Connecting the web via T-Mobile technology
Connecting the web via T-Mobile technology
I'd love to see a video explaining why the internet hasn't changed much since the 90s. It feels like a bunch of coax cables and hubs left over. T-Mobile seems to think it can also be an ISP, but what will happen? Every type of cell has a softcap for users, which is why spread spectrum showed promise once. Yet it hasn't really advanced. Fiber optics at gigabit speeds are always just around the corner. Wireless doesn't need a big LAN setup, but it still faces issues. In gaming terms, losing your connection means no internet or a really bad connection. Any chance for a show about why the internet is still stuck in 2010 and not improving?
Varies by location, but speed has increased significantly since then. The main factor is cost. Most users aren't concerned, and governments allow it to proceed. 4G and beyond rely on IP packets. Performance keeps improving over time. They've become quite efficient with many clients, and technologies like mmwave 5G make it even better. Coax has also seen substantial advancements. Docsis 3.1 now achieves over 1Gbps on coax, which wasn't possible ten years ago with the same cable setup.
I think you're combining cellular data technologies and wired internet technologies as if they're they are meant to be used interchangeably? My wired internet experience has greatly improved since 2010 and especially the 90's. Back then I was waiting for JPG's to load on dialup, now I can download a whole 4K movie in a minute or two with gigabit (not gigabyte, big difference) fiber internet. Also..
That's correct! The differences between SIP, TCIP, and just IP are interesting. I don't really want to revisit AOHL, dipswitch BlackMagic, or the 24.4/57.6k modem setup. It was "fun" back then. Now we have cloud backups, and platforms like GOG and Steam for games. Modems are mostly a thing of the past, though there are still a few places where they're still used. I once dated someone who relied on dial-up because of distance, and pole rights got even more complicated due to being on a remote area code.
It’s important to grasp the reality of internet access today. In the United States, private companies run the network and report to their investors. They only invest in upgrades when they promise returns. Fiber optic connections require strong financial returns, while cable internet needs similar profitability. This explains why many rural regions still rely on outdated systems from the late 1990s. For cable providers to switch to fiber, significant changes would be needed at both the central hub and the customer’s location. The expenses usually outweigh the advantages for these businesses. Wireless solutions are simpler to deploy and install directly at users’ homes. T-Mobile provides speeds up to 50 Mbps, with speed tests indicating even higher performance in certain areas. They claim priority handling for traffic during congestion, though this is not always guaranteed. Based on user feedback, their service performs well overall, though some drawbacks exist. One limitation is the reliance on a gateway device that may lack advanced features. You might not have 5G coverage in your area, and you could be on a shared connection (CGNAT) with limited IPv4 addresses. Extra costs may arise for a dedicated IPv4 address, though the service remains tied to your home address. If you live in rural America, alternatives like 25/3 satellite (with a 10,000 ms latency) or 3 Mbps DSL might be more practical. Some broadband providers impose data limits, but T-Mobile doesn’t technically enforce this. Conversely, fiber offers unlimited bandwidth without such restrictions.
It really did get better. My friend lives in Pflugerville, TX and he still gets 13Mbit. It’s not great when compared to many other areas, but it’s nowhere near the speeds of the past. Unfortunately, he won’t likely see a faster upgrade anytime soon for the reasons mentioned. His parents just got that speed recently, even though they should have been rolling out FTTP now instead of just FTTC. It’s especially frustrating in Texas, where the concept of government regulation is seen as socialism, even though better regulation could have improved things. If you’re used to having power cut for days in winter, it makes you think about why that’s happening.
And beyond that, rural areas are full of excitement and challenges. There’s a lot of potential in places like New Mexico, but nobody wants to try to dominate what feels like a huge market. Companies such as Spark, Google, and CityLink have attempted to secure rights and lease services, but they hit a dead end in getting consumers access to fiber optic devices. It seems like some kind of futuristic gadget is involved—something that connects to your computer. I don’t understand how it functions, but my guess is wireless for the last mile. This approach could offer more flexibility. I’m curious about which emerging wireless technologies are on the way to making internet access widespread and reliable, especially outside of traditional cable setups. I wonder if we’re seeing real progress toward a more robust and adaptable internet network, moving away from the current cable-dominated model. Japan is already exploring Terahertz speeds, but why such limited range? That might just be a matter of physics. My main concern is how to prevent America’s internet from becoming just another fragmented mess, so rural areas and big cities can both enjoy high-quality connectivity.
Hey there! Are you okay with staying cold while dealing with frozen pipes? No worries!
But we're stuck in a monopoly situation. Exclusive deals hurt everyone. Our Xfinity contract ended. Other cable companies aren't entering our area because there aren't enough customers. Charter currently covers 8% of the city, but I believe that's mainly due to having to lay a fiber line to a cell site. The newcomers aren't showing up because the existing providers blocked them. For example, Google Fiber in Nashville had to deal with utility pole owners who owned a share of the poles. They also had to pay rent for each one, which raises costs and reduces profits.
These companies also have a record worth noting, especially the recent hits and missed opportunities. The 'pole rights' situation really drives up costs. I’ve come across some trivial but frustrating details about ownership disputes—like when multiple firms claim the same physical asset. If a city builds one, it becomes a complicated bidding process over its sections. It’s quite annoying how petty this can get. I’m curious about the details of who owns which part. It feels unfair when a single company must handle all negotiations, especially if fairness is expected. The whole process seems designed to be unnecessarily complicated. I’m also concerned about the next generation of tech—5G, 6G, and beyond. People are already talking about massive upgrades, but it’s hard to imagine how feasible such demands will become. Some sources suggest Xfinity might be at risk if a competitor threatens to replace their infrastructure, or worse, if the situation turns into a power struggle. I hope that in about a couple of years, 5G will push enough change to stop these kinds of issues. Plus, 6G is already being discussed with ambitious goals like gigabit speeds and real-time connectivity. I’m not sure how realistic it is, but it’s worth keeping an eye on. The reality is that replacing old systems is costly and often driven by corporate interests rather than genuine need.