5 ms·
Given you can get a relatively fast 4G connection in Deadhorse, AK (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Deadhorse,+Prudhoe+Bay,+AK+99734/@70.2002029,-148.4648689,
by xxpor 3y ago
Given you can get a relatively fast 4G connection in Deadhorse, AK (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Deadhorse,+Prudhoe+Bay,+AK+99734/@70.2002029,-148.4648689,16z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x512077009926947f:0x1d228d1ae7281c59!8m2!3d70.2001996!4d-148.4597191!16zL20vMDZ0XzU3?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Deadhorse,+Prudhoe+Bay,+AK...), it's pretty crazy that there's still places with 2G only connectivity anywhere in the US.
- hobs 3y agoPlenty of places I still get no service at all in northern Minnesota.
- bombcar 3y agoWi-Fi calling has been a godsend in the rural Midwest, as you can at least make calls at home.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoNorth Dakota too. There's a dead spot between Grand Forks and Devil's Lake. That used to sketch me out when I would drive home for Christmas. I was somewhere between Hazen and Bismarck recently and had no signal.
- rabbits_2002 3y agoMountains block cell signal, cell service is available but is very spotty in mountainous areas. Deadhorse, Alaska is in a flat field.
- arcticbull 3y agoTrue, but some of the LTE bands are the lowest licensed carrier frequency cellular service - they should be the most reliable. Like b71 (600MHz) and b12/13/14/17/28/29/67/85/103 (700MHz) blocks. [1] There's really no reason for 2G only connectivity anywhere in the US other than underinvestment in rural communities no? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE_frequency_bands
- rabbits_2002 3y agoAbsolutely, but there probably only needs to be a single cell tower in Deadhorse, where a rural mountainous region would need several to serve a smaller area if the signal is getting blocked, which would be more expensive.
- evil-olive 3y agoDeadhorse is remote geographically, but it's the hub of oil operations for the entire North Slope, so there's demand for corporate connectivity and not just personal cell phones. there's been a fiber line out to it since 2017 [0]. the remote areas with less connectivity are probably places without deep-pocketed corporate customers that would justify the expense of running fiber. I suspect large swaths of the Alaskan interior fall under that description. 0: https://alaskapublic.org/2017/12/05/new-fiber-optic-cable-system-to-turbocharge-north-slope-broadband-access/ https://alaskapublic.org/2017/12/05/new-fiber-optic-cable-sy...
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoIt used to be that microwave links were the alternative for such places. Not sure what's up with that these days.
- networkchad 3y agoMicrowave and narrow focused point to point wifi is still definitely a thing in remote areas. Although with Starlink becoming very popular I wonder how long until new deployments decline.
- jsjohnst 3y agoIf latency or guaranteed bandwidth matters, microwave will be better than Starlink. Of course, often neither matters in ultra remote areas.
- lmm 3y agoStarlink is LEO, it doesn't have the latency issues of old-style satellite internet (indeed it can theoretically be faster than anything ground-based as soon as you're going further than ~700km).
- jsjohnst 3y agoNobody said anything about the latency issues of GEO stationary satellites. Starlink very much has real latency differences and potential bandwidth capacity limitations vs a dedicated point to point microwave link as previously stated. Starlink has to travel minimum of 550km twice + distance from ground station to destination server. For remote locations, you generally also have an additional satellite to satellite relay distance as well. So realistically say 1500km minimum, likely way higher. Speed of light time on that distance is ~5ms, and that doesn’t account for latency losses at each hop and also remember that’s one way time. There’s a reason microwave is still used, even sometimes over fiber, where latency matters.
- rhuru 3y agoI have been to Deadhorse AK, it is a pretty cool oil rig town probably producing billions dollars worth of oil each year, more than many US towns. So Please dont compare it with rural areas. Deadhorse also has a fully functioning commercial airport with Alaska Air flights that are "free" for the workers there.
- xcdzvyn 3y agoYour comment gives me an odd vibe that seems to imply a towns "worth" equates to its GDP
- rhuru 3y agoWorth is a subjective concept, Yosemite might have negative GDP but might be worth very high value for many of us due to its natural beauty. We are talking here about cellphone towers, availability of good infra will mostly dependent on GDP of that region.
- daemoens 3y agoThat's not what he said, though. It's an explanation for why a specific rural town would have 4G while others don't.
- jonhohle 3y agoIt obviously doesn’t, but GDP roughly correlates to the profitability of expanding a network to that area. As others have mentioned, there are many awesome, very remote areas that would never be economically viable to provide cell coverage.
- serf 3y ago>Deadhorse also has a fully functioning commercial airport with Alaska Air flights that are "free" for the workers there. neat, I didn't realize the US had anything like 'company towns' anymore, hopefully they avoid the paternalism stuff that ruined company towns in the previous centuries.
- landemva 3y ago
- S201 3y agoMeanwhile I'm 10 miles from a city of 100k people and I have no cellular service at all. Trees suck for phone signals.
- reaperducer 3y agoMeanwhile I'm 10 miles from a city of 100k people and I have no cellular service at all. Trees suck for phone signals. I've lived in the heart of a 2M+ city, and the skyscrapers made reception so difficult that AT&T gave me a free pico cell for my apartment.
- reaperducer 3y agoit's pretty crazy that there's still places with 2G only connectivity anywhere in the US. There are places in California that only have 3G, as of last month when I visited one. It's a different world outside the Bay Area bubble.
- pizza 3y agoThe cell service isn't especially great everywhere in the Bay Area either (or even 'Silicon Valley' for that matter)
- kstrauser 3y agoThe outdoor mall in Alameda has notoriously awful coverage. It was so annoying that I called Verizon to complain about it. The operator said that the population density was too low to support good coverage there (WTF), and that also the trees there block the signal (I could see a Verizon tower from the parking lot where I was standing, and you can see from one end of the island to another from the upper floor of tall houses). I will never understand how the powers that be decide where to deploy coverage.
- saagarjha 3y agoYep. Go down Stevens Canyon Road and you’ll lose cell service in minutes.
- jaystraw 3y agoAlaskan and touring musician here. Coverage on the road system up here is great, believe it or not. In 2015, my band was on tour Outside, and as we headed through spokane, across Idaho heading to Missoula, I ached with anticipation: I was gonna play Montana by Frank Zappa as soon as we crossed the border. That didn't happen for a solid 30 or 40 miles, because none of us had signal. And that was on an interstate.