FCC determining US IPs don't have to provide hardline?

[HalGameGuru]

1 hour ago, TheBeastPC said:

I feel sorry for the US people who have to deal with crappy internet. 5mbps up from 1mbps isnt much of a change in terms of internet speeds. The FCC must have some lazy candidates who dont care about internet speeds, and more, their customers.

You want to invest millions of dollars pushing infrastructure that will be deprecated in ten years out to these areas that won't be able to recoup that investment for 50 years? Mobile can hit these areas for a fraction of the cost, to the providers or the clients, and update over time for a fraction of the cost as the hardware at the nodes is all that NEEDS to change to improve capacity or speed.

 

It's not perfect but it can get better and faster results at less cost RIGHT NOW. And eventually costs for hardline infrastructure and backbone will hopefully drop enough to make pushing to these sparsely populated areas economically feasible.

[HalGameGuru]

Towers that time forgot, tech that may have to make a comeback, some of which is STILL used to compensate for fiber's trade offs

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

You haven't given a reason as to why it couldn't. the whole reason this is a problem is because there are so few people per sq. mi. in these areas. Is it lack of capacity or lack of consumers that is keeping the tech from saturating these markets? What happens when local ISPs can't handle now? They add more capacity or competitors move in. (assuming the government hasn't regulated or cronied market actors out of the equation) If there are so many people involved that mobile has trouble that would be plenty enough for hardline to profit from capital investment. With or without the government subsidization. I'm still not sure which "limitations" you think mobile has that hardline doesn't? Aside from NOT needing expensive hardline infrastructure between every point of the grid?

Yes I have,  several times, come back when you understanf the technology. 

[HalGameGuru]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yes I have,  several times, come back when you understanf the technology. 

You have given no reason that doesn't equally effect hardline providers. Mobile still has backbone. What mobile DOES have, that makes it superior to hardline when it comes to lagging capacity, is a complete lack of hardline infrastructure that has to be dug up and replaced to facilitate a larger consumer base. You add a couple modules to a tower, you place a new tower in a new area, you give out newer home receiver boxes, you put an extra laser/microwave transceiver between a low pop tower and a high pop tower, you don't have to run new lines to new nodes and then new lines from nodes to premises. Which makes mobile easier and cheaper to implement in rural areas where population density is low. Once again this isn't about urban areas. This isn't about areas with enough people to warrant hardline installation with old tech. When repeaterless fiber and other cost saving measures for fiber optic installation are ubiquitous fiber will make more sense for rural areas, as it is the costs and labor needs are too high for sparsely populated areas. Even WITH subsidies. Mobile could do it without, if it were able to be classified as home internet provision. Which the FCC now chooses to do. 

 

I went back just to be sure, every comment from you has been "pace" or "keep up" or "capacity" Which I have gone over multiple times. You think mobile... in a rural area, could be oversaturated compared to mobile in urban areas? Where they are already offering these services, at greater speeds, and competitive prices? So either you are being selectively ignorant or wanting to ascribe special circumstances. What physical limitations that aren't also in evidence in urban areas or isolated pockets of dense population? What is going on in rural kansas that makes it HARDER for mobile to handle than New York or Denver?

 

For a sparsely populated area mobile makes more sense than hardline with costs being what they are. If the sparsely populated area becomes densely populated, they can install systems just like they have in already densely populated areas. If they cannot keep up, that would indicate population density that would make hardline a justifiable investment with or without subsidies. Hardline isn't a panacea either, those providers already have more trouble than mobile keeping up. And laying down lines for most rural areas wouldn't include dozens of dark fiber lines for future expansion. These are areas that haven't grown in decades or centuries, with no indication they will grow in the coming decades, or even centuries, if your problem is keeping pace or population hardline isn't going to cut the mustard either. And heck with as cheap as home cellular repeaters are getting I'd wager the newest cellular networks will have little trouble using a single tower to reach hundreds of square miles of subscribers in such low density areas.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

You have given no reason that doesn't equally effect hardline providers. Mobile still has backbone. What mobile DOES have, that makes it superior to hardline when it comes to lagging capacity, is a complete lack of hardline infrastructure that has to be dug up and replaced to facilitate a larger consumer base. You add a couple modules to a tower, you place a new tower in a new area, you give out newer home receiver boxes, you put an extra laser/microwave transceiver between a low pop tower and a high pop tower, you don't have to run new lines to new nodes and then new lines from nodes to premises. Which makes mobile easier and cheaper to implement in rural areas where population density is low. Once again this isn't about urban areas. This isn't about areas with enough people to warrant hardline installation with old tech. When repeaterless fiber and other cost saving measures for fiber optic installation are ubiquitous fiber will make more sense for rural areas, as it is the costs and labor needs are too high for sparsely populated areas. Even WITH subsidies. Mobile could do it without, if it were able to be classified as home internet provision. Which the FCC now chooses to do. 

 

I went back just to be sure, every comment from you has been "pace" or "keep up" or "capacity" Which I have gone over multiple times. You think mobile... in a rural area, could be oversaturated compared to mobile in urban areas? Where they are already offering these services, at greater speeds, and competitive prices? So either you are being selectively ignorant or wanting to ascribe special circumstances. What physical limitations that aren't also in evidence in urban areas or isolated pockets of dense population? What is going on in rural kansas that makes it HARDER for mobile to handle than New York or Denver?

 

For a sparsely populated area mobile makes more sense than hardline with costs being what they are. If the sparsely populated area becomes densely populated, they can install systems just like they have in already densely populated areas. If they cannot keep up, that would indicate population density that would make hardline a justifiable investment with or without subsidies. Hardline isn't a panacea either, those providers already have more trouble than mobile keeping up. And laying down lines for most rural areas wouldn't include dozens of dark fiber lines for future expansion. These are areas that haven't grown in decades or centuries, with no indication they will grow in the coming decades, or even centuries, if your problem is keeping pace or population hardline isn't going to cut the mustard either. And heck with as cheap as home cellular repeaters are getting I'd wager the newest cellular networks will have little trouble using a single tower to reach hundreds of square miles of subscribers in such low density areas.

No, the question is not whether you think mobile will work or not, the question is what's your solution should it fail?  So far your solution is to add more towers.  But that isn't an answer. Adding more failed technology to a system of failing technology is not a solution. 

 

 

The answer is to ensure that landlines are maintained and improved constantly so in the event of mobile tech being saturated there is still a service that can maintain service. 

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

No, the question is not whether you think mobile will work or not, the question is what's your solution should it fail?  So far your solution is to add more towers.  But that isn't an answer. Adding more failed technology to a system of failing technology is not a solution. 

 

 

The answer is to ensure that landlines are maintained and improved constantly so in the event of mobile tech being saturated there is still a service that can maintain service. 

I think the question he's trying to convey is, how precisely is it a failed/failing technology?  How precisely is there a saturation issue that would affect mobile internet more so than hard line?  Those are the questions I haven't seen answered yet, anyway.

[Donut417]

45 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I think the question he's trying to convey is, how precisely is it a failed/failing technology?  How precisely is there a saturation issue that would affect mobile internet more so than hard line?  Those are the questions I haven't seen answered yet, anyway.

The issue is the wireless providers have a very limited amount of spectrum they can use to carry data. I dont think 4g is a failed technology myself. I think people put too much faith in it however. I mean I get about 20Mbps on my TMobile phone over 4G which I feel is pretty nice. Wired will always have the edge however, because you always have the option to run more fiber. With Cell towers, while you can run more fiber to them, the issue is wireless signals are affected by a shit load of things. Like weather for instance, or other things that can interfere with them. 

 

While wireless is by no means a failed technology, you just cant push it as far. Most people dont understand that. Because I dont give a shit if the 5G standard is 1Gbps, when most of the people in the real world cant achieve those speeds. Personally to me Fixed wireless is going to be the solution for rural america, because running coax and fiber is not profitable. And if people dont like that, well, do live in a rural area, Ill always live in the city so I can get better internet. Its not like the cable company is going to walk away from their network like the phone companies have done. 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I think the question he's trying to convey is, how precisely is it a failed/failing technology?  How precisely is there a saturation issue that would affect mobile internet more so than hard line?  Those are the questions I haven't seen answered yet, anyway.

I'm not claiming it is a failed technology, but I am expressing concern for its ability to be relevant in ten years to become a failed technology). What if bandwidth and users outstrips EM spectrum capacity.  You can run a second fibre cable, but you cant just put in another tower.  Especially if this new ruling allows isp's to put physical connections (that we know right now to be superior) on ice.  There will be no fall back or infrastructure to build on.  We all hate the current nbn in aus. But at least they are still pushing ahead with hard lines wherever possible. 

[HalGameGuru]

On 8/12/2017 at 5:49 PM, mr moose said:

No, the question is not whether you think mobile will work or not, the question is what's your solution should it fail?  So far your solution is to add more towers.  But that isn't an answer. Adding more failed technology to a system of failing technology is not a solution. 

 

 

The answer is to ensure that landlines are maintained and improved constantly so in the event of mobile tech being saturated there is still a service that can maintain service. 

1. Mobile can already handle thousands per cell. This is rural areas. The fact they are able to handle urban areas as they ARE belies your claim. How has it failed? What will they face in rural areas (which they already cover, as is, along interstates and outside of metro pockets in the midwest) that they have not overcome dealing with urban areas and massive areas like LA and Houston?

 

2. future mobile tech can handle MORE users at HIGHER speeds, and that is JUST traditional handsets. Long distance and home boxes can have external antennas and be on bespoke repeaters separate from handset use. Not to mention adding more towers is how it works, each tower can handle a specific number of users concurrently, more towers allows more users in an area to connect concurrently. They still have internet backbone. And they can still expand their backhaul connection, WHILE adding more consumer side service because they do not have to dig up and add more hardline to a premise. You worry about a tech being able to handle rural kansas that can handle New York City?

 

3. hardline is not immune to this, and it is HARDER to upgrade than mobile. On top of fiber backbone to ISP, you then have fiber to node, which needs to be upgraded or added to in its entirety when population density increases. And then fiber or copper from nodes to premises. Which would also have to be newly run as those would be subscribers that simply didn't exist before. Every single leg of the trip for mobile is easier and cheaper to upgrade and add to. And since you are talking about rural areas where no one is going to invest in millions of dollars worth of dark fiber mobile will be LESS likely to falter in the face of unexpected growth than hardline.

 

4. If mobile fails, totally and completely, then what? What causes it to fail? Too many subscribers? Long before that happened that would have hit a level hardline could profit from competing in the market. Signal issues? We already have cell service in the boonies. Pushing it into less densely populated areas would not be any more difficult, and repeaters are a thing, especially for home users. You can already get them NOW due to issues caused by certain construction materials. 

 

Mobile has no unique pitfalls from hardline for this application. And all the possible issues are fixable in the same way as hardline, or easier and cheaper. Fiber to everywhere would be great. But the people involved need service now, and mobile can get there and provide it quicker and cheaper. And ten years down the line is not the concern as what they have NOW doesn't qualify and what they have NOW would be just as bad in ten years. Mobile can be updated and upgraded. More easily than copper and fiber. And maybe in that ten years fiber finally gets cheap enough to run everywhere regardless of population density or physical location.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

1. Mobile can already handle thousands per cell. This is rural areas. The fact they are able to handle urban areas as they ARE belies your claim. How has it failed? What will they face in rural areas (which they already cover, as is, along interstates and outside of metro pockets in the midwest) that they have not overcome dealing with urban areas and massive areas like LA and Houston?

 

2. future mobile tech can handle MORE users at HIGHER speeds, and that is JUST traditional handsets. Long distance and home boxes can have external antennas and be on bespoke repeaters separate from handset use. Not to mention adding more towers is how it works, each tower can handle a specific number of users concurrently, more towers allows more users in an area to connect concurrently. They still have internet backbone. And they can still expand their backhaul connection, WHILE adding more consumer side service because they do not have to dig up and add more hardline to a premise. You worry about a tech being able to handle rural kansas that can handle New York City?

 

3. hardline is not immune to this, and it is HARDER to upgrade than mobile. On top of fiber backbone to ISP, you then have fiber to node, which needs to be upgraded or added to in its entirety when population density increases. And then fiber or copper from nodes to premises. Which would also have to be newly run as those would be subscribers that simply didn't exist before. Every single leg of the trip for mobile is easier and cheaper to upgrade and add to. And since you are talking about rural areas where no one is going to invest in millions of dollars worth of dark fiber mobile will be LESS likely to falter in the face of unexpected growth than hardline.

 

4. If mobile fails, totally and completely, then what? What causes it to fail? Too many subscribers? Long before that happened that would have hit a level hardline could profit from competing in the market. Signal issues? We already have cell service in the boonies. Pushing it into less densely populated areas would not be any more difficult, and repeaters are a thing, especially for home users. You can already get them NOW due to issues caused by certain construction materials. 

 

Mobile has no unique pitfalls from hardline for this application. And all the possible issues are fixable in the same way as hardline, or easier and cheaper. Fiber to everywhere would be great. But the people involved need service now, and mobile can get there and provide it quicker and cheaper. And ten years down the line is not the concern as what they have NOW doesn't qualify and what they have NOW would be just as bad in ten years. Mobile can be updated and upgraded. More easily than copper and fiber. And maybe in that ten years fiber finally gets cheap enough to run everywhere regardless of population density or physical location.

So instead of answering the question you just repeat yourself only with more elaboration.  I don't care if you think it will never fail.  The fact is not installing a known superior service on the grounds that you think mobile is the answer is like not maintaining roads because you think flying cars are the future. 

 

I want to borrow your crystal ball for the lotto. 

 

EDIT: But seeing as you need more than just a question I'll address a few points.

 

 

1.  1000's per cell means nothing when the the cell is only 30Km radius and pop extends well beyond that 1000's.

2.   you have a crystal ball? you know what future mobile tech can handle?  BS.  no one knows what tech will be effective in 10 years time. least of all us.

3.  fibre hardline is a lot less immune to congestion slows than mobile tech.  if you don't know that you don't know anything about the technology.  Plus it is not hardwer to upgrade, we have been replacing copper with fibre to the premise in Aus. both rural and city. it's not hard at all.

4. Fibre is still better and I don;t know why you keep harping on about rural, the FCC rules apply to all Americans. It means even those in big cities could have their fibre/copper lines left to rot because the ISP may decide not to pay to maintain it.

 

Lastly, yes mobile does have unique pitfalls.  I can't believe you don't know that.   There is a reason why authorities all around the world are shifting tv signals and emergency radio spectrum around.  There is a reason CB radios had their bandwidth limited.  It is because there is a limited spectrum to use, you can't just keep adding bandwidth. it does run out.   Fibre on the other hand you can run another cable alongside the first and double your bandwidth.  Putting in a second tower will not double bandwidth.  It will slow it down.

 

 

[HalGameGuru]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So instead of answering the question you just repeat yourself only with more elaboration.  I don't care if you think it will never fail.  The fact is not installing a known superior service on the grounds that you think mobile is the answer is like not maintaining roads because you think flying cars are the future. 

 

I want to borrow your crystal ball for the lotto. 

I'm not saying it will never fail, nor that it CAN never fail. I am stating it has no greater chance or risk of failure than hardline. And for what they are wanting to build, and WHERE, mobile will have FEWER hurdles and chances of failure than hardline.

 

I have answered your questions, I have answered more than just your questions. You have failed to elaborate or define your terms. And I have bent over backwards to cover every angle of possible failure. If you refuse to ingest and understand this information that is on you.

 

Saturation, power failure, backhaul failure, over-subscription, infrastructure damage, etc. None of these are unique to one or the other. And only one has to dig up physical lines or install new ones to hundreds of premises at great cost to make up the difference.

 

Hardline is not known superior, it is not economically, functionally, nor structurally superior nor more feasible than mobile technology for this use. You are arguing for having 4 lane highways to every little house in Alaska. NO! There is a reason bush planes and ATVs exist, Alaskans don't WANT a 4 lane highway to every piece of property nor do they want anyone to pay for that kind of garbage. There are different solutions to different problems, You don't run new rail lines, drive thousands of trucks or dig a canal to run tankers if you can build an pipeline to safely get oil from A to B. You are saying every road in every neighborhood needs to be 4 lanes with a median. Not everyone wants or needs that. A suburban street is fine with a paved residential road. Rural properties are fine with 2 lane tarmac and gravel driveways. And it is no argument to impose YOUR idea of what they SHOULD have just because you can put a gun to my head and rifle though my pockets to pay for it.

 

The reason this is an issue is that hardline is economically unfeasible for this scenario. If it weren't the FCC wouldn't have to get involved. I actually wonder how much of the deficit in coverage has to do with existing regulation and barrier to market actors competing over these areas, just like we see in many urban areas with cable and AT&T. If it were already feasible for market actors to provide these services, with or without the pre-existing government interference, they would have. the market would provide services to customers who want it. I want internet access to be ubiquitous. Heck I want broadband as fast as possible to be available to anyone who wants to pay for it. I do not want to dictate how the market can best seek to provide a service to anyone who wants it. 

[mr moose]

Just now, HalGameGuru said:

I'm not saying it will never fail, nor that it CAN never fail. I am stating it has no greater chance or risk of failure than hardline. And for what they are wanting to build, and WHERE, mobile will have FEWER hurdles and chances of failure than hardline.

 

I have answered your questions, I have answered more than just your questions. You have failed to elaborate or define your terms. And I have bent over backwards to cover every angle of possible failure. If you refuse to ingest and understand this information that is on you.

 

Saturation, power failure, backhaul failure, over-subscription, infrastructure damage, etc. None of these are unique to one or the other. And only one has to dig up physical lines or install new ones to hundreds of premises at great cost to make up the difference.

 

Hardline is not known superior, it is not economically, functionally, nor structurally superior nor more feasible than mobile technology for this use. You are arguing for having 4 lane highways to every little house in Alaska. NO! There is a reason bush planes and ATVs exist, Alaskans don't WANT a 4 lane highway to every piece of property nor do they want anyone to pay for that kind of garbage. There are different solutions to different problems, You don't run new rail lines, drive thousands of trucks or dig a canal to run tankers if you can build an pipeline to safely get oil from A to B. You are saying every road in every neighborhood needs to be 4 lanes with a median. Not everyone wants or needs that. A suburban street is fine with a paved residential road. Rural properties are fine with 2 lane tarmac and gravel driveways. And it is no argument to impose YOUR idea of what they SHOULD have just because you can put a gun to my head and rifle though my pockets to pay for it.

 

The reason this is an issue is that hardline is economically unfeasible for this scenario. If it weren't the FCC wouldn't have to get involved. I actually wonder how much of the deficit in coverage has to do with existing regulation and barrier to market actors competing over these areas, just like we see in many urban areas with cable and AT&T. If it were already feasible for market actors to provide these services, with or without the pre-existing government interference, they would have. the market would provide services to customers who want it. I want internet access to be ubiquitous. Heck I want broadband as fast as possible to be available to anyone who wants to pay for it. I do not want to dictate how the market can best seek to provide a service to anyone who wants it. 

see edit.

 

[HalGameGuru]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

see edit.

 

1. Not an argument. I already went over increasing population density.

 

2. 5g is already a leap and bound over 4g which was leaps and bounds over 3G, 3G which was what pushed cellular data across the nation. After all the growing pains of "2G" and EDGE, GPRS, etc. The OLD TECH can already handle your bogeyman. And that OLD TECH is where we are starting from, CURRENT TECH is more capable, FUTURE TECH will be more so. And we are speaking of RURAL AREAS! The whole reason the issue EXISTS is because the population density is so low traditional  hardline is not economically feasible. Mobile was ALWAYS feasible there, it was just never able to be classified as broadband for home subscribers until now.

 

3. A single fiber line is just as susceptible to congestion as any single line backhaul. You see fewer issues with this in urban areas because routing can take you around congestion. Unless you are on an oversubscribed node, which cable subscribers in growing areas have to deal with where every evening their internet dies for hours on end. And pushing hardline to these areas will be MORE susceptible to this because they will be on the end of a single fiber line, not part of an established network of nodes and fiber infrastructure.

 

4. This is an issue because the entire reason this regulation and legislation exists is because it covers pushing internet to rural areas. Did you not read anything on this? This won't effect urban areas because it is alreay economically feasible to provide a plurality of ISPs in these areas. And that competition keeps prices on a downward trend and speeds on an upward trend. This FCC intercession is about pushing internet to places as yet without provision.

 

You apparently don't understand how cellular works. Yes spectrum is limited. The reason why cellular works is because rather than all the spectrum in an entire region being used up by a hundred subscribers each individual tower could use the exact same spectrum for a different concurrent set of one hundred subscribers. You make provision denser, you shape traffic, you put out new tech, you use repeaters and subscriber links. This isn't AM/FM. And once again, this is for RURAL. When rural has as much market saturation as New York City I will worry about that. I assume whatever the future, even denser, New York City is using for their mobile service will then also get pushed out to these previously rural areas, because if they are now that dense they are economically feasible for every type of provision there is.

[HalGameGuru]

I personally would have preferred broadband be defined as 25/4 across the board for mobile and hardline. Mobile is capable of it. And I think that speed is a good bar to set for today. I've gotten to see some good experimental internet tech come thru this area over time, a lot of it was super interesting. If mobile can take the place of microwave/laser/satellite/dial-up for rural areas, power to them. Those don't have to die, they just need to compete, and the people effected need to have better options.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

1. Not an argument. I already went over increasing population density.

 

2. 5g is already a leap and bound over 4g which was leaps and bounds over 3G, 3G which was what pushed cellular data across the nation. After all the growing pains of "2G" and EDGE, GPRS, etc. The OLD TECH can already handle your bogeyman. And that OLD TECH is where we are starting from, CURRENT TECH is more capable, FUTURE TECH will be more so. And we are speaking of RURAL AREAS! The whole reason the issue EXISTS is because the population density is so low traditional  hardline is not economically feasible. Mobile was ALWAYS feasible there, it was just never able to be classified as broadband for home subscribers until now.

 

3. A single fiber line is just as susceptible to congestion as any single line backhaul. You see fewer issues with this in urban areas because routing can take you around congestion. Unless you are on an oversubscribed node, which cable subscribers in growing areas have to deal with where every evening their internet dies for hours on end. And pushing hardline to these areas will be MORE susceptible to this because they will be on the end of a single fiber line, not part of an established network of nodes and fiber infrastructure.

 

4. This is an issue because the entire reason this regulation and legislation exists is because it covers pushing internet to rural areas. Did you not read anything on this? This won't effect urban areas because it is alreay economically feasible to provide a plurality of ISPs in these areas. And that competition keeps prices on a downward trend and speeds on an upward trend. This FCC intercession is about pushing internet to places as yet without provision.

 

You apparently don't understand how cellular works. Yes spectrum is limited. The reason why cellular works is because rather than all the spectrum in an entire region being used up by a hundred subscribers each individual tower could use the exact same spectrum for a different concurrent set of one hundred subscribers. You make provision denser, you shape traffic, you put out new tech, you use repeaters and subscriber links. This isn't AM/FM. And once again, this is for RURAL. When rural has as much market saturation as New York City I will worry about that. I assume whatever the future, even denser, New York City is using for their mobile service will then also get pushed out to these previously rural areas, because if they are now that dense they are economically feasible for every type of provision there is.

 

I have a very good understanding of how it works, but your relying on a crystal ball and resorting to the "rural" argument (the article clearly states "all" Americans, if you think ISP's won't jump on that to stop maintaining urban copper and fibre for a more lucrative and less data intensive mobile market then your crazy).  You haven't provided any reasonable argument as to how mobile tech can keep improving infinitude.  

[HalGameGuru]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I have a very good understanding of how it works, but your relying on a crystal ball and resorting to the "rural" argument (the article clearly states "all" Americans, if you think ISP's won't jump on that to stop maintaining urban copper and fibre for a more lucrative and less data intensive mobile market then your crazy).  You haven't provided any reasonable argument as to how mobile tech can keep improving infinitude.  

Rural areas are why they are doing this. Areas already served by multiple providers have no risk of losing competition via market forces, only by cronyist interference from the state. 

 

You think competition ceases to exist at the stroke of a pen? You think people will give up their 100/25 or 1000/500 connections? You think comcast or SuddenLink are going to roll over because AT&T and Sprint can now officially sell home broadband? (FYI they've been offering it for years in urban markets and haven't driven out hardline competition.) The reason this is coming up is because the FCC believes, rightly to my estimation, broadband access isn't being rolled out to as yet unserved areas quickly enough. You know what places don't have broadband yet? Rural areas. You know why? Because hardline is not economically feasible in areas with so few people. I hope it eventually is, because I prefer having a plurality of providers to spur competition.

 

Mobile doesn't have to keep improving ad infinitum, and I NEVER ONCE said it would, could or NEEDED TO. Thank you for throwing more straw men into the pile. No one had to twist anyone's arms to push broadband in NYC, DC, LA, Houston, etc. Because the tech of the time could economically serve those areas. Rural areas, even now, cannot be economically served broadband via hardline. They can by mobile. Eventually hardline can and should be in these areas competing with mobile, microwave, and satellite. Until then mobile will be the best option to get these under served people broadband internet access. 

 

So now mobile is LESS data intensive? Are we discussing the same things here? People use home broadband from mobile for all the same stuff they use cable and DSL for. You know that product has been available for over ten years now right? using a cellular connection for home internet has existed since at least EDGE/GPRS. I understand the American government's bureaucratic interference is asinine and hard to follow but this isn't a complex thing. Rural areas aren't being served well enough. Mobile can make up the difference, spur competition. 10/1 I think is a bad idea, it should 25/4 for everyone. But it is eminently capable of what it is being called on to do. I have plenty of clients in suburban and (almost) rural areas in SE Texas happily using mobile for their home internet until ATT, comcast, etc. stop being total douches.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, HalGameGuru said:

Rural areas are why they are doing this. Areas already served by multiple providers have no risk of losing competition via market forces, only by cronyist interference from the state. 

 

You think competition ceases to exist at the stroke of a pen? You think people will give up their 100/25 or 1000/500 connections?

Doesn't matter why you think they are doing it, the end result will be the same.  Competition doesn't really come into the equation.   What people are currently on doesn't change anything.   

 

1 minute ago, HalGameGuru said:

Mobile doesn't have to keep improving ad infinitum, and I NEVER ONCE said it would, could or NEEDED TO. Thank you for throwing more straw men into the pile. No one had to twist anyone's arms to push broadband in NYC, DC, LA, Houston, etc. Because the tech of the time could economically serve those areas. Rural areas, even now, cannot be economically served broadband via hardline. They can by mobile. Eventually hardline can and should be in these areas competing with mobile, microwave, and satellite. Until then mobile will be the best option to get these under served people broadband internet access. 

 

 

Yes you did, you said quite clearly that:

 

41 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

 

2. 5g is already a leap and bound over 4g which was leaps and bounds over 3G, 3G which was what pushed cellular data across the nation. After all the growing pains of "2G" and EDGE, GPRS, etc. The OLD TECH can already handle your bogeyman. And that OLD TECH is where we are starting from, CURRENT TECH is more capable, FUTURE TECH will be more so. And we are speaking of RURAL AREAS! The whole reason the issue EXISTS is because the population density is so low traditional  hardline is not economically feasible. Mobile was ALWAYS feasible there, it was just never able to be classified as broadband for home subscribers until now.

 

 

You are clearly insinuating that it is always getting better and will continue to. 

 

1 minute ago, HalGameGuru said:

So now mobile is LESS data intensive? Are we discussing the same things here? People use home broadband from mobile for all the same stuff they use cable and DSL for. You know that product has been available for over ten years now right? using a cellular connection for home internet has existed since at least EDGE/GPRS. I understand the American government's bureaucratic interference is asinine and hard to follow but this isn't a complex thing. Rural areas aren't being served well enough. Mobile can make up the difference, spur competition. 10/1 I think is a bad idea, it should 25/4 for everyone. But it is eminently capable of what it is being called on to do. I have plenty of clients in suburban and (almost) rural areas in SE Texas happily using mobile for their home internet until ATT, comcast, etc. stop being total douches.

 

Yes becasue they charge a shit load more for it,  which means people use less.  Using less means they don't have to buy as much wholesale and they don't need to spend as much to maintain service.

 

 

You only have to look at south korea to see the difference between fibre and mobile tech,  100Mb average for fibre with fast movement toward 1Gb being the average. versus average 37Mb for mobile.  

[bcredeur97]

I'm in the US. I have gigabit internet. Up and down. 

 

After experiencing it for long enough... don't think I can go back to 100 mbps... it's so gosh darn fast. I can just do whatever. it's wonderful! 

This won't pass... no way

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

I'm in the US. I have gigabit internet. Up and down. 

 

After experiencing it for long enough... don't think I can go back to 100 mbps... it's so gosh darn fast. I can just do whatever. it's wonderful! 

This won't pass... no way

I don't think anyone will go backward,  but it does have the potential to hamstring people in the future if infrastructure isn't built/maintained today for tomorrows needs.  

[HalGameGuru]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

Doesn't matter why you think they are doing it, the end result will be the same.  Competition doesn't really come into the equation.   What people are currently on doesn't change anything.   

 

Yes you did, you said quite clearly that:

 

You are clearly insinuating that it is always getting better and will continue to. 

 

 

Yes becasue they charge a shit load more for it,  which means people use less.  Using less means they don't have to buy as much wholesale and they don't need to spend as much to maintain service.

 

 

You only have to look at south korea to see the difference between fibre and mobile tech,  100Mb average for fibre with fast movement toward 1Gb being the average. versus average 37Mb for mobile.  

Competition is the only force that will provide continually better service at continually improving prices. The government has done far more to stymie our internet infrastructure and provision than to bolster it. People are unwilling to pay more for lesser service. This doesn't change when the government changes their idea of what the most basic level of service is. Hence why "basic" broadband speeds are rarely the entry level in most locations with actual ISP competition. AT&T and Comcast have both started surreptitiously doubling speeds of lower tier subscribers over the last couple years to keep people in the fold. We don't pay for nearly this level of download speed. They keep bumping things up because people keep cutting cords.

 

To say what we have now is better than what we had, and what is currently in the pike is better still is not calling for continued improvements ad infinitum. "Future Tech" as in 5G, not as in 2050's 7G. It is showcasing that the speeds we are talking about are imminently possible. For far more people than we are worried about in this scenario. 3G was already capable of the speeds needed and population levels we are speaking of. 4G pushed the speeds higher, and 5G is supposed to be able to support more users concurrently than either earlier tech at even faster speeds. Mobile has broadband expansion covered if needs be.

 

I'm sorry mobile data may not be fiber to the home but it's no slouch. It is competitive with hardline in most markets where it is currently available. SOME providers do have to throttle or charge by the GB after a certain point but that is their business model. And most of the unlimited providers got bought out. I was very disappointed when Clear got taken over. Unlimited full fat 4g LTE home broadband. Delicious. But most hardline isn't unlimited either any more. Whose prices are you working from, in the US, on that claim? This is the US we are talking about. Where home mobile broadband can be had for as little as 35 a month, depending on speed and data caps. Heck in some areas you can still get microwave.

 

You realize those averages are aggregating old tech with new right? 2G and 3G, some as slow as 512Kbps. No one said mobile would be as fast as fiber by default, only that it would be able to provide competitive speed to other providers. Now millimeter band and 5g will supposedly be able to hit 1Gbps but I doubt that is what will be pushed into rural areas first. I would wager that would be 4g-LTE primarily, especially as 3G networks are deprecated. Plenty fast enough for home broadband. America's avg broadband speed is only 17Mbps, our average cellular is not too far off that. 

 

If the choice is between mobile for the next ten years as an option vs only dial up and satellite I say mobile is a god send. until such time as hardline is economically feasible for such low density areas. If I had the choice between 56K now with MAYBE 25/4 within 10 years or 10/1 NOW with mobile and higher speeds maybe in ten years. I'd choose mobile now. Nothing stops others from competing in the space. Mobile getting there first is hardly a problem if hardline wasn't going to get there anyway.

 

 

EDIT: I just checked my local microwave providers... the nearest one is called skynet. symmetrical microwave broadband to the home. No data caps and better speeds than DSL, competitive with cable. I wonder why microwave isn't being pushed into rural areas more. I've seen more point to point long distance wifi in the boonies than microwave...

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

To say what we have now is better than what we had, and what is currently in the pike is better still is not calling for continued improvements ad infinitum.

No, but saying it will definitely get better because it did in the past is.

52 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

I'm sorry mobile data may not be fiber to the home but it's no slouch.

 

 

That's exactly it it isn't, if data consumption keeps going up there is still the distinct possibility the fibre to the home will be the only option.  Hence Do not give ISPs the excuse to bin it.

 

 

55 minutes ago, HalGameGuru said:

You realize those averages are aggregating old tech with new right? 2G and 3G, some as slow as 512Kbps. No one said mobile would be as fast as fiber by default, only that it would be able to provide competitive speed to other providers. Now millimeter band and 5g will supposedly be able to hit 1Gbps but I doubt that is what will be pushed into rural areas first. I would wager that would be 4g-LTE primarily, especially as 3G networks are deprecated. Plenty fast enough for home broadband. America's avg broadband speed is only 17Mbps, our average cellular is not too far off that. 

 

 

Nope, sth Korea even this time last year was 99% 4g.

 

Also you are still talking about rural areas like they are the only area's effected by this ruling.   Not only has this been addressed already, but even if they weren't there is no guarantee that some of those rural areas won;t become densely populated in the next 20years.  

[8uhbbhu8]

On 8/9/2017 at 1:26 PM, Jrock said:

I get 100/10 with 723TB(unlimited according to rogers) of data a month for only 70 Canadian Snow Dollars. Now cell phones, dont even get me started. 2gb of data starts at 90 a month...

Damn!!!! What isp are you with?!! We pay $60 a month and get 10/1.... Its awful cause our line is over subscribed dsl and we only get .700/0.35.... on a good day we can get .800/0.4.......

[karlo997]

in Norway we got his stat run ISP called Telenor that manly delivers internett by mobile networks and it has worked fine for the elder and non tech heavy populations while the more interested can stil can get fiber and normal cable from Telenor but this is not there main focus.

 

TLDR: every one shod have a right to cable but for some people it is easier and more affordebol to go whit mobile

[AvocadosGuac]

7 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Damn!!!! What isp are you with?!! We pay $60 a month and get 10/1.... Its awful cause our line is over subscribed dsl and we only get .700/0.35.... on a good day we can get .800/0.4.......

Rogers in canada

[8uhbbhu8]

4 hours ago, Jrock said:

Rogers in canada

wow... Im actually with rogers for my phone and thats pretty damn bad.....