Net Neutrality

[Cavatt]

We have no clue yet what the speeds or cost will be like. SpaceX just says they are going to be cheaper than the current satellite internet options which are real expensive.

Hopefully the satellite and fix 5g from companies that are currently not in the internet provider market will be enough for real competition.

Just curious because I have never had Satellite internet. Isn't it super slow?

 

[inliner311]

Just curious because I have never had Satellite internet. Isn't it super slow?

Yeah it's real slow because of the caps they put on it. They max out at 25mbps when you are below your cap and 1-3mbps when you are above your cap. Some customer reviews says it's even slower than that. The caps are real low too, 10-50gb and they are $50-130 a month for those plans.

They say the average household (not on satellite) uses 200gb of data a month. Cord cutters use 400gb.

 

[Cavatt]

Yeah it's real slow because of the caps they put on it. They max out at 25mbps when you are below your cap and 1-3mbps when you are above your cap. Some customer reviews says it's even slower than that. The caps are real low too, 10-50gb and they are $50-130 a month for those plans.

Yikes.

 

[TopGun]

Yikes.

Basically all of the current satellite internet providers have a very small number of satellites (<5) in geosynchronous orbit (>22,000 miles away). The new ones are planning to be in low-Earth orbit (~200 miles away) and have hundreds of satellites. They should offer much better bandwidth and lower latency just on the logistics alone, disregarding any advancement in technology.

 

[KB]

I guess it depends if he lives in Sonama. @gourimoko

This thread is close to becoming political.

Verizon Throttled Fire Department’s “unlimited” Data During Calif. Wildfire
Fire dep't had to pay twice as much to lift throttling during wildfire response.

Update: The Santa Clara fire department has responded to Verizon's claim that the throttling was just a customer service error and "has nothing to do with net neutrality." To the contrary, "Verizon's throttling has everything to do with net neutrality," a county official said.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...rtments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

I don't trust that city official from this article and I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon was actually being honest.

Verizon has a special tag in their systems for Government lines and Emergency services that removes any "caps" as well as giving the lines priority access to the network in states of emergency and limited network connectivity. If this option wasn't provisioned properly by customer service then it would have caused throttling issues.

 

[Sebastian]

I don't trust that city official from this article and I wouldn't be surprised if Verizon was actually being honest.

Verizon has a special tag in their systems for Government lines and Emergency services that removes any "caps" as well as giving the lines priority access to the network in states of emergency and limited network connectivity. If this option wasn't provisioned properly by customer service then it would have caused throttling issues.

You are correct in part.

It wasn't a city official. It was the County Fire Commissioner. What would lead you to believe he was lying? Because we know he wasn't.

Verizon already admitted that they did throttle the Firefighters' data plan.


"The company had explained earlier in the week that the Santa Clara County firefighters’ data plan was indeed “unlimited,” as firefighters had called it, but that it also had a proviso that when the department reached a certain allotment the data would be slowed down drastically. That had not been adequately explained to the department, managers admitted, and under company policy the throttling was supposed to be canceled in emergency situations — which mistakenly did not happen."


As you pointed out, the plan was not handled correctly by Verizon. The question is, however, how often does something like this, where Verizon "mistakenly" didn't end the throttling, occur? Companies seem to make a lot of mistakes. And both State and Federal legislators are very skeptical that such mistakes are not, in fact, intentional.

No one should trust any for-profit entity to do the right thing when it means not doing the profitable thing.



https://www.sfchronicle.com/califor...erizon-under-fire-for-throttling-13181210.php

 

[KB]

You are correct in part.

It wasn't a city official. It was the County Fire Commissioner. What would lead you to believe he was lying? Because we know he wasn't.

Verizon already admitted that they did throttle the Firefighters' data plan.


"The company had explained earlier in the week that the Santa Clara County firefighters’ data plan was indeed “unlimited,” as firefighters had called it, but that it also had a proviso that when the department reached a certain allotment the data would be slowed down drastically. That had not been adequately explained to the department, managers admitted, and under company policy the throttling was supposed to be canceled in emergency situations — which mistakenly did not happen."


As you pointed out, the plan was not handled correctly by Verizon. The question is, however, how often does something like this, where Verizon "mistakenly" didn't end the throttling, occur? Companies seem to make a lot of mistakes. And both State and Federal legislators are very skeptical that such mistakes are not, in fact, intentional.

No one should trust any for-profit entity to do the right thing when it means not doing the profitable thing.



https://www.sfchronicle.com/califor...erizon-under-fire-for-throttling-13181210.php

There is an option in Verizon's system, iirc it's called gsa priority em access (might have changed the name), that needs to be enabled for their network to bypass the throttling triggers and give the line primary SoE network access. If the option wasn't provisioned by Verizon then the line would be throttled. Verizon has some weird quirks with their provisioning portal, sometimes feature updates fallout or instances where non compatible features will auto remove from lines and some features need to be added manually on their backend by a csa.

I've had to deal with Verizon's shit on the daily for clients over the last decade and used to purchase the majority of equipment and services for DOI / BLM before they ended the contract with a former employer. I've set the same feature on over 5,000+ lines myself and have seen the error between 400-500 times.

This is why I don't trust the city / county officials statement and insinuation that Verizon throttled intentionally due to net neutrality reasons. Sounds like a legitimate provisioning error by Verizon customer service based on the article description.

 

[Sebastian]

There is an option in Verizon's system, iirc it's called gsa priority em access (might have changed the name), that needs to be enabled for their network to bypass the throttling triggers and give the line primary SoE network access. If the option wasn't provisioned by Verizon then the line would be throttled. Verizon has some weird quirks with their provisioning portal, sometimes feature updates fallout or instances where non compatible features will auto remove from lines and some features need to be added manually on their backend by a csa.

I've had to deal with Verizon's shit on the daily for clients over the last decade and used to purchase the majority of equipment and services for DOI / BLM before they ended the contract with a former employer. I've set the same feature on over 5,000+ lines myself and have seen the error between 400-500 times.

This is why I don't trust the city / county officials statement and insinuation that Verizon throttled intentionally due to net neutrality reasons. Sounds like a legitimate provisioning error by Verizon customer service based on the article description.

I highly doubt the Fire Commissioner was playing politics.

He was commenting on what he saw and knew.

 

[KB]

I highly doubt the Fire Commissioner was playing politics.

He was commenting on what he saw and knew.

I never said the commissioner was playing politics I'm saying they don't understand how Verizon's provisioning systems work and the technical issues that come with it.

He's assuming malicious intent when it was more than likely an incompetent customer service rep adding / removing conflicting features or a technical error in the provisioning system. It would cost Verizon more to repair / replace damaged equipment in this situation than they'd make from intentionally throttling a group of responders.

 

[KI4MVP]

We have no clue yet what the speeds or cost will be like. SpaceX just says they are going to be cheaper than the current satellite internet options which are real expensive.

Hopefully the satellite and fix 5g from companies that are currently not in the internet provider market will be enough for real competition.

Pretty sure SpaceX said low latency with gigabit speed

 

[inliner311]

Pretty sure SpaceX said low latency with gigabit speed

That's what they are hoping for but they are just putting up the initial set of satellites for testing. Even fixed 5g were stated as gigabit at first and now they are seeing 300mbits as more realistic. Even T-Mobile is saying that with fixed 5g they aren't seeing the range in rural areas that they expected and they might not deploy it outside of urban areas.

Until they have a working set of satellites up in space they truly won't know the speeds and latency.

 

[KI4MVP]

That's what they are hoping for but they are just putting up the initial set of satellites for testing. Even fixed 5g were stated as gigabit at first and now they are seeing 300mbits as more realistic. Even T-Mobile is saying that with fixed 5g they aren't seeing the range in rural areas that they expected and they might not deploy it outside of urban areas.

Until they have a working set of satellites up in space they truly won't know the speeds and latency.

5G needs towers close to you (quite a bit closer than 4G), it's too expensive to do that for rural areas. First 60 satellites launched and deployed last night. A few more launches and they can start offering internet service, which they describe as "affordable broad band internet".

In a few years, Starlink will have more satellites in orbit than the entire world combined had before the launch last night.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riBaVeDTEWI

 

[KI4MVP]

SpaceX is launching 60 satellites per launch to build Starlink. A number that potentially can go up. By comparison

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I never said the commissioner was playing politics I'm saying they don't understand how Verizon's provisioning systems work and the technical issues that come with it.

He's assuming malicious intent when it was more than likely an incompetent customer service rep adding / removing conflicting features or a technical error in the provisioning system. It would cost Verizon more to repair / replace damaged equipment in this situation than they'd make from intentionally throttling a group of responders.

It's great that you're here to explain all this. Unfortunately, 99% of the country won't hear that explanation, and so will lazily assume "big company bad - need more government regulation".

Par for the course, really.

 

[Sebastian]

It's great that you're hear to explain all this. Unfortunately, 99% of the country won't hear that explanation, and so will lazily assume "big company bad - need more government regulation".

Par for the course, really.

Just because Verizon was on the level doesn't mean others are.

Silly.