thegeek Premium Member join:2008-02-21 right here |
thegeek
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 9:51 am
Better than SatelliteThe only problem is getting the signal in a rural area. You'd think Verizon would wait to deploy this till there was actual coverage in rural areas. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
2 recommendations |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:06 am
Re: Better than Satellitebetter than satellite? Kind of like saying herpes is better than AIDS. At least satellite doesn't charge $10 per GB overage. | |
|
| | morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
morbo
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:16 am
Re: Better than Satellitesaid by 88615298:Kind of like saying herpes is better than AIDS. Herpes is better than AIDS. | |
|
| | | 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
1 recommendation |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:26 am
Re: Better than Satellitesaid by morbo:said by 88615298:Kind of like saying herpes is better than AIDS. Herpes is better than AIDS. I wouldn't want either. That's the point | |
|
| | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 11:57 am
Re: Better than SatelliteBut given a "gun to your head" choice? This certainly isn't an offering I would go for if I wanted to watch days upon days of "Downfall" parody videos on YouTube. But, if I manage to own that cabin in the mountains I've always wanted some day, and spend 4 or so months a year up there, this would be a good offering for keeping up with my business online as opposed to dropping off the face of the earth for 25% of the year. Oh, and since I've had neither Herpes or Aids, I can't attest to either. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Better than Satellitesaid by N3OGH:Oh, and since I've had neither Herpes or Aids, I can't attest to either. If you have cold sore like 80% of the population in this country does, you have Herpes Simplex 1. | |
|
| | | | |
to 88615298
That's the idea that you wouldn't want either, broadband options are abysmal in rural areas, but I sure would prefer LTE with low latency and strict caps over satelite with high latency and low caps.
It's the better of two evils. | |
|
| | |
Ms Murphy to 88615298
Anon
2012-Mar-6 4:16 pm
to 88615298
That comparison was inappropriate. | |
|
|
2 recommendations |
to thegeek
said by thegeek:The only problem is getting the signal in a rural area. You'd think Verizon would wait to deploy this till there was actual coverage in rural areas. Apparently you haven't been to Birmingham, AL. We have a huge amount of rural, vast nothing covered with rural 4G LTE, places where people can't even get a landline. | |
|
| |
to thegeek
I live in a rural area outside of OKC and I regularly get 40Mbit/sec downstream on my Verizon LTE USB modem. By comparison, my AT&T Uverse is only 18Mbit/sec. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 4:25 pm
Re: Better than SatelliteYou can hit your cap and run up massive overages very quickly that way..... | |
|
| NYC Girl Premium Member join:2007-02-04 Bronx, NY |
to thegeek
said by thegeek:The only problem is getting the signal in a rural area. You'd think Verizon would wait to deploy this till there was actual coverage in rural areas. Question: is this the same as FIOS or are they referring to LTE as in cell / smartphone wireless Internet? Because the article mentions "residential LTE". Just curious. | |
|
| | Asus RT-AC68 Ubiquiti NSM5
|
Re: Better than Satellitesaid by NYC Girl:Question: is this the same as FIOS or are they referring to LTE as in cell / smartphone wireless Internet? Because the article mentions "residential LTE". Just curious. It is not in any way related to FIOS, although they may try to brand it that way. It's just a way to leverage the mobile broadband LTE towers and backhaul links they've already installed to serve fixed location residential locations that don't have other options. | |
|
| | | NYC Girl Premium Member join:2007-02-04 Bronx, NY |
NYC Girl
Premium Member
2012-Mar-9 6:44 am
Re: Better than SatelliteThank you!! | |
|
| | VZT @verizon.net |
to NYC Girl
LTE (long term evolution) doesn't really mean anything. but is wireless internet | |
|
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Birmingham, Dallas, and Nashvilleare "rural" huh? | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:05 am
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and NashvilleExactly. People in Nashville already have a choice of U-verse or Comcast both of which are better than this crap. | |
|
| | |
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and Nashvillethat's not always true. I think it means "NASHVILLE MARKETS". I can name plenty of places in NASHVILLE that are outside the limits of cable, and definately outside the limits of DSL. I lived there, I know what's available. DSL is limited by distance from the C/O. Take a road like Old Hickory Blvd. Alot of that road isnt covered by DSL (too far out), and Comcast never extended their lines. so saying people in Nashville have a choice...Sometimes they dont! NASHVILLE MARKET encompasses a large area. I'm 45 miles from Nashville now, but I'm still in the "NASHVILLE MARKET". We even have TWO Verizon LTE TOWERS here. One is in town, the other is in a hay field 9 miles away. said by 88615298:Exactly. People in Nashville already have a choice of U-verse or Comcast both of which are better than this crap. | |
|
| mix join:2002-03-19 Romeo, MI |
to Jim_in_VA
"and the company hopes to have the service fully deployed to every LTE market by the end of the year." Think about it, it puts Clear out of business. | |
|
| | |
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and NashvilleNot just Clear but satellite providers as well, In reality customers In rural areas that can access both services will see the bottom line that they get more GB for less at a faster speed on Verizon. Not many will care about overage charges until after they hit them.
Satellite broadband providers needs to "step it up" and get rid of there caps or bump it to some where along the lines of ATT DSL cap 150 GB minimum to really compete and crush the soon to be onslaught of LTE offerings. | |
|
| | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2012-Mar-6 1:25 pm
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and Nashvillesaid by buddahbless:Not just Clear but satellite providers as well, How many satellite users are there in areas that are covered by Verizon's LTE footprint? Satellite is realistically the last option for broadband before resorting to dialup. If you have fiber, cable, or dsl available you're going to go with that before satellite and probably LTE just because of costs and possible caps. Until Verizon offers LTE in real rural areas, satellite is in no danger of real competition. | |
|
| | | |
to buddahbless
said by buddahbless:Not just Clear but satellite providers as well, In reality customers In rural areas that can access both services will see the bottom line that they get more GB for less at a faster speed on Verizon. Not many will care about overage charges until after they hit them.
Satellite broadband providers needs to "step it up" and get rid of there caps or bump it to some where along the lines of ATT DSL cap 150 GB minimum to really compete and crush the soon to be onslaught of LTE offerings. Clear will always have a market. Smaller companies like those are so specialized that they will find a niche. | |
|
| | |
CLEAR User to mix
Anon
2012-Mar-6 11:12 am
to mix
Clear is "unlimited" ... will provide similar speeds ... $50 (MUCH Cheaper). Of course this depends on the area ... but that argument is the same for Verizon too. My wife's T-Bolt use to get 20Mbs downloads on Speedtest via Verizon LTE with an average of 15 easy. 8 months later I am averaging 5. Clear does throttle ... but Verizon will eventually have to also. Verizon probably has more LTE coverage however. Verizon will have much better penetration on their 700Mz too. Mind you ... their antennae is outside. If Clear had an outside version ... speeds would be better too. Long story short ... Clear would still be VERY attractive. ... Now if Clear can just earn enough money to stay running ... | |
|
| | | (Software) pfSense Asus RT-AC68 Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and NashvilleI think clearwire is dead, but they providing outside antenna's probably would have been the only thing that could have saved them, with the bad frequencies they have for building penetration 2.5ghz they should have thought that out more.
On paper clearwire is more attractive than verizon lte because of the lack of low caps and high overages. | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 1:54 pm
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and NashvilleExactly. None of Clear's modems have external antenna ports so service largely sucks. I was lucky to see 2 or 3Mb with the modem on my desk but after putting up a directional antenna I reliably see 12-13Mb from Clear's WiMax along with sub 50ms latency. And it's only $50 for unlimited service (I hit 96GB last month with no FAP).
Clear should have sourced HW vendors to at least have the ports on the modems and coordinate with customers to obtain external antennas if service sucked. | |
|
| | |
to mix
Not necessarily. Clear costs less and doesn't have caps. Then again, their service is crappier. | |
|
| | | skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Mar-7 7:23 am
Re: Birmingham, Dallas, and NashvilleOverall Clear suckiness depends on where you are. In my area my VZW MiFi isn't nearly as fast as my Clear puck. And while VZW offers only 5GB/mo, Clear is unlimited, for about the same price. | |
|
banditws6Shrinking Time and Distance Premium Member join:2001-08-18 Frisco, TX |
It's the capsI've heard rumors that VZW and ATT want to push home subscribers to LTE-based services like this, so they don't have to spend money on FiOS/U-verse rollouts. The problem with using wireless as a replacement for wireline home broadband is the ridiculous caps. I consider my household to be relatively light on bandwidth at about 40 GB per month, but in order to get the same meager allowance -- if VZW even offers it -- I'd have to pay triple what I'm paying Time Warner today. It's just not feasible.
For rural residents, yeah, I would definitely take this over satellite, but how far into truly "rural" areas does LTE coverage even exist? | |
|
|
Beans
Anon
2012-Mar-6 10:08 am
DSLI will stick to my slooooowww 3 meg DSL line for $30 per month with no cap on my aging copper. Dear Slowski, Can you adopt me into the DSL Family? Together our speeds will be slow as ever. Our copper may be aging but it is still reliable to use, unlike that rabbit we call cable, who likes to take breaks every so often. Signed, Beans | |
|
knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
Wow, I almost had a nanosecond of concernUntil I saw the prices and caps. I do compete with Verizon in some markets, good to hear that they are still as greedy as ever. Goes back to work..... | |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:10 am
why get thisOk why wouldn't I just get a 4G phone from Verizon take advantage of their double data deal( 20 GB for $80 )add the $20 tethering option which includes 2 GB. For $100 I could get 22 GB a month vs 10 GB for $60. | |
|
| ••••••••• |
88615298 |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:15 am
So for rural people to have somehwat REAL internetThis product $120 a month for 30 GB Exede $130 for 25 GB Hughesnet Business $190 850 MB daily cap
So only $440 a month for 80 GB and you have to have 3 services. | |
|
| •••• |
|
en103
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:15 am
If it's rural enough...Its easy money for VZW - no 'real' competition from satellite, and they're probably deploying LTE anyways for a national build (replacement) of 1x/EVDO. | |
|
| ••• |
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
WellIm paying $60 for 20gb from millenicom that uses verizons 3g network. It works just fine for me. | |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 10:40 am
basically only good for e-mail and maybe facebookand other basic things for $60 a month? Besides if I want to check e-mail and facebook and that other basic stuff I can already do that on my smartphone. So what is the point of this? | |
|
| •••••••• |
|
The way these CEOs talk...you'd think they actually did any of the work.
Yep, by the end of the year... "national" coverage--one more broadband "option"... ought to look really great on those coverage maps... yes-sir-ee-bob! | |
|
| •••••• |
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Mar-6 11:21 am
I'll take MillenicomI don't expect VZ to keep rates this high for long, they're reasonable for the rollout, allowing them to improve things later.
In the meanwhile, their quiet competitor isn't satellite, but Millenicom, who gives twice the cap for the same $60. | |
|
| ••• |
|
I can't get it."company hopes to have the service fully deployed to every LTE market by the end of the year."... which for me means I can't get this at all!! I can only get crappy 3G, with the nearest 4G area about an hour and a half drive east of my local. So for all the power this has, it is nothing for me! | |
|
| |
Re: I can't get it.True but by 2014 they plan to have their entire 3G footprint covered by LTE, it's just like the initial rollout of 4G, it's not available everywhere, but if you get 3G now eventually you should be covered by LTE | |
|
rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Local WISPS are a better deal...My parents live in rural Missouri and pay $50/month with a local WISP. Although it used to be pretty poor (512Kbps down, 256Kbps up with lots of packet loss), the local company recently replaced the radio equipment. Now they can watch You Tube videos and my guess is they get 1-2Mbps down. Not sure on the up but I don't think there are any caps because this service is sold as a permanent Internet connection, not some mobile pile with low caps.
In my opinion, Verizon is crazy with a 10GB cap. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Mar-6 12:14 pm
Re: Local WISPS are a better deal...WISPs would be a great option if they were everywhere. Very few people in my area that can't get cable/DSL can get WISP service. | |
|
| | rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO |
Re: Local WISPS are a better deal...But clearly it demonstrates the big boys margin call is high enough that it's leaving room for competitors. If Verizon and AT&T would flip their spectrum to LTE-only and put decent caps in place (100GB for starters), $50/month for fast LTE would be competitive with cable. A 10GB cap is ridiculous they won't steal any DSL or cable customers. But I guess that isn't what they are trying to do. They are preying on those without any competition. Sad. | |
|
agrall join:2000-09-29 Saint Paul, MN |
agrall
Member
2012-Mar-6 12:19 pm
Blech...Price this and cap this so that it can actually compete with Comcast and I'm there... | |
|
| |
Re: Blech...I sure isn't a filet, more like a sirloin. However, the majority of you seem to douse it with shit sauce every chance you get. | |
|
| |
JasonOD to agrall
Anon
2012-Mar-6 1:00 pm
to agrall
said by agrall:Price this and cap this so that it can actually compete with Comcast and I'm there... Will never happen. I'm sure Comcast and the other cableco's made sure of it as part of the spectrum deal with VZ. | |
|
|
Go Home
Anon
2012-Mar-6 1:10 pm
Flush the Can?????What a joke! Overpriced and not worth it!!!! | |
|
| ••• |
skeechanAi Otsukaholic Premium Member join:2012-01-26 AA169|170 |
skeechan
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 1:57 pm
With an external antenna it could be greatBut again, $10/GB for overages? WTF?
Then again this isn't a substitute for cable, DSL or fiber HSI. It's an alternative to satellite, dial up or nothing in which case I would happily take a 10 or 20GB cap as opposed to nothing. | |
|
| |
verizonlteda
Anon
2012-Mar-6 2:27 pm
Re: With an external antenna it could be greatYes it is in rural aeras. vzw beats some cable speeds easy i get 20-30 down/ 10-15 up your cable get that ? i bet most don't. | |
|
|
fixed wirelessMy question is house is going to work. Is it going to be the cantenna via lmr 400 to inside all in one (modem/router) or some other variant. It would be nice if it was just as I described for individuals who already have something setup and who are the ones who are actually going to take advantage of this offering. Let me know if anyone happens to know. | |
|
| Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Re: fixed wirelessIt will likely be like a WISP, that is ... a antenna/radio combination that delivers via Cat5 to your computer or a router. For $200 my guess it includes a LTE radio module along with the antenna inside that "bucket" | |
|
| | CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picture Premium Member join:2011-08-11 NYC |
Re: fixed wirelessWhatever it is, I bet there will soon be jammers available from China. | |
|
|
Sat and actuariesThe reason this is priced this way is for a number of reasons:
1. Most likely the node saturation calculations for the cells were determined by some actuary on nodes which were probably cell phones before this was ever envisioned. Now thinks of this as a cellphone with no 3G component (which VZW wants). This is nirvana for them because they are charging a huge premium here.
2. People cross-shopping this will be satellite folks for now, so this is opportunistic AND they can test fringe areas to improve their 4G networks. Think they have static endpoints--think of the valuable data they can recover from that for network coverage/planning.
3. They cannot afford to saturate the nascent 4G networks since they are having so many problems w/ 4G (I have a book of them), and they need to get as many people onto the network as possible.
4. Once they figure out the uptake, they can increase density w/ new AL/Siemens cells which can operate on the 700 OR the new AWS spectrum they just purchased which are field programmable. In this case they can flip prem users onto different spectrum's as needed according to mobile demand.
5. The risk is low, because the initial capex investment is squarely in the purchasers hands ($200).
6. They can deploy microcells in the house so that cell users can voraciously suck up those new family plans sure to come. Because the typical user backends via wire...these folks are double dipping..(LTE to LTE potentially). Maybe they add this to the family plan. Or the microcell runs a 3G POP and backhauls to 4G which is nirvana because now you have a 3G device off the network.
7. I see them including in the family plan any general 4G + some margin loving per device charge so that one can use cantenna, ipad, cells and just chew up your credit card. IMHO this is the reason why these guys love wireless...
8. This is a way to gain more revenue from rural areas where device concentration may be lower.
Price will fall over time and they may not double dip on data charges (they shouldnt like say AT&T) if they are smart because that will stimulate more mindless consumption and more revenues.
The big thing for them will be to find a way to monetize their upcoming VoD platforms without crashing the network. I would probably say they do download over night and it's cheaper than on demand (say $5 vs $10). | |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-6 4:20 pm
PointlessFor now, if you're in that position, just get an LTE phone, use the unlimited loophole, and tether away! Truly unlimited internet at up to 73mbps! | |
|
|
|