9 ms·

I've heard that 5G will be especially beneficial to rural areas, where it will have the bandwidth, speed, and coverage capability to replace broadband, DSL, and

I've heard that 5G will be especially beneficial to rural areas, where it will have the bandwidth, speed, and coverage capability to replace broadband, DSL, and satellite. Can someone with industry knowledge confirm whether this is true?

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I'm not in the industry, but I've done some research on this and looked into setting up an ISP in a rural area near me (got far enough to where I was talking to fiber providers). For really rural areas it doesn't seem feasible because the radios essentially need line of sight, so in order to serve enough customers to be profitable you need several towers that have a wireless backhaul to some fiber line that you have a connection to. All of those towers cost money to install and maintain, which adds to your expense, so for low enough population densities, it's not economical. For small towns it can be economical, but it depends on the geography. If it's very hilly or there are lots of tall trees you will have a hard time getting line of sight to potential customers.
- itchyouch 8y ago
  I have a buddy running a Wisp as a side gig out in rural Michigan. I think he got 10M fiber ran for a couple thousand a month. Then maybe 10-20 people have wireless access setup with ubiquity gear to beam them internet. I think it breaks even or is just pocket money as the main business’s internet needs are subsidized by the neighbors. It’s really a tough situation in the rural areas. To run last mile cable costs thousands of dollars per house with houses quarter to half mile apart. and at $50-100/mo, it doesnt make sense to serve those customers.
  - pas 8y ago
    > quarter to half mile apart With next gent Wifi/5G that's actually a great distance. The big problem for rural deployment is that the backhaul was/is too expensive, but with wireless advances a mesh is the optimal (cheap and simple) way to go.
  - jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    Those numbers sound about right to me. If I lived out in the area I was thinking of serving it might have been doable, but I figured with the low potential for profit and the amount of time it would take to deal with customers, install equipment, etc., it wasn't really worth it.
superkuh 8y ago
It's not true. Wireless spectrum can only be used once. Wires and fiber optics can use the same spectrum over and over and over. Additionally, wireless telcos have already gotten used to not providing real internet access to their customers. Instead they provide a proxied, nat'd, no-ports, almost web only service.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Part of that is because they often can't get more than one IP address from their fiber provider.
LyalinDotCom 8y ago
I am ashamed of my country (America) that we as a nation, federally speaking, don't provide the funding needed to empower everyone in rural areas with high speed internet as a right. The Internet powers so many important things today and if we're talking about "thousands of dollars per household" it is totally doable.
- dbatten 8y ago
  Why should those of us who don't choose to live in the country have to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those that do choose to live in the country? And, before you go thinking I'm just the radical conservative, recognize that this cuts both ways. I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't be subsidizing people's high-carbon lifestyles by making roads free, for example.
  - phinnaeus 8y ago
    I agree with your statement, but I worry that not everyone has the ability to move to less rural area even if they wanted to. How do we avoid punishing the people who are not choosing to live in middle-of-nowhere versus those who make that choice?
    - adventured 8y ago
      Accelerate the deployment of Starlink and OneWeb. Save hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years in building unnecessary FTTH all over shrinking, uneconomical rural America.
  - jotm 8y ago
    Well, you're subsidizing wars in some faraway lands, so why not Internet at home.
    - topranks 8y ago
      That's a facetious argument. "Who cares if the govt wastes more money because they already waste money?"
daveburstein 8y ago
Author here. Wish it were good for rural but 98% of experts think 5G millimeter wave will mostly be urban and suburban. Millimeter wave has short reach, hence not good for rural. More antennas, MIMO and Massive MIMO, is the way to go for rural. Some people call that 5G, some don't.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

I'm not in the industry, but I've done some research on this and looked into setting up an ISP in a rural area near me (got far enough to where I was talking to fiber providers). For really rural areas it doesn't seem feasible because the radios essentially need line of sight, so in order to serve enough customers to be profitable you need several towers that have a wireless backhaul to some fiber line that you have a connection to. All of those towers cost money to install and maintain, which adds to your expense, so for low enough population densities, it's not economical. For small towns it can be economical, but it depends on the geography. If it's very hilly or there are lots of tall trees you will have a hard time getting line of sight to potential customers.

itchyouch 8y ago
I have a buddy running a Wisp as a side gig out in rural Michigan. I think he got 10M fiber ran for a couple thousand a month. Then maybe 10-20 people have wireless access setup with ubiquity gear to beam them internet. I think it breaks even or is just pocket money as the main business’s internet needs are subsidized by the neighbors. It’s really a tough situation in the rural areas. To run last mile cable costs thousands of dollars per house with houses quarter to half mile apart. and at $50-100/mo, it doesnt make sense to serve those customers.
- pas 8y ago
  > quarter to half mile apart With next gent Wifi/5G that's actually a great distance. The big problem for rural deployment is that the backhaul was/is too expensive, but with wireless advances a mesh is the optimal (cheap and simple) way to go.
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Those numbers sound about right to me. If I lived out in the area I was thinking of serving it might have been doable, but I figured with the low potential for profit and the amount of time it would take to deal with customers, install equipment, etc., it wasn't really worth it.

superkuh 8y ago

It's not true. Wireless spectrum can only be used once. Wires and fiber optics can use the same spectrum over and over and over. Additionally, wireless telcos have already gotten used to not providing real internet access to their customers. Instead they provide a proxied, nat'd, no-ports, almost web only service.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Part of that is because they often can't get more than one IP address from their fiber provider.

LyalinDotCom 8y ago

I am ashamed of my country (America) that we as a nation, federally speaking, don't provide the funding needed to empower everyone in rural areas with high speed internet as a right. The Internet powers so many important things today and if we're talking about "thousands of dollars per household" it is totally doable.

dbatten 8y ago
Why should those of us who don't choose to live in the country have to subsidize the lifestyle choices of those that do choose to live in the country? And, before you go thinking I'm just the radical conservative, recognize that this cuts both ways. I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't be subsidizing people's high-carbon lifestyles by making roads free, for example.
- phinnaeus 8y ago
  I agree with your statement, but I worry that not everyone has the ability to move to less rural area even if they wanted to. How do we avoid punishing the people who are not choosing to live in middle-of-nowhere versus those who make that choice?
  - adventured 8y ago
    Accelerate the deployment of Starlink and OneWeb. Save hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years in building unnecessary FTTH all over shrinking, uneconomical rural America.
- jotm 8y ago
  Well, you're subsidizing wars in some faraway lands, so why not Internet at home.
  - topranks 8y ago
    That's a facetious argument. "Who cares if the govt wastes more money because they already waste money?"

daveburstein 8y ago

Author here. Wish it were good for rural but 98% of experts think 5G millimeter wave will mostly be urban and suburban. Millimeter wave has short reach, hence not good for rural. More antennas, MIMO and Massive MIMO, is the way to go for rural. Some people call that 5G, some don't.