dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
60

Cookiepuss
@172.242.86.x

3 recommendations

Cookiepuss

Anon

Fixed LTE

The fact that he's even entertaining the notion of fixed LTE after AT&T has unveiled their barely competitive with satellite plans is kind of worrying.

It's a well written speech, I'll definitely give him that, but even the slightest token action to actually promote a fair broadband market would be worth so much more.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

5 recommendations

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Fixed-LTE is a joke. If the data caps were reasonable, like 100gb, 250gb then sure its a decent solution for those with nothing.

With VZ's current fixed LTE prices I would pay $2000 in overages for 200gb of usage.

Something will need to be worked out.
sparek
join:2002-06-10
united state

sparek to Cookiepuss

Member

to Cookiepuss
Fixed LTE could be a real solution. I know it costs money to run new lines and new fiber lines to under served areas, and wireless towers can cover that more efficiently. But something will have to be done to the caps and pricing to make this more competitive.

Fixed LTE with 50GB at $40/mo would seem to be a reasonable medium.

I know wireless bandwidth isn't free for these wireless companies, but how much pure profit are they making at that $10 per 1 GB? That's something the FCC and FTC should look into.

Also, whatever happened to the whitespace broadband effort? All that unused spectrum from the analog to digital TV conversion? That would seem to be a market that community and smaller local telephone or telecommunication groups could take advantage of.
elefante72
join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

elefante72

Member

+1

802.22 and whitespace. The low-cost answer and no spectrum vig. It almost seems to easy for the last mile problem.

»www.nict.go.jp/en/press/ ··· 3-1.html
78036364 (banned)
join:2014-05-06
USA

78036364 (banned) to Zenit_IIfx

Member

to Zenit_IIfx
said by Zenit_IIfx:

Fixed-LTE is a joke. If the data caps were reasonable, like 100gb, 250gb then sure its a decent solution for those with nothing.

With VZ's current fixed LTE prices I would pay $2000 in overages for 200gb of usage.

Something will need to be worked out.

Technically your overages would be $1700 but you point is made.

Well when fixed LTE uses just 10 MHz of spectrum the same spectrum is also being used by cell phones then no you're not getting 250 GB caps. I'd say you're about 4 years out minimum from being able to have these caps increased significantly.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

1 recommendation

buzz_4_20 to Zenit_IIfx

Member

to Zenit_IIfx
Fixed LTE is quite a joke.
And current pricing doesn't do it any favors.

There are some good point to point systems, but they use microwaves. and are quite spendy.
xthepeoplesx
join:2013-10-21

xthepeoplesx to sparek

Member

to sparek
Verizon? 4 BILLION this last quarter.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

4 recommendations

Skippy25 to sparek

Member

to sparek
Wireless will never be a solution for broadband in the place of wired.

If they where able to get electrical lines, gas lines or phones lines to a place then they are able to get a fiber line and provide real broadband and that is the standard that should be used.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA

1 recommendation

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

I agree entirely with you. It was profitable to build out telephone service to these areas, so why not broadband via FTTH?

Wireless is a hack, a temporary solution for use on mobiles or as a connection of last resort.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt to buzz_4_20

Premium Member

to buzz_4_20
said by buzz_4_20:

Fixed LTE is quite a joke.
And current pricing doesn't do it any favors.

There are some good point to point systems, but they use microwaves. and are quite spendy.

I thought Fixed LTE competes with Satellite Internet? Not wireline internet. Fixed LTE is a good alternative to satellite internet service.
sparek
join:2002-06-10
united state

sparek to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
I agree that wired connections are always going to have an advantage. I'm just saying that if you have a sparsely populated area, which is most rural areas, fixed LTE or whitespace wireless broadband, could be more cost effective than a wired connection for broadband companies.

I don't see fixed LTE or wireless ever competing with wired connections in terms of monthly bandwidth caps. But I do think these could be a bit more reasonable. 30 to 50GB per month at a reasonable price is adequate for those areas.

Believe it or not, there are actually people that don't stream Netflix and watch youtube or other videos for entertainment every night. 250GB of bandwidth isn't necessary for everybody. But these 5 to 10GB (at a pretty penny too) for current wireless offerings is a little lackluster. Especially when you tie in necessary operating system updates and other application updates.

The majority of people I know, some of which are actually still using dialup (don't ask me how), I just don't think speed is that much of an importance to them. They're on dialup, they don't stream Netflix, they just want the websites that they visit to load in a reasonable amount of time. And for that purpose, a 768kbps DSL and a 30Mbps cable connection, is going to load the website in about the same amount of time. It's not the speed that is a detriment, it's the monthly bandwidth cap. I have a hard time recommending a $50 for 5GB per month plan for them, because that 5GB can be used up fairly quickly. I would rather see a 768kbps with 50GB monthly cap than a 25Mbps 5GB cap for these individuals.
sparek

sparek to elefante72

Member

to elefante72
How close do you think any of this is to coming to the states?

There are some local smaller (non-national) ISPs around here that can't lay fiber or cable in the territory where these larger national ISPs have control, would whitespace broadband be an option for them? They could set a tower up near the corner of where their controlling territory ends and allow whitespace wireless broadband to these other individuals. Individuals that these larger national broadband companies have chosen to ignore.

Not sure what the costs involved in setting this up would be. Not sure if it would be legal. But since whitespace is suppose to be unregulated, as long as the tower is set on local ISP controlled land and fed with local ISP fiber as a backhaul, might that work?

Will be interesting to see how this technology takes off.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to sparek

Member

to sparek
Regardless, as I stated if electricity water phone or any other service has been feed there, then fiber should be required.
sparek
join:2002-06-10
united state

sparek

Member

Well, I kind of agree (I guess, "required" is the word I'm hung up on).

I'm just saying that some form of wireless LTE with acceptable and meaningful monthly caps, would be easier for the broadband companies (I think... maybe not?).

There was a local ISP around here that got a very large government grant to run fiber throughout their entire service area, and they did. For all the talk about the employment and lack of jobs throughout this country, if the government would take some of that money, find these service areas that are not covered by any form of broadband and use a similar program to feed them fiber and get this country wired for the 21st century, I would think that would be a win-win. So that's definitely something that could be looked at.

But I keep pointing to the broadbandmap.gov website and the government has no idea how unwired parts of this country truly are.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Sure it would be easier. It would be even more easy for them to do absolutely nothing and just charge everyone $75 a month for providing no services at all.

However, they make billions every quarter (not year) and can afford to roll it out if forced to.

GreedyEffs
@50.170.133.x

GreedyEffs to sparek

Anon

to sparek
They specifically designed the regulations to prevent that. All the regulations are bad - except the ones they need to keep us from opening our own competing non-BS services. Yeah, they're not libertarian in the least f***ing way. Communists by another name want to keep their monopoly on power.

Zenit_IIfx
The system is the solution
Premium Member
join:2012-05-07
Purcellville, VA
·Comcast XFINITY

Zenit_IIfx

Premium Member

Not even Communists. They are making a huge profit on the service, not a total loss. (Although the telcos do have the mismanagement style of a soviet bureaucracy - "Please wait 10 years for broadband....if Chairman McAdam allows it!")

They are more industry robber baron monopolist banker types that want EVERY penny of everyone's money.