Slashdot Mirror
Verizon: No 4G-Level Data Caps For 5G Home Service (pcmag.com)
Verizon recently announced that its upcoming 5G home internet service will not have the kinds of data limits you expect from current wireless services. It will reportedly be able to handle the average data load of a FiOS customer, and it won't be throttled down to 4G gigabyte caps. PC Magazine reports: Verizon has been trying out its new 5G home internet service for months. In a tour of its New Jersey lab, we got a closer look at the 5G antenna setup we saw at Mobile World Congress in February. It's a silver device the size of a paperback book, which connects to a Wi-Fi router with a display. You're supposed to put in a window facing Verizon's 5G service tower. In the test lab, engineer David Binczewski (below) showed us how the company is still working through the challenges of high-frequency, short-distance, millimeter-wave 5G -- most notably, how to penetrate various materials. In a chamber designed to test new 5G devices, he held up a piece of wood between a 5G emitter and a receiver, and we watched the signal fuzz out a bit on a nearby equipment screen. During a roundtable, VP of network support Mike Haberman, some other Verizon folks, and the assembled journalists agreed that an average data cap in the vicinity of 180GB/month would satisfy the average consumer. That's far more than Verizon's current 4G traffic management limit, where folks who use more than 22GB get sent to the back of the line if a tower is congested.
How many Targeted subs per node and back haul from each node?
So verizon advertises unlimited broadband, but slows you down if you go over a set amount. They then admit that the average user should be good with a NEW limit that is almost 10x what their current limit is.
So what does that say about them, their advertising, and their current limit?
Sure, today unlimited. Tomorrow, screw off loser you are using too much traffic. No more unlimited for you!!
180 GB is nice.. as caps go -- but it's still cap, that can be lowered, or additional fees can be added.
http://www.hawknest.com/
I'll take a physical connection to a problematic wireless connection, any day. All that talk about losing direct broadcast television when it rains is really true; and, what about all those trees?
Isn't xfinity 1TB? I was assuming the market they were going for was the areas where they have a land line presence but cable ruled. They seem way low for their 'average' for people who want to dump cable and go with streaming.
Comcast\Verizon\Xfinity has NEVER lied, EVER!
Really trust us!
So...Verison is planning to overcome physics? Wavelengths attenuate....
180GB is six hours a day of watching SD video, or plenty for just about anything other than video. So it seems about right - high enough to satisfy what most people want, but low enough to discourage the wasteful practice of leaving the TV on, in HD, all day and night when nobody is watching. That's the killer for bandwidth - streaming video that nobody is even watching.
I hope they offer a lower cap, lower price service as well. I use maybe 10GB / month. I work from home, but I don't watch video over wireless internet all day.
Yes, and no. Some caps are per second, rather than per month, which just feels like it is slower, but you never get disconnected. Of course, you pay less if you opt for the slower connection. This is how it is/was in Finland when I lived there, and I much prefer it since I can rely on always being connected.l, irrespective of how much data is used.
It sounds like it is the same in the USA as it is in the UK, unfortunately. Here, there is no option to have a slower connection for less money, and the only thing you can do is to pay for a lower monthly cap and risk whatever penalty they impose when you exceed it.
Max.
The question is, will they be standing up some of these towers in areas where neither they nor anyone else will ever run fiber?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yeah it's hard to come up with a single number that works well - that gives people what they want, but discourages reckless waste. As I mentioned, I probably use about 10GB and I work from home, over the internet. Intensive video uses bandwidth in a hurry, though.
180GB would cost $18 at 10 cents per GB. That would be cheap enough, perhaps, but still enough that people would turn off the TV (video stream) when they go to sleep or leave the house.
If there is more than 1 person that is a cord cutter that's not enough. It's a complete joke for an entire family.
There's a lot of promises being made about 5G. Most of them are not just hype, but many will not be possible once the standard is in place, and some of the real world deployment scenarios are figured out.
I think the telcos are going to figure out how to get fixed mobile broadband working. There's too much to lose if they don't. They've fallen way behind on broadband access (except for areas where Verizon invested in FiOS) and the cable companies have taken a huge lead. T-Mobile specifically has so much to gain, because they don't have a current broadband presence.
It's likely that especially for rural areas, this will be a game changing moment. There will likely be three or four truly high speed options for internet in places that might not even have one today.
Internet demands are going to continue to grow. 30 Mbps in 2020 may feel like 5 Mbps today. Usable, but pokey. Unusable if you have multiple devices (or users). A typical "heavy usage" household in 2020 might have demands to stream 4K Netflix/Hulu on a TV (~15Mbps), concurrent with a 4K YouTube feed (user #2) (~15Mbps), and life streaming kind of appliances (think Amazon Echo Show on steroids). (~5 Mbps). If you're doing any kind of file syncing or web browsing concurrently (user #3), you're going to get squeezed out. By ~2022, I would not be surprised if the working definition of "high speed internet" is 100 Mbps. Is 5G going to deliver that? For everyone?
Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
I'll bet money that if this wood was wet, the signal would fuzz out even more. You know, like a tree in the rain. Even better, chop off a branch with green leaves, get them wet, and test that.
Got a new computer - with 3 kids that isn't an unusual event. Updating to windows 10 blew right through my data cap in 1 day with the OS download from MS and then all the updates. 180 GB would be 6 GB a day. That'd be just about perfect.
Verizon: Meeting the needs of yesterday... tomorrow!
While a 180GB data cap *might* be reasonable today, I regularly exceed that with regular Netflix streaming.
A 4K stream uses around 7 - 10GB/hour, so 180GB means 18 hours of streaming/month, or around a half hour a day.
8K TV's are already available, and they'll use at least twice the bandwidth.
The speed is higher, the cap is higher. Whoopie.
It is interesting that they discuss caps that would be OK with an average home user today. They won't be OK with an average home user by the time this comes out. Therefore, they are already planning on a network capacity designed to justify caps and gouging. The basis for the whining we'll hear 5 years from now is already in place.
This may be valid as a backup internet solution. In my house, 180GB per month is certainly not enough, I doubt that would last a week. Not with 5 people and 4 Roku's and my Linux ISO downloading habit.
However, I'm in the rural SouthEast US, and I only have one internet provider (cable) available. My only backup solutions would be using an LTE modem, or resorting to HughesNet for Satellite. Which wouldn't be bad as backup solutions, but the cost for the meager amount of bandwidth they provide and the fact that it would cost more per month than my primary Internet feed, well, that's just a non-starter.
However, I suspect that given the nearness required for their high freq deployment, my location means that their 5G deployment won't make it my way anytime soon even if the cost is reasonable.
The first thing I thought of when I read the summary is....
PC Magazine is still around??
They could sell bandwidth. Like how they sell water. Have a base cost for a connection and a per usage cost for data. That would mean the heavy users would pay more, and the light users would pay less.
I have a similar opinion: 4G still isn't properly rolled-out yet (even here in London it's hit-and-miss), so why would I care about 5G?
High powered transmitters have been on the air continuously for nearly a century now, and you are worried about the little toy radio in your cellphone? WROC "Bringing you all of the latest death metal hits!" has been blasting your body full of high powered RF waves all of your life, and you are not 'glowing green' are you? Good Grief.
180GB is probably more than enough for a handheld user, but for a home internet service where you dealing with 1080p-4K videos?
If people give up on the idea of regular home streams of 1080p - 4K video, sure 180G might be enough -- but I've easily had a majority of months in the past few years where my *upload* traffic was 1TB or more -- these tiny caps seem to expect everyone will be watching 240-360p videos on their handhelds from the cloud.
I guess large home theater screens along with the home PC are going the way of the dodo bird?
Lame how these profiteers make tiny sound like the new big and how many don't question this...
Typically, each launcher has its own targeting system, such that a single destroyer can target more subs than any nation other than Russia or the US can realistically dispatch together.
However, the debris tends to sink, so it is rarely hauled back . . . :)
hawk