Starlink

[Ken45101]

Maybe this has already been mentioned. Verizon is expanding rural coverage and offers $40 or $60 unlimited internet. Sprint has $50 for 50gb plan and is also expanding coverage. No additional charges for going over and so far hasn't slowed down for us. Sat services hard sell if expansion continues.

View attachment 672982

"Not available in our area", of course.

 

[cqaigy2]

"Not available in our area", of course.

Ditto

 

[LouNY]

"Not available in our area", of course.

No idea were it is avilible.

 

[ponytug]

Lot's of what if's with Starlink at this point. As far as speed and reliability there is no current replacement for fiber and honestly I can't foresee anything competing with fiber in the near future. Anything wireless is going to have more issues than a fiber connection as long as you can keep the idiots from cutting it. The amount of data you can push down a single piece of glass is truly mind boggling.

I totally agree. Lots of ifs and unknowns.

We are three miles from the fiber terminus, but it might as well be the moon. There are no public plans to put fiber in the area, which, for us, leaves

• Microwave wireless internet
• Satellite internet (Hughes/Viasat)
• Starlink (?)

The first offers 60 Mbit/s symmetric up/down speed for $350/mo, 36 months minimum contract, (fully payable upon cancellation) and a $7.5k installation cost. That is over $20,000/three years or less of service. No data cap. Higher speeds for even more per month.
The second offers 25-100Mbit/s down, 1-5Mbit up for $50-$150/mo in this area, with 150Gb data caps, high latency, and widespread reports of reduced speeds even when under the data cap in these work from home times.
The third offers 100Mbit/s speed, low latency, for reportedly less than $100/mo, and an install cost in the hundreds of dollars. Data cap is unknown.

None of these comparisons are apples to apples in my book. All three have weather related reliability issues. For my spouse who has day long Zoom meetings, only the first or third options are workable. We are currently fence sitting, hoping to get in early on Starlink, if only because the cost to try it out is so much less than the alternative. $20k vs ~$3k

And yes, we have attempted to get a quote for pulling the fiber here, but AT&T isn't even willing to quote it. Off the shelf quotes in other areas are in the $90k-$180k range just for the pull. It isn't trivial terrain.

All the best,

Peter

 

[LittleBill21]

I totally agree. Lots of ifs and unknowns.

We are three miles from the fiber terminus, but it might as well be the moon. There are no public plans to put fiber in the area, which, for us, leaves

• Microwave wireless internet
• Satellite internet (Hughes/Viasat)
• Starlink (?)

The first offers 60 Mbit/s symmetric up/down speed for $350/mo, 36 months minimum contract, (fully payable upon cancellation) and a $7.5k installation cost. That is over $20,000/three years or less of service. No data cap. Higher speeds for even more per month.
The second offers 25-100Mbit/s down, 1-5Mbit up for $50-$150/mo in this area, with 150Gb data caps, high latency, and widespread reports of reduced speeds even when under the data cap in these work from home times.
The third offers 100Mbit/s speed, low latency, for reportedly less than $100/mo, and an install cost in the hundreds of dollars. Data cap is unknown.

None of these comparisons are apples to apples in my book. All three have weather related reliability issues. For my spouse who has day long Zoom meetings, only the first or third options are workable. We are currently fence sitting, hoping to get in early on Starlink, if only because the cost to try it out is so much less than the alternative. $20k vs ~$3k

And yes, we have attempted to get a quote for pulling the fiber here, but AT&T isn't even willing to quote it. Off the shelf quotes in other areas are in the $90k-$180k range just for the pull. It isn't trivial terrain.

All the best,

Peter

is anyone connected within 3 miles of you? any chance you have line of site to them? if not can you run the cable yourself, there are so many options anymore, 3 could be doable. just depends how bad you want it

 

[rekees4300]

No idea were it is avilible.

Verizon's definition of "unlimited" is hazy. What good is unlimited data when it's controlled by limited speed? :confused2: I checked their coverage map for "rural home LTE" and of course "Not available in our area".

Verizon Launches Unlimited 4G Home Internet for Rural Users: Here Are the Maps | PCMag

Note: "You need to buy a $240 router."

 

[cqaigy2]

I check Verizon coverage, it show ok for LTE and spotty for 5G. I have a Verizon work phone and it seems to get about 1.5 Mb down and .24 Mb up, but that fancy "unlimited" plan isn't available here. Probably because of lack of infrastructure, i.e. one cell tower in 10 miles.

 

[Mat4644]

For us just like many phones router is no cost with 2 year plan.

 

[ponytug]

is anyone connected within 3 miles of you? any chance you have line of site to them? if not can you run the cable yourself, there are so many options anymore, 3 could be doable. just depends how bad you want it

Thanks! We did try to explore that, but nobody down the road has fiber, so no line of sight benefits. That leaves over the air microwave links. One neighbor who is more or less line of sight to us is considering it, and if they do it, and it is the right one of the two microwave providers, we might be able to relay off of their tower, which would save trenching, and cut the monthly cost in half.

A decade ago, there were some guys pushing line of sight lasers, from 25 miles away, but they were never able to make it work, and they are no longer in business. I suspect that OSHA came down on them for the magnitude of their laser power, but I don't know that for sure.

I just wrote a letter to the Public Utilities Commission asking them to prioritize fiber to customers not served by alternate means. We will see where it goes.

Fingers crossed for successful Starlink connections.

It would be nice if Verizon served this area...I'm kind of a belt and suspenders guy when it comes to mission critical things like phone/cell service and internet, and all I can really say about AT&T is that they aren't cutting it. I had a manager and a tech come by today to tell me, in not so many words and politely, that I should be grateful to have any internet connection, even if it periodically slows down, and even if it loses packets, and even if the phone causes issues with the DSL. I've had DSL for over twenty years, and I am well aware of what it can and can't do, and episodically slowing is bad equipment or bad copper somewhere, and definitely not "normal". I don't appreciate being treated like a mushroom.

All the best,

Peter

 

[ernemats]

Nothing new on Starlink???





/

 

[riptides]

They launched more satellites this week.

Nothing new on Starlink???





/

 

[ponytug]

Nothing new on Starlink???

/

Well, they have been releasing more private beta units that have been seen in Oregon, and Washington. A recent article hinted at 30ms latency, and 100Mbit/s/s bandwidth, with 2.5x higher potential speeds to come. Twitter post here But 100Mbit/s seems to be on the high end, as speeds as low as 30 down / 10 up have been reported.

Basically, public beta not here yet. Reports are continuing to say northern US.

While they did just launch, and are planning more launches, it is taking about four months post launch for the satellites to reach their working altitude, and not every satellite makes it. (Look up the altitude plots of the launches, and there are some really odd behaviors of some of the satellites. e.g. rapid descents below the injection orbit, before stair stepping back up. It looks very much like a work in active progress, and revision.

But we are on AT&T DSL, which they have told us they are discontinuing, and their inability to restore/maintain service bears that out. So we are exploring all options, as they really are having trouble keeping the dial tone up, much less DSL:

• Starlink ($?, TBD speeds and latency)
• traditional satellite services, (which pretty much everyone is telling us is overloaded these days)
• microwave (60Mbit/s, $350/mo, & $9k installation),
• even a dedicated AT&T fiber pull (Enterprise level Tier 1 service: $500/mo for 10Mbit/s, $900/mo for 100Mbit/s)

It is good to have options, right? Even if you can't afford them...
Sorry, just venting-it has been a rough eight weeks with AT&T, and like most organizations, not everyone is an angel. Personally, I don't respond well to the mushroom treatment.

All the best,

Peter

 

[newbury]

It's not economically feasible to even build towers where the critical mass of paying customers can't support the expense...<snip>

But pour some politics in and stuff happens.

I'm in the NE region of Mississippi. It seems every time we have an internet problem I have to train the tech support. I was getting 5 to 6.6 down and about .75 up for YEARS, until school restarted this last Sept. Now they bumped that to about 12 down.

But the entire county is being wired for Fiber, both by the telephone company AND the power company. In many cases the telephone company is burying fiber in the same places the power company is stringing fiber.

Someplace someone found the golden goose and I'm supposed to be offered fiber from both. The phone company is doing about 22 miles a week and has about 500 miles to go. The phone company has a $4.2M grant for a population of 24,000 or about a free $175 PER RESIDENT. Meanwhile my BIL has both offered because he lives in town (population about 4,000).

Economics can be overcome by politics.

 

[lman]

But pour some politics in and stuff happens.

I'm in the NE region of Mississippi. It seems every time we have an internet problem I have to train the tech support. I was getting 5 to 6.6 down and about .75 up for YEARS, until school restarted this last Sept. Now they bumped that to about 12 down.

But the entire county is being wired for Fiber, both by the telephone company AND the power company. In many cases the telephone company is burying fiber in the same places the power company is stringing fiber.

Someplace someone found the golden goose and I'm supposed to be offered fiber from both. The phone company is doing about 22 miles a week and has about 500 miles to go. The phone company has a $4.2M grant for a population of 24,000 or about a free $175 PER RESIDENT. Meanwhile my BIL has both offered because he lives in town (population about 4,000).

Economics can be overcome by politics.

Which phone company is that? The phone company(Centurylink) here does very little to maintain their line, even after they got CAF money, there were no improvements. The power company is running fiber.

 

[kcflhrc]

Which phone company is that? The phone company(Centurylink) here does very little to maintain their line, even after they got CAF money, there were no improvements.

I hear this a lot from people. Not just about CenturyLink but AT&T as well as other's. You have no idea how or if the money was even spent in your area. The CAF mandate depending on area is 10 meg. Performance results to get the CAF money is 80% of that. Those test results have to be turned in to satisfy the Fed's and get the money. So there you have it. Do a little research before slamming the Telco's. Lot's of information out there in regards to this. Why in the **** people think they are going to bring fiber to rural America is beyond me. For an example. I live on a rural stretch of state highway with only 3 houses even in close proximity to me. It would cost thousands of dollars to get fiber to these 3 homes. Not profitable to do this in any way. AT&T is my local provider. They don't offer any wired option for me. So I use their 4G LTE internet and it works fantastic. But they got CAF money also. They just decided to deliver their internet wirelessly which makes a whole lot more sense than putting cable in the ground.

 

[riptides]

The government and the telco's brought copper to US households at one time.

I'll leave it at that.

I hear this a lot from people. Not just about CenturyLink but AT&T as well as other's. You have no idea how or if the money was even spent in your area. The CAF mandate depending on area is 10 meg. Performance results to get the CAF money is 80% of that. Those test results have to be turned in to satisfy the Fed's and get the money. So there you have it. Do a little research before slamming the Telco's. Lot's of information out there in regards to this. Why in the **** people think they are going to bring fiber to rural America is beyond me. For an example. I live on a rural stretch of state highway with only 3 houses even in close proximity to me. It would cost thousands of dollars to get fiber to these 3 homes. Not profitable to do this in any way. AT&T is my local provider. They don't offer any wired option for me. So I use their 4G LTE internet and it works fantastic. But they got CAF money also. They just decided to deliver their internet wirelessly which makes a whole lot more sense than putting cable in the ground.

 

[/pine]

...But pour some politics in and stuff happens....

All the politics in the world won't get them to build and maintain a cell tower to service half a dozen customers...

To service some rural mountain areas they would have to have as many towers as there are customers...

simply not economically feasible...

 

[lman]

I hear this a lot from people. Not just about CenturyLink but AT&T as well as other's. You have no idea how or if the money was even spent in your area. The CAF mandate depending on area is 10 meg. Performance results to get the CAF money is 80% of that. Those test results have to be turned in to satisfy the Fed's and get the money. So there you have it. Do a little research before slamming the Telco's. Lot's of information out there in regards to this. Why in the **** people think they are going to bring fiber to rural America is beyond me. For an example. I live on a rural stretch of state highway with only 3 houses even in close proximity to me. It would cost thousands of dollars to get fiber to these 3 homes. Not profitable to do this in any way. AT&T is my local provider. They don't offer any wired option for me. So I use their 4G LTE internet and it works fantastic. But they got CAF money also. They just decided to deliver their internet wirelessly which makes a whole lot more sense than putting cable in the ground.

You apparently didn't follow what newbury and I posted. Fiber is being run in our rural areas. My local rural power co-op is running fiber after they received financial assistance. They are able to do what the big companies refuse to do. Many places that fiber is being run are the same places that Centurylink was supposed to improve. It seems that are local organizations want to make some actual improvements to our area while Centurylink just wanted some money.
CenturyLink, Frontier took FCC cash, failed to deploy all required broadband | Ars Technica

 

[kcflhrc]

That article is full of apparently, possibly, seemingly and a host of other unsubstantiated accusations. I hope you get your fiber. I wish we all had it.

 

[/pine]

Fiber was run in a lot of places because of a gov. mandate...in many places it will NEVER be used...