NEW T-Mobile Home Internet Debuts

[wardmundy]

T-Mobile’s 5G home internet service has become a reality

The $60-per-month service is finally ready for primetime.

www.theverge.com

 

[kenn10]

Except in mountainous and rural areas.....

 

[dicko]

But here , literally, the sky's the limit. They both have more of it ;-)

 

[kenn10]

But here , literally, the sky's the limit. They both have more of it ;-)

Yes, but are there cell towers in range of all that big sky? LOL

 

[atsak]

At least it's a viable alternative in some places to the absurdity that is the cableco / telco virtual monopoly in some places.

 

[kenn10]

At least it's a viable alternative in some places to the absurdity that is the cableco / telco virtual monopoly in some places.

I agree. I have wanted to love T-Mobile for a long time and did when I lived in Atlanta but they are not putting money into lighting up rural America. While there's no money in low density areas for cell service, they could be a big provider of broadband if they would simply expand into these areas. If Verizon had not ventured into a lot of these areas, many people would be without any cell service or even vaguely affordable broadband.

 

[KNERD]

And here is one of the drawbacks from the comments on that page

The modem doesn’t assign a public IPv4 address, so the modem doesn’t allow basic features like port forwarding or even bridge mode to use your own router without double NATing.

 

[Samot]

At least it's a viable alternative in some places to the absurdity that is the cableco / telco virtual monopoly in some places.

People have this misconception about what a monopoly is with telecom. Considering that telecom started as a regional/territorial thing. For example, in Lordsburg NM there is one telco the Lordsburg county one. No ATT, no Verizon, no one else. Just some little telco that was setup back in the day to cover that area of NM.

So thanks to the CLEC rulings over 30 years ago I can go in and they *must let me use their infrastructure*. Now really the only thing stopping me is actual business sense because I'll need to pay for all that and well, in the end it just isn't worth it.

Being the only option in an area doesn't make you a monopoly when the competition has decided your area isn't worth stepping into to compete it.

 

[atsak]

People have this misconception about what a monopoly is with telecom. Considering that telecom started as a regional/territorial thing. For example, in Lordsburg NM there is one telco the Lordsburg county one. No ATT, no Verizon, no one else. Just some little telco that was setup back in the day to cover that area of NM.

So thanks to the CLEC rulings over 30 years ago I can go in and they *must let me use their infrastructure*. Now really the only thing stopping me is actual business sense because I'll need to pay for all that and well, in the end it just isn't worth it.

Being the only option in an area doesn't make you a monopoly when the competition has decided your area isn't worth stepping into to compete it.

I consider telco/cableco defacto monopolies in the US since in many locations I frequent (and I frequent many) you only have a viable broadband internet option from one or the other. ADSL is no longer viable IMO.

It is not entirely dissimilar in Canada, though in most areas you have at least VDSL (and sometimes FTTH) vs Cable and a regulatory environment forcing last mile access permissions (albeit with a lot of arguing about what a fair price is); in this way we're somewhat advantaged based on my perspective of both sides.

 

[Samot]

I consider telco/cableco defacto monopolies in the US since in many locations I frequent (and I frequent many) you only have a viable broadband internet option from one or the other. ADSL is no longer viable IMO.

It is not entirely dissimilar in Canada, though in most areas you have at least VDSL (and sometimes FTTH) vs Cable and a regulatory environment forcing last mile access permissions (albeit with a lot of arguing about what a fair price is); in this way we're somewhat advantaged based on my perspective of both sides.

True, Canada is a different beast when it comes to that. I was just speaking from the US aspect.

 

[tbrummell]

I consider telco/cableco defacto monopolies in the US since in many locations I frequent (and I frequent many) you only have a viable broadband internet option from one or the other. ADSL is no longer viable IMO.

It is not entirely dissimilar in Canada, though in most areas you have at least VDSL (and sometimes FTTH) vs Cable and a regulatory environment forcing last mile access permissions (albeit with a lot of arguing about what a fair price is); in this way we're somewhat advantaged based on my perspective of both sides.

Love my FTTH. Speaking of the last mile, or is that kilometer? CRTC may force the access permissions, but they don't allow access to the FTTH infrastructure, so I pay out the wazoo for 500/500 access as it's only offered by Bell Canada here in the Central East side (Telus in the West). But it's rock solid at least.

 

[atsak]

Love my FTTH. Speaking of the last mile, or is that kilometer? CRTC may force the access permissions, but they don't allow access to the FTTH infrastructure, so I pay out the wazoo for 500/500 access as it's only offered by Bell Canada here in the Central East side (Telus in the West). But it's rock solid at least.

Ha ha yes last mile is just the colloquialism. In actual fact it's the last few KM actually I suppose. They'll eventually force FTTH access, they're arguing about it in court as usual AFAIK. The issue is the rollout is slow - I live in Oakville, in a 40 year old neighbourhood, and the best VDSL I can get is 25/7; so cable it is.

 

[dallas]

They'll eventually force FTTH access, they're arguing about it in court as usual AFAIK.

Which takes away the incentive for the providers to lay their own fibre. The first one into an area carries all the cost of the rollout and then is forced to lease capacity to a competitor.
In Australia the owner of the infrastructure (NBN Co) is only a wholesaler of bandwith so all retailers are on the same footing.

 

[atsak]

Which takes away the incentive for the providers to lay their own fibre. The first one into an area carries all the cost of the rollout and then is forced to lease capacity to a competitor.
In Australia the owner of the infrastructure (NBN Co) is only a wholesaler of bandwith so all retailers are on the same footing.

You'd think so, but they let them use some shifty sales tactics to lock people in and make contracts look cheaper than they are, so it works out in another way. In the US it's not like fiber is ubiquitous either without the same regulatory environment (whereby there is incentive to run but they just don't).

I think Australia probably had it right other than the incredible cost overruns and difficulties with the NBN rollout. Government is inefficient historically at these kinds of infrastructure rollouts, which I don't understand. Power in many places is (rightfully so IMO, privatization hasn't been very successful anywhere) government run, roads in many places (I hate tolls) are (but are inefficient) but for some reason comms they don't seem to do well . . . it's maybe the lesser of the multiple evils.

 

[kenn10]

The US is a little odd as well. For the telephone companies, they are forced to share copper facilities, remote terminals (SLC) and "the last mile" with other carriers. However, fiber is not required to be shared. Of course, in the case of AT&T and Verizon, they are not interested in maintaining the copper or voice facilities. They run fiber to the profitable areas and nowhere else. For some reason (or legal loop-hole), cable companies are not required to share fiber or coax hard lines with others.

In many areas, local municipalities were setting up their own broadband networks until the phone and cable companies bribed legislators (err, donated to their campaigns) in a number of States to pass legislation (in many cases written by AT&T) to block any government entity from running their own systems. Chattanooga, Tennessee was the first to provide 1-Gig broadband to all users at excellent rates but was forced to sell off the system to a corporation.

 

[dallas]

I think Australia probably had it right other than the incredible cost overruns and difficulties with the NBN rollout.

Don't get me stated on the NBN rollout... If the original plan (almost totally FTTH) had been implemented we'd be in a much better position for about the same cost. The change to FTTN has not reduced the cost and we're left with last mile as copper, most of which hasn't been maintained in the 25 years since I took redundancy from Telstra.

 

[dicko]

But I see you can get satellite connections for less than $50/month. Last 22000 miles?

 

[dallas]

But I see you can get satellite connections for less than $50/month. Last 22000 miles?

@dicko if you are referring to Australia, that $50 doesn't buy much. Small data allowance... most of it off peak, 1am-7am. Both downloads and uploads count in data allowance. I don't know anyone using satellite here (I live in the city) but anecdotally there are a lot of complaints about speed (or lack thereof) and latency.

 

[KNERD]

@dicko if you are referring to Australia, that $50 doesn't buy much. Small data allowance... most of it off peak, 1am-7am. Both downloads and uploads count in data allowance. I don't know anyone using satellite here (I live in the city) but anecdotally there are a lot of complaints about speed (or lack thereof) and latency.

Reminds me of the CompuServe days. Peak hours it was $12 an hour ($6 off peak), and if there was no local access number, you would have to use Telenet or Tymnet for an additional $3 an hour, or use overpriced long distance. Back when minimum wage was around $3 an hour.

​