existenz

join:2014-02-12 2 edits existenz Member Low orbit satellite might be best compromise



But can SAT provide enough capacity to allow for high/no caps?



This company claims 80Gb capacity per SAT and 150ms roundtrip latency, that's enough to support 13K-26K people doing Netflix at same time...

»www.o3bnetworks.com/medi ··· tre/faqs There are plans to deploy low orbit satellite that will give broad coverage, fairly high bandwidth and while not great latency, it will be better than high orbit satellite. Might at least allow for Netflix/Amazon/etc streaming.But can SAT provide enough capacity to allow for high/no caps?This company claims 80Gb capacity per SAT and 150ms roundtrip latency, that's enough to support 13K-26K people doing Netflix at same time...

Drakemoore

join:2005-02-03

Hawthorne, FL 1 recommendation Drakemoore Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise I don't really see satellite as a compromise.



We used to have unlimited data on AT&T DSL and they only limited it when Netflix and online TV started to become a big thing. I don't think it's a capacity issue, more them protecting their business interests in TV.



150 MS latency for me would be absolutely terrible compared to the 20 I have now.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 2 edits existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise By compromise I mean compared to rolling out fiber. It may take decades to get fiber to rural areas/small towns if ever. If it's true that low orbit SAT can get 80Gb capacity, it's probably the most realistic way to get decent bandwidth to those areas over next 10+ years.



Edits: And you'd think they could double the capacity per SAT every few years if not more often - like if they supply the SATs with redundant ground laser beams, which also should help latency some.

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC Westell 6100

Cisco PIX 501

cramer Premium Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Rural fiber is never going to happen, because it will never be profitable. The ROI will never be in single digit years, much less the 2 years max any investors will float.



Additional satellite capacity requires more and newer satellites. The hardware already in orbit is rather impossible to upgrade -- being 22,000 miles away. I don't know how many satellites you own, but I'm guessing it's zero because they are multi-billion dollar devices. (and they aren't using lasers... how steady is your aim? can you hold a ~1mm laser beam on something the size of school bus twenty. two. thousand. miles. away. I didn't think so.) The issue with satellite internet is pure physics: you cannot avoid the shear distance involved. LEO satellites will be a few hundred miles up, but they're moving across the sky at exceptional speed. (roughly an hour to orbit the entire planet.)

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise



Low orbit SAT is definitely worth researching further even if some is half-baked today.



»www.technologyreview.com ··· cations/ Am talking about future research/development of low orbit SAT, not what is available today. It might be possible to do low orbit geostationary at some point. And the 03b are apparently under 100 hundred million per SAT, not billions. They are claiming 80Gb capacity per SAT today - likely would rise in future. NASA is testing laser to the moon and planning for beyond solar system, so sounds possible to hit small target with auto locking mechs.Low orbit SAT is definitely worth researching further even if some is half-baked today.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH 1 recommendation Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise You can not have low orbit geostationary satellites. Physics says as much. To keep something in geostationary orbit any closer than the 22k miles you would need rocket motors or other means of thrust that would constantly be firing to keep it aimed and to keep it up. Basically there is sadly no way to keep something up in a geostationary orbit with out it being 22k miles give or take from the surface. It must b moving to maintain orbi or be actively held by rocket motors or other methods of propulsion.





existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise You conflicted with yourself there, first saying it 'cannot' be done, limited by physics then that it could be with propulsion, which I was aware of.



Not impossible, is worth researching. Or having moving SATs with ground lasers that move along with SATs (geomobile locking with combined laser/radio) and rotate to 200+ going by as well as the SATs talking to each other via laser within LOS. If Asia and Europe investors helped fund, 200 low orbit SATs could be done for about $20B, or a few $B per investor and cover a good chunk of major northern hemisphere countries.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise The point is that using propulsion is not orbit. It is simply being held up by a constant thrust. Orbit at most requires only minute thrust on rare occasions to adjust the orbit. Dust etc can effect a satellite's orbit.



Once something is in orbit (real orbit) it is very easy to move it a little bit as needed. But to maintain it at say just out side the atmosphere and keep it in a pseudo geostationary orbit would require massive amounts of fuel and also the ability to refuel it often.If ion propulsion was powerful enough to maintain the satellites position. Then you could have one way way lower. Hell you could have the sucker just inside our atmosphere.



Thing is stuff like ion propulsion is many decades away from even being remotely feasible for something like position holding for a sat. It just does not provide enough thrust. Power source wouldn't be a problem other than size you would need a nuclear reactor that could power the engines for decades.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Fair enough, but either orbit or stationary, is worth researching further. Progress doesn't happen when everyone says 'can't'.

WhatNow

Premium Member

join:2009-05-06

Charlotte, NC WhatNow Premium Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Last week they had a big sun spot let off a class X1.6 flare. They were not sure how much of the storm would hit the earth. Most of the energy must have missed the Earth but if it had hit satellites they may have been put out of commission. Satellites are hard to repair. Just think of all the people that would be without service for an extended time.

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC Westell 6100

Cisco PIX 501

cramer to existenz

Premium Member to existenz





GEO/GSO is 22k miles - PERIOD. The only way around that is a) anti-gravity, or b) an absolutely unimaginable rigid structure (~8200mi diameter lattice), or c) thrusters actively holding it in position. "A" is not possible based on current physics. "B" is well beyond human engineering capabilities (and very like exceeds the raw materials available on the planet.) "C" is the only one possible, until it runs out of fuel -- and fuel is rather heavy.



NASA's laser relay is not intended to be ground based -- the surface of the planet is far from stable, and there's all that nasty atmosphere in the way. Plus, that system is ONE unit on earth and ONE unit on the moon (mars, etc.) That's much easier than 80,000 homes firing lasers at a satellite. If you think it's a pain to aim your Directv dish, wait 'til you have one of these things to aim.



LEO technology is still way beyond us. The only way we can make it work today is put so much junk in low orbit that it would be nearly impossible to get anything through it. It would be like dodging rain to get anything into higher orbit. (we have enough of a space debris problem already.) Have you been reading Dyson's papers again?GEO/GSO is 22k miles - PERIOD. The only way around that is a) anti-gravity, or b) an absolutely unimaginable rigid structure (~8200mi diameter lattice), or c) thrusters actively holding it in position. "A" is not possible based on current physics. "B" is well beyond human engineering capabilities (and very like exceeds the raw materials available on the planet.) "C" is the only one possible, until it runs out of fuel -- and fuel is rather heavy.NASA's laser relay is not intended to be ground based -- the surface of the planet is far from stable, and there's all that nasty atmosphere in the way. Plus, that system is ONE unit on earth and ONE unit on the moon (mars, etc.) That's much easier than 80,000 homes firing lasers at a satellite. If you think it's a pain to aim your Directv dish, wait 'til you have one of these things to aim.LEO technology is still way beyond us. The only way we can make it work today is put so much junk in low orbit that it would be nearly impossible to get anything through it. It would be like dodging rain to get anything into higher orbit. (we have enough of a space debris problem already.) Iridium does it with 66 LEO satellites at 476mi, isn't all that profitable, not all that fast, and cannot support even a fraction of what land based services currently support.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise

»arstechnica.com/informat ··· -access/



I've been mostly talking possibilities with future tech, not probabilities with current tech. Is a big chunk of what research explores. Looks like Google is investing in low orbit SAT...I've been mostly talking possibilities with future tech, not probabilities with current tech. Is a big chunk of what research explores.

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC Westell 6100

Cisco PIX 501

cramer Premium Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise a) Google pumps money into a lot of stupid things. Sometimes it pays off, other times it's simply abandoned.

b) 5000 miles is not remotely "low earth orbit". It's about half the orbit of GPS satellites. (~12,500mi)

c) Their claim of sub-150ms RTT is ambitious, seeing as it's 53ms station-to-station each way. You'd have to have a very shitty long-haul fiber for that to be faster.



That said, if it were in the 40$ for 10/1Mbps with no idiotic usage caps, I'd buy it.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Agree with all counts, but given fiber to rural isn't likely, this may be second best option even with its faults. Is worth researching further. And good for remote outdoorsy people, ships at sea, etc.



antdude

ANTh Vader

Premium Member

join:2001-03-25

US antdude to cramer

Premium Member to cramer

said by cramer: Rural fiber is never going to happen, because it will never be profitable. The ROI will never be in single digit years, much less the 2 years max any investors will float... In my former crowded Verizon home area, there were lots of houses and apartments (not a rural area to me). No FIOS and DSL (20+K ft. to CO).

cramer

Premium Member

join:2007-04-10

Raleigh, NC 1 recommendation cramer Premium Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise And you're just adding gas to the fire... if they won't run fiber where is IS profitable, they sure as hell aren't going to where it isn't.



v6movement

@135.23.225.x 1 recommendation v6movement to Drakemoore

Anon to Drakemoore

said by Drakemoore: I don't really see satellite as a compromise. High latency and extremely low caps is the definition of compromise.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) to existenz

Member to existenz

LOL non geostationary orbit sat. That round trip 150ms is only when the sat is directly overhead. Also your internet would go down as the satellite moved out of range. You would need to wait for another of their sats to move in to range to regain your internet. The 150ms round trip ping time would only be for a couple minutes and would fast climb to 500+ms same as any other satellite.



They freely admit their sats are not geostationary they do not admit that your internet would only be up for short periods with downtime in-between of a unknown amount of time. Likely longer downtime than up-time.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Yeah, it can't work as well unless SATs are geostationary or if there many many SATs to take over when one passes. I was just using 03b as an example, not necessarily their implementation.



Assuming geostationary, laser feeds in future might help reduce latency, if the lasers are low enough power not to interfere with things flying overhead. And if redudant on many levels and SATs talking to each other with laser, things flying around won't cause SAT to lose feed if enough redundant feeds.



Low orbit SAT is definitely something to research further, not necessarily what 03b has today.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise



All electromagnetic spectrum moves at the same speed be that visable light uv ir xray gama ray or microwave. The only difference in the spectrum is how strong a signal each is able to carry. Short wave can reach half way around the globe in near perfect conditions and low power reach while micro wave can only make it a few 100 miles in near perfect conditions and high power. Lazer if the beam is bounced off mirrors or beamed from space can reach the furthest with a much lower power than even short wave in near perfect conditions depending on the type used.



But what do you care mr google fiber heheh



Obviously just joking a bit radio waves and light both move at same speed light speed. Meaning you could use lazer or radio and latency remains the same 500ms one way (best case 450ms one way).All electromagnetic spectrum moves at the same speed be that visable light uv ir xray gama ray or microwave. The only difference in the spectrum is how strong a signal each is able to carry. Short wave can reach half way around the globe in near perfect conditions and low power reach while micro wave can only make it a few 100 miles in near perfect conditions and high power. Lazer if the beam is bounced off mirrors or beamed from space can reach the furthest with a much lower power than even short wave in near perfect conditions depending on the type used.But what do you care mr google fiber hehehObviously just joking a bit

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise That's in a vacuum. When you factor less interference with direct light beam than interference with indirect radio wave, I would expect the latency of laser beam to be better. Is why I said laser 'might' help latency, especially with that kind of distance.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise still the minimal round trip time is just sub 1 second. in a vacuum with out dust water etc to scatter the beam or signal you may get 400 ms one way or 800ms round trip. Sat companies often tout 800 ms round trip pings in optimal conditions 10 to 1 odd that they are tossing out in vacuum no dust no water figures.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise But how about directional laser beam vs. indirect radio? There's more interference with indirect radio, right? Maybe I'm off base. Even so, they could get more capacity with laser feeds if not a latency boost.



w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise There is some thing called directed energy and an interferometer can be used to beam individual photons to devices, created single photon width communications , or like a wireless fiber connection to each device. It does not use omnidirectional antenna like current consumer level technology uses. It does not flood the entire area around an antenna with radiation like the current technology does. Each device gets dedicated bandwidth with this set up limited only by how many states and thus bits and bytes can be separated and created by the devices communicating back and forth, probably on the same level as fiber itself.

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) to existenz

Member to existenz

No your correct. Radio waves can be screwed with by misty rain and other radio sources even if they are not even close to the same frequency.



See other post of mine but it is similar with lazer beams as well rain snow trees etc all mess with it.But it also has the problem of sunlight as well. The sun moon stars etc all put off some wave lengths that are in the lazers spectrum of light. UV IR and visable are all hitting us from all those sources

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15

Mississauga, ON dra6o0n to Nanaki

Member to Nanaki

Ahem. Google Loon.

It's not a satellite but it can be these balloons tethered up in each area to allow 'satellite' based beaming. Much shorter distance means less latency to worry about, plus it's a friggin balloon, how expensive is it to maintain that?

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Well your talking what ammounts to a large helium balloon. They will need to be brought down refilled and sent back up. We are years from seeing those hit the skies in any thing but limited tests for proof of concept. Now there are other options like long flight drones that can stay aloft for months or years running on solar with little need to do any thing to them. They could be set to fly a tight pattern. As they would be only 1000s of feet high (lower than airliners higher than private planes) latency would be comparable to wired or fiber to home type set ups. As they could fly below cloud deck the issues of lost signals do to cloud cover that you get with sat based net would be non existent. You would get some signal fade during heavy rain but even then it would not be to bad. Say maybe 25ms longer round trips?



Or maybe some other tech such as sticking the equipment on existing towers buildings telephone and utility poles such as akron did with connect akron. While connect akron failed it does not mean that a wide spread high powered wifi network using actual satellite equipment would have to fail as well.



Think about this you take say 750 satellites strip them down and use their equipment on cell towers and or buildings you could all but blanket the us in decent broad band internet with no fiber no wires. Bump that number up to 1500+ and you could get very very good to great coverage broadband. a satelite has a massive potential to give wide coverage. A single geo stat sat can cover i don't even know how big a area from space. That same equipment on towers would cover less obviously but still a huge area. Few 100 miles? in a conical coverage area. I honestly think grounded tower mounted satellite transmitters would give the best coverage and lowest cost. Most of the cost of a sat is getting the sucker in orbit. Take away the getting it in orbit cost and you got a fairly cheap package of transmitters and receivers. I obviously have not looked up the cost but i would almost be willing to bet the package it self would be sub 10k usd in price to cover a few 100 sq miles hmm thats cheap.



w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g to existenz

Member to existenz





It does not make sense. There is simply no excuse for why each home and business should not be wired with fiber in this day and age. Wireless, even satellite, is not a substitute.



Also there are health concerns with LTE and satellite communications. According to prominent studies and white papers such as Martin Pall's highly touted research, we are making ourselves sick from biological health effects of microwaves and non ionizing radiation. People are having increased anxieties, depression, headaches, cancers, DNA damage, melotonin drops, tumors, sleep issues, concentration problems, plant life is disrupted, bee and birds are going extinct and colonies are collapsing.. All before of this microwave smog that we are coated in now, this inivisible radiation pumping out from huge WiFi, cellular and cellphone masts/devices, etc. There are now on average 20 high power sources of radiation and wireless transmissions right in our home, near our beds, pumping out over our heads at work, huge antennas set up over groups of homes.



In some countries they have recognized the problem and reduced signal exposure by thousands of times. In america they continue to act with reckless disregard for life, and are promoting these deadly technologies in place of less harmful ones like faster superior fiber to the home.



Dozens of white papers and three videos in this section of my website: »



There is info about government weaponization of RF mixed in. Scroll down to Dr. Martin Pall and Dr. Paul Dart s papers and you will find the others and videos. The documentary "Resonance: Beings of Frequency" is pretty nice. Dr. Martin pall and Paul Dart also testify before Oregon legislature about the problem Feb 2014. Its worth a listen. 150ms round trip is insane. 12k to 30k is also not a lot of capacity. And thus will require multiple satellites per large town.It does not make sense. There is simply no excuse for why each home and business should not be wired with fiber in this day and age. Wireless, even satellite, is not a substitute.Also there are health concerns with LTE and satellite communications. According to prominent studies and white papers such as Martin Pall's highly touted research, we are making ourselves sick from biological health effects of microwaves and non ionizing radiation. People are having increased anxieties, depression, headaches, cancers, DNA damage, melotonin drops, tumors, sleep issues, concentration problems, plant life is disrupted, bee and birds are going extinct and colonies are collapsing.. All before of this microwave smog that we are coated in now, this inivisible radiation pumping out from huge WiFi, cellular and cellphone masts/devices, etc. There are now on average 20 high power sources of radiation and wireless transmissions right in our home, near our beds, pumping out over our heads at work, huge antennas set up over groups of homes.In some countries they have recognized the problem and reduced signal exposure by thousands of times. In america they continue to act with reckless disregard for life, and are promoting these deadly technologies in place of less harmful ones like faster superior fiber to the home.Dozens of white papers and three videos in this section of my website: » www.OregonStateHospital. ··· ml#links There is info about government weaponization of RF mixed in. Scroll down to Dr. Martin Pall and Dr. Paul Dart s papers and you will find the others and videos. The documentary "Resonance: Beings of Frequency" is pretty nice. Dr. Martin pall and Paul Dart also testify before Oregon legislature about the problem Feb 2014. Its worth a listen.

existenz

join:2014-02-12 existenz Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise Yeah, I agree a town over 10K that has homes fairly close together should eventually get wired up. But for rural areas and tiny towns where you have 1-2 homes per mile or less, low orbit SAT may have its place. And also as a backup for those who do get wired.



If they can boost capacity with ground based laser beams, it could be even more plausible..

Nanaki (banned)

aka novaflare. pull punches? Na

join:2002-01-24

Akron, OH Nanaki (banned) Member Re: Low orbit satellite might be best compromise said by existenz: If they can boost capacity with ground based laser beams, it could be even more plausible.



With fiber as you may well know already being on it. What they are basically doing is sending a beam of light through it. The fiber simply lets the light bounce back and forth inside the glass fiber.

fiber believe it or not has a fairly higher latency than a lazer beam. Over large distances it can be 5+ms difference. While grossly exagerated the beam in a fiber cable looks like this /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ as i bounces back and forth along the sides where as a lazer beam is ------------------. Im not sure of what the light actually is running through a fiber optic bundle likely it is a lazer. You by pass the fiber optic strand and you save latency.



It is why the individual fiber strand is so damn thin. Thicker cable more distance for the beam to bounce between thinner is obviously less.



The biggest problem with tower to tower pole to pole lazer is things getting in the way trees birds even snow would cause some problems. You would need a aray or transmitters and receivers to offer redundancy so that the system was not relying on a single beam ten beams each providing the exact same data pole to pole tower to tower 9 beams can get blocked and all the data would still get through. Essentially a raid array that is mirroring the data. The only difference is in this case it is not storing it but transmitting it.



There are other problems as well that im sure others have already figured out hence why we do not already have it. To hell with boosting capacity. Why not just use lazers to transmit between poles or towers then finish the run with coax fiber or even copper? With most of the distance other than last mile being lazer you get what ammounts to a few ms pings for the lazer and about 10 to 12 ms for the cheapo copper run for the last mile.With fiber as you may well know already being on it. What they are basically doing is sending a beam of light through it. The fiber simply lets the light bounce back and forth inside the glass fiber.fiber believe it or not has a fairly higher latency than a lazer beam. Over large distances it can be 5+ms difference. While grossly exagerated the beam in a fiber cable looks like this /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ as i bounces back and forth along the sides where as a lazer beam is ------------------. Im not sure of what the light actually is running through a fiber optic bundle likely it is a lazer. You by pass the fiber optic strand and you save latency.It is why the individual fiber strand is so damn thin. Thicker cable more distance for the beam to bounce between thinner is obviously less.The biggest problem with tower to tower pole to pole lazer is things getting in the way trees birds even snow would cause some problems. You would need a aray or transmitters and receivers to offer redundancy so that the system was not relying on a single beam ten beams each providing the exact same data pole to pole tower to tower 9 beams can get blocked and all the data would still get through. Essentially a raid array that is mirroring the data. The only difference is in this case it is not storing it but transmitting it.There are other problems as well that im sure others have already figured out hence why we do not already have it.



w0g

o.O

join:2001-08-30

Springfield, OR w0g to existenz

Member to existenz

Also you know why Zuckerberg and Google are investing in balloons for internet in other countries? Because of their disregard for human life, and their drive to get as many people connected to using their services as possible. This drives up profits at expense of taking from peoples time, money, and life. Think of internet as a cancer stick, especially the wireless kind.. Imagine zuckerberg and google.mining for new brains to possess and those brains being oblivious to the loss they suffer. They (big media and corporations) realize their services are so addicting, getting people ultimately nothing, but once they start they cannot put the service or device down. It is no different than orgasms or drugs. Beamed into their head with screens, the program downloaded from the cloud, allowing d things to be sold and stuff to be collected on the entire population at large.



Their strategy is this big. So what if the wireless internet and 24/7 wireless connectivity gives people cancer and takes from their social lives and time spent in the real world environment.



Each ad or product promoted or press release is also like a mind control device, keeping the people feeding from the corporate tit. The end goal is for them to totally dominate our psychies with digital virtual gobblygook that replicates each image and sound onto billions of devices and peoples brains, for mere pennies. And its all a copy of some digital copy, its not even the real thing people are getting addicted to or allowing into their mind.

quisp65

join:2003-05-03

San Diego, CA 1 recommendation quisp65 Member Local governments can just say go ahead but replace it with fiber Local governments can just say go ahead but replace it with fiber. They were granted the monopoly on POTS but now it's not profitable, but since the replacement for POTS in this day and age is fiber, then I see this as a no-brainer.

en103

join:2011-05-02 en103 Member So basically... AT&T is stating that they want to keep their sunsetting of POTS / DSL a secret so that they won't have a mass exodus of the service, and competitors won't be able to perform some scooping up of their cusotmers.



More likely - they, they are really afraid of the latter, as well as any backlash from consumers that rely on POTS/DSL, and are now being told they will need cellular/satellite. If I'm not mistaken, AT&T's old DSL service put in really low caps (50GB?). I suspect that they were (for their own purposes) thinking ahead of migrating to cellular/satellite data, and could offer a POTS/DSL equivalent for similar pricing ($60 for POTS, $20 for DSL vs. say.. $100 for $20GB of cellular data with a phone number attached and unlimited calls).

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member wireless and nothing else? If these carriers want out.. the public must demand that it comes at a HUGE CO$T.. that being their statewide incumbent franchise... (something the feds are starting to warm up to) they will no longer have a statewide lock on ANY geography within the state... that goes for getting rid of ONE single customer in their entire state geography.



To do anything else shows proof positive that your elected public officials are CORRUPT and most likely taking money from these companies to support a greedy non-public interest agenda.



The public interest was to have at LEAST 2 strong COMPETITORS for voice, internet and video (most of us would settle for just a decent internet wire).. and phone companies have done just about everything imaginable to delay, deny and gerrymander the regulations away from the public interest. It's long past due to get started building fiber optic lines in the last mile or get started packing and don't let the door hit ya on the way out!

bcltoys

join:2008-07-21 bcltoys Member They suck. I know here in lower Cecil county Maryland At&t claims to have LTE all over. That's just horse shit or should I say they are full of horse shit.

Drakemoore

join:2005-02-03

Hawthorne, FL Drakemoore Member Re: They suck. They claim full coverage where I am, but there's barely any LTE or 3g/4g coverage. A neighbor has their wireless internet and they barely maintain enough of a signal to browse the web.

Drakemoore Drakemoore Member This is just pathetic. So.



* We're on a line that's at most 6000/384kbps

* Oh, and that line is actually capable of 24mbit / 1.4mbit provided you're close enough to a DSLAM, but AT&T won't offer it.

* We pay upwards of $60 a month with extra fees, not including POTS

* We used to have unlimited, but now we're at 150gb cap with $10 overages.

* We have multiple outages a year



And now, AT&T wants to just lift the rug and sweep us all under it and force us to be on their total crap wireless service with even more fees and tiny bandwidth caps.



Gotta love 'broadband' in America.

en103

join:2011-05-02 1 recommendation en103 Member Re: This is just pathetic. Worst part.... I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T is being funded with federal programs (tax incentives) to do it.



fg8578

join:2009-04-26

San Antonio, TX fg8578 Member I don't get it Coax is a superior technology in every way compared to twisted copper pair: bandwidth, speed, resistance to noise, ability to support TV, voice and high-speed Internet, etc.



Why in the world would anyone in their right mind oppose customers moving from twisted copper pair (i.e. DSL) to coax (i.e., cable modem)?



I agree that if AT&T and VZ really want to exit the POTS market, then sell those copper lines to a buyer who actually wants to serve those customers.

chris92

join:2008-09-20

Coal Valley, IL chris92 Member AT&T could care less about residential customers.



For example, when they replaced all the underground lines in the rural part of our county. They did not take into account that most people should be extended from the lines from a closer RT from a closer town. They instead kept it the same way, adding nothing extra, so we are 36,000 line ft. from the RT when it's less than a mile from an RT from the closest town.

»i.imgur.com/tnCgFGX.png All they care about is business accounts. It seems that all of their infrastructure decisions are dumb and not planned out.For example, when they replaced all the underground lines in the rural part of our county. They did not take into account that most people should be extended from the lines from a closer RT from a closer town. They instead kept it the same way, adding nothing extra, so we are 36,000 line ft. from the RT when it's less than a mile from an RT from the closest town.



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member With that attitude With that attitude they should be forced by the FCC to spin off their wireline (including U-Verse) division into a separate company. Same with Verizon.



Wireline and Wireless should be two separate companies. There are still many uses of wired phone lines, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is still using copper phone lines for their lottery terminals. They never did replace the lottery terminals like they originally planned. And if they do I'm sure the new ones will use leased lines. You can't hack a leased phone line and issue yourself the winning $350 million Powerball ticket as that is separate from the internet (direct connection from lottery terminal to lottery HQ).



Many alarm and medical monitoring systems use the phone lines. And businesses use phone lines.



powerfiberne

@77.243.46.x powerfiberne Anon Re: With that attitude One possible solution is to do what is being done in Denmark where the private electric utilities are offering a fiber to the home service at a more competitive speed/price offering to the phone company.



linicx

Caveat Emptor

Premium Member

join:2002-12-03

United State linicx Premium Member I wrote something similar When FCC had an open call for comments about 'net neutrality' I took the opportunity to comment about how poor rural Internet connectivity, and the DSL phone over copper actually is. I spoke of the high cost for low broadband speed even though our phone duopoly uses the same 100T fiber in the same plant to deliver services to the same homes. Our prospect of having a speed greater than 10/1, or FTTN is zero.



Tom Wheeler sent a nice reply in which is stated he wanted to hear from more rural residents. .



What is most interesting is since then our governor announced dark fiber is available across our state. Sadly it is a small fortune to bring into hospitals and the places where records should be the most protected.



quetwo

That VoIP Guy

Premium Member

join:2004-09-04

East Lansing, MI quetwo Premium Member This has already been happening for a while in Michigan... Last August, my in-laws got a notice saying that within 4 months AT&T was switching their county to "IP" service (U-Verse), and that they were no longer offering DSL service in their area. When they went through the system to "upgrade" to U-Verse, they were told that only Cellular + Satellite was available to them -- not wireline service, because they were > 5k ft. from the closest RT. When the person on the phone tried to sell them 4G/LTE service, they weren't able to buy it because AT&T would be considered "roaming" in their area. January came, and they got a letter saying it was their final bill. Their DSL service was disconnected later that month -- but they were provided 6 months of dial-up service for free... Too bad their laptops don't have modems anymore :P



While they live in a small community ( 15,000 people), they did have working broadband before. Sure, it was only 5MB service, but it still worked. They have nothing now. They are currently to see if Verizon 4G/LTE is available with a strong enough signal. The maps show they do, but they are skiddish about signing a long-term contract if it won't work well.

BiggA

Premium Member

join:2005-11-23

Central CT ·Cox HSI

ARRIS SB6141

Asus RT-AC68

BiggA Premium Member We don't know what they mean by this yet It could just be moving to a U-Verse-like platform and cutting the copper that runs from the VRAD to the CO today, and leaving the copper downstream of the VRAD. It depends on how they implement this. However, if they cut existing DSL customers off, then that should be illegal, and is certainly something their shareholders should be watching for. What idiotic company cuts off it's own customers?

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Axing of DSL Users? Where does AT&T state that transition from TDM to IP involves shedding "wired" facilities?



AT&T's trials reference deploying U-Verse - not disconnecting copper.



LightSpan

Premium Member

join:2004-02-18

Lexington, KY LightSpan Premium Member Last mile copper They are placing and ip dslam at most rt sites . The big hold up is Local And state government permits to put up the fiber. The federal government just now stated you can not cross any interstate in the air , it has to be bored under the interstate . I have four jobs I am working on right now , that are waiting on the permits to bore under interstate 64 . Fiber is sitting on each side of the interstate . There is also the issue of getting fiber from manufacturers . They can not make it fast enough . Then there is the issue of getting utility easement space to place the dslam cabinet if there is not enough space in existing rt site .

microphone

Premium Member

join:2009-04-29

Parkville, MD microphone Premium Member I'm still on Earthlink 3mb/s DSL over a Verizon copper line I would be fine with mass replacing the copper lines with fiber as long as they would be to required to lease space on the line for competitors like is required now with copper. The slower DSL speeds could continue to be offered at DSL prices while offering higher speeds for a greater cost. But it isn't so much about eliminating antiquated technology as it is about killing regulations and competition.



timcuth

Braves Fan

Premium Member

join:2000-09-18

Pelham, AL Netgear CM600

Netgear R7800

Netgear R6300 v2

timcuth Premium Member They pushed me away, but not to wireless



So, I have moved from 3mb/512 kb DSL for $44 to 60mb/4mb cable for $40 (introductory price for a year). My LTE data cost is unknown, but the $180 per month bill for everything for four phones includes 10 GB data per month. Increasing that to 15 GB would cost an additional $30! Like I said, much too expensive.



Tim I stuck with at&t DSL for a long time, too long, but they finally pushed me away with their refusal to perform meaningful upgrades. Also, with their high prices. So, I dumped my entire landline and switched to cable internet. I do have at&t Wireless, but it is far too expensive to depend on for all my data needs.So, I have moved from 3mb/512 kb DSL for $44 to 60mb/4mb cable for $40 (introductory price for a year). My LTE data cost is unknown, but the $180 per month bill for everything for four phones includes 10 GB data per month. Increasing that to 15 GB would cost an additional $30! Like I said, much too expensive.Tim

CmmTch

join:2002-08-10

High Ridge, MO CmmTch Member IP doesn't mean wireless Transition from a TDM based network to an IP based network does not mean transition to a wireless network. The time division multiplex based network reached its limit for speed some years ago.



IP is the new transport protocol over fiber. I'm not denying there might be an intention to get out from under older services but that isn't the goal of the IP transition.



cralt

join:2011-01-07

CT cralt Member Logic Look at it from an investor standpoint. Why would you want to build out or maintain wired?



10 years ago you could sell 1 DSL connection to each home at $40/month.

Today you can sell a smartphone to EACH member inside that home for 40/month. 5people in that family? 5x40 vs just 40.



Wired also has all the regulations, maintenance costs, crews of workers to pay,tons of equipment, millions of miles of cable/fiber to run, right-of-ways to get, etc etc..

Wireless you toss up a few cell sites. Let some contractors maintain them, and your DONE.



Wireless is like a money printing machine compared to wired.

The "overage fee's", financing interest, and other random fee's you can get out of your wireless customers is just sweet icing on the cake.



If you where the CEO what would you put the money in to? The money printing machine or the legacy headache?



GuestUser

@71.139.1.x GuestUser Anon Re: Logic Wireless is not reliable. Period. The cell towers blow over in storms and they also get overloaded very easily. It's a public safety issue. People oppose gov't. regulations, but there should be something in place to guarantee home service for 911 (cell phones are not routed to addresses) and other systems, as well as quick restoration in storms/disasters and adequate capacity, which the wireless system will never have.