although not much), game daily, and download 4-5GB/week in large files.

You need to get your facts straight. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23239847 Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:36:07 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23237276 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23237276 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:29:04 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23236128 said by Dampier:

Folks, none of these wireless broadband services ... should ever really be considered a suitable replacement for wired broadband
you mean cellular broadband and satellite. fixed wireless, or WISP, is a very stable product (so long as you have a responsible provider).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23236128 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:47:09 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23235792
Fixed wireless offers real broadband to many rural users, myself included. In many cases the speeds are excellent, the cost reasonable and I've never had capped service from a fixed wireless ISP (which is not to say they don't exist).

YouTube videos play immediately and I've downloaded Linux distros and Windows7 RC with no problems whatsoever. You don't hear much about these ISPs because they are small and very local for the most part. But they are out there and they are serving those who would be ignored by telcos and cable companies.

Sure, it's not the 50 Mbps Fiber, but then many of us will NEVER likely see that unless we move. The cable and phone companies have no interest in serving rural customers.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23235792 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:13:38 EDT Re: Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23235672
Nothing else available, and never will be. This where WISP's and 3G fill in the blanks. WISP's in particular do a great job and service to rural communities, with speeds that often far exceed any DSL connection.

LTE and WiMax will be a game changer for rural areas. Two-Three years from now the landscape for broadband will be very different.

Clearwire is not the only game in town, there are many more players in that spectrum such as Digital Bridge and others.

Jim
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23235672 Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:46:04 EDT Wireless not a suitable replacement for wired broadband http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23233483
Additionally, with a 5GB usage cap on virtually all of these plans, you'd blow through your usage allowance pretty rapidly.

For rural folks, I wish I had a better answer, because many of you don't have cable modem access, and DSL service from the phone company, if you can get it, is probably speed rated between 1 and 3Mbps. It's why we fight so hard for better broadband service in this country.

When considering mobile broadband from Cricket, or anyone else, you should really expect to use the service for web browsing, e-mail, and light duty higher bandwidth services like short video clips and audio streams. If your needs go beyond that, no wireless broadband provider is going to truly meet your requirements at this point.
--
Phillip M. Dampier
Editor, Stop the Cap!
»stopthecap.com

[mod note: OT for the thread it was it so it has been moved to its own thread. Title edited to better reflect actual content]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Wireless-not-a-suitable-replacement-for-wired-broadband-23233483 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:35:10 EDT