Can LTE Be Rural America's Internet Savior? Filling in the Rural Coverage Gaps...at $10 Per Gigabyte A few months ago, while visiting my girlfriend's parents' farm, I hear a sound -- a sound I hadn't heard in probably ten years. It was the sound of dialup Internet. Not only that, but it's 28.8kbit. Now I don't mind this since when I stay there, it's good to get away from technology. But they do, and so do millions of other Americans. My parents live in a small town a few miles from the nearest cable company, and about 1 mile from where DSL ends on "the other side of the road" from AT&T. I went on to talk with them about high-speed Internet, and how I have Verizon FiOS, and how insanely fast it is. I explained that DSL is distance limited and they probably won't ever see an upgrade. The next time I visited I brought my Pantech UML290 LTE stick. They have a metal roof, which further exacerbates the problem. I get 1-2 bars of 3G in just the right place using Verizon. AT&T has very poor service, and offers them a credit monthly because of it. They will be leaving them soon. I was able to run a speedtest and hit approximately 1 megabit down, which was flying compared to their dial-up. I let them use my laptop to browse and look at picture heavy sites for the first time. So naturally they asked what can do they do to get permanent service at their home? They have heard enough from neighbors about how horrible satellite is, but is 3G or 4G (when it comes) worth it? Do they have to use a USB stick? Is it cost prohibitive? I had read about a possible tie-up with DirecTV to offer home LTE service. I thought-great, they already have DTV, this will be easy when it comes out. It never came, but with Verizon's recently announced 'HomeFusion' LTE service, there may finally be hope for them. I'm a big spectrum nerd. I like to read about what companies hold what spectrum, tower backhaul, etc. Though a bit dated, Phone Scoop has some good reading on the 700mhz and AWS auctions here and here. Spectrum Holdings and Service OfferingsThe two big spectrum hoarders I'm looking at here are Verizon and AT&T. Even after giving some spectrum to T-mobile, AT&T has the ability to offer LTE nationwide with its Qualcomm spectrum. Verizon doesn't need the current deal with SpectrumCo to rollout LTE nationwide. Not to be left out, Sprint has some opportunities with its 800MHz spectrum. The real advantage of LTE comes when it is used at lower frequencies, for higher building penetration. The graphics to the right highlight how much an area can improve changing to the lower frequency. For this comparison, Im leaving T-mobile out. In my opinion they just don't have enough spectrum, capital, and coverage to offer something reliable to rural America at this point in time. Pretty much everyone is familiar with the USB and other devices offered by Sprint, AT&T, and Verizon. Lets look at the pricing. • Sprint: Sprint offers plans in 3,5,6, and 12GB flavors, with the latter two being 3G/4G WiMax. Prices begin at $34.99 and top out at $79.99, plus overages. Current 4G coverage is limited and doesnt always work well indoors. They currently offer no fixed Internet options. • AT&T: AT&T offers 5GB of 4G/4GLTE for $50.00 per month with various other plans for tablets. They also do not offer a fixed residential internet option. • Verizon: Verizon offers LTE plans of 2,5, and 10GB plus overages. The prices are $30,$50, and $80, but the $30 plan is only available for Tablets and Netbooks. The service that I truly believe makes Verizon a leader in the home wireless space in America is the announcement earlier this month of their Home Fusion fixed service. The product's base tier will offer 10GB for $60 a month, though there's also $90 (20 GB cap) and $120 (30 GB plan) variants -- all with $10 per gigabyte overages. Now, I realize that most people scoff at this extremely low cap and how stupid and greedy Verizon is. Try to look at it from the opposite point of view. If you currently have a 3G card (if you are lucky in some places), you most likely have a 5GB cap, maybe unlimited in some cases. You probably have to plug it in to one PC only, or use a connection-sharing device or hotspot. You cant control your own router, cant change very many settings. You may have mounted your own antenna and spent quite a bit of your own money just trying to get one or two bars of service. Would you want a much faster home internet service in exchange for this? Yes, 10GB is low. I can burn through that in a few hours on FiOS. The main issue here is that Americans need Internet access, one step at a time. To make this really work, Verizon, AT&T, and others need to make sure this service gets out to the places that need it, not just major cities like Dallas and Birmingham. This article is part of an effort to solicit content from the Broadband Reports community. If you'd like to participate, please contact us.
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | No
Low caps make LTE a totally useless technology. | |
|  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: No said by pnh102:Low caps make LTE a totally useless technology. It isn't useless if you avoid watching video online. You will be able to do things the rural users really NEED - like banking, shopping, software updates, research, etc that is nearly impossible with dial-up. Watching online movies & TV is not something everyone(or anyone NEEDS). | |
|  |  |  | | Re: No Software updates are huge. I can check my bank info on my phone. Shopping is just as important TV and Movies online, in other words it's not. It's great technology being crippled in order to line wallets. Quit defending bull shit for once -- Core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | EVGA GTX 570 | Antec 750w PSU | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: No I live in a rural area of NW Ohio, and cannot get DSL or Cable. I have an Alltel card, plugged into a Cradlepoint router. This allows me to work from home, it allows my 11 year to access her math book and do other research for school. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: No I hope you're able to keep it as long as possible. I assume you're in an area that was acquired by VZW (as I am) rather than divested and dumped on AT&T since your Alltel card still works.
Hang onto it. I let go of my unlimited plan earlier this month after years of wrangling and a speed of 40Kb (on a good day). We went without internet for a month last year and it was incredibly stressful, trying to find a free wifi spot in town for our daughter to do her homework, process her college information...and then risk paying a bill online and hope you don't get your account hacked.
In this day and age, it's next to impossible for kids to do well in school without reliable internet access. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: No Uh no that's a Waldorf school. That's not a typical school. I gather you aren't familiar with their philosophy on teaching, children, and life. It is very relaxed, back to basics and back to nature, one might say hippy dippy style of teaching. They purposefully do not want technology in their schools. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Well, *I* was "dumped" on AT&T. Sure my *ALLTEL* card doesn't still work. I now have an HSPA+ card, on the same Alltel plan ($36/month unlimited), with speeds ranging from 2-6mbps. Sometimes a bit higher even. And with coverage far, far better than what Alltel ever had since AT&T has aggressively expanded the network in my area (western Montana).
Sounds like your experience with transition from Alltel sucked, and yet you still use words that imply "at least I didn't end up on AT&T". Why is this attitude so prevalent? AT&T's simply poured money into the Alltel divested markets, and greatly enhanced speeds, reliability, and coverage (though it was kinda bad at launch since there was no roaming and some capacity issues, that was all quickly resolved, and now they cover so many places in the state that have never seen a cell signal before).
Whereas Verizon basically integrated the Alltel gear, removed some redundancies (for some people this is better, some worse), and did not much else.
Why are you glad you ended up on Verizon? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: No AT&T hasn't deployed 3G in my area. We still get their EDGE network...and the signal is weak. In fact, the entire county didn't get 3G from AT&T until LAST YEAR. The had the gall to open a shiny new store in the mall selling smartphones people couldn't even use on 3G. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  Markie join:2003-07-26 Kalispell, MT | Re: No At first I thought you said entire country, LOL, it's amazing the difference an "r" makes . See, to me it appears you'd have been much better off if your Alltel account HAD ended up on AT&T. All of the Alltel coverage was converted to 3G+ (HSPA+, though not IP backhaul in most areas yet), and AT&T has been putting a lot of money into expansion in the former Alltel areas. So, I still don't really understand how your experience with AT&T as it is means that you're glad Verizon got Alltel in your area?
AT&T probably would have been a much better experience, at least after a bit. When AT&T first took over Alltel, there were some major issues here. But Verizon (ex-Alltel) customers, like yourself, had very similar issues at first - and in many cases they're still ongoing. What's ironic in that, is Verizon had a much simpler transition. Oddly enough, Atlantic Tele-Network ("new Alltel") and Element Mobile customers have had the most problems of all - and they had almost no work to do as they were still a completely independent CDMA provider. Splitting one network into four parts (and converting AT&T's part to UMTS while also keeping CDMA up) wasn't an easy task. But, of the providers who got parts of Alltel, only AT&T has - as of yet - invested into network upgrades and massive expansions in former Alltel territory. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | No, we're still on Alltell. Did not get switched to anyone. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| said by tman852:Software updates are huge. I can bring a fresh Windows 7 install to current with about 400-600MB of downloads. Keep in mind that those downloads include large updates (Service Packs) that only happen RARELY.
Software updates in of themselves are not enough to render capped LTE "useless". In any case, if you view the service as "useless" nobody is forcing you to sign up for it, are they? | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: No Factor in anti virus updates (MSE for example?), Office product updates, and numerous other software packages besides the install itself and it adds up. It's not totally useless, but it's certainly crippled. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: No Office updates amount to no more more than a few hundred MB and they only have to be performed ONCE. Virus definition files are usually measured in dozens of MB; program updates may be larger but those are infrequent.
I set up computers for a living and I've never seen "updates" on a brand new computer amount to more than a couple hundred MB. Even if you toss in Office and a handful of other programs you aren't going to reach more than one or two GB. Unless someone is trying to run a computer repair shop off their capped LTE connection I'm not seeing the problem. Even at that you could download some of the major updates (every MSFT service pack has standalone installers) beforehand and reuse them over and over again. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: No What about for a family of 4 PCs, an Xbox, and several smart phone updates? Ooooops, we're over the cap this month kids! | |
|
 |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | said by Linklist:It isn't useless if you avoid watching video online. You will be able to do things the rural users really NEED - like banking, shopping, software updates, research, etc that is nearly impossible with dial-up. Watching online movies & TV is not something everyone(or anyone NEEDS). Software updates can easily max out any uselessly low-capped Internet connection. I would imagine that the same thing could be said about game downloads too.
But this just begs my original point, what's the point in paying for a very expensive Internet connection? This is the same reasoning behind the lack of buy-in with regards to 3G or 4G connected tablet devices. -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: No said by pnh102:But this just begs my original point, what's the point in paying for a very expensive Internet connection? Because nothing else but satellite & dial-up is available. One is too slow for today's Internet & the other is even more expensive. | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by pnh102:said by Linklist:It isn't useless if you avoid watching video online. You will be able to do things the rural users really NEED - like banking, shopping, software updates, research, etc that is nearly impossible with dial-up. Watching online movies & TV is not something everyone(or anyone NEEDS). Software updates can easily max out any uselessly low-capped Internet connection. I would imagine that the same thing could be said about game downloads too. What software updates are YOU doing? They don't come anywhere near maxing out a multi-gigabyte cap.
If you need to download new distros often, like .iso files of Windows or Linux, you don't want to be on a cell connection anyway. You can always get the DVDs mailed to you for a fee.
The average "heavy user" on cell networks uses 2-3GB/month AT MOST.
pnh102 had it exactly right. Don't watch hours of video, or trade torrents of video or warez, over an LTE connection, and you'll be fine. Don't run streaming radio 24x7 either. You'll be able to do everything else -- email, websites, online transactions, shopping, research, ... just fine.
I'm not a gamer but I hear tell of gigabyte updates online. Don't do these! Get yourself a game console and buy some freakin' games.
You are not entitled to uncapped Internet video, or multi-gigabyte game downloads, nor are you entitled to call these wireless offerings "worthless" if you can't. If you have to have your video, get satellite TV, order DVDs and play them, or go to the movie theater. If you have to have your games, buy a console. | |
|  |  |  |  |  cramer join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC kudos:7 | Re: No When you measure "heavy use" at smartphones, maybe. When you look at the usage for a household, 10GB is very restrictive. Software updates for even a few computers can eat way into that limit. (remember, there's more to it than just the updates. there's the catalogs of what to update, anti-virus definititions, etc.) Also, "windows update" is not the only source of application updates. [google apps are very aggressive at keeping themselves updated.]
Games... sure, Steam is an easy target. However, most consoles these days download entire game titles and have sizable additional online content (including patches, which may not be optional.) Plus, the console itself requires frequent updates -- refusing to connect to their respective networks if you don't update them, and newer games may require the system updates. Not to forget, online multiplayer games. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  jcremin join:2009-12-22 Siren, WI kudos:2 | Re: No said by cramer:When you look at the usage for a household, 10GB is very restrictive. Software updates for even a few computers can eat way into that limit. (remember, there's more to it than just the updates. there's the catalogs of what to update, anti-virus definititions, etc.) Also, "windows update" is not the only source of application updates. [google apps are very aggressive at keeping themselves updated.] Based on what? How are you coming to the conclusion that 10GB is "restrictive" for more than a small percentage of the households? I will tell you that only around 10% of my customers (I run a small ISP, without caps, and most customers are on connections around 1 meg) go over 10 gigs in a month. That means that 90% use less than 10 gigs in a month. 95% use less than 20 gigs, and 98% use less than 100 gigs. | |
|
 |  |  |  rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium join:2004-10-03 Grove City, PA | It's interesting seeing your sig then reading your post. Shoring up wireless infrastructure to handle multiple users means adding towers and/or increasing backhauls. While wired, these days especially, is more along the lines of changing a card in a box.
I think you might be living in the 05 mindset still. Now everyone is using netflix, xbox, ect. and things are holding up. Cable providers still add HD channels to their lineups via aging copper. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·MegaPath
·Verizon FiOS
| people getting plans with low caps would have to customize their browsers to not even load video ads. a task which a lot of customers probably will neglect doing. i browse websites and constantly see flash videos playing, and sometimes, actual embedded videos that auto play. | |
|  |  |  decifal join:2007-03-10 Bon Aqua, TN kudos:1 Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
| ThrowDemsOut.. Why in the hell would you need LTE if your not going to watch video or utilize the bandwidth? Seriously, wtf do you need it for.. 3g can handle surfing, and moderate downloads.. LTE has been abused by the greedy's S.O.B's known as Verizon and ATT. I'm hoping sprint doesn't join, but everyone seems to hold hands when it comes to orgy's against the consumer.. | |
|  |  |  | | I'd be careful with a family full of software updates... | |
|  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | And since when did watching videos == movies and TV? Research falls under documentaries, movies etc. I don't think your judgement on what everyone "needs", is a fair judgement.
We don't need the Internet. We could do completely without. That's a straw man argument and you know it. That's quite a bit of bandwidth for just mundane tasks. Why not just cap all users at a certain level of bandwidth instead of giving users 5-12 megabits down, with stupid caps? -- Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|  |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: No said by The Limit:We don't need the Internet. We could do completely without. That's a straw man argument and you know it. That's quite a bit of bandwidth for just mundane tasks. Why not just cap all users at a certain level of bandwidth instead of giving users 5-12 megabits down, with stupid caps? Well technically you don't need electricity or indoor plumbing or a car. We have Amish people in our area that have been living that way for 200 years. | |
|  |  |  |  |  The LimitPremium join:2007-09-25 Greensboro, NC kudos:2 | Re: No That's my point. "Don't need this" garbage needs to go. We don't need anything short of food, water, and shelter. Why is it that one person has define the "needs" of all? Some people make their livelihood on the net, and that's no one's business to judge who needs what. The people should decide for themselves, the problem is that we have allowed companies to make those decisions, for whatever reason, and now we are in the doodoo. -- Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda | |
|
 |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by Linklist:said by pnh102:Low caps make LTE a totally useless technology. It isn't useless if you avoid watching video online. You will be able to do things the rural users really NEED - like banking, shopping, software updates, research, etc that is nearly impossible with dial-up. Watching online movies & TV is not something everyone(or anyone NEEDS). you can bank, pay bills, check you e-mail, weather, sports scores etc etc from a smartphone. So basically yes $80 for 10 GB is useless for a PC. And $10 per GB overage is outrageous no matter how you slice it. when at&t and Verizon can show me that it even costs 1/10th that to provide an extra GB of data then I might see a need for such overages. Until then what they are charging for overage should be criminal. | |
|
 |  BenPremium join:2007-06-17 Glen Carbon, IL | said by pnh102:Low caps make LTE a totally useless technology. I'm going to play devil's advocate here. It's possible the cellular sites may not have enough backhaul capacity to support users using much more than 10GB/mo. While the cost of actually transmitting a GB is ridiculously low, the CapEx is significant, and increasing the backhaul capacity isn't inexpensive. No company will do it for free. They also likely decided the amount of time to "make back" the money spent on CapEx, combined with the lower profit margins of a more reasonable price, wasn't "good enough."
Wireless connectivity isn't like POTS, a technology that has seen few changes (relatively speaking) over the years. So the time frame for making the money back on the investment has to be shorter. 3G equipment was likely very expensive, but it wasn't in use 10 years ago. Now they are moving to 4G/LTE. So, accepting a lower profit margin and a return on investment that takes 10+ years is simply not acceptable.
Also, if satellite was an alternative (if you can call it that), these LTE offerings actually don't look that bad.
However, I will agree the low caps do make it difficult to justify purchasing the service if you have cable, or even DSL at home.
Like you, I also wish the service was either cheaper or offered more for the same money, but sometimes you have to take a step back and look at reality.
As with any new product or service, it also makes sense for a company to charge so they glean the most profit from customers who either want the fastest of the fast, latest and greatest thing, or the desperate customer who will jump ship to a service that is only slightly better. | |
|  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | Re: No I'll concede that there might be some technical limitations, but here is where I differ:
1. If it was entirely technical considerations preventing more use than X GB a month, then throttling, not overages, would be the more logical way to address that.
2. At the end of the day the user doesn't care what is on the other end of his Internet connection. It could be a hamster on a wheel, fiber optic cable, copper or anything, just as long as it is fast and it works.
As long as all LTE offerings continue to be "graced" with low caps and high overages, regardless of the reason or motivation, then there's no way they can replace wired broadband connections, or, in my own extremist interpretation of things, be useful for anything at all.
I mean, look at this nonsense... one user burned through his cap in 2 hours. »online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142···hirdNews -- "Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  |  |  |  BenPremium join:2007-06-17 Glen Carbon, IL | Re: No said by pnh102:I'll concede that there might be some technical limitations, but here is where I differ:
1. If it was entirely technical considerations preventing more use than X GB a month, then throttling, not overages, would be the more logical way to address that. Fair enough. I've often thought caps weren't a good thing, at least from the consumer point of view. If gasoline were rationed in such a way that everyone could only drive X number of miles per month, there would still be rush hour. Though of course companies will try to make money. However, the occasional story of John Doe racking up thousands of dollars in overages, even if due to his negligence or not fully understanding his data plan, is not good PR for any affected company.
Perhaps one thing Verizon could have done to make the offering a little better, would be to say, only apply traffic that takes place between say, 8AM to Midnight against the cap, if they keep the cap at all. The Midnight to 8AM window would then be great for large downloads such as Windows Service packs, Steam games, and so on.
Awhile back when I upgraded my primary hard drive, I must have downloaded 100+ GB that weekend because of reinstalling many Steam games. If I were in a rural area with poor Internet connectivity, I'm not sure what I would have done. I'm guessing such folks probably don't use Steam, instead purchasing DVDs, and saving patches so they don't have to download them again later. | |
|  |  |  |  | | "in my own extremist interpretation of things, be useful for anything at all."
I agree with everything you say except the above. Certainly this is nothing that those with any wireline options should be considering and I agree that we are not anywhere near being able to treat wireless as a viable alternative to wireline infrastructure. I think the drying up of wireline investment and the attempt to sell these services as alternatives is saddling this country with second rate communications.
As far as the above sentence, though, people who are starving take the best crumbs they can get. I don't like it, this isn't very good and it has much more limited usefulness than what you are used to but it is better than every option that most of the rural have nots face. They need to consider carefully as a $30 for 2GB or $50 for 5GB mobile plan might be better for them. For those who find 5GB too limiting spending $10 more for double is the best they will get in a market that is charging $10/GB overages. This undercuts the millenicom plans that are offered on the verizon network. If people have sprint coverage, sprint or millenicom sprint network options might be a better choice.
There are rural wisps out there trying to do a good job but they can be very variable. Some are quality offerings, some are even more limited, slower and less reliable with higher up front costs. Certainly people should look into rural wisps available in their area but they need to consider carefully as it isn't always a sure bet as to which way to go. I wish the small wisps all the best and want to see them thrive but I couldn't, in good conscience, suggest that everyone should automatically go with a local wisp as it isn't necessarily the best option for all consumers. If consumers make the choice to sacrifice some performance and cost to avoid doing business with ATT or verizon though, more power to them. | |
|
 |  |  | | This is why we need a government option who will do it without regard to ROI. This needs to be done in the rural areas. | |
|  |  |  |  See 7 replies to this post |
 |  | | not for rural america. I'd rather have 10gb i can fully consume, than 28.8k dial-up | |
|  |  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 |  |  |  Mele20Premium join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI kudos:4 | said by pnh102:Low caps make LTE a totally useless technology. Why? I have cable broadband since 2001. I use NetMeter and in the past two years with the exception of two months my total usage each month averaged about 10GB. I'm on the computer about ten hours a day and I disagree that software upgrades are large. Mine are not. The only things that eat bandwidth is Bittorrent and streaming movies and perhaps music. No one has to do either. 10GB is perfectly sufficient for ordinary use of the internet even with more than one person in the household as long as doing P2P and streaming movies is avoided. (I don't know what caused mine to be so unusually high for for May 2010 and May 2011 as I didn't download movies, I don't stream movies either). -- When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson | |
|  |  |  See 19 replies to this post |
 jjoshuaPremium join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ kudos:3 | Greedy Unless it costs a lot of $ for the ISP to get data to their antenna site, then charging $10/gig and imposing low caps is nothing but greed, especially when we're talking about under-served areas or when the service is being subsidized by taxpayers. | |
|  |  See 7 replies to this post | |
 | | A very familiar story. RonPaul, your girlfriend's parents' situation is a LOT like my own.
When we moved from Oakland County, MI to a rural section of Jackson County, MI, I knew we'd be broadband challenged. Since I'd never used anything but dialup I was happy to hear Wildblue would reach us with faster speeds. We bit the bullet, paid for the equipment installation and were good to go.
That ended three months later.
I got acquainted with the Fair Access Policy after Wildblue lopped 25% off our cap because they'd oversold the bird. We have a steel-frame house and radio can't get through the walls so I'd stream the radio, which burned through our allowance faster than I could have imagined. It got worse when our kids became teens and discovered Youtube. I became "netcop," unplugging the modem at night, demanding no downloading, no streaming, etc. It was the most obnoxious, time-wasting and frustrating experiences ever.
10GB caps are NOT enough for families. Single and married couples who aren't home during the daytime probably wouldn't have a problem (unless they want to use Netflix), but satellite and LTE with low caps are more pain than anything if you have kids. Somebody will have to monitor useage and trying to figure out WHO downloaded that HD movie or how you earned a $40 overage charge is next to impossible.
Former satellite users or those of us who were dependant on wireless for home internet have a VERY bad taste for caps. We know what they are and they're despised for a reason. It's why I gave the Frontier technician the third degree when we finally got DSL last October.
NOTE: I am just three miles north of I-94, the main route between Detroit and Chicago. There's a HUGE amount of fiber under that interstate; one poster in Detroit told me he gets a faster ping to Chicago than he does to nearby Southfield, MI. As close as I am to so much fiber, there's no cable provider (and probably never will be). When ISPs decide to expand rather than squabble over existing territory and satisfy the immediate stockholder's demands, that's when things could change. I'm not holding my breath. | |
|  |  See 8 replies to this post | |
 | | Ban the caps If you think about video in that limited of spectrum then I can see the point some of you are making. The reality is video is much more than watching movies. Consider online classes, how to videos, and several other ways that video is used for education. Heck I have learned a great deal about home improvement from installing wood floors and trim to repairing a dryer all from video. The low data caps are a way for the companies to bleed consumers. | |
|  Mr Matt join:2008-01-29 Eustis, FL kudos:1 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
1 edit | There is a data reseller that might solve your problem. Check out Millenicom. They are a reseller that offers wireless broadband service via the Sprint or the Verizon network with no contract required. They are currently coming out with some new plans. If you can get a satisfactory signal from a Sprint tower you might first consider Milleincom's Sprint "unlimited plan" first since unlimited really means 50 Gb per month. Millenicom offers a hotspot plan using the Verizon network which offers 10GB of LTE, with an additional 10GB of 3G or 20Gb of 3G if LTE is not available. New plans are coming very soon. I forgot to mention I use their old Verizon 3G Plan when traveling. I have recommended their service to others that cannot get DSL or Cable and get a good signal from Verizon or Sprint Wireless. | |
|  |  | | Caps Capped at any speed, isn't a useable Internet alternative. Been there, done that.
$10 per GB? Might as well have Hughes... | |
|  |  axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC | Re: Caps I believe that it is usable, for some. How long would it take to hit 1GB on a 28.8 modem? We're not talking about replacing 5Mbit connections, we're talking about people without broadband.
I'm really impressed that Republican candidate Ron Paul took the time to help out his parents with their internet problems! | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·DigitalPath
| Re: Caps Well, I 'lived' with satellite for 6 very long years. I'm the only user at my home and I hit my cap every single month. I never streamed Netflix, and knew to only look at one news video. Basically, could you live without ever watching a 2-5 minute video. Ever.
Make the cap 20-30 GB for verified rural users. These companies have the bandwidth. Yes, they do. | |
|  |  |  cramer join:2007-04-10 Raleigh, NC kudos:7 | approx. 81 hours. A pegged modem for ~4 days would cross the 1GB line. (and yes, I've done this many times. Long long ago.) | |
|
 |  | | Actually it is very possible to stay under 10GB, you just can't use Netflix or Hulu. Here is a Screenshot of the past year from my firewall. Everything prior to October was without Netflix and Hulu. We used to average around 5GB a month with multiple people checking emails, playing games, and surfing the web. Even with moderate streaming usage we could stay under 20GB a month with a little bit of caution on usage. Obviously the big spike in December for downloading BF3 and patching it (10GB+) I would need to take my pc elsewhere to download games, or simply have bought the boxed copy and saved a ton of bandwidth. Also I update several pcs with windows updates on those numbers. Even a heavy month of updates is only going to run you ~200MB per pc. If you have to start from scratch you can just grab the offline installer for the latest service pack when you're on a different connection.

I fully agree with the original article that anyone who is on dial-up and doesn't have other choices will feel like this is the best thing since sliced bread. I'd bet a lot of them will stay under 10GB without issue because their internet habits will not drastically change. If you have been on dialup for many years you probably only visit a few select sites because that is all the more you could do. At 3KBps those people probably only generate a couple hundered megabytes a month and surely aren't downloading a ton of things because they don't want to wait for it. It would take you approx 9 hours just to generate 100MB of traffic. So even if they used the internet for 90 hours a month they would have to increase their usage 10 fold just to get to the 10GB cap. | |
|
 | | dial up still alive... in Upstate NY.
although at (bbbzzzzz diiiinnnng buzzzz brtttttt boingg...sssshhhhhhht BBBRRRRRRRTTT....Zzzzzzzzt) 52K speeds ..

Hey, when Comcast decides to pull the last mile of a county road, then some will be able to get cable. Until then, folks with Satellite and dialup see LTE as better than dialup. They will keep dish for TV, but LTE for email/web.
I'd have a cabin if LTE was there...(4-5 bars VZW) but its not. Although, drive a few and I see Rogers! (hey Canada, eh, why you on my side of da St lawrence, eh?) -- Splat | |
|  firephotoFacts hurtPremium join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA | 100 years ago in rural America Do you remember the tales when the country was being wired for electricity?
The tales of how they went around to the rural areas and offer disposable batteries instead. As long as you didn't use too much electricity from the batteries you were ok but even if you used them up you could just buy more. It kind of was like unlimited electricity because even though one battery was only good for so long you could always buy a seemingly endless supply of batteries. This was just rural living so it was totally expected that these simple people would only need just a little bit of electricity, unlike the people in the city that needed that unlimited supply of electricity. -- Say no to JAMS! | |
|  |  | | Re: 100 years ago in rural America Yes... remember when it took the government to force them to deliver to all people and they whined and complained that it just wasn't economically feasible and yet they still survive today?
Remember when they received huge incentives to deliver phone service too and even though they complained and said it just wasn't economically feasible they did it and are still making billions today? We can even use this one for as early as 10 years ago, however, they took the incentives and didn't deliver a damn thing. | |
|
 me1212 join:2008-11-20 Pleasant Hill, MO | I still say local rural WISPs are the way to go For rural wireless home/fixed internet. Generally the local WISPs that serve rural areas are better than the wireless from big telcos. Right now there are several using wimax,3g and such to deliver wireless broadband to rural areas, lte could possibly boost that. Heck the one I use offers a better deal that century link does for our part of the world, well for the situation(VoIP) my family is in anyway. I don't know maybe its just me but if wireless is to be the bringer of rural broadband I dont think the telcos are, or should with how they operate with wireless, going to be what does it. Local WISPs or *maybe* even like what dish was talking about, tv companies doing fixed lte. | |
|  |  See 6 replies to this post | |
 |  khohhof join:2001-08-01 Glen Ellyn, IL | see if there is a WISP in their area There is an alternative to satellite and mobile broadband, it's called Fixed Wireless Broadband, and the service providers are called WISPs. They tend to be local or regional, and can be hard to find except by word-of-mouth.
Check out the WISPA website at »www.wispa.org or the national broadband map at »www.broadbandmap.gov. Your state may have an individual broadband map. Keep in mind that many ISPs are still not on the govt maps.
Mobile broadband is just that, mobile. Even if Verizon wants to attach a 5-gallon bucket to your house and call it home service, the service parameters are still what you'd expect from a mobile service, which assumes WiFi offload at home, at work, etc.
ViaSat has a new satellite and a new service called Exede, unfortunately like mobile broadband it has unreasonably low usage caps and high overusage fees, plus the unavoidably high latency associated with relaying off a satellite in geostationary orbit.
If there is no WISP in their area, they should find a WISP nearby and contact them to see if they would expand their coverage. It would help to round up some neighbors who would also be interested in service. | |
|  Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| There is no money in Rural. To make this really work, Verizon, AT&T, and others need to make sure this service gets out to the places that need it, not just major cities like Dallas and Birmingham. Yes, they need to get out into the rural areas, but here in lies the problem... ISP's see NO MONEY in rural Internet.
With low population densities, large distances to cover hence high network costs, ISP's seem to believe they can't get the returns in rural areas, as they can possibly make in the cities.
Despite that city users are spoilt for choice, and some cities are over-saturated with Internet connectivity, ISP's will always have a hard-on for city markets, and continue to hold the perception that rural markets are not worth going into.
Until ISP's are coerced to service rural USA, they'll keep to their cash cow city markets.  | |
|  |  See 14 replies to this post | |
 mech1164I'll Be Back join:2001-11-19 Lodi, NJ | Run first As much as i'm anathema to it. It will take federal regulation to stop this. Basically you need to have it stipulated that if you are providing service to a said region (aka Vz north east). You have to provide your service to the fringe rural parts of your system first. Then it can be run to the bigger cities after that. If they balk at it do an antitrust investigation on them also. Threaten then to break them up again as they did with ATT. Will we see that happen. Better chance of being struck by lightning twice on a sunny day before our bought and sold congress gets a spine for it. | |
|  |  See 16 replies to this post | |
 | | Just out of curiosity... I have setup one of the Verizon shared connects just recently for my buddy's auto shop. I was able to get all devices to work including the emission testing machine that must be connected wirelessly to the router. Speedtest would put it at 12mb down and 5mb up.
However, once I connected this his VOIP phones would not work. Nothing I did would change that, which included making specific firewall rules for them. The solution was to put his phones back on his DSL, which was the whole problem to begin with which warranted us to try this.
Ultimately my (and the VOIP support tech) conclusion was that VOIP is being specifically blocked by Verizon. So I am curious if any of you that have used this type device have experienced the same thing?
I have not taken this up with the Verizon employee that has provided it to us yet, but based on a lot of my testing it appears to be pretty clear that they are blocking VOIP on it. | |
|  BiggA join:2005-11-23 EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| This article says nothing There's nothing in here we don't already know. People out that far are probably on Verizon, and if they have been for a while, they would have grandfathered unlimited data plans. By summer 2013, Verizon will be at 100% LTE coverage. Root the phone, connect up the mobile hotspot, and voila!, unlimited 70mbps internet.
In the case of the author's GF's parents, couldn't they use wifi to bridge the signal from someone's house who can get DSL?
All that being said, real solutions do need to be put into place. We have technology like DOCSIS that works, we just need to get it out there. State and local governments need to grow a pair and set up the franchise agreements as all-or-nothing, so that the cablecos can't pick and choose where they want to wire. | |
|  |  | | Re: This article says nothing I think a lot of you are missing the point. Most of these people don't have access to a WISP, know what a "grandfathered" data plan is, much less how to root a phone. A wireless bridge isn't possible when you have 10-100+ acres in between houses.
They just want faster internet. | |
|  |  |  bn1221 join:2009-04-29 Cortland, NY | Re: This article says nothing And in Ithaca they offer Clarity as a wisp (3by3 up to 10by10). Issue is most places they serve the cable and DSL peopl also serve. I'd like to see someone run an OC3 to podunk and offer our a few connections to the rural folks | |
|  |  |  BiggA join:2005-11-23 EARTH Reviews:
·Comcast
| Wifi links run up to 15 miles with direct LOS. Without they can still shoot a few miles. 100 acres is a non-issue unless it's heavily wooded, or hills are blocking it.
A lot of people out that far are Verizon anyways, and would be grandfathered on unlimited data. | |
|
 Reviews:
·RuralNet
| Use a WISP, or a 3g/4g reseller connection As a Rural internet user, I have used both 3g and a local WISP. A Fixed WISP is the most cost effective connection. You do have to check their reputation just like any other ISP. If they can't keep their network stable and fast then it won't be worth it.
For 3g at the house we used a re-seller called Millenicom. At the time they offered a 50GB cap service for $59/month. Just plug the USB stick into a 3g router a viola, we had internet with 1M down and 300k up. Plenty fast for even our VOIP phone.
Since we used the 3g as a fixed connection we installed an external antenna (1.9 ghz since we were on sprint) and we had a nice stable connection. I wouldn't recommend streaming movies across it, but if your other choices are sattelite or dial up the 3g is the better option. | |
|  | | replacement windows cost The main issue here is that Americans need Internet access, one step at a time. To make this really work, Verizon, AT&T, and others need to make sure this service gets out to the places that need it, not just major cities like Dallas and Birmingham. | |
|  | | leave t mobile out? T mobile is an excellent solution for people here in the high desert of california where charter and verizon abandon us --
sound like a sponsored article | |
|  | | Maybe! We have similar problems over here in the UK, the 3g Dongle did not live up to the hype. Here at my start-up »www.1-broadband.co.uk we have introduced a new Wifi/Broadband router that utilises the 3g network. The advantage over a dongle is the speed (up to 10 times faster) and the network coverage.
The Web Kettle router will operate at at up to 7mbs download speeds and also offers Wifi for multiple device connection. The service is packaged up with a a leading UK mobile telecom who offer 98% coverage of the UK. I am interested in whether this solution would transfer to the US. We are signing up new customers who like your parents were still using Dialup and they have been delighted to join the 21st century. | |
|
 | |
|
|