Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 66

Thread: Verizon expands 4G fixed wireless

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    California Gold Country
    Posts
    7,785
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rpz1 View Post
    CenturyLink will no longer allow new DSL connections in my rural Arizona area since it's old copper wire and they're now only doing areas served by fiber.
    That was the situation with CenturyLink 10 years ago in a small Minnesota town. They had put in fiber on my street, and I was allowed to use DSL on the connecting copper wire because it was only a short distance to my house.

    Same situation now with AT&T U-verse (now Basic Internet), which requires being close to the fiber trunk that is only in parts of the town. Few or no options if you live much outside of town. Satellite broadband sucks from what I have seen.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    In the news today.

    PC Magazine published an article with maps of the zip codes where this is supposed to be available in theory. It does not mean that it is available at every address in the zip code, but it is more than Verizon is giving us.

    https://www.pcmag.com/news/verizon-l...s-here-are-the
    They got the zip code list form Verizon. in fact I posted the link in the first post of this thread. The issue is when NO ONE can seems to get their address qualified something is wrong

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brad15 View Post
    Everywhere I've checked so far for family members stuck on 10Mbps or less CenturyLink DSL in Ohio, it's not been available for any of them. But I'm not surprised as all of the locations I've checked are primarily 700/850MHz LTE and AWS/PCS is a few miles away easily.
    I've checked several address one is literally 250 feet from a tower that has at least bands 2, 4, 5, 13 and 66. And is still a no go. This is the same tower I have no issue getting up to 100 Mbps during the day and rarely below 25 Mbps and over 160 Mbps at night INSIDE my house which is 3/4 miles away and I'm on Start Unlimited. I'm using a Pixel 2 XL. So neither distance or capacity is an issue but the address doesn't qualify? What's the standard?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    212
    Feedback Score
    0
    I've noticed that any address that qualifies for DSL (even 1Mbps) is denied by the checker. While this announcement sounds good on paper, it's nothing more than a PR move.

    Sent from my SM-N986U1 using HoFo mobile app

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,202
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bubtub View Post
    I've noticed that any address that qualifies for DSL (even 1Mbps) is denied by the checker. While this announcement sounds good on paper, it's nothing more than a PR move.

    Sent from my SM-N986U1 using HoFo mobile app
    Then the checker is still wrong. My address doesn't qualify for DSL. Likewise other addresses in my area.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    7,121
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11ProMax, OnePlus 8 5G
    Carrier(s)
    ·T···Mobile· USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rpz1 View Post
    Then the checker is still wrong. My address doesn't qualify for DSL. Likewise other addresses in my area.
    I do not think the checker really looks for DSL/Cable availability. It just is offered on sectors they have available, extra capacity.. which at this rate.. must be hardly any (I'm not surprised, based on my gUDP SIM performance compared to other carriers)

    This is Verizon being afraid of what T-Mobile is about to become over the next few years. I'm betting they're seeing the results of n41 in areas T-Mobile has gotten it done and know T-Mobile will eventually leverage it for home ISP rurally.. Verizon has to get people bundled in, and quickly... This was not a proactive move, it's one T-Mobile has forced them to make, and I for one am glad to see them finally have to compete on more than just "hey we get (slow) signal here!"

    I know in Chicago, it's not unusual to get 350-500Mbps in n41 areas, and Sprint is still mostly up and running here in 2.5GHz...
    T-Mobile: Magenta Amplified (airline employee plan)
    AT$T: $50 Unlimited Elite Prepaid promo (for more “rural” areas)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brad15 View Post
    Verizon has to get people bundled in, and quickly...
    Except you can't bundle people in when the address checker says it's not available to 95% or more of the people in a zip code. what's the point of offering it? It just make you look shady.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,612
    Device(s)
    N/A
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon Wireless;
    Feedback Score
    0
    I though it might have something to to with history on my browser so I cleared history now I can even sign into my Verizon, there site must be getting hammered.
    Ehh there site is kinda a mess it pops up errors quite often, whoever redesigned it should be fired
    Agree it's pretty bad, I had mine doing a redirect loop until I cleared cookies a week or two ago. I think the root problem is not the general redesign itself, but (within the last 2 or 3 weeks) they now have everything running off www.verizon.com (used to be wireless was on www.verizonwireless.com). Probably still have random junk in there trying to direct to some URL on www.verizonwireless.com, getting redirected back to www.verizon.com, but loosing cookies or form data or something in the process, or cross-site-scripting protection is blocking something, or the like.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    7,121
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11ProMax, OnePlus 8 5G
    Carrier(s)
    ·T···Mobile· USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Except you can't bundle people in when the address checker says it's not available to 95% or more of the people in a zip code. what's the point of offering it? It just make you look shady.
    Well, it was clearly a hastily made offer. I'm sure they'll get the database going (maybe)

    BUT, from my general experiences traveling around the country.. Verizon really does not have the capacity to offer this on a large scale... and they've known this for quite some time (thus why they very quickly backpedaled on video when first re-introducing Unlimited a few years ago)

    Until they get some C-Band, they're not going to be able to massively roll this out.. plain and simple. When average rural speeds are 20-30Mbps (from my experience).. It will only take 3-5 "home LTE" attached to that sector to see massive slowdowns during the day, and well we all know in those areas as soon as truly unlimited becomes an option there will also be a huge spike in usage for 4-6mos as people get "caught up" on downloads they've been missing out on.

    Then... you know people will be dumb enough to torrent and run IP cameras on it.. Verizon knows this, and why it's barely actually available. It was just a PR move and that's it.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    177
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think that it's another VZW marketing ploy to gauge interest for the product and where that interest is. Then, if they have the capacity in those areas, perhaps they will deploy it after is gets run through the ROI department.

    I find it very interesting that Shentel made a similar announcement--prices the same--on the same day as VZW: https://www.shentel.com/news/2020/oc...pectrum%20beam

    If you look at VZWs pdf of available zip codes for the service, some zips are in Shentel's geographic area and VZW is weak there.

    Shentel has named their service: "BEAM".

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brad15 View Post
    Well, it was clearly a hastily made offer. I'm sure they'll get the database going (maybe)

    BUT, from my general experiences traveling around the country.. Verizon really does not have the capacity to offer this on a large scale... and they've known this for quite some time (thus why they very quickly backpedaled on video when first re-introducing Unlimited a few years ago)

    Until they get some C-Band, they're not going to be able to massively roll this out.. plain and simple.
    Verizon will get C-Band in the top 50 markets. So that's not going to help rural areas. Verizon COULD have had exclusive rights to CBRS right NOW. Perhaps Verizon will actually buy 3450-3550 MHz spectrum in next years auction. It will be full power like C-band but be available 18 months sooner than any C-band not in the top 50 markets

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Lexington
    Posts
    75
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon, T-Mobile, Cricket Wireless, AT&T PrePaid, Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    I noticed one of these zip codes is in Verizon's LRA program here in KY 41472

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    7,121
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11ProMax, OnePlus 8 5G
    Carrier(s)
    ·T···Mobile· USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    Verizon will get C-Band in the top 50 markets. So that's not going to help rural areas. Verizon COULD have had exclusive rights to CBRS right NOW. Perhaps Verizon will actually buy 3450-3550 MHz spectrum in next years auction. It will be full power like C-band but be available 18 months sooner than any C-band not in the top 50 markets
    That's my point. Until they get meaningful mid band to actually deploy this on, it's not going to be more than vaporware

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,666
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by brad15 View Post
    That's my point. Until they get meaningful mid band to actually deploy this on, it's not going to be more than vaporware
    A) the COULD be using CBRS now. Although they have to share it

    B) They could be using exclusive CBRS now had they chosen to spend just another $500-$700 mil on 20 MHz of CBRS nationwide

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    7,121
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11ProMax, OnePlus 8 5G
    Carrier(s)
    ·T···Mobile· USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hagar View Post
    A) the COULD be using CBRS now. Although they have to share it

    B) They could be using exclusive CBRS now had they chosen to spend just another $500-$700 mil on 20 MHz of CBRS nationwide
    they COULD be.. that is correct, but they did not and here we are.

    This offering was simply a knee jerk reaction to them having a realization of what Band41 is going to mean for them with T-Mobile being an actual competitor within the next few years.

    See, T-Mobile technically covers ~96% of the population.. and that's a big number that would at a minimum be okay buying home ISP only from T-Mobile utilizing 100MHz chunks of 5G, and as T-Mobile gets stronger in their market, an easy steal over from Verizon.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-16-2018, 03:51 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-28-2017, 07:11 PM
  3. Verizon ‘more excited than ever’ about fixed wireless for 5G:
    By @TheRealDanny in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-24-2017, 04:28 AM
  4. Verizon Expands High-Speed Wireless To Philadelphia
    By Symp EL in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-23-2004, 09:39 PM
  5. AT&T Wireless Drops Fixed Wireless
    By SANDOVAL in forum Rogers/Fido/Chat-r
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2001, 05:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks