On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:39:55 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Frontier is the worst phone company in the world.

I can't be certain, of course, but I think they have worse ones in Mexico.

John Savard

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
> >>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
> >>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
> >>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was something to the effect
> >>>>>>>>> "US Sprint is a law firm with a few phone lines".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Networking
> >>>>>>>> Telephony.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about everywhere in the
> >>>>>>>> country, and hung fiber to handle their own needs, and then realized
> >>>>>>>> that they had excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
> >>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they were hauling
> >>>>>>>> freight.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers became major
> >>>>>>> broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized that they were using about
> >>>>>>> 10% of the capacity of their network delivering TV and cast about for
> >>>>>>> a way to use it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
> >>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the then dominant
> >>>>>>> telephone modems - and 20-25 years later most of us are using cable
> >>>>>>> or fibre connections.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising gigabit
> >>>>>> fiber. But when I check it's not available at my location, so I stick
> >>>>>> with cable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to 200 Mbps" plan,
> >>>>> yet measuring my download speed through the browser tops out at 20 and
> >>>>> usually 10 Mbps, while using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50
> >>>>> Mbps (at, say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
> >>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at best.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ... advertising copy.
> >>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the 300 down
> >>>> that they promise.
> >>>
> >>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline (through the modem) a few
> >>> years ago. Around here it is the company that bought out the POTS and other services
> >>> sold by SNET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommunications
> >>>
> >>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we ca upgrade our DSL to fiber
> >>> optic. I'll probably ta ke them up on it.
> >>>
> >>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with the rent when I moved in.
> >>> After awhile the Comcast people annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed
> >>> DirectTV. I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in my own name.
> >>> The price for the service has ballooned. Two other tenants share the router with me.
> >>> From time to time I get texts apologizing for temporary service outages, but our block
> >>> doesn't seem to be affected.
> >>>
> >>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber Optic than I'm paying now.
> >>> I do hope I'm not ineligible due to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
> >>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
> >>>
> >> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a certain
> >> distance of a distribution point. With most companies if you aren't,
> >> you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply will not do the necessary
> >> construction to extend the fiber network because it costs too much to do
> >> that kind of work in urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area
> >> you're just too damn far away period.
> >
> > Which leaves two basic solutions:
> >
> > 1) Satellite-based.
> > 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
> >
> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do wireless. Its
> not secure enough for some of the stuff I work on.
> > The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
> > coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
> >
> > The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into the
> > heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
> >
> > Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his home
> > town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero for a Giant
> > Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing to extend the cable
> > -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that, if you throw enough money
> > at them, they can be coaxed into putting in the wire.
> >
> Not where I live. Too far, can't do it is their answer.
> --
> I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
> dirty old man.

Have you looked into Starlink?

https://www.starlink.com/

I nearly got it, but don't have enough sky visible.

On 4/21/2022 7:16 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was something to the effect
>>>>>>>>>>> "US Sprint is a law firm with a few phone lines".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Networking
>>>>>>>>>> Telephony.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about everywhere in the
>>>>>>>>>> country, and hung fiber to handle their own needs, and then realized
>>>>>>>>>> that they had excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
>>>>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they were hauling
>>>>>>>>>> freight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers became major
>>>>>>>>> broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized that they were using about
>>>>>>>>> 10% of the capacity of their network delivering TV and cast about for
>>>>>>>>> a way to use it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
>>>>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the then dominant
>>>>>>>>> telephone modems - and 20-25 years later most of us are using cable
>>>>>>>>> or fibre connections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising gigabit
>>>>>>>> fiber. But when I check it's not available at my location, so I stick
>>>>>>>> with cable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to 200 Mbps" plan,
>>>>>>> yet measuring my download speed through the browser tops out at 20 and
>>>>>>> usually 10 Mbps, while using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50
>>>>>>> Mbps (at, say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
>>>>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ... advertising copy.
>>>>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the 300 down
>>>>>> that they promise.
>>>>>
>>>>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline (through the modem) a few
>>>>> years ago. Around here it is the company that bought out the POTS and other services
>>>>> sold by SNET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommunications
>>>>>
>>>>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we ca upgrade our DSL to fiber
>>>>> optic. I'll probably ta ke them up on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with the rent when I moved in.
>>>>> After awhile the Comcast people annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed
>>>>> DirectTV. I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in my own name.
>>>>> The price for the service has ballooned. Two other tenants share the router with me.
>>>>> From time to time I get texts apologizing for temporary service outages, but our block
>>>>> doesn't seem to be affected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber Optic than I'm paying now.
>>>>> I do hope I'm not ineligible due to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
>>>>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
>>>>>
>>>> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a certain
>>>> distance of a distribution point. With most companies if you aren't,
>>>> you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply will not do the necessary
>>>> construction to extend the fiber network because it costs too much to do
>>>> that kind of work in urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area
>>>> you're just too damn far away period.
>>>
>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>
>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>
>> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do wireless. Its
>> not secure enough for some of the stuff I work on.
>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
>>> coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
>>>
>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into the
>>> heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>>>
>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his home
>>> town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero for a Giant
>>> Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing to extend the cable
>>> -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that, if you throw enough money
>>> at them, they can be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>
>> Not where I live. Too far, can't do it is their answer.
>
> Have you looked into Starlink?
>
> https://www.starlink.com/
>
> I nearly got it, but don't have enough sky visible.

I live in an apartment, no dishes allowed. Also in a hilly urban area
with lots of trees. Not gonna work.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:41:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 4/21/2022 7:16 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-4, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was something to the effect
>>>>>>>>>>>> "US Sprint is a law firm with a few phone lines".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Networking
>>>>>>>>>>> Telephony.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about everywhere in the
>>>>>>>>>>> country, and hung fiber to handle their own needs, and then realized
>>>>>>>>>>> that they had excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
>>>>>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they were hauling
>>>>>>>>>>> freight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers became major
>>>>>>>>>> broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized that they were using about
>>>>>>>>>> 10% of the capacity of their network delivering TV and cast about for
>>>>>>>>>> a way to use it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
>>>>>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the then dominant
>>>>>>>>>> telephone modems - and 20-25 years later most of us are using cable
>>>>>>>>>> or fibre connections.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising gigabit
>>>>>>>>> fiber. But when I check it's not available at my location, so I stick
>>>>>>>>> with cable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to 200 Mbps" plan,
>>>>>>>> yet measuring my download speed through the browser tops out at 20 and
>>>>>>>> usually 10 Mbps, while using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50
>>>>>>>> Mbps (at, say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
>>>>>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ... advertising copy.
>>>>>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the 300 down
>>>>>>> that they promise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline (through the modem) a few
>>>>>> years ago. Around here it is the company that bought out the POTS and other services
>>>>>> sold by SNET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommunications
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we ca upgrade our DSL to fiber
>>>>>> optic. I'll probably ta ke them up on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with the rent when I moved in.
>>>>>> After awhile the Comcast people annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed
>>>>>> DirectTV. I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in my own name.
>>>>>> The price for the service has ballooned. Two other tenants share the router with me.
>>>>>> From time to time I get texts apologizing for temporary service outages, but our block
>>>>>> doesn't seem to be affected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber Optic than I'm paying now.
>>>>>> I do hope I'm not ineligible due to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
>>>>>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
>>>>>>
>>>>> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a certain
>>>>> distance of a distribution point. With most companies if you aren't,
>>>>> you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply will not do the necessary
>>>>> construction to extend the fiber network because it costs too much to do
>>>>> that kind of work in urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area
>>>>> you're just too damn far away period.
>>>>
>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>
>>> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do wireless. Its
>>> not secure enough for some of the stuff I work on.
>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
>>>> coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
>>>>
>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into the
>>>> heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>>>>
>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his home
>>>> town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero for a Giant
>>>> Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing to extend the cable
>>>> -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that, if you throw enough money
>>>> at them, they can be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>
>>> Not where I live. Too far, can't do it is their answer.
>>
>> Have you looked into Starlink?
>>
>> https://www.starlink.com/
>>
>> I nearly got it, but don't have enough sky visible.
>
>I live in an apartment, no dishes allowed. Also in a hilly urban area
>with lots of trees. Not gonna work.

If you live in the US and your landlord won't let you put up a
receiving antenna, contact the FCC. They are required by Federal law
to allow it.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:20:16 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:41:55 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:

> >I live in an apartment, no dishes allowed. Also in a hilly urban area
> >with lots of trees. Not gonna work.

> If you live in the US and your landlord won't let you put up a
> receiving antenna, contact the FCC. They are required by Federal law
> to allow it.

Of course, that doesn't solve the hills and the trees...

John Savard

On 21 Apr 2022 17:38:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <iov26hd850ltsujdbr98d89kr8ra14oash@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On 20 Apr 2022 16:30:39 GMT, ted@hotrod.lan (Ted Nolan) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <XnsAE7F5822A515taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>>>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:vbsv5hpmb4cjadijb8lc5gnf9rvubhcrpb@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>>>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think the joke during all the litigation was something to
>>>>>>>>the effect "US Sprint is a law firm with a few phone lines".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad Internal
>>>>>>>Networking Telephony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about everywhere
>>>>>>>in the country, and hung fiber to handle their own needs, and
>>>>>>>then realized that they had excess capacity that they could
>>>>>>>monetize, and after a while they were making more hauling data
>>>>>>>than they were hauling freight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's basically how many of the cable TV providers became major
>>>>>>broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized that they were using
>>>>>>about 10% of the capacity of their network delivering TV and
>>>>>>cast about for a way to use it more profitably and discovered
>>>>>>they could deliver broadband and greatly increased speeds
>>>>>>compared to the then dominant telephone modems - and 20-25
>>>>>>years later most of us are using cable or fibre connections.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising gigabit
>>>>> fiber. But when I check it's not available at my location, so I
>>>>> stick with cable.
>>>>>
>>>>Frontier is the worst phone company in the world. Regardless of
>>>>what they advertise, even if they will provide you service, I
>>>>wouldn't count on more bandwidth than you'd get with two plastic
>>>>cups and wet piece of string. And that will only work half the
>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>We had Frontier DSL at our beach house and anytime my niece turned on
>>>her Iphone, my ability to work remotely stopped.
>>>
>>>Still, they were marginally better than Verizon who had the landline
>>>when I first put in the DSL. I finally got one of their techs to admit
>>>their DSL self-install kit was completely worthless on the software
>>>side and the only benefit it provided (after I had worked with it
>>>for three days) was the phone number for his group.
>>
>>They must have worked really hard to produce that.
>>
>>Earthlink's DSL self-install consisted of:
>>1. Plugging the modem into the telephone line.
>>2. Plugging the computer into the modem.
>>3. Bringing the modem up with a browser.
>>4. Providing the login info for your account.
>>5. If you owned a Router, you would then plug it in between the modem
>>and the computer.
>>
>>The last modem they sent (everything mechanical wears out eventually)
>>included a router, eliminating step 5 at the cost of having to enter a
>>new WiFi key on every device.
>>--
>
>As I recall, the installation CD would only run on Windows-98, and it
>would check the system to make sure it had enough horsepower to run
>the install app. Mine did not (I had specifically loaded a copy of
>Win98 for the task, but did it on an older laptop) and I had to figure
>out how to make it lie. Then it wanted to do some very specific Windows
>type setup while I'm like: No, this isn't even a computer I'm keeping, just
>give me the information to plug into the router!

And they probably spent a lot of time and effort and money to make
that program so ... totally useless.

>Which, after three days, the guy on the phone did.

I'm surprised he was allowed to. But perhaps his supervisor was not in
that day.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:

<snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>

>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>
>> 1) Satellite-based.
>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>
>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
>> coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
>
>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our cash
>registers don't like lag.

Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or even the
Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found out early in my
experience with the New Fibre-associated WiFi), it would irritate a
lot of people.
>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into
>> the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>
>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty well,
>but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.

That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre speeds work
rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/ less time to log on to
now).
>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his
>> home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero
>> for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing
>> to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that,
>> if you throw enough money at them, they can be coaxed into
>> putting in the wire.
>
>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude higher,
>and that assumes they'll running cable less than a mile.

It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the end of the
amount. A news service ultimately paid for the installation so they
could broadcast live from the site.
>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably provide a
>> 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would be two
>> different things.
>
>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>
>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they have in
>common is the use of the same letter and number.

Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a suspicion.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:27:05 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

<snippo>

>>> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a certain
>>> distance of a distribution point. With most companies if you aren't,
>>> you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply will not do the necessary
>>> construction to extend the fiber network because it costs too much to do
>>> that kind of work in urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area
>>> you're just too damn far away period.
>>
>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>
>> 1) Satellite-based.
>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>
>Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do wireless. Its
>not secure enough for some of the stuff I work on.

If that is true /internally/, you may want to be careful with going to
fibre: the Router provided has twice, when my Notebook was plugged in
via Ethernet, worked for a while and then stopped finding the
Notebook. The first time, the Router listed both an Ethernet and a
WiFi connection (I verified that the WiFi on the Notebook was not
connected); the second time, the Notebook had two identical Ethernet
networks running over one cable between the same two MACs. "Quality
equipment" indeed!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <jmj56ht4g9fj9tgqbun9cgps0kvavuj84o@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2022 17:38:57 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <iov26hd850ltsujdbr98d89kr8ra14oash@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 20 Apr 2022 16:30:39 GMT, ted@hotrod.lan (Ted Nolan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <XnsAE7F5822A515taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>>>>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:vbsv5hpmb4cjadijb8lc5gnf9rvubhcrpb@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>>>>> <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think the joke during all the litigation was something to
>>>>>>>>>the effect "US Sprint is a law firm with a few phone lines".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad Internal
>>>>>>>>Networking Telephony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about everywhere
>>>>>>>>in the country, and hung fiber to handle their own needs, and
>>>>>>>>then realized that they had excess capacity that they could
>>>>>>>>monetize, and after a while they were making more hauling data
>>>>>>>>than they were hauling freight.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's basically how many of the cable TV providers became major
>>>>>>>broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized that they were using
>>>>>>>about 10% of the capacity of their network delivering TV and
>>>>>>>cast about for a way to use it more profitably and discovered
>>>>>>>they could deliver broadband and greatly increased speeds
>>>>>>>compared to the then dominant telephone modems - and 20-25
>>>>>>>years later most of us are using cable or fibre connections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising gigabit
>>>>>> fiber. But when I check it's not available at my location, so I
>>>>>> stick with cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Frontier is the worst phone company in the world. Regardless of
>>>>>what they advertise, even if they will provide you service, I
>>>>>wouldn't count on more bandwidth than you'd get with two plastic
>>>>>cups and wet piece of string. And that will only work half the
>>>>>time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We had Frontier DSL at our beach house and anytime my niece turned on
>>>>her Iphone, my ability to work remotely stopped.
>>>>
>>>>Still, they were marginally better than Verizon who had the landline
>>>>when I first put in the DSL. I finally got one of their techs to admit
>>>>their DSL self-install kit was completely worthless on the software
>>>>side and the only benefit it provided (after I had worked with it
>>>>for three days) was the phone number for his group.
>>>
>>>They must have worked really hard to produce that.
>>>
>>>Earthlink's DSL self-install consisted of:
>>>1. Plugging the modem into the telephone line.
>>>2. Plugging the computer into the modem.
>>>3. Bringing the modem up with a browser.
>>>4. Providing the login info for your account.
>>>5. If you owned a Router, you would then plug it in between the modem
>>>and the computer.
>>>
>>>The last modem they sent (everything mechanical wears out eventually)
>>>included a router, eliminating step 5 at the cost of having to enter a
>>>new WiFi key on every device.
>>>--
>>
>>As I recall, the installation CD would only run on Windows-98, and it
>>would check the system to make sure it had enough horsepower to run
>>the install app. Mine did not (I had specifically loaded a copy of
>>Win98 for the task, but did it on an older laptop) and I had to figure
>>out how to make it lie. Then it wanted to do some very specific Windows
>>type setup while I'm like: No, this isn't even a computer I'm keeping, just
>>give me the information to plug into the router!
>
>And they probably spent a lot of time and effort and money to make
>that program so ... totally useless.
>
>>Which, after three days, the guy on the phone did.
>
>I'm surprised he was allowed to. But perhaps his supervisor was not in
>that day.

And I should mentione that the Verizon adventure actually started the
previous year when I plugged the phone number into their "do we DSL there?"
web page and it told me "yes" whereupon they shipped me the first version of
their useless box only to find that: "Oh, *that* phone number: nope"
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>
> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>
>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>
>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>
>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
>>> coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
>>
>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our cash
>>registers don't like lag.
>
> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or even
> the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found out
> early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated WiFi), it
> would irritate a lot of people.
>
>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into
>>> the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>>
>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>
> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre speeds
> work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/ less time to
> log on to now).

IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload was a
tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area that store
is in does not have very good coverage yet, and speed are very
dependent on range to the tower, so we were probably at the low end
of what it should be able to deliver.
>
>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his
>>> home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero
>>> for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing
>>> to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that,
>>> if you throw enough money at them, they can be coaxed into
>>> putting in the wire.
>>
>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a mile.
>
> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the end of
> the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the installation
> so they could broadcast live from the site.

Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>
>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably provide
>>> a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would be two
>>> different things.
>>
>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>
>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they have
>>in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>
> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
> suspicion.

There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has done
nothing to dispel it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:t3t861$ut5$1@dont-email.me:

> On 4/21/2022 7:16 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:27:08 PM UTC-4, Dimensional
>> Traveler wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>>>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>>>>>>>> <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>>>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was
>>>>>>>>>>>> something to the effect "US Sprint is a law firm with
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few phone lines".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad
>>>>>>>>>>> Internal Networking Telephony.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about
>>>>>>>>>>> everywhere in the country, and hung fiber to handle
>>>>>>>>>>> their own needs, and then realized that they had
>>>>>>>>>>> excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
>>>>>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they
>>>>>>>>>>> were hauling freight.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers
>>>>>>>>>> became major broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized
>>>>>>>>>> that they were using about 10% of the capacity of their
>>>>>>>>>> network delivering TV and cast about for a way to use
>>>>>>>>>> it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
>>>>>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the
>>>>>>>>>> then dominant telephone modems - and 20-25 years later
>>>>>>>>>> most of us are using cable or fibre connections.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising
>>>>>>>>> gigabit fiber. But when I check it's not available at my
>>>>>>>>> location, so I stick with cable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to
>>>>>>>> 200 Mbps" plan, yet measuring my download speed through
>>>>>>>> the browser tops out at 20 and usually 10 Mbps, while
>>>>>>>> using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50 Mbps (at,
>>>>>>>> say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
>>>>>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at
>>>>>>>> best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ...
>>>>>>>> advertising copy.
>>>>>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the
>>>>>>> 300 down that they promise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline
>>>>>> (through the modem) a few years ago. Around here it is the
>>>>>> company that bought out the POTS and other services
>>>>>> sold by SNET.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommu
>>>>>> nications
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we
>>>>>> ca upgrade our DSL to fiber optic. I'll probably ta ke them
>>>>>> up on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with
>>>>>> the rent when I moved in. After awhile the Comcast people
>>>>>> annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed DirectTV.
>>>>>> I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in
>>>>>> my own name. The price for the service has ballooned. Two
>>>>>> other tenants share the router with me.
>>>>>> From time to time I get texts apologizing for temporary
>>>>>> service outages, but our block
>>>>>> doesn't seem to be affected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber
>>>>>> Optic than I'm paying now. I do hope I'm not ineligible due
>>>>>> to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
>>>>>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
>>>>>>
>>>>> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a
>>>>> certain distance of a distribution point. With most
>>>>> companies if you aren't, you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply
>>>>> will not do the necessary construction to extend the fiber
>>>>> network because it costs too much to do that kind of work in
>>>>> urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area you're just
>>>>> too damn far away period.
>>>>
>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>
>>> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do
>>> wireless. Its not secure enough for some of the stuff I work
>>> on.
>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is,
>>>> their coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a
>>>> concern.
>>>>
>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into
>>>> the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>>>>
>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to
>>>> his home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground
>>>> Zero for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/
>>>> willing to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is
>>>> possible that, if you throw enough money at them, they can be
>>>> coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>
>>> Not where I live. Too far, can't do it is their answer.
>>
>> Have you looked into Starlink?
>>
>> https://www.starlink.com/
>>
>> I nearly got it, but don't have enough sky visible.
>
> I live in an apartment, no dishes allowed.

If you're in the US, that's illegal. The FCC will have words with
them about it if you file a complaint. (I know someone who went
that route. He said the manager was very polite about it after that
conversation.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:f395a803-8025-47d8-9542-228236a04eccn@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 21:27:08 UTC+1, Dimensional
> Traveler wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
>> >>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>> >>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
>> >>>>>> <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>> >>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was
>> >>>>>>>>> something to the effect "US Sprint is a law firm with
>> >>>>>>>>> a few phone lines".
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad
>> >>>>>>>> Internal Networking Telephony.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about
>> >>>>>>>> everywhere in the country, and hung fiber to handle
>> >>>>>>>> their own needs, and then realized that they had
>> >>>>>>>> excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
>> >>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they
>> >>>>>>>> were hauling freight.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers
>> >>>>>>> became major broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized
>> >>>>>>> that they were using about 10% of the capacity of their
>> >>>>>>> network delivering TV and cast about for a way to use
>> >>>>>>> it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
>> >>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the
>> >>>>>>> then dominant telephone modems - and 20-25 years later
>> >>>>>>> most of us are using cable or fibre connections.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising
>> >>>>>> gigabit fiber. But when I check it's not available at my
>> >>>>>> location, so I stick with cable.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to
>> >>>>> 200 Mbps" plan, yet measuring my download speed through
>> >>>>> the browser tops out at 20 and usually 10 Mbps, while
>> >>>>> using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50 Mbps (at,
>> >>>>> say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
>> >>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at
>> >>>>> best.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ...
>> >>>>> advertising copy.
>> >>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the
>> >>>> 300 down that they promise.
>> >>>
>> >>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline
>> >>> (through the modem) a few years ago. Around here it is the
>> >>> company that bought out the POTS and other services
>> >>> sold by SNET.
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommu
>> >>> nications
>> >>>
>> >>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we
>> >>> ca upgrade our DSL to fiber optic. I'll probably ta ke them
>> >>> up on it.
>> >>>
>> >>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with
>> >>> the rent when I moved in. After awhile the Comcast people
>> >>> annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed DirectTV.
>> >>> I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in
>> >>> my own name. The price for the service has ballooned. Two
>> >>> other tenants share the router with me. From time to time I
>> >>> get texts apologizing for temporary service outages, but
>> >>> our block doesn't seem to be affected.
>> >>>
>> >>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber
>> >>> Optic than I'm paying now. I do hope I'm not ineligible due
>> >>> to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
>> >>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
>> >>>
>> >> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a
>> >> certain distance of a distribution point. With most
>> >> companies if you aren't, you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply
>> >> will not do the necessary construction to extend the fiber
>> >> network because it costs too much to do that kind of work in
>> >> urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area you're just
>> >> too damn far away period.
>> >
>> > Which leaves two basic solutions:
>> >
>> > 1) Satellite-based.
>> > 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>> >
>> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do
>> wireless. Its not secure enough for some of the stuff I work
>> on.
>
> And internet or telephone is?
>
> If your data is encrypted... you can have the local
> newspaper print it as a full page advertisement,
> and you should be okay.
>
That was my first thought. My second thought is that not all
security rules are based on reality.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <XnsAE816A8071E4taustincagmailcom@85.12.62.232>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>news:f395a803-8025-47d8-9542-228236a04eccn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 21:27:08 UTC+1, Dimensional
>> Traveler wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2022 9:16 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> > <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 4/21/2022 12:14 AM, Kevrob wrote:
>>> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:51:11 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 09:28:07 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> >>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:42:41 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> >>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:56:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
>>> >>>>>> <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:54:29 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> >>>>>>> <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the joke during all the litigation was
>>> >>>>>>>>> something to the effect "US Sprint is a law firm with
>>> >>>>>>>>> a few phone lines".
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Actually, at the time SPRINT was a railroad.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> SPRINT is an acronym--Southern Pacific Railroad
>>> >>>>>>>> Internal Networking Telephony.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Seems the railroad owned rights-of-way to just about
>>> >>>>>>>> everywhere in the country, and hung fiber to handle
>>> >>>>>>>> their own needs, and then realized that they had
>>> >>>>>>>> excess capacity that they could monetize, and after a
>>> >>>>>>>> while they were making more hauling data than they
>>> >>>>>>>> were hauling freight.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> That's basically how many of the cable TV providers
>>> >>>>>>> became major broadband providers - mine (Shaw) realized
>>> >>>>>>> that they were using about 10% of the capacity of their
>>> >>>>>>> network delivering TV and cast about for a way to use
>>> >>>>>>> it more profitably and discovered they could deliver
>>> >>>>>>> broadband and greatly increased speeds compared to the
>>> >>>>>>> then dominant telephone modems - and 20-25 years later
>>> >>>>>>> most of us are using cable or fibre connections.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Yep. I keep getting junk mail from Frontier advertising
>>> >>>>>> gigabit fiber. But when I check it's not available at my
>>> >>>>>> location, so I stick with cable.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> If I read my ISPs website correctly, I am on an "up to
>>> >>>>> 200 Mbps" plan, yet measuring my download speed through
>>> >>>>> the browser tops out at 20 and usually 10 Mbps, while
>>> >>>>> using an App sometimes reaches as high as 50 Mbps (at,
>>> >>>>> say, 3AM, when, presumably, the network is less crowded).
>>> >>>>> IOW, about 25% of the allegedly-available speed -- at
>>> >>>>> best.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> So you may want to treat the "Gbps" claims as ...
>>> >>>>> advertising copy.
>>> >>>> When I check, Cox is usually providing pretty close to the
>>> >>>> 300 down that they promise.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I subscribed to Frontier for web access with a landline
>>> >>> (through the modem) a few years ago. Around here it is the
>>> >>> company that bought out the POTS and other services
>>> >>> sold by SNET.
>>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_New_England_Telecommu
>>> >>> nications
>>> >>>
>>> >>> i have received mail, email and a phone call telling me we
>>> >>> ca upgrade our DSL to fiber optic. I'll probably ta ke them
>>> >>> up on it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The landlord included Comcast cable and internet/WiFi with
>>> >>> the rent when I moved in. After awhile the Comcast people
>>> >>> annoyed him enough he got rid of it and installed DirectTV.
>>> >>> I was given a break in my rent to get inter net service in
>>> >>> my own name. The price for the service has ballooned. Two
>>> >>> other tenants share the router with me. From time to time I
>>> >>> get texts apologizing for temporary service outages, but
>>> >>> our block doesn't seem to be affected.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Moist of the ads are offering lower rates for the Fiber
>>> >>> Optic than I'm paying now. I do hope I'm not ineligible due
>>> >>> to being a current customer. "Gee, if I can't get that
>>> >>> rate, maybe one of your competitors can do better..."
>>> >>>
>>> >> The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a
>>> >> certain distance of a distribution point. With most
>>> >> companies if you aren't, you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply
>>> >> will not do the necessary construction to extend the fiber
>>> >> network because it costs too much to do that kind of work in
>>> >> urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area you're just
>>> >> too damn far away period.
>>> >
>>> > Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>> >
>>> > 1) Satellite-based.
>>> > 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>> >
>>> Both of which are non-starters for me because I won't do
>>> wireless. Its not secure enough for some of the stuff I work
>>> on.
>>
>> And internet or telephone is?
>>
>> If your data is encrypted... you can have the local
>> newspaper print it as a full page advertisement,
>> and you should be okay.
>>
>That was my first thought. My second thought is that not all
>security rules are based on reality.
>

Well, actually that *would* be a great way to ensure nobody sees it.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:04:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>If your ISP is a cable company, the normal setup is that the
>>advertised bandwidth is for the circuit, which services your entire
>>neighborhood. So when everybody gets home from work and starts
>>downloading porn to go with dinner, it's divided betweent them all.
>>What you describe is exactly how it looks. At least some fiber
>>installs work that way, too.
>
>Mine is fiber, and I suspect it works that way.
>
>>DSL, at least, was dedicated bandwidth.
>
>That explains a few things.

In my case my daughter is upstairs working from home and from what
I've heard bandwidth is usually calculated in terms of 'from the
street' meaning multiple devises in the same building will total to
the bandwidth advertised.

Though your version may be right as it's downloading about 60% as
advertised but uploading at 100% of advertised speed.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 08:03:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>The kicker on such offers is that you have to be within a certain
>distance of a distribution point. With most companies if you aren't,
>you CAN NOT get fiber. They simply will not do the necessary
>construction to extend the fiber network because it costs too much to do
>that kind of work in urban areas. And if you're not in an urban area
>you're just too damn far away period.

This was what they were saying 20 years ago about cable - when I
switched from phone modem there were basically two players in the
market in our geographic area and I went to both - one said 'we're not
scheduled for your area for another 18 months' the other said 'when
can we sign you up?' making it an easy call once I verified pricing
wasn't out of reach.

3 guesses who gives me LOTS of adverts to switch now?

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:04:23 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>If your ISP is a cable company, the normal setup is that the
>>>advertised bandwidth is for the circuit, which services your entire
>>>neighborhood. So when everybody gets home from work and starts
>>>downloading porn to go with dinner, it's divided betweent them all.
>>>What you describe is exactly how it looks. At least some fiber
>>>installs work that way, too.
>>
>>Mine is fiber, and I suspect it works that way.
>>
>>>DSL, at least, was dedicated bandwidth.
>>
>>That explains a few things.
>
>In my case my daughter is upstairs working from home and from what
>I've heard bandwidth is usually calculated in terms of 'from the
>street' meaning multiple devises in the same building will total to
>the bandwidth advertised.

It isn't a simple calculation. The "bandwidth" you see between
your device and a host on the internet is a function of, in no
particular order:

- The ISPs configured upload/download bandwidth
- Congestion if the final mile bandwidth is shared by neighbors
- The upload/download bandwidth for the remote system's ISP.
- The number of users using the remote systems bandwidth
- Each L3 router, L2 switch and fibre segment in the 'backbone' internet and
how congested each switch/segment is at that point in time.
- Your ingress modem (many had 100BaseT LAN ports, which only support 10% of a gigabit/sec).
- Your Router/Switch (if distinct from the modem), also commonly sold with 100BaseT ports
- Your host ethernet port (many are 100BaseT).
- The cables between the modem/router and host (cheap two-pair cables only support 100Mb/s).
- The WIFI Access Point bandwidth (for wireless) and
- Your host wireless network adapter bandwidth.

>
>Though your version may be right as it's downloading about 60% as
>advertised but uploading at 100% of advertised speed.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:51:11 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:04:23 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>If your ISP is a cable company, the normal setup is that the
>>>advertised bandwidth is for the circuit, which services your entire
>>>neighborhood. So when everybody gets home from work and starts
>>>downloading porn to go with dinner, it's divided betweent them all.
>>>What you describe is exactly how it looks. At least some fiber
>>>installs work that way, too.
>>
>>Mine is fiber, and I suspect it works that way.
>>
>>>DSL, at least, was dedicated bandwidth.
>>
>>That explains a few things.
>
>In my case my daughter is upstairs working from home and from what
>I've heard bandwidth is usually calculated in terms of 'from the
>street' meaning multiple devises in the same building will total to
>the bandwidth advertised.
>
>Though your version may be right as it's downloading about 60% as
>advertised but uploading at 100% of advertised speed.

Advertised appears to be "up to 200 Mbps" for the amount I am paying,
although more-expensive options "up to 840 Mbps" are alleged to exist.

And, no, a measured download spead of 50 Mbps is not "60%". It is 25%
of 200 Mbps. And that's at 3AM (well, the last time I measured it
there -- it's been a while). The normal speed measured, about 10 Mbps
is ... 5% of 200 Mbps.

I see /no/ reason to believe it would be higher if I paid for for a
higher "up to" value. I suspect I have pretty much topped out.

But it's still more than DSL! For the same price!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:05:00 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:04:23 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>If your ISP is a cable company, the normal setup is that the
>>>>advertised bandwidth is for the circuit, which services your entire
>>>>neighborhood. So when everybody gets home from work and starts
>>>>downloading porn to go with dinner, it's divided betweent them all.
>>>>What you describe is exactly how it looks. At least some fiber
>>>>installs work that way, too.
>>>
>>>Mine is fiber, and I suspect it works that way.
>>>
>>>>DSL, at least, was dedicated bandwidth.
>>>
>>>That explains a few things.
>>
>>In my case my daughter is upstairs working from home and from what
>>I've heard bandwidth is usually calculated in terms of 'from the
>>street' meaning multiple devises in the same building will total to
>>the bandwidth advertised.
>
>It isn't a simple calculation. The "bandwidth" you see between
>your device and a host on the internet is a function of, in no
>particular order:
>
> - The ISPs configured upload/download bandwidth
> - Congestion if the final mile bandwidth is shared by neighbors
> - The upload/download bandwidth for the remote system's ISP.
> - The number of users using the remote systems bandwidth
> - Each L3 router, L2 switch and fibre segment in the 'backbone' internet and
> how congested each switch/segment is at that point in time.
> - Your ingress modem (many had 100BaseT LAN ports, which only support 10% of a gigabit/sec).
I have no idea what mine has, or even what it is.
> - Your Router/Switch (if distinct from the modem), also commonly sold with 100BaseT ports
The router manual is proud that it's uplink port is (if I read the
manual correctly) 1000BaseT.
> - Your host ethernet port (many are 100BaseT).
The router manual mentions that the four Ethernet ports for /my/ use
are, indeed, 100BaseT.
> - The cables between the modem/router and host (cheap two-pair cables only support 100Mb/s).
So far as I can tell, the cable came with the router. At least, the
online startup doc lists such a cable as a component.
> - The WIFI Access Point bandwidth (for wireless) and
> - Your host wireless network adapter bandwidth.
It appears to be claiming a /bandwidth/ of 20+20, which I believe is
in MHz. This is in the 2.4G band, with 11n devices.

However, I find this topic a bit ... confusing. The advertised rates
are said to be /speeds/ not bandwidths. Speed would, I suppose, be
related to bandwidth; but I'm not sure how.

I doubt very much that the electrons/photons involved speed up or slow
down. This is probably a measure of packets received or something like
that, so that a higher speed would be related to a higher bandwidth
because the higher bandwidth allows a larger number of packets to show
up every second. Or something like that. Or nothing like that, I
really have no concrete ideas about this.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

n Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:24:43 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>>
>> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>>
>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>
>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is, their
>>>> coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a concern.
>>>
>>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our cash
>>>registers don't like lag.
>>
>> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or even
>> the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found out
>> early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated WiFi), it
>> would irritate a lot of people.
>>
>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated into
>>>> the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually work.
>>>
>>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>>
>> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
>> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
>> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre speeds
>> work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/ less time to
>> log on to now).
>
>IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload was a
>tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area that store
>is in does not have very good coverage yet, and speed are very
>dependent on range to the tower, so we were probably at the low end
>of what it should be able to deliver.
>>
>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to his
>>>> home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground Zero
>>>> for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/ willing
>>>> to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is possible that,
>>>> if you throw enough money at them, they can be coaxed into
>>>> putting in the wire.
>>>
>>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a mile.
>>
>> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the end of
>> the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the installation
>> so they could broadcast live from the site.
>
>Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>>
>>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably provide
>>>> a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would be two
>>>> different things.
>>>
>>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>>
>>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they have
>>>in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>>
>> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
>> suspicion.
>
>There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has done
>nothing to dispel it.

Well, when you have "5G Routers" providing, I presume, "5G WiFi", I
don't see how confusion can be avoided. Minimized, perhaps, but not
avoided.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:05:00 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:

>
>However, I find this topic a bit ... confusing. The advertised rates
>are said to be /speeds/ not bandwidths. Speed would, I suppose, be
>related to bandwidth; but I'm not sure how.

Bandwidth is measured in bits transferred per second. AKA speed.

High-end hardware is available with 400Gbit/sec bandwidth per port, used
in the backbone and for 5G backhaul.

On 2022-04-17, Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:

> I don't know if it is strictly a review, but one of ours - Peter Watts -
> has a lengthy post about "Severance":
><https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=10194>

Best to be read after having seen the whole first season.

I caution against his expectations that the many unanswered questions
will ever be resolved. The show basks in absurdity. It will not
explain those elements. Or if it runs long enough that the writers
feel they have to provide explanations, the results will likely be
disappointing.

I'm also pessimistic about the abrupt ending of the first season.
Such cliff hanger endings are usually a sign that the writers don't
know how to continue the story and hope they'll be able to think
of something by the time of the next season. It rarely works.

None of this should distract from the qualities of the show as we
have it.

I don't quite agree with the comments under Watts' review that say
the show has a Greg Egan vibe. For that you want to watch _Devs_.
That one feels like it's adapted from an Egan novel, except it
isn't.

Anyway, yeah, _Severance_. Recommended. Go watch it.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:1t986hh49ikimph9mcen8e3jtap77d7to2@4ax.com:

> n Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:24:43 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>>>
>>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>>
>>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is,
>>>>> their coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a
>>>>> concern.
>>>>
>>>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our
>>>>cash registers don't like lag.
>>>
>>> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or even
>>> the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found out
>>> early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated WiFi), it
>>> would irritate a lot of people.
>>>
>>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated
>>>>> into the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually
>>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>>>
>>> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
>>> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
>>> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre speeds
>>> work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/ less time
>>> to log on to now).
>>
>>IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload was
>>a tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area that
>>store is in does not have very good coverage yet, and speed are
>>very dependent on range to the tower, so we were probably at the
>>low end of what it should be able to deliver.
>>>
>>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to
>>>>> his home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground
>>>>> Zero for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/
>>>>> willing to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is
>>>>> possible that, if you throw enough money at them, they can
>>>>> be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>
>>>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a
>>>>mile.
>>>
>>> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the end
>>> of the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the
>>> installation so they could broadcast live from the site.
>>
>>Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>>>
>>>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably
>>>>> provide a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would
>>>>> be two different things.
>>>>
>>>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>>>
>>>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they have
>>>>in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>>>
>>> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
>>> suspicion.
>>
>>There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has
>>done nothing to dispel it.
>
> Well, when you have "5G Routers" providing, I presume, "5G
> WiFi", I don't see how confusion can be avoided. Minimized,
> perhaps, but not avoided.

5G routers can provide a 5G connection to the internet *and* 5G
WiFi at the same time. In point of fact, I'm pretty sure the one we
tested did just that.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:52:49 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:05:00 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>
>>
>>However, I find this topic a bit ... confusing. The advertised rates
>>are said to be /speeds/ not bandwidths. Speed would, I suppose, be
>>related to bandwidth; but I'm not sure how.
>
>Bandwidth is measured in bits transferred per second. AKA speed.

And yet ... when I measured my download speed at 5AM this morning, I
got ... 60Mbps.

Over a 2.4G network (the 5G network being turned off) which has been
hobbled to only support 11b/g/n (not ac or, if appropriate, ax).

So, unless 20+20+20 is possible with 11n on a 2.4G network, we have
40Mhz (at most) of /bandwidth/ producing 60Mbps of /speed/.

Incidentally, hobbling the router by turning off the 5G network
entirely and restricting the 2.4G network to 11b/g/n -- that is,
re-creating the way my prior WiFi worked -- has so greatly improved
the performance of this "high quality equipment" that I may well
conclude that it can be rated:

adequate, for WiFi, when hobbled

which is to say, adequate (except for the Ethernet problem) when
/none/ of the features that make it "high quality" are in use.

There is, however, one more function I use my WiFi for, which will not
come up for another few weeks, that needs to be examined. If that
fails, then the rating will be:

substandard, but usable as WiFi for most purposes

but I am hopeful that it will avoid this reduction in status.

I was given a full credit for the cost of this equipment, so I paid
nothing. The old adage "you get what you pay for" may apply.

>High-end hardware is available with 400Gbit/sec bandwidth per port, used
>in the backbone and for 5G backhaul.

A meaningless statement given the confusion between "speed" and
"bandwidth". And no amount of tech jabber can alter the fact that the
higher-end features /do not work right/, which is why removing them
improves the performance of the WiFi, although (sadly) not the
Ethernet. The second Ethernet failure reported otherthread was
actually part of the hobbling, as the prior network used the Ethernet
ports. Not without any problems (Win10 networking has its own
gotchas), but not with the problems seen with this "high quality
equipment".

I would like to point out that 40MHz is

40 x 1000 x 1000 cps (Hz)

while 40 Mbps would be

40 x 1024 x 1024 bps

which are only similar, not the same

unless something has changed in how the nomenclature works, of course.

Also, the fact that I now get 60Mbps where before I got 50Mbps may not
indicate a speed improvement from hobbling, but it certainly shows
that hobbling did not /hurt/ the measured download speed.

Note: the possibility that one or more of my devices might be
responsible for this cannot be ruled out; but then, actual high
quality equipment would be expected to compensate for these
difficulties. New specs that require older equipment to be replaced is
a marketing tool, not something to be proud of.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 00:32:30 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:1t986hh49ikimph9mcen8e3jtap77d7to2@4ax.com:
>
>> n Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:24:43 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>>>>
>>>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is,
>>>>>> their coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a
>>>>>> concern.
>>>>>
>>>>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our
>>>>>cash registers don't like lag.
>>>>
>>>> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or even
>>>> the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found out
>>>> early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated WiFi), it
>>>> would irritate a lot of people.
>>>>
>>>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated
>>>>>> into the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>>>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>>>>
>>>> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
>>>> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
>>>> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre speeds
>>>> work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/ less time
>>>> to log on to now).
>>>
>>>IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload was
>>>a tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area that
>>>store is in does not have very good coverage yet, and speed are
>>>very dependent on range to the tower, so we were probably at the
>>>low end of what it should be able to deliver.
>>>>
>>>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to
>>>>>> his home town and then found that /his new house/ was Ground
>>>>>> Zero for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet store /was/
>>>>>> willing to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K. So it is
>>>>>> possible that, if you throw enough money at them, they can
>>>>>> be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>>
>>>>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>>>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a
>>>>>mile.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the end
>>>> of the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the
>>>> installation so they could broadcast live from the site.
>>>
>>>Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>>>>
>>>>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably
>>>>>> provide a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would
>>>>>> be two different things.
>>>>>
>>>>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>>>>
>>>>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they have
>>>>>in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>>>>
>>>> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
>>>> suspicion.
>>>
>>>There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has
>>>done nothing to dispel it.
>>
>> Well, when you have "5G Routers" providing, I presume, "5G
>> WiFi", I don't see how confusion can be avoided. Minimized,
>> perhaps, but not avoided.
>
>5G routers can provide a 5G connection to the internet *and* 5G
>WiFi at the same time. In point of fact, I'm pretty sure the one we
>tested did just that.

I'm sure they (or, at least, some of them) do -- since the "G" stands
for two different things, as explained by others above. This ambiguity
is what makes confusion unavoidable, IMHO.

My router, plugged into an optic fiber modem (I'm sure the official
name is much more impressive, just as the router appears to officially
be a "gateway", but that is essentially what it is), also provides
(well, did before I turned it off) a 5G WiFi network. So it could be
advertised as a "5G router" even though it has no connection with the
5G Cellphone network (well, unless we count the cell phone which is
inside one or the other of these devices and used for configuration by
cellphone app -- this stuff just gets more and more tangled).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:b5ra6hllncbs382hbha2krjo27219eg1ji@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 00:32:30 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:1t986hh49ikimph9mcen8e3jtap77d7to2@4ax.com:
>>
>>> n Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:24:43 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:pvj56hh6g9t2j9hel2cbsla1bae45riijd@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 09:29:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>news:ba036h9m4aj25cvp85j655pcm240di52ea@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snippo -- the rural areas are not wired>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which leaves two basic solutions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Satellite-based.
>>>>>>> 2) 5G Cellphone [1] network based.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The former depends on where the satellites are (that is,
>>>>>>> their coverable area) and, of course, latency may be a
>>>>>>> concern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A very serious concern, depending on what you're doing. Our
>>>>>>cash registers don't like lag.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given Edge's propensity for declaring the Name Server or
>>>>> even the Network down or missing after a timeout (as I found
>>>>> out early in my experience with the New Fibre-associated
>>>>> WiFi), it would irritate a lot of people.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latter depends on how far the Towers have penetrated
>>>>>>> into the heartland. And how well those 5G Routers actually
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We tested a 5G router at one of our stores. It worked pretty
>>>>>>well, but upload speeds were too slow for our purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's worth knowing, even though I don't currently have any
>>>>> particular need for upload speeds (well, except when posting
>>>>> messages/sending emails). DSL speeds worked fine. Fibre
>>>>> speeds work rather better (EternalSeptember takes a /lot/
>>>>> less time to log on to now).
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, download speeds were in the 7-8 mbps range, and upload
>>>>was a tad under 2. I will note also that I was told the area
>>>>that store is in does not have very good coverage yet, and
>>>>speed are very dependent on range to the tower, so we were
>>>>probably at the low end of what it should be able to deliver.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: there was a film I saw about a guy who moved back to
>>>>>>> his home town and then found that /his new house/ was
>>>>>>> Ground Zero for a Giant Space Rock. The local Internet
>>>>>>> store /was/ willing to extend the cable -- for (IIRC) $3K.
>>>>>>> So it is possible that, if you throw enough money at them,
>>>>>>> they can be coaxed into putting in the wire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>$3k is cheap for that. It's usually an order of magnitude
>>>>>>higher, and that assumes they'll running cable less than a
>>>>>>mile.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that my memory dropped a 0 or two from the
>>>>> end of the amount. A news service ultimately paid for the
>>>>> installation so they could broadcast live from the site.
>>>>
>>>>Can't lose 'em all, I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] I specify Cellphone because the routers presumably
>>>>>>> provide a 5G WiFi network as well. Presumably, these would
>>>>>>> be two different things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5G phone service is fifth *g*eneration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>5G WiFi is in the 5 *g*igahertz band. The only thing they
>>>>>>have in common is the use of the same letter and number.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, /that's/ good news. It's always nice to confirm a
>>>>> suspicion.
>>>>
>>>>There's a lot of confusion over that, and the "news" media has
>>>>done nothing to dispel it.
>>>
>>> Well, when you have "5G Routers" providing, I presume, "5G
>>> WiFi", I don't see how confusion can be avoided. Minimized,
>>> perhaps, but not avoided.
>>
>>5G routers can provide a 5G connection to the internet *and* 5G
>>WiFi at the same time. In point of fact, I'm pretty sure the one
>>we tested did just that.
>
> I'm sure they (or, at least, some of them) do -- since the "G"
> stands for two different things, as explained by others above.
> This ambiguity is what makes confusion unavoidable, IMHO.
>
> My router, plugged into an optic fiber modem (I'm sure the
> official name is much more impressive,

Other than optic and fiber being reversed, that's pretty much what
it's called.

> just as the router
> appears to officially be a "gateway", but that is essentially
> what it is),

Router is both what it is and a function it performs. Gateway is a
function it performs, which is to say, a network setting on devices
behind it that means "if you're looking for something that's not
local, look here."

> also provides (well, did before I turned it off) a
> 5G WiFi network. So it could be advertised as a "5G router" even
> though it has no connection with the 5G Cellphone network

That would be an improper claim (though probably common, since
marketing drones have no idea what *any* of these words mean, just
that they're popular buzz words). "Router with 5G" with an implied
"WiFi" at the end) would prefectly propery, if still confusing.

> (well,
> unless we count the cell phone which is inside one or the other
> of these devices and used for configuration by cellphone app --
> this stuff just gets more and more tangled).

The app very likely works by WiFi or Bluetooth, rather than a cell
connection.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.