Slashdot Mirror
Despite Data Caps and Throttling, Industry Says Mobile Can Replace Home Internet (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T and Verizon are trying to convince the Federal Communications Commission that mobile broadband is good enough for Internet users who don't have access to fiber or cable services. The carriers made this claim despite the data usage and speed limitations of mobile services. In the mobile market, even "unlimited" plans can be throttled to unusable speeds after a customer uses just 25GB or so a month. Mobile carriers impose even stricter limits on phone hotspots, making it difficult to use mobile services across multiple devices in the home. The carriers ignored those limits in filings they submitted for the FCC's annual review of broadband deployment.
The big telecoms monopolies aren't even trying, now that they've pwned the FCC.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
You didn't think the industry spent billions lobbying against net neutrality without expecting to make it all back, did you? They want everyone to be tied to wireless so that they can throttle, cap and otherwise limit their connections in order to force customers into more expensive plans.
The goal is now and always has been to extract as much profit while providing the bare minimum service that they can get away with.
I'm on 6mb DSL (768k up) and only got that recently after some fiber was run. Prior I could get 3mb DSL but I was on the edge of service for that, and S:N ratio kept me from having a decent connection - I'd loose connection every 5-10 minutes. So 1.5mb DSL.
While my phone co (Windstream) has been making massive improvements in connectivity where I am (mostly rural, N Central Fl) I'm still on the edge of connectivity for my AT&T cell/data. As in, I may have 3g, or 4g. Or LTE. I may have one dot on connection meter, or two. Or mostly none. Depending on where I am in the house or what part of the "yard" (5 acres) I'm in.
So no, when lack of density prevents cable or DSL from being available, you can't always depend on cellular - until AT&T et al start building more towers.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Back in the '30's, electricity wasn't to be had out in the sticks. Part of FDR's New Deal basically had the Feds pay for the wires to fix that.
It could be done again, if we wanted to spend a metric fuckton of money doing so.
Note, for those who want to blame a political Party for the failure to do so, it hasn't been done under Trump (R), nor was it done under Obama (D), nor Bush (R), nor Clinton (D). This has been a bipartisan "Yuck Foo" to the people who live out in the boonies (probably mostly because there aren't enough of them to matter come election time)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
...this untenable position? Money, of course.
A: From the article:
In other words, it's about cutting capital investment costs to increase profit margins.
The kicker is that they were just crying about how net neutrality was a terrible thing because they couldn't manage traffic better to keep mobile service running. They were also just crying about how mobile data caps are absolutely necessary to keep from "clogging the tubes" (an outright lie).
But they're trying to claim they want to claim that mobile is an adequate substitute for home/wired internet??
(This exact same argument failed in 2017 after Ajit Pai initially supported the idea but backtracked after taking a shit-ton of heat from the public and consumer advocates.)
Corporate executives don't deal in facts. They deal in their own malleable truth sundaes, sprinkled on top with factoids that they can sell in a different package at any time...
they want everyone to have both and to pay around $160/mo for the landline and $70/mo (+$35 for your phone) for the wireless.
Thing is, I don't think voters are going to do anything about it. Texas, for example, has a senate candidate (Beto O'Rouke) who refuses corporate PAC money but he's behind in the polls by 9 points. Nancy Pelosi beat her primary challenger and she's as corrupt as they come. So far the voters still vote for whoever has the most money, regardless of where that money came from.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Try checking to see if the carriers servicing your area offer fixed wireless service. Basically, it's an LTE hotspot designed to be used in one place, usually operating on a less congested low band. In most cases it'll be similarly priced to an "unlimited" handset plan, but with more generous data caps and friendlier throttling policies. And, of course, no tethering restrictions. NB: As with any wireless/LTE connection data rates can vary anywhere from "awesome" to "why bother" depending on all the usual factors.
The hotspot already works like that.
The connection does not go dead on the hotspot when you've exceed 10GB, it just goes to 3G speeds. But for all modern internet use that is very nearly dead, and not useful even for most web browsing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I assumed they were really talking about home 5g service competing with cable/fiber. My hopes are that it does as it'll mean in a few years most people may have at least 3 high speed internet options. I see no real need for 5g on mobile devices for most people. The cable companies are going to fight tooth and nail to try to keep them out of the home internet game. This just seems like them strengthening their position. In the end cable and mobile phone companies will all morph into some new competing industry. Not sure what it'll be called but it won't be defined by tv or phone.