Verizon changes it's unlimited plan, ALL video is now throttled

[imreloadin]

22 hours ago, knightslugger said:

...move... I think you're used to living in 1 acre lots friend... when you've got this much land, you don't move. 

Brags about having so "much" land...complains when he's not given the same options as those who live in urban areas

 

If it costs $100,000 to get a specific area all set up for cable internet are they going to be more inclined make that investment to an area that services 500 people or an area that would service 10? It makes no sense to make such an investment for so few customers as it would take decades to see a return on it.

 

If I was an ISP I'd tell you to go pound sand too

[suits]

Wonder if this will affect my business plan.

[kiska3]

51 minutes ago, crystal6tak said:

If you got the money to burn, here's a crazy idea that works in theory: Rent/buy a place within 25 kilometers from where you live that has cable service. Then buy a ubiquiti powerbeam AC to project the signal all the way to your home. You'll have to figure out a way to provide line of site from cable place to your home for the signal, so be sure to plan accordingly (e.g. put it high enough so things like animals won't block the signal).

Someone has done this already

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/05/how-i-skipped-the-nbn-waiting-list-and-got-70mbps/

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, imreloadin said:

If it costs $100,000 to get a specific area all set up for cable internet are they going to be more inclined make that investment to an area that services 500 people or an area that would service 10? It makes no sense to make such an investment for so few customers as it would take decades to see a return on it.

You ain't tellin' me anything i don't already know. I know it ain't happening, and I understand why.

 

1 hour ago, crystal6tak said:

If you got the money to burn, here's a crazy idea that works in theory: Rent/buy a place within 25 kilometers from where you live that has cable service. Then buy a ubiquiti powerbeam AC to project the signal all the way to your home. You'll have to figure out a way to provide line of site from cable place to your home for the signal, so be sure to plan accordingly (e.g. put it high enough so things like animals won't block the signal).

 

Again, it's a crazy idea that could work, if you're gonna do it, be sure to document it and put it up here on LTT!

It's been an idea for some time, however to get that sort of range for LoS and to get the throughput that we would need we would require very tall towers at both locations. FAA regulations state that any tower or emitter located above 200ft are required to obtain a site survey and approval from the FAA and FCC before constructing. Now we have a 100ft tower in the back for Amatur Radio antennas, and we do already have a Ubiquity NanoStation m5 installed at about the 75ft mark, but it comms with a backbone that's 5 miles away located 400ft AGL, and the ISP states that's the best they can do for speed. Now that could be a load of malarky and they are just throttling the living hell out of us, but i don't know how much energy these Nanostations actually emit, or how sensitive their receivers are, or how robust their communications algorithm is to test it myself. But i do know i'd need a second tower to mount it to, and that could be a big problem.

[Guest]

most ass backwards thing I've seen in a while.

 

the future is mobile devices, build your infrastructure to support how people are using it or die scrambling to keep up. 

[Drak3]

15 minutes ago, Alexokan said:

most ass backwards thing I've seen in a while.

 

the future is mobile devices, build your infrastructure to support how people are using it or die scrambling to keep up. 

The future is not just mobile devices. Wireless internet is limited by frequency range, and the frequencies that enable high bandwidth also only cover short distances, and there is a great deal more interference with wireless setups. No amount of infrastructure will ever fix that.

And this really isn't ass backwards either. Verizon is allocating bandwidth so that there isn't a tug of war that ultimately results in everyone having a bad experience because people are using data and not seeing any, or excessively little payoff.

 

Only reasons companies like T-Mobile can pull of higher bandwidth are

A) Fewer customers hitting the cell node

B) Sacrificing overall coverage

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

The future is not just mobile devices. Wireless internet is limited by frequency range, and the frequencies that enable high bandwidth also only cover short distances, and there is a great deal more interference with wireless setups. No amount of infrastructure will ever fix that.

And this really isn't ass backwards either. Verizon is allocating bandwidth so that there isn't a tug of war that ultimately results in everyone having a bad experience because people are using data and not seeing any, or excessively little payoff.

 

Only reasons companies like T-Mobile can pull of higher bandwidth are

A) Fewer customers hitting the cell node

B) Sacrificing overall coverage

no

[Donut417]

25 minutes ago, Alexokan said:

most ass backwards thing I've seen in a while.

 

the future is mobile devices, build your infrastructure to support how people are using it or die scrambling to keep up. 

Its not that simple. You have a limited number of spectrum that can do cellular data. Then you cant just slap up towers any where. Firstly you gotta get city approval. For example if you were to drive thru the city of Canton Michigan you will see no businesses have tall signs, because the City set rules, so Im assuming its hard for them to drop a tower in there. Then you gotta get FCC and FAA approval. I live near a major airport, the FAA needs to know where the towers are so the planes dont run in to them. Then the tower operator has to get back haul to the tower, most likely fiber, power, then there is property taxes, Tower maintenance, for example some one has to replace the light on top of the tower, thats a $30,000 bill because its high risk. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Its not that simple. You have a limited number of spectrum that can do cellular data. Then you cant just slap up towers any where. Firstly you gotta get city approval. For example if you were to drive thru the city of Canton Michigan you will see no businesses have tall signs, because the City set rules, so Im assuming its hard for them to drop a tower in there. Then you gotta get FCC and FAA approval. I live near a major airport, the FAA needs to know where the towers are so the planes dont run in to them. Then the tower operator has to get back haul to the tower, most likely fiber, power, then there is property taxes, Tower maintenance, for example some one has to replace the light on top of the tower, thats a $30,000 bill because its high risk. 

I am aware of that. They will either have to change those or they will work around them. It's not even of concern IMO. 

[Trik'Stari]

I'm just wondering how far this shit goes before someone nails Ajit Pai's face with an egg.

 

He deserves it.

[Donut417]

56 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I'm just wondering how far this shit goes before someone nails Ajit Pai's face with an egg.

 

He deserves it.

Its not the FCC's fault really. T Mobile does this, no one bats an eye. Verizon does this and every one goes Ape shit. What did you expect Big Red to just give every one unlimited data and not do any network management and have their network collapse? The issue is people using these connections like its a wired connection from like Comcast. While Verizon needs to add capacity, its not that easy. As stated previously, they cant just put towers where they damn well please. 

[FuzzyYellow]

glad i'm grandfathered in.  

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, FuzzyYellow said:

glad i'm grandfathered in.  

You act like that means something. AT&T was slowing shit down on their grandfathered users. Dont think Big Red wont do it. Considering every one of the big wireless providers have limits in which they throttle traffic, generally around 20-30 Gigs of usage, based on congestion. 

[FuzzyYellow]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

You act like that means something. AT&T was slowing shit down on their grandfathered users. Dont think Big Red wont do it. Considering every one of the big wireless providers have limits in which they throttle traffic, generally around 20-30 Gigs of usage, based on congestion. 

true, but I already knew that when I got into this plan. at least nothing changes for me. I also don't notice too much throttling even after the 22GB threshold.

[SansVarnic]

Still  happy I've been with tmobile for over 15 years...

[Tsuki]

On 8/22/2017 at 10:08 AM, PCMasterDebater said:

Time for people to speak with their wallets. Don't like what Verizon is offering? Mover over to AT&T cellular, Boost mobile, Virgin Mobile, Straight talk, Pay as you go, T-Mobile, Or many other carriers that are available.

 

Why is anyone upset about this?

 

Grow up and move on! 

because i have 9 devices and cant afford the fees to terminate my contract early and immediately pay off all my devices.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Still  happy I've been with tmobile for over 15 years...

T-Mobile is just as bad if not worse.

They have been throttling and limiting video to 480p for a long time.

[Trik'Stari]

7 hours ago, Donut417 said:

Its not the FCC's fault really. T Mobile does this, no one bats an eye. Verizon does this and every one goes Ape shit. What did you expect Big Red to just give every one unlimited data and not do any network management and have their network collapse? The issue is people using these connections like its a wired connection from like Comcast. While Verizon needs to add capacity, its not that easy. As stated previously, they cant just put towers where they damn well please. 

The FCC has the ability to make data caps illegal, or at the least "against the rules" IIRC

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

The FCC has the ability to make data caps illegal, or at the least "against the rules" IIRC

Data caps on mobile are nothing new.  I don't get why everyone is thinking this is something recent and/or because of the FCC rule changes.  Capping the quality of video seems to be new, but the data caps themselves are quite common.

[Trik'Stari]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Data caps on mobile are nothing new.  I don't get why everyone is thinking this is something recent and/or because of the FCC rule changes.  Capping the quality of video seems to be new, but the data caps themselves are quite common.

I know, and they shouldn't be.

 

Is my overall point.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

T-Mobile is just as bad if not worse.

They have been throttling and limiting video to 480p for a long time.

Yeah but they were up front about it. And why the fuck do people need 4K video on their phone in the first place? 

3 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

The FCC has the ability to make data caps illegal, or at the least "against the rules" IIRC

The Chairman of the FCC does not care about making data caps illegal. Or protecting net neutrality. If you expect a Trump FCC to do either of those things then I want what you have been smoking. Until we get an administration in the White House that is not run by a complete idiot, things will not change, they will probably get worse. 

[Trik'Stari]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

Yeah but they were up front about it. And why the fuck do people need 4K video on their phone in the first place? 

The Chairman of the FCC does not care about making data caps illegal. Or protecting net neutrality. If you expect a Trump FCC to do either of those things then I want what you have been smoking. Until we get an administration in the White House that is not run by a complete idiot, things will not change, they will probably get worse. 

I would have thought they'd at least have some sense of self preservation. I honestly think that NN will be the reason they lose in 2018 and 2020 respectively.

 

The issue there is that the pendulum will swing back to the Democrats, who might be good for NN but are bat-shit insane on quite a lot of other things. Can we not get a third party lol?

 

I know I'm voting third party next time around.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

I know I'm voting third party next time around.

Same here. 

[paddy-stone]

Can't the restrictions be gotten around by simply using a decent VPN provider?

[Donut417]

Just now, paddy-stone said:

Can't the restrictions be gotten around by simply using a decent VPN provider?

From what I have seen yes. But then you got the guys that are like "I gottta pay for a VPN now?".