So affordable! With my current monthly usage, my bill would only be about $1820 per month. So what's the downside?
Re: So affordable! Actually, Verizon is pretty good about hitting rural areas with LTE. Not my home area, but pretty much everyone else's, from what I've seen on my (continuing) travels.
Re: So affordable! Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Verizon committed to having LTE available everywhere they presently have coverage? They aren't opting to leave parts of the network with 3G-only coverage, even though 3G usually delivers acceptable performance out in rural areas where you aren't competing with as many people for the available forward link time-slots.
It's been a few months since I've wandered anywhere that 3G was the only available signal on Verizon's network, and I spend a fair amount of time out in the sticks of NEPA and Upstate NY. There are still total dead zones, but no 2G/3G-only zones like you come across with AT&T.
Re: So affordable! Yes, that's their plan, as I understand it. And it makes sense when you consider their plan to offer LTE-only handsets with VoLTE service. Any sites without LTE would essentially be nonexistent to those phones.
And their Alabama LTE coverage looked great on a recent trip down to the Florida panhandle. There was only one small area that I saw my phone jump to 3G, and we traveled through some very rural areas. I'd love to see what AT&T has. It wouldn't surprise me if they still have EDGE-only areas.
Re: So affordable!
said by iansltx:Hour east of Oklahoma City where my cattle ranch is.
I don't think Verizon has any 1x only native areas.
Re: So affordable!
said by LTE4LIFE:which MVNO? is this plan for data only devices like hotspots and usb dongles or are you tethering from a smartphone?
I am a rural home owner.. I had Verizon's HomeFusion.. I dropped them after they gave me a pardon on the ETF because they said I was in a fringe area. Which would have been fixed if their Cantenna had the option of plugging in a directional antenna as opposed to the omni-directional one they have inside the can.
I am now with a Sprint MVNO which gives me truly unlimited LTE for $80 a month with no fees, taxes, or a contract.
Re: So affordable! WirelessnWifi.com
I'm using Franklin U770 USB modem with a Cradlepoint MBR95. Works great..
They also sell a Sierra Wireless Hotspot device as well that you can use with their service.
Not sure if they would sell you that plan with a Smartphone or not.. Give them a call. (877) 642-9168
| |said by LTE4LIFE:It's competitive when your only other options are dial-up or satellite. Satellite has bigger caps but the latency is a killer and precludes the use of many applications. You aren't going to use this product if you want to stream Netflix on a regular basis but if you don't care about streaming video it's clearly a superior product to satellite, never mind dial-up.
I fail to see this being competitive..
Having had experience with satellite I would take LTE over it in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd take a 3G EVDO connection over satellite. Of course, I would never live somewhere that required me to make such a choice to begin with, but I guess that's one of the trade offs you make for living in God's Country.
10mhz 2x2 LTE offers a theoretical maximum of 75mbit/s of downstream bandwidth per sector. The figure in reality is quite a bit less, because the 75mbit/s figure is only achievable under perfect RF conditions that don't exist outside of the laboratory. Do you want to share a <75mbit/s with a few hundred people who have no data caps?
Data caps aren't the best solution for this limitation but they are the easiest to explain to consumers, the cheapest to implement, and they help the carrier to monetize the heavy users. Traffic shaping/QoS would be a way to do it and keep unlimited, but it's very expensive to deploy for an entity the size of AT&T or Verizon, plus you have to worry about offending the network neutrality crowd if you decide to prioritize low bandwidth interactive apps (VOIP, gaming, ssh, web browsing) over high bandwidth apps (video streaming, bulk downloads, etc.)
Wireless as a replacement? So stupid my bill would of been.
2013 - Jan, 126.66 GB, $1020.00
2013 - Feb, 356.07 GB, $3390.00
2013 - Mar, 233.16 GB, $2160.00
2013 - Apr, 236.83 GB, $2190.00
2013 - May, 565.25 GB, $5480.00
2013 - Jun, 457.93 GB, $4400.00
or $18640 for just 6 months.
Re: Meanwhile, The Cable Companies...
said by jseymour:Are they doing that to every outhouse and cornfield? Because that's what the telecoms used to do.
Providing service people want and need.
said by biochemistry:It's really only an option to some satellite internet users. I for one had a friend switch over from Wildblue to the VZW service. Cost was about the same but the experience was night and day. They didn't use much internet before so it was perfect but now since they can use the internet like normal people they are using more of it. Not sure if the 10gb will work for them anymore. DOH!
I am waiting for some of our infamous dslers to state what a great and viable alternative this is to DSL.
Not everybody streams I don't care about streaming video. I don't have any desire to watch movies on my computer and I have no streaming device connected to my TV since I barely have time to watch what I've DVR'ed each night anyway.
I might use 30 gigs a month at my business, and that's repairing computers with all the updates and such that they require. That's more than enough for your average browsing / email / facebook / gaming that most people want to do.
Streaming works entirely because not everyone uses it. If every ISP customer used 10x to 100x more bandwidth than they do now the current infrastructure would never hold up -- that's why TV is broadcasted to begin with. The people with average use patterns make it possible for the "power users" who hold up their monthly bandwidth as a badge of honor.
John M - Cranky network guy
Re: Holy RIPOFF Batman
said by buzz_4_20:AS was mentioned people that are in the boonies where their only option is Satellite Internet. This service is very competitive in price compared to the satellite service. And since it has less latency and actually costs less, it's a better option than satellite. Assuming you can still get a decent signal.
I've got software that downloads ~10g a day. (yes legally, no not for profit or as part of a "server")
How would anyone in their right mind want this service?
For me the cap on this is absurd.