Why Isn't Good Cheap Internet Available Everywhere?

[Rustic23]

5G! How many people really need it on a phone? Is it faster than 4g.. Yes, so I can download a 4k movie in 15 seconds, and watch it on a 6 inch screen! It's got great latency.... so I can play Halo on a 6 inch screen real fast! I can see massive cloud storage for things like music, and instant download, might be a reason, but how often do you listen to music you don't already have downloaded?

I know 5G is going to change the internet, and what it does for the medical field, transportation, stock transactions and a whole host of other fields will be amazing. Do I need it at home? Yes, is I were a gamer, most likely not to watch 4k TV.

Is it going to bring 100 to 500 mip internet to rural areas? Will I be using a hot spot for that? Do I need it on a phone?

Mods: If you feel this does not belong here, please move. Thanks.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

^Yeah 5G isn't really needed on a phone from user perspective and I wouldn't pay more for a 5G phone or especially more for the service. But 5G upgrades still make sense as it adds more capacity for the carriers as more devices are added to their networks. They get double the capacity for same width of spectrum and there's only so much mobile friendly spectrum. We shouldn't be paying for the upgrades. It should be standard lifecycle carrier upgrades as part of their budgeted CAPEX spending.

Most might want to wait for 5G phones to hit the same standard price as a 4G/LTE phone. 5G in use can also drain battery faster, but each year new 5G chipsets should draw less power. I'm not planning on getting a 5G phone for a while. Maybe a couple years or so when is at standard prices and not extra battery drain.

As you mentioned, for now 5G has more use as an option for home internet for those who have poor ISP options.

 

[Old Microbiologist]

harllee - It is interesting. Our provider is UPC which was recently purchased by Vodafone so things are a bit in flux. We get supposed 500 Mbps down and 22 Mbps up. The down seems to be somewhat swamped in the evenings. I have 3 PiHoles running (1 outside my network on the UPC box) all of which are running speedtest every 5 minutes. In general we average 250-400 Mbps (or 31 - 50 MBps). You have to be careful to use megabytes which is the real number with 8 bits to a byte. Still, it runs perfectly well with expected slowdown because of tourists here in our region in the summer. The infrastructure is thin wire split signal from cable TV. Very inexpensive to set up everywhere. The cost is roughly $5 a month although it is part of our landline/cable/internet package.

Hungary recently has begun the installation of real 5g from Huawei. It runs on the 3.5GHz frequency and expected download speeds are averaging 200 Mbps with a top speed of 1 Gbps. People are seeing the same numbers as on the home service. So far it is only available in Budapest which is far away from us. However, we are getting it beginning next week here in Balatonfured as Lake Balaton is a prime service area and our town along with Siofok will be the first to get the towers. Of course, this means upgrading phones to get 5G modems so that is on my Birthday wish list. That choice is somewhat difficult as the Huawei P40 Pro has the best cameras but also the additional problem of being under sanctions from the US so Google is not supported. I have a Samsung S9+ which I am happy with so probably I will have to choose between the S20+ and the P40 Pro. I am finished using Apple products and am happy to be out of the Apple world.

 

[JoeWras]

5G!

Hold the phone!

5G is not easily deployable, especially to rural areas. When the carriers raced through 2G, 3G, 4G, LTE, they could use the same towers. Not so with 5G. 5G requires a denser grid of towers.

But that's not the stickiest problem. The 5G towers need a backbone of fiber to attach to. You basically need a grid of fiber every 1000ft or so. Over the last few years, the carriers have been drilling like crazy through my city, laying fiber down on every major artery. This is prep for 5G.

So, sorry rural America. You will be last in line for 5G.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

Hold the phone!

5G is not easily deployable, especially to rural areas. When the carriers raced through 2G, 3G, 4G, LTE, they could use the same towers. Not so with 5G. 5G requires a denser grid of towers.

If 5G were only used on higher bands (over 6000Mhz) would need more density. But lower bands currently using 4G (700Mhz-2600Mhz) are also being refarmed to 5G at least with US carriers, so will have about same coverage. And Tmobile is putting 5G on 600Mhz from start, even a bit broader coverage though maybe not high speeds. Verizon started only with highest band (>28,000 Mhz mmWave) but will eventually start refarming lower bands. ATT and TMO have already started to refarm lower bands.

But that's not the stickiest problem. The 5G towers need a backbone of fiber to attach to. You basically need a grid of fiber every 1000ft or so. Over the last few years, the carriers have been drilling like crazy through my city, laying fiber down on every major artery. This is prep for 5G.

So, sorry rural America. You will be last in line for 5G.

Yes, more backhaul will be needed to sites to provide higher speeds and more capacity and that could take longer for rural areas even if using microwave for backhaul (fiber is ideal but not required for most sites).

Agree it will take a while for broad rural 5G coverage and Starlink might beat them to it. Rural areas outside metro areas and near Interstates might get 5G earlier than others.

Disclosure: I used to work for ATT and Sprint HQ.

 

[68bucks]

Well what is "high speed?" I have no cable or other wired options even though I live 2 miles from areas that have many wired options. It's a small road with only a few houses. We get a wireless service from a local company that gives us 12 mb down. That's "high speed" compared to some but to most that's slow. It has kept us from going the streaming route too much. I'd love to have an option for 40 or 50 mb. Also you can get satellite service about anywhere in the same 12 mb range but it's expensive and usually metered.

 

[CDRE]

IIRC, T-Mobile is rolling out 5G on the 600mhz spectrum that was used for analog television and thus broadcast using television towers. Perhaps many rural areas are already covered by this infrastructure.

 

[Rustic23]

68bucks, I first went streaming with Youtubetv with 12 mb down. It buffered every now and then, mostly on nightly news, but running one tv no real problem. As all the streaming services give a free trial, I recommend you give one a chance.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

Well what is "high speed?" I have no cable or other wired options even though I live 2 miles from areas that have many wired options. It's a small road with only a few houses. We get a wireless service from a local company that gives us 12 mb down. That's "high speed" compared to some but to most that's slow. It has kept us from going the streaming route too much. I'd love to have an option for 40 or 50 mb. Also you can get satellite service about anywhere in the same 12 mb range but it's expensive and usually metered.

For streamers, only about 5-7Mbps is needed per stream for HD, even 1-2M is doable for a low quality stream. For 4K streams, need about 25M per stream. Otherwise for downloads/uploads it's about what you find acceptable. I know single people with 5M connection and are fine with it. Not great but doable.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

IIRC, T-Mobile is rolling out 5G on the 600mhz spectrum that was used for analog television and thus broadcast using television towers. Perhaps many rural areas are already covered by this infrastructure.

Correct that the 600Mhz spectrum came from TV. TMO has to add the equipment for every cellsite though to support that frequency. And supply enough backhaul (bigger pipe) to the site.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

68bucks, I first went streaming with Youtubetv with 12 mb down. It buffered every now and then, mostly on nightly news, but running one tv no real problem. As all the streaming services give a free trial, I recommend you give one a chance.

Are you on DSL? DSL is very susceptible when oversubscribed. Meaning if many of your neighbors on DSL are active it can slow you and everyone down, especially during prime time hours when many are likely streaming. Other bottlenecks are possible but this is pretty common.

Older versions of cable internet (DOCSIS) were also susceptible to oversubscribing but most CableCos have upgraded.

 

[68bucks]

For streamers, only about 5-7Mbps is needed per stream for HD, even 1-2M is doable for a low quality stream. For 4K streams, need about 25M per stream. Otherwise for downloads/uploads it's about what you find acceptable. I know single people with 5M connection and are fine with it. Not great but doable.

I have done some streaming with reasonable results. I have just been reluctant to cut the cord because I know there are times that bandwidth will be an issue, as you mentioned with multiple TVs going. As I said I have HS internet and it works pretty well but if I had closer to the average cable speed I'd be more likely to cut the cord. I really dislike DTV. So again what is the threshold for "high speed?"

 

[Rustic23]

Are you on DSL? DSL is very susceptible when oversubscribed. Meaning if many of your neighbors on DSL are active it can slow you and everyone down, especially during prime time hours when many are likely streaming. Other bottlenecks are possible but this is pretty common.

Older versions of cable internet (DOCSIS) were also susceptible to oversubscribing but most CableCos have upgraded.

Yes on DSL in a neighbored oc 300 homes 25 down, 3 or 4 up. I have run two tv’s and three iPads at the same time no video on iPads

 

[Major Tom]

Phew! I'm a little perplexed by why a lot of internet users seem to value really high speeds. I'm not a gamer, nor do I value high definition video, so I imagine those two are the main reasons someone would want high speeds.

For the first few years of this brave new thing we used to call the Worldwide Web I, along with everyone else, fought the good fight with a dial-up modem and an initial speed of 28Kbps. Then came the upgrade to 56K, and I felt like I was really playing with the big boys. Some folk had this thing called broadband. I had heard of something called DSL, but it was expensive so, therefore, not for me.

Then DSL rolled out to the masses. Always one to value low prices over sheer performance, I looked for the lowest speed and lowest price I could get. As long as I could stream video on YouTube and Netflix - even fairly low quality video - I was happy. I didn't (and still don't) need extra high definition because, to me, the real power of a video lies in the narrative. It's all about storytelling, and not the special effects.

For the last 20 years or so, up until about 6 months ago, I did fine with ~1.5Kbps download speed. I lived in large metro areas, but wasn't able to get much higher speed reliably on DSL due, presumably, to a combination of my distance from the central station, and the number of other subscribers in my area. Cable was available, with much higher speeds, but I've always been too frugal to pay those kinds of prices. It just wasn't worth it to me.

Then, 6 months ago, I cancelled the DSL, and now use a phone as a hotspot for both my at-home and mobile internet needs. Visible uses the Verizon 4G LTE network, and gives truly unlimited data for $40/month. Teaming up with 3 other people gets my price down to $25/month. Speeds on the phone vary from something like 50Mbps down to about 3 or 4Mbps in the day. When the phone is used as a hotspot, the speed is capped at 5Mbps, but the total amount of data is still unlimited - which is good, as I use in excess of 80GB/month.

The hotspot can only be connected to one device at a time, so I use a little travel router to connect multiple devices. All my internet and mobile data needs for just $25/month. Brilliant! Y'all are welcome to your high speed connections. This frugal guy is doing just fine at 3-5Mbps.

The internet is amazing. Modest speeds will get you the advantage of it's most essential benefits. I suppose it's the old 80/20 rule.

Anyway, I know that this post doesn't really do anything to answer the question in the original post. I just felt like ranting a bit about the seemingly insatiable need for high speeds. I have friends who pay $70/month and more for high speed. They think that "high speed" is better because, well, bigger and faster is always better, isn't it? However, their usage indicates to me that they don't really need it. My best friend is paying $68/month for her home DSL connection which, in practice, is delivering the same kinds of speeds I am getting for $25/month. She also pays about the same for the data plan on her phone. Her monthly telecommunications bill is ~$140/month. Mine is ~$37/month for the same utility. Actually, my utility is a little greater, because I have 2 phones on 2 different networks. If you're on top of it, you can get a good amount of utility for not much dough. Most consumers aren't that discerning though, and just want to find a service they can sign up with, and keep paying the bill to the same people, month after month after month. It's easier that way.

End of not completely on-topic rant. My apologies

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

^68Bucks, If you're using wireless, monthly data caps is more of a concern than speed. Depending on how much you watch and quality of video you could hit the cap. Do you know the monthly data cap for your provider? LIke 50GB/month?

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

Yes on DSL in a neighbored oc 300 homes 25 down, 3 or 4 up. I have run two tv’s and three iPads at the same time no video on iPads

Yeah I suspected you were on DSL given what you described. Try doing a speedtest from speedtest.net when you have buffering issues (with no other major activity). If it's well below what it's supposed to be it probably means your neighbors are hitting DSL hard as well.

 

[braumeister]

They think that "high speed" is better because, well, bigger and faster is always better, isn't it? However, their usage indicates to me that they don't really need it.

Yes, in general I believe you're right about that. Most people simply haven't bothered to look into what they really need.

As this other post said:

For streamers, only about 5-7Mbps is needed per stream for HD, even 1-2M is doable for a low quality stream. For 4K streams, need about 25M per stream. Otherwise for downloads/uploads it's about what you find acceptable.

I've also read that except for gamers a download speed of 10 M is all most of us are likely to need. That may change in the future due to increasingly high resolutions, but it should be plenty for quite a while.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

Visible uses the Verizon network, and gives truly unlimited data for $40/month. Teaming up with 3 other people gets my price down to $25/month. Speeds on the phone vary from something like 50Mbps down to about 3 or 4Mbps in the day. When the phone is used as a hotspot, the speed is capped at 5Mbps, but the total amount of data is still unlimited - which is good, as I use in excess of 80GB/month.

I was wondering how well Visible would be as a solution for streaming via hotspot. Great to hear it's a viable option.

Sprint/Tmobile have a soft data cap when using hotspot and may slow down speeds if hit but many say it's not enough to impact streaming. Might depend on which plan.

 

[RunningBum]

Factor in any reduction due to not having a good wifi signal or an old wireless router. I just helped a neighbor set up wifi to her desktop for a switch to cable (long story, no cable outlet near her desktop). I got 90Mbps with my laptop hardwired into the cable modem, but just 20Mbps at her desktop a floor above the modem and router. She said it was good enough and I needed to extract myself so I wouldn't be her full time help support. But not before I had to figure out why some stuff wasn't printing, but other stuff was. Out of black ink. I'm so smart. Sometimes.

 

[Major Tom]

I was wondering how well Visible would be as a solution for streaming via hotspot. Great to hear it's a viable option.

It has worked well for me for 6 months now. Have been doing a lot of Netflix binge-watching at home, with no problems. A small travel router allows multiple devices to be connected, including my main desktop computer.

In an earlier post, you asked about monthly data caps. I think you've probably answered your own question by now, but Visible has no monthly data cap at all. When using the phone as a hotspot though, the speed is capped at 5Mbps.

They have a system called Party Pay. For every person who joins your "party", the cost goes down by $5/month to each member of the "party", to a maximum of 4 people. Everyone in the group retains their own account, and no-one is financially responsible for anyone else in the group. If anyone leaves the group, your bill goes up by $5, unless you find another member. You don't need to even know the other members. Party Pay members are easy to find, and there are Facebook groups for this specific purpose. New members are easy, and quick, to find. From what I can tell, most Party Pay groups are pretty stable, as it's such a good deal.

 

[JustVisitingThisPlanet]

^Good to know. Will be suggesting that to some. On the data cap question, that was for 68bucks and his wireless provider.

 

[Major Tom]

^Good to know. Will be suggesting that to some. On the data cap question, that was for 68bucks and his wireless provider.

Aaah, got it. My misunderstanding.

 

[68bucks]

^68Bucks, If you're using wireless, monthly data caps is more of a concern than speed. Depending on how much you watch and quality of video you could hit the cap. Do you know the monthly data cap for your provider? LIke 50GB/month?

No cap by my provider. They are a line of site technology. They place antenna on tall objects like grain elevators, water towers, etc. I pay $50 a month, they're local and have great customer service. They have some land based tech in some small towns. One near me can get 1 gb fiber to the house.

 

[harllee]

Major Tom, my Church is trying to help some families that do not have internet get it in their house for the children's schooling. From what you said Verizon Visible might be an economic option we need to look into. For those families in a very rural area, what type of Verizon signal do they need? There are areas in the county where I only get one or two dots of service on my Verizon phone. In those areas could a family get internet with Visible?

 

[Major Tom]

Major Tom, my Church is trying to help some families that do not have internet get it in their house for the children's schooling. From what you said Verizon Visible might be an economic option we need to look into. For those families in a very rural area, what type of Verizon signal do they need? There are areas in the county where I only get one or two dots of service on my Verizon phone. In those areas could a family get internet with Visible?

I only get 2 bars in my house, and my Visible hotspot works fine. I just checked the speed. It is 5.5Mbps down and 3Mbps up. Not going to break any records with those speeds, but it's enough for my needs. I just finished binge-watching Ozark on Netflix with it, on my desktop computer, with no interruptions. Not that there is any standardization to the calibration of the signal strength bars on phones, because there probably isn't, but it sounds hopeful. As Visible is a no-contract service, they could try it out without a major commitment. They used to have a $19 phone, which is what I am using. They don't have that any more, but they do have a $99 phone that is free if you send them an old smartphone.

I hope you are able to help them. The internet is such an important tool these days, that everyone should have access to it, in my opinion. I'm sure all here agree.