6 ms·

Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds means that many markets will go from having one or maybe two real ISP options to having

Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds means that many markets will go from having one or maybe two real ISP options to having three or four. Competition means that if the benefits of net neutrality are desirable, customers will prefer an ISP (wireless or otherwise) that provides those benefits. Of course, most actual counterexamples to net neutrality are seen as positives (free Netflix or Hulu with usage not counted towards a data cap) rather than negatives, so it might not work out.

0xffff2 8y ago
Are these providers actually going to compete with landline ISP's? My landline ISPs over the last couple of years have had monthly data caps ranging from 256gb to 1tb. My cell plan currently throttles me after I exceed 6gb... That's two orders of magnitude that my wireless provider would have to increase the cap in order to compete with the landline ISP.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The plan appears to be, yes: https://www.pcmag.com/news/357374/verizon-no-4g-level-data-caps-for-5g-home-service https://www.pcmag.com/news/357374/verizon-no-4g-level-data-c.... Verizon execs are throwing around 5G caps in that ballpark.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    That's a tiny ballpark: > During a roundtable, VP of network support Mike Haberman, some other Verizon folks, and the assembled journalists agreed that an average data cap in the vicinity of 180GB/month would satisfy the average consumer. > "That shouldn't be a problem with 5G. What does 4K video use? Think about how many 4K TVs you can put on a service that's a true 1 gigabit to your house," Haberman said. I don't see that 180GB lasting long at all...
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The average Netflix user watches 40-50 hours per month, and its going down: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/netflix-users-collectively-watched-1-billion-hours-of-content-per-week-in-2017 https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/netflix-users-collectively.... Netflix says 7GB/hour for 4K (~350 gigabytes), but HEVC will halve that number. That's under 180GB, and that's assuming all streaming is 4K, which is far from the case.
      - 0xffff2 8y ago
        That's also just for one person on Netflix. Now add a roommate, Youtube, Twitch, general overhead (email, web browsing, app updates, etc).
        rayiner 8y ago
        That is per account not per person. For a typical household, all other bandwidth usage pales in comparison to Netflix. Youtube, etc., streaming at HD or lower resolutions isn't going to move the needle much compared to the 4K streaming in the calculation above.
- jedberg 8y ago
  Verizon really really wants to be your main provider. Once they can provide you with a 1gbps wireless service, they will compete on price and data caps with your local wireline ISP to win your business.
  - karpodiem 8y ago
    We will see. Would be a first for wireless in a metropolitan area. (WISPS in rural areas are a bit different)
- DenisM 8y ago
  T-Mobile soft cap at 50gb, that’s on LTE. With 5g speed going up 10x I wouldn’t be surprised caps going 10 x as well. We’re nearly there.
  - 0xffff2 8y ago
    Hmmm. I'm on T-Mobile, but I share the plan with my brother and he's the one who actually cares about this stuff. Maybe I don't get throttled at 6gb, but I just lose a discount. Either way, I'm definitely incentivized to stay under 6gb on T-Mobile.
martinald 8y ago
I really don't get why people think this is possible. Even with microcells and loads of spectrum, you might be able to get 2gigabit/sec of internet per cell, which would be enough for perhaps a couple hundred streams (not including all the other internet services people require all the time). Considering most cells right now serve thousands if not tens of thousands of devices, there is simply no way that wireless broadband will ever be able to service that, unless you have hundreds of femtocells, but at that point you might as well just deliver fibre to the home as you'll be a few metres from the premises. 5G really changes nothing of this. Shannon's law dictates this and we are close to topping out on it in terms of radio efficiency.
- DenisM 8y ago
  If there is more demand for cell service the cell companies will build more towers. Lower the power levels and use higher frequency bands to reduce interference. By your numbers, 200 clients x $50/mo $10k revenue per mo for a tower. A new cell tower costs $150k, so it pays for itself in 15 months.
  - martinald 8y ago
    It can take years in the UK to add a new cell tower. Apply to the local govt for planning, then more applications to dig the road up for fibre. And then you need a power connection which often aren't trivial or quick to get. $150k sounds unbelievably low.
    - lostapathy 8y ago
      You have to remember that the denser you install towers, the shorter and less obtrusive they need to be. I.e., you don't need to be nearly as high if you only need line of sight over one mile instead of ten.
    - VectorLock 8y ago
      Do what Verizon did in Boston. Get the local government to give you access ostensively for FTTH broadband like FiOS then go "psyche!" and use the fiber to run cell towers.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
> Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds ... Are they going to cap me at 1000GB like Comcast, also?

0xffff2 8y ago

Are these providers actually going to compete with landline ISP's? My landline ISPs over the last couple of years have had monthly data caps ranging from 256gb to 1tb. My cell plan currently throttles me after I exceed 6gb... That's two orders of magnitude that my wireless provider would have to increase the cap in order to compete with the landline ISP.

rayiner 8y ago
The plan appears to be, yes: https://www.pcmag.com/news/357374/verizon-no-4g-level-data-caps-for-5g-home-service https://www.pcmag.com/news/357374/verizon-no-4g-level-data-c.... Verizon execs are throwing around 5G caps in that ballpark.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  That's a tiny ballpark: > During a roundtable, VP of network support Mike Haberman, some other Verizon folks, and the assembled journalists agreed that an average data cap in the vicinity of 180GB/month would satisfy the average consumer. > "That shouldn't be a problem with 5G. What does 4K video use? Think about how many 4K TVs you can put on a service that's a true 1 gigabit to your house," Haberman said. I don't see that 180GB lasting long at all...
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The average Netflix user watches 40-50 hours per month, and its going down: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/netflix-users-collectively-watched-1-billion-hours-of-content-per-week-in-2017 https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/11/netflix-users-collectively.... Netflix says 7GB/hour for 4K (~350 gigabytes), but HEVC will halve that number. That's under 180GB, and that's assuming all streaming is 4K, which is far from the case.
    - 0xffff2 8y ago
      That's also just for one person on Netflix. Now add a roommate, Youtube, Twitch, general overhead (email, web browsing, app updates, etc).
      - rayiner 8y ago
        That is per account not per person. For a typical household, all other bandwidth usage pales in comparison to Netflix. Youtube, etc., streaming at HD or lower resolutions isn't going to move the needle much compared to the 4K streaming in the calculation above.
jedberg 8y ago
Verizon really really wants to be your main provider. Once they can provide you with a 1gbps wireless service, they will compete on price and data caps with your local wireline ISP to win your business.
- karpodiem 8y ago
  We will see. Would be a first for wireless in a metropolitan area. (WISPS in rural areas are a bit different)
DenisM 8y ago
T-Mobile soft cap at 50gb, that’s on LTE. With 5g speed going up 10x I wouldn’t be surprised caps going 10 x as well. We’re nearly there.
- 0xffff2 8y ago
  Hmmm. I'm on T-Mobile, but I share the plan with my brother and he's the one who actually cares about this stuff. Maybe I don't get throttled at 6gb, but I just lose a discount. Either way, I'm definitely incentivized to stay under 6gb on T-Mobile.

martinald 8y ago

I really don't get why people think this is possible. Even with microcells and loads of spectrum, you might be able to get 2gigabit/sec of internet per cell, which would be enough for perhaps a couple hundred streams (not including all the other internet services people require all the time). Considering most cells right now serve thousands if not tens of thousands of devices, there is simply no way that wireless broadband will ever be able to service that, unless you have hundreds of femtocells, but at that point you might as well just deliver fibre to the home as you'll be a few metres from the premises. 5G really changes nothing of this. Shannon's law dictates this and we are close to topping out on it in terms of radio efficiency.

DenisM 8y ago
If there is more demand for cell service the cell companies will build more towers. Lower the power levels and use higher frequency bands to reduce interference. By your numbers, 200 clients x $50/mo $10k revenue per mo for a tower. A new cell tower costs $150k, so it pays for itself in 15 months.
- martinald 8y ago
  It can take years in the UK to add a new cell tower. Apply to the local govt for planning, then more applications to dig the road up for fibre. And then you need a power connection which often aren't trivial or quick to get. $150k sounds unbelievably low.
  - lostapathy 8y ago
    You have to remember that the denser you install towers, the shorter and less obtrusive they need to be. I.e., you don't need to be nearly as high if you only need line of sight over one mile instead of ten.
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    Do what Verizon did in Boston. Get the local government to give you access ostensively for FTTH broadband like FiOS then go "psyche!" and use the fiber to run cell towers.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

> Having wireless providers who are able to provide landline-level speeds ... Are they going to cap me at 1000GB like Comcast, also?