GH
join:2006-01-01
New Baltimore, MI | I would have been intersted in the LTE Home Service I currently live in a rural area where the only internet option other than dial up is a company that provide wireless service. $70 bucks a month for 368 kb up and 1500 kb down. This provider rarely delivers the advertised speeds either. Home LTE would have been like a dream come true. |
|
 thegeekPremium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2 | But you'd have to be able to get an LTE signal for it to work. LTE won't be in rural areas for quite some time. |
|
| reply to GH
You know its only upto speeds on fixed wireless and dsl you never will get the advertised speed. People needs to start learning everything is upto speeds you NEVER will get the advertised speeds. |
|
|
|
| I beg to differ, I get more then the advertised speeds on my FiOS connection 24/7/365. Its just the people on the legacy networks that don't get there advertised speeds most of the time especially during peak evening hours. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
| reply to GH
I would have to disagree because I have FTTH and I dont get anywhere near my 7 meg package I only get 6.5 out 7 meg.
This is from my isp "We set the policers to 5 meg plus 30% which is what we are required to run at on our Ultra High Speed Package" "Most ISP providers throttle their customers download/upload speeds to less than a ¼ of their overall bandwidth speeds." |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | reply to flashcore
said by flashcore:I beg to differ, I get more then the advertised speeds on my FiOS connection 24/7/365.
Fiber to the home is not only better it's in a different league than other technologies.
If the U. S. Of A. had a real national broadband plan it's goal would be to bring the availability of affordable fiber to 95%+ of our homes. We can't even imagine all the ways such infrastructure could improve our lives in the future but I won't be surprised if it is close to the difference made by either electricity or indoor plumbing. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to thegeek
Then what's Verizon's LTE In Rural America program for?  |
|
| PR I expect, My DSL costs Me $22.83 a month and I'm not interested in paying more than that for LaTE and never seen in Rural Area Territory. |
|
| reply to thegeek
hell it wont 30 minutes outside of international city for a long time. |
|
 CCG
@knology.com | reply to Sammer
The cantenna is a small LTE tower.
It would have given rural areas true high speed net and unmatched cell services. Each cantenna acts like a small cell tower. I would have loved it because hughes net stinks.
Also FTTH is not as great as you think. After 13 years in the communications and cable industry the best is FTTC (Fiber to the curb)pipeline and then coax to the home.
FTTH has limets because of cost and size.
Coax not so much.
If Verizon had done it I would have changed everything for them. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to zoom314
Must be nice to spend $22.83 on internet service... |
|
jgilles
join:2010-10-06
River Falls, WI | reply to thegeek
I too would have been very very very interested in LTE home service.
I actually just got an LTE signal at my home in a semi-rural area -- western WI, about 35 minutes east of St Paul, MN. Verizon recently expanded LTE coverage in the Minneapolis/St Paul area and now it reaches farther out of the metro. I agree that it will take a while for Verizon to roll out service to far-out rural areas, but they keep expanding coverage around metros and it is starting to edge out into rural areas...it won't take that long.
I have no other good options, no DSL (AT&T doesn't care and hasn't expanded their DSL footprint outside of town in ages), no cable, no WISP. Only sat or cell broadband.
So I am just waiting for them to offer service with a reasonable cap and I will sign up immediately. 5GB is way too low for a service of that speed. 10GB is also unreasonable for a primary Internet connection at home, especially at $80/month. |
|
