dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3285
share rss forum feed


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Metrocast Commun..

Verizon as a WISP

With their "HomeFusion" Verizon is now a WISP. Speeds are great but cost and caps suck ... but they are now a competitor in fixed wireless. See them as a challenge?
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
As long as no one realizes they are now a fixed wireless operator and continue the liberties allowed to mobile wireless in the FCC.s neutrality law.

wirelessdog

join:2008-07-15
Queen Anne, MD
kudos:1
Too early to tell. Around here, if you run three speed tests back to back the speeds lock down to 4megs too.

ctech99

join:2010-02-16
reply to Jim_in_VA
A small challenge. Probably loose a few customers to them, but shouldn't make a huge dent around here, I hope. Coverage is so spotty with them already.

I hope that no caps, better pricing plans, better service, and a live human for local support will win over VZW. Just gotta keep on your toes and stay current with speeds.


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to wirelessdog
said by wirelessdog:

Too early to tell. Around here, if you run three speed tests back to back the speeds lock down to 4megs too.

Sounds like throttling to me.

The point is, Verizon will operate their fixed wireless product under the FCC rules reserved for mobile wireless operators with extensive liberties of caps, throttling, web access limitations.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
I see them as a small threat. Isn't that product still under a heavy usage limit? With very high per gig fees after the fact?
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
$60 for 10 GB
$90 for 20 GB
$120 for 30 GB

$10 per 1 GB over you plan cap.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
Yeah,
That's a rip off. Are they trying to compete with satellite and that's it? Or are people that stupid?
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
Verizon admits it's not a replacement for wired broadband, rather like satellite where nothing else works. WISPs can make a killing.

staregazer

join:2006-12-15
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to Jim_in_VA
AT&T is looking at doing the same thing soon. Before long all the wireless carriers will offer it and probably put a dent on existing and new customers. Heck, we had more people signing up for satellite broadband before these new faster services came on board than our wisp even though we advertised and told them the benefits. Sometimes it is hard to beat name recognition. Once they go with satellite they have money tied up in it and under contract even if they wanted to switch to us after they got it and they don't know how great our service was compared to it.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
WHT is right though. They will get CAF funding to build it. Then run it as a WISP without the regulations a WISP has to follow for Net neutrality, because it's not a Fixed point network. But rather a cellular network. Unless they some how divey up their IPs and have separate management policies for each "division".

It's a pretty neat racket really
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Metrocast Commun..
regarding "Net Neutrality" it appears to be a cloudy regulation that offers many loopholes to remedy network congestion and security.

reference: »www.telecommediatechlaw.com/broa···nternet/
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
It's been cloudy since day one. But there are more regs on WISPs and landlines, than cellular to begin with.

We got lumped in to the fixed/landline category, while cellular has less restrictive definitions of bandwidth management techniques.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Metrocast Commun..

1 edit
not sure why this regulation is a problem for a WISP. You can let the customer access any website (Netflix, Hulu) they want. You are not restricting them at all to what is accessed.. BUT ... there is a limit to how much data can be consumed with the plan you offer. That is controlling network congestion and does not violate the rule. IMO
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to gunther_01
said by gunther_01:

WHT is right though. They will get CAF funding to build it. Then run it as a WISP without the regulations a WISP has to follow for Net neutrality, because it's not a Fixed point network.

It still uses fixed (location) clients, just like.a WISP.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
Bandwidth regulation is not a violation of Net neutrality. QOS policies that dictate which applications goes first is, or can be, if construed to interfere with an application, or "block" it.

The idea is neutral policies. It's when you pick or choose what has priority it's an issue. And HAS to be listed on your website to be in compliance among other things.

I'm sure you know some people utilize throttling, or QOS to regulate usage based on GB. That has to be listed in your NN disclosure to your customers. ESPECIALLY if it targets an application specifically. Because you are no longer being "neutral" about your throttling policy.

Even if you do nothing more that regulate maximum speeds, you have to disclose that to my knowledge as part of the "rules"
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to WHT
said by WHT:

said by gunther_01:

WHT is right though. They will get CAF funding to build it. Then run it as a WISP without the regulations a WISP has to follow for Net neutrality, because it's not a Fixed point network.

It still uses fixed (location) clients, just like.a WISP.

I know that. But I bet they will claim it to be a non-fixed "network" because it runs off of the cellular tower that has a majority of mobile clients. Plus the client can move the device within their home, or take it with them on the road.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
not with HomeFusion. It has a fixed antenna, connected to a router, and is not mobile
--
... need help? »evdo-tips.com/


tigerpaw509

join:2011-01-19
reply to Jim_in_VA
Its a cell phone minus the phone.I avg 50gig a month so
this wouldnt be for the average user.

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
reply to Jim_in_VA
said by Jim_in_VA:

not with HomeFusion. It has a fixed antenna, connected to a router, and is not mobile

Ah, my bad. Thought it was another mobile device type of system. I'm sure they will try and figure something out to try and avoid "something" though.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL
But either way $60 a month for 10GB is awful.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net


Jim_in_VA

join:2004-07-11
Cobbs Creek, VA
kudos:4
agree there, atrocious price and caps: »www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/home···/main.do


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
reply to gunther_01
It requires similar installation effort as a WISP and satellite TV dish, reported to be the size of a five gallon paint bucket. Picture and discussion here.
»Verizon Home Fusion LTE Service Arrives


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

2 edits
reply to gunther_01
Verizon gives them double the bucket for first month. I think it was the Verizon CEO that said last week to the effect (not a direct quote - will have to look for it), "we give them double for first month to let them be comfortable with the high speed experience...we give them faster speeds to encourage them to download more".

Here's how it will go...

The first bill arrives for $120 (not including the $200 installation charge) for the 30 GB plan and they used 60 GB without going over - remember, they get double the data for the first month.

The second bill arrives for $420 for the extra 30 GB they used at $10 per GB. The rants from other forums complain of even higher bills where there are several kids in high school and internet ready entertainment centers downloading iTunes, Netflix, and Hulu. Something is not going to play very nice with HD Netflix happy households.

Two years ago, 80% of my subs used less then 10 GB per month, the other 20% less than 30. Now you'll see 80% using over well over 40 GB per month, and some over 100 GB.

Carriers have been touting out that 90% of users used less than something like 3 GB per month. I couldn't understand how they came up with that number - Then it dawned on me they were using only handset usage, not a family of four using Home Fusion as their primary internet connection.

I did a cost comparison tripping point to at what point in time a subscriber will realize the monetary monthly point where there can ditch Home Fusion and start coming out ahead with a WISP. It included Verizons install fee, ETF and overage charges, and a WISP's install fee.

Well...can't find it at the moment; but first pass was 7 months and recalculated a few things and came out with 5 months.


dongato17
VIP
join:2000-07-28
Atlanta, GA
Supposedly the average on ATT/VZ DSL is around 20-25GB per month but that number is trending up obviously and has a lot of people who haven't found services like Netflix. Those people will find Netflix when they finally buy their next TV or DVD player.

I'm not saying that this can't be a threat to unlicensed WISPs, but as it stands now it is not a serious threat for all the reasons mentioned already. When I do a mobile speed test on VZ LTE I get 30Mbps down and 15Mbps up. Impressive, yes, but I'm can't test more than once per month for fear of using up my usage allotment.

What you see here instead are indications that AT&T wants to give up uverse and landlines and focus on mobile wireless services. IMO that creates an even greater opportunity for WISPs. There will be a rather large gap between mobile, tightly capped service and home services that need larger caps. WISPs are already filling that need and have proven that it works - we just need to keep moving ahead with innovative technology and business models.

-Hal
--
Harold Bledsoe


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
That 30 Mbps down for LTE is going to drop like the glide angle of a brick.

In my 3G area, I got 1.5 during the day and 2 plus at night...a year ago. Now I'm lucky to see 300 Kbps during day and evening.


dongato17
VIP
join:2000-07-28
Atlanta, GA
Absolutely true. They know that too which is the reason for the aggressive usage caps.
--
Harold Bledsoe


Inssomniak
The Glitch
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:2
reply to WHT
I recently blew 36 megs down on LTE with a new phone 5. Almost peed myself! Just the other day in downtown nowhere I blew 17 megabit on 3G HSPA+!

--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5
Doesn't Apple Store have an anti-pee app?


WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

1 edit
reply to dongato17
said by dongato17:

What you see here instead are indications that AT&T wants to give up uverse and landlines and focus on mobile wireless services.

While the AT&T and Verizon have admitted the uVerse/DSL and FIOS greenfield deployment party is over, they won't abandon any successful broadband in place.

Verizon not only found a way to get out from under their copper plant, but to make money on it with their reverse Morris trust prank...but the joke isn't funny anymore. So carriers are finding a new way to get out from under copper by lobbying state legislatures to allow them to be dropped as a "carrier of last resort". It's a pretty good bet that anyone past the third load coil is going to wake up with no musical dial tone some morning.
/added »AT&T Highlights Plan to Hang up on POTS, DSL

I'm predicting the carriers will start up their own seamless VoIP service and ATA/in-house server (you rent monthly, of course) that will emulate a multi-line POTS service.