Verizon wants to offer unlimited 5G Home Broadband to compete against Comcast and fight Cable Companies

[Trik'Stari]

We seriously need to make data caps completely illegal.

 

No ifs, ands, or buts. Just 100% illegal. There's no real logic behind it, no finite thing is being used up, it doesn't cost the company any more in actual dollars if you download 100mb or 1000gb in a month.

[mynameisjuan]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

There's no real logic behind it

The logic behind it is that is create this mental paranoia to not use data because they will go over. This means people use their connection less hence less bandwidth to hog the bottleneck that exist in ALL networks. This leaves more bandwidth and less bitching about slow speeds. 

 

Networks have bottle necks all over the place mainly to the DEMARK that is hosting 24-48 customers off a single gig or 10gig connection. Cell towers have limited time slots for anyone to talk on when one tower is serving 20,000 people. 

 

Its actually a critical thing in cellular in highly congested areas. Its not a finite thing, just a mind fuck. 

[Donut417]

10 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

hat is hosting 24-48 customers off a single gig or 10gig connection.

For Comcast is more like 128 people. And thats with the N+0 upgrades they have been doing. 

[Trik'Stari]

16 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

The logic behind it is that is create this mental paranoia to not use data because they will go over. This means people use their connection less hence less bandwidth to hog the bottleneck that exist in ALL networks. This leaves more bandwidth and less bitching about slow speeds. 

 

Networks have bottle necks all over the place mainly to the DEMARK that is hosting 24-48 customers off a single gig or 10gig connection. Cell towers have limited time slots for anyone to talk on when one tower is serving 20,000 people. 

 

Its actually a critical thing in cellular in highly congested areas. Its not a finite thing, just a mind fuck. 

The problem there is that we're already paying them many many tax dollars and subsidies to upgrade these networks.

 

They largely haven't.

[mynameisjuan]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

The problem there is that we're already paying them many many tax dollars and subsidies to upgrade these networks.

 

They largely haven't.

Ok well people still dont understand the undertaking of upgrading networks on a large scale. Running fiber. Hell just finding employees. 

 

We are very small but it still cost a shit ton to get things upgraded. I can imagine upgrading say and entire state. Also the technology is lacking in some areas that will always be the source of the bottleneck. 

[Trik'Stari]

25 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok well people still dont understand the undertaking of upgrading networks on a large scale. Running fiber. Hell just finding employees. 

 

We are very small but it still cost a shit ton to get things upgraded. I can imagine upgrading say and entire state. Also the technology is lacking in some areas that will always be the source of the bottleneck. 

Just look up what Verizon did in NYC.

 

They signed a contract with the city, to provide broadband or fiber (can't remember which) to all residential buildings in the city.

 

Verizon interpreted that as "running it past those buildings, only hooking it up to those buildings and offering service to the residents only if the landlord signs an exclusivity agreement preventing the residents from getting any other internet service". 

 

Most declined, and Verizon did not offer service to those buildings.

 

These companies are deliberately obstructive when it comes to expanding their own networks, if it means they have to compete with one another.

[Spongy141]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:32 PM, AluminiumTech said:

$70/month for unlimited data seems okay but what about those who are fine with 500GB Data per month or 200GB Data per month or just 100GB Data per month?

Netflix alone uses 300GB of data per month from EACH computer in my house, you have to seriously hate technology to get by with that 100-200 GB data cap per month.

[Jito463]

On 10/7/2018 at 7:09 PM, mynameisjuan said:

cable is 40-50 along with DSL

On 10/7/2018 at 8:13 PM, jasonvp said:

This is "very low"

My DSL connection shows 18-19ms when I ping 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8, and Speedtest.net shows it at 5ms (of course, that's also to a server in the same city).  I don't know where you go that 40-50ms range from, but it doesn't bear out in reality.

On 10/7/2018 at 10:08 PM, Donut417 said:

Where 5G really could compete is Rural areas. The issue is, they are going to deploy it in the cities and most likely leave rural areas unupgraded. Rural areas dont have cable, generally they rely on crappy DSL or Satellite service. Maybe decent 4G LTE service if your lucky. 

The problem - as I understand it - is that 5G requires many more nodes in closer proximity to each other.  That's just not feasible in rural areas, which have a lower population and thus it's not cost effective to place all that hardware.

On 10/8/2018 at 6:57 PM, Trik'Stari said:

There's no real logic behind it, no finite thing is being used up, it doesn't cost the company any more in actual dollars if you download 100mb or 1000gb in a month.

Actually, it does.  The more data people use, the more bandwidth capacity they need to support all those customers.  The more capacity they need, the more infrastructure costs involved.  I'm not saying the caps are always justified, but there is a logical reason behind them.

15 hours ago, Spongy141 said:

Netflix alone uses 300GB of data per month from EACH computer in my house, you have to seriously hate technology to get by with that 100-200 GB data cap per month.

I know people who only use their computer to check e-mail and maybe Facebook.  That's it.  Those people wouldn't even need 100GB/mo to get by.  10GB would be more than enough.  Even as much as I'm on my computer, in the last 30 days I've used less than 180GB of data.  Not everyone needs completely unlimited data plans.  While I wouldn't want a capped plan on my land line, I'm perfectly fine with the data cap on my cell phone, because I rarely use it off of WiFi.

[Trik'Stari]

12 hours ago, Jito463 said:

My DSL connection shows 18-19ms when I ping 1.1.1.1 or 8.8.8.8, and Speedtest.net shows it at 5ms (of course, that's also to a server in the same city).  I don't know where you go that 40-50ms range from, but it doesn't bear out in reality.

The problem - as I understand it - is that 5G requires many more nodes in closer proximity to each other.  That's just not feasible in rural areas, which have a lower population and thus it's not cost effective to place all that hardware.

Actually, it does.  The more data people use, the more bandwidth capacity they need to support all those customers.  The more capacity they need, the more infrastructure costs involved.  I'm not saying the caps are always justified, but there is a logical reason behind them.

I know people who only use their computer to check e-mail and maybe Facebook.  That's it.  Those people wouldn't even need 100GB/mo to get by.  10GB would be more than enough.  Even as much as I'm on my computer, in the last 30 days I've used less than 180GB of data.  Not everyone needs completely unlimited data plans.  While I wouldn't want a capped plan on my land line, I'm perfectly fine with the data cap on my cell phone, because I rarely use it off of WiFi.

The could just leave the bottleneck.

 

The issue is the prioritization here. And again, we, the tax payers, are paying for the upgrades to their infrastructure that they aren't making.

 

 

[Jito463]

13 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

And again, we, the tax payers, are paying for the upgrades to their infrastructure that they aren't making.

That's when you send a message to your city council and/or state government, and tell them to do their jobs.  If they're giving tax payer money to these companies for expansion, then it's their responsibility to make sure it happens.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

That's when you send a message to your city council and/or state government, and tell them to do their jobs.  If they're giving tax payer money to these companies for expansion, then it's their responsibility to make sure it happens.

ummmm. Your technically in the same boat pal. Ever hear about the USF? The FCC collects this from us to give to the tele co's for upgrades. So its not always about the state or Locals, while they can also become road blocks. Last time I checked, those fat cats in DC dont give two fucks about any of us. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

So its not always about the state or Locals

No, but the more local the government, the easier it is get traction from complaints.

[Trik'Stari]

18 hours ago, Jito463 said:

That's when you send a message to your city council and/or state government, and tell them to do their jobs.  If they're giving tax payer money to these companies for expansion, then it's their responsibility to make sure it happens.

Yeah, people in local government positions are RARELY qualified to be there in my experience.

 

They know nothing about what you're talking about, they assume the same of you, and will just happily listen to their advisers and the lobbying of these ISP's more than you.

 

We need to stop electing incompetent retards and people who spend millions on getting elected. One isn't qualified and the other obviously just wants power for power's sake.

[Amazonsucks]

On 10/10/2018 at 9:06 PM, Jito463 said:

That's when you send a message to your city council and/or state government, and tell them to do their jobs.  If they're giving tax payer money to these companies for expansion, then it's their responsibility to make sure it happens.

Their job is to skim money from public coffers, placate the population while selling them out to big businesses. Local politicians are usually shit just like the rest.