Jump to content
iansltx

Google Fiber in Austin...and AT&T's response

Recommended Posts

 

 

Isn't that far away?

 

Gigabit is 10 years away from being available in all the metropolitan areas.

 

Only a small portion of internet users have any NEED for internet speeds greater than 50mbps.

 

Of course in the future this will change.

The future is now, good sir. :) Do you suppose things like Project Loon, Fiber, Chromebook, etc aren't coordinating at Mountain View HQ? Big things are happening and the incumbent telcos and cable cos are no longer able to slow it.

 

Man will set foot on Mars inside 15 years; it's high time we stepped up our terrestrial game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that far away? 

 

Gigabit is 10 years away from being available in MOST all the metropolitan areas. 

 

Only a small portion of internet users have any NEED for internet speeds greater than 50mbps. 

 

Of course in the future this will change. 

 

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future is now, good sir. :) Do you suppose things like Project Loon, Fiber, Chromebook, etc aren't coordinating at Mountain View HQ? Big things are happening and the incumbent telcos and cable cos are no longer able to slow it.

 

Man will set foot on Mars inside 15 years; it's high time we stepped up our terrestrial game.

Yes, the incumbent telcos & cable cos can do nothing to stop us now  ^_^

 

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC

Yes, when consumer demand is strong the cable companies will begin sluggishly switching over to FTTH connections to the masses. Yes, there are cities with many cable companies and Fiber companies such as NYC you have mentioned. 

 

 

For cites like mine, residents have Cox cable or Windstream to chose from. Cox offers 60/5 in town for $85.00 per month. We lack the competition to motivate them to step up, A friend of mine recently switched to directTV and bundled with windstream  :wall:  with the 24mbps package windstream is unable to deliver more than 2mbps to her home.  For us, without an intervention we are unlikely to ever see an affordable fiber connection.  :alien:  :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

 

That would be interesting. Japan telcos gone mobile carriers have been doing this forever, like SoftBank.

 

Pretty sure this is Google's planned response to that: http://xkcd.com/1226/

 

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would cost a lot of money.  That is why Verizon stopped expanding in my state ran out of funds.  Last time I heard fiber was 3 or 4 something a foot.  I don't know how many pairs but lets say you have 200 foot run to your house.  Then inside fiber they need to run.  They do run fiber to business that require it and local companies run fiber for cell towers.  I know sprint is using local compies 

 

Verizon stopped deploying FIOS because they shifted that CapEx money into profit to boost the quarterly numbers and signed a non-compete agreement with the cable companies. That's why the cable company consortium dumped all the spectrum they spent billions acquiring with the intention of starting their own cell service to compete with Verizon. They've all decided to apportion TV to DirecTV/Comcast/TWC and wireless to VZW.

 

Verizon doesn't pay 3-4 per foot for fiber; the FIOS cables to the home are standard lengths up to 150ft (IIRC), so they get them for *literally* dollars each for the average home. We're talking about a one-time investment that will continue to throw off cash for a hundred years or more... but it won't goose the quarterly numbers so they don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The victim here in Austin is probably Grande Communications which has built out it's own DOCSIS 3.0 network and competed against TWC and AT&T for over a decade. I have great internet speed (30/3 for around $35/mo) and all cable packages come with a full TIVO box and not some shitcan TWC DVR. They offer speeds up to 110 down to residential customers and have pretty great customer service.

 

I hear TWC's response is that they plan to blanket public areas with superfast WIFI for TWC subscribers only.

 

I've used TWC's WiFi in a few of the areas where they've deployed it. Not impressed.

 

Google could do this just as easily with Fiber customers, much as Comcast is doing, except Google will have a more contiguous network because they don't charge monthly for their network box. TWC could try the same thing but $5 plus tax per month for modem rental means that there will be a ton of folks turning in their rented modems in exchange for something TWC can't reach into and enable WiFi on.

 

Also, Grande is great and all, but their upload speeds top out at 5 Mbps, and their service stops multiple miles south of me. If they had service here I'd be on it. But they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 30 by 4 and its fast for me.  I stream a lot and upload.  I would like at least 8 upload all that is needed and bonded uplink channels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason gigabit is ten years away in a given metro is the competition isn't being pushed hard enough.

 

And honestly it probably won't take that long to get to gigabit on the high end, even in areas that don't have a huge amount of competition right now. Comcast now has 105M as a relatively inexpensive tier, 12x faster than they were five years ago (albeit at a higher price). Cablevision (NYC) has 101/35 coming out very soon. Cox offers 150/20. In five years we've gone from DOCSIS 1.1 or 2.0 to 3.0 and channel bonding in both directions in many cities, representing a capacity increase of 8-10x in many cases. 24x8 modems are coming out nowish so already you can hit 300 Mbps in real-world conditions (on the downstream side).

 

And the next big step is DOCSIS 3.1 so you aren't losing bandwidth to channel guard bands (out of 3.2 MHz on the upstream side, only 2.56 MHz is usable for data at this point, for example) left and right, plus some other enhancements that should boost spectral efficiency quite nicely (to the tune of 30%, the other biggie being 1024QAM). Combine this with plant improvements that push systems up into the 1200MHz capacity range, plus going completely digital, and you can hit gigabit on the downstream side without much of a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong. You If you're starting out a cable network at this point it's foolish to build coax instead of fiber. But the lack of FTTH in a given area doesn't doom that area to perpetual backwater-ness connectivity-wise. Business practices might though (ahem, TWC).

A lot has happened in five years I'm fine with that! :)   People have to realize that there is a range with appectible signal for Modems to work.  Don't buy radio shack splitters and try not to add splitters to modem line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol att needs to restructure there Internet before google comes and changes everything and att is too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol att needs to restructure there Internet before google comes and changes everything and att is too late.

ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper.

 

If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

most households will have no use for gigabit fiber.  

640k ram should be enough for anyone.

 

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

 

For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper. If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.
Yes. Google is toppling the monopolies and restoring the beauty of competition in a free(ish) market.

 

 

640k ram should be enough for anyone.These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.
Hahaha Edited by Txmtx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the incumbent telcos & cable cos can do nothing to stop us now  ^_^

 

Yes, when consumer demand is strong the cable companies will begin sluggishly switching over to FTTH connections to the masses. Yes, there are cities with many cable companies and Fiber companies such as NYC you have mentioned. 

 

 

For cites like mine, residents have Cox cable or Windstream to chose from. 

 

 

 

Most of the country, as in most have the land coverage have 1 or zero options for high speed internet. You are very lucky.

This is because of zero competition in most areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

640k ram should be enough for anyone.

 

These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along.

 

For what its worth my buddy son in law in KC just got Google Fiber and only got 980M/sec on a download.

HA! only 980!! I had better quit now then. The limitations of Metro fiber would mean you average less than a gigabit per second. I'd charge a lot for it & i'd be a nazi about how much data you run over it. I probably wont be doing any FTTH for a few years. I do have a feasible & economic way of doing so for most of the areas i intend to serve. 

 

Most of the country, as in most have the land coverage have 1 or zero options for high speed internet. You are very lucky.

This is because of zero competition in most areas.

I hope to fix that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATT doesn't want to kill ATT just to push it to expand farther, faster, and offer service cheaper.

 

If Google simply wanted to provide cheap Internet for everyone, it would start places where there's only DSL.

 

Like here in Kempton, PA!  I live 1/2 mile from where the cable stops, and we are too far from the CO for Verizon DSL.

 

Verizon (and other ILECs) have a commitment to PA to provide broadband to every customer by Dec. 31, 2015.  Verizon is the only company who hasn't met the commitment yet.  They told us we should have it by October 2014 - there's a very strict time limit and residency requirements to speed the process along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually trialed Google Fiber in NYC in Harlem using the dark fiber that was laid out in the 90's around there. Shame that didn't commercialize it.

 

When I wen to the Google Office in NYC, their internet was insanely fast, as if they had their own fiber service.

 

On second thought, they probably did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nicest thing about google fiber is that it puts other cablecos on notice.  Grande in Austin is now offering 1gig in some areas they serve and are expanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a few interesting things are happening here:

1) Time Warner is upping speeds for free. See: http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/time-warner-cable-internet-speeds-austin/

2) AT&T Gigapower (which is max 300 down so... not even close to giga-anything) is mainly downtown but reports lately are that even in areas with coverage people are waiting 30-45 days for service.

3) Grande has rolled out 1 Gig Fiber as well http://mygrande.com/austin/1-gig-fiber-internet/ but availability is super limited.

4) Google has started pulling work permits for SOUTH Austin. Here is the map of current permits: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zKGIh6VixM7Q.kpvawAIdVCMA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually trialed Google Fiber in NYC in Harlem using the dark fiber that was laid out in the 90's around there. Shame that didn't commercialize it.

 

When I wen to the Google Office in NYC, their internet was insanely fast, as if they had their own fiber service.

 

On second thought, they probably did.

 

It's located in the central hub for all Internet connections, so it is a direct pipe into the Internet, so to speak.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • large.unreadcontent.png.6ef00db54e758d06

  • gallery_1_23_9202.png

  • Similar Content

    • By legion125
      by Jeff Foster
      Sprint 4G Rollout Updates
      Friday, April 20, 2012 - 11:31 AM MDT
       
      Is there a "spectrum shortage?" Those two words send shivers down the spines of wireless industry executives. New services demand ever more spectrum, and, the story goes, there simply isn't enough spectrum available. An Internet search engine will easily find hundreds of thousands of links to the term "spectrum shortage." Many claim that it will be the downfall of America.
      The dwindling availability of a finite resource that can't be seen or touched threatens to possibly disrupt the mobile lifestyle that virtually every American has embraced. Dropped cellphone calls, delayed text messages and choppy video streams could become more frequent occurrences because the airwaves on which that data travel are nearing capacity at a time when mobile usage shows no signs of slowing.
      Federal regulators and industry players are searching for ways to fend off the supply-and-demand collision. Dish Network recently acquired a large block of vacant wireless spectrum that pending regulatory approval could be used for mobile broadband services.
       
      Short-Term Plan

      AT&T tried to merge with T-Mobile to solve its own capacity problem. It wanted to get its hands on T-Mobile spectrum. Still, that would have been only a temporary fix at best. Remember all the terrible stories about the quality of AT&T's wireless data network over the last few years? They say they simply don't have enough.
      The reason is that during the last few years, smartphones like the Apple iPhone and the many devices running Android emerged, and wireless data traffic grew like crazy. This problem jumped up and bit AT&T in the rear end. Suddenly, so many people were sucking so much data that the network could not handle it, due to spectrum shortage. Spectrum is like the size of the hose, and a wider hose is needed to carry more data for more customers.
      A couple good things are suddenly happening that may give carriers a little time to solve this increasing problem. Perhaps Verizon starting to sell the iPhone last spring has something to do with it. If so, then now with Sprint selling the iPhone, AT&T will have more breathing room, at least temporarily. That's the good news. However, that reprieve will only last a short while before the exploding smartphone and wireless data growth catches up. Then the other carriers will be faced with the same problem that's confronting AT&T.
      In the first quarter of 2011, the amount of data the average smartphone user consumed each month grew by 89 percent to 435 megabytes from 230 MB during the same quarter in 2010, according to Nielsen research. That's up from about 90 MB in 2009. For reference, the average size of an MP3 music file is about 4 MB.
      "Texting has always been traditionally viewed as a lightweight consumer of bandwidth, but if I start adding videos and pictures to my texts, that also starts consuming more bandwidth," said Tom Cullen, an executive vice president with Dish. But the primary growth driver will be video. Consumers can go through 5 gigabytes a month simply by streaming 10 minutes of standard definition video daily, he said.
       
      Data use is skyrocketing
      Data from the FCC indicate that more Americans are looking at their phones rather than talking on them. In 2009, 67 percent of available spectrum was utilized for voice and 33 percent for Internet data. Those percentages are now at 75 percent for data and 25 percent for voice. With each new iPhone release, data consumption grows. The iPhone 4S eats up twice as much data as the iPhone 4 and three times as much as the iPhone 3G, according to a study by network services firm Arieso. The new iPhone features Siri, a bandwidth-heavy voice recognition feature.
      The FCC estimates the U.S. will face a spectrum deficit of 90 MHz in 2013 and 275 MHz in 2014. To address the crunch, the federal government hopes to unleash 500 MHz of spectrum currently used for other purposes for wireless broadband by 2020. To put that figure in perspective, there is currently 547 MHz of spectrum allocated for mobile services, and AT&T and Verizon each own about 90 MHz.
      The government plans to hold so-called incentive auctions, which will try to lure spectrum owners such as TV broadcasters to sell their licenses. Verizon Wireless has agreed to purchase spectrum from a group of cable-TV companies. Sprint has expressed interest in working with Dish, which acquired the bulk of its 45 MHz of spectrum through two deals for bankrupt satellite technology companies. Dish chairman Charlie Ergen has said that the satellite-TV provider would prefer to partner with an existing wireless carrier on a high speed, 4G network. In response to recent comments by Sprint Chief Financial Officer Joe Euteneuer about the company's interest in working with Dish, Cullen said other wireless carriers are in the same situation. After failing to acquire T-Mobile, analysts expect AT&T to make a play for Dish, a long-rumored merger partner.
      As for T-Mobile, perhaps the most logical buyer is CenturyLink. T-Mobile's German-based parent company has indicated that it might exit the U.S. market. CenturyLink, which acquired Denver-based Qwest last year, is the third-largest landline phone company but does not own a wireless service, unlike the top two, AT&T and Verizon.
      Carriers are trying to offload as much traffic as they can to Wi-Fi networks, which ride on unlicensed spectrum. In some areas, they're installing picocells, which are smaller cell sites that can help boost capacity in dense areas.
      Finally, they're spending billions of dollars on LTE networks that use the airwaves more efficiently. Verizon and AT&T already have 4G LTE networks in place, and Sprint is moving to the technology. Dish says it hopes to enter the mobile broadband market with advanced LTE technology by late 2014 or early 2015. If Dish were to also offer voice service, it would come through VoLTE, which is similar to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone services. Dish still needs the FCC to drop a condition tied to its spectrum that requires devices to have the ability to communicate with satellites, not just ground-based cell sites. The rule-making process that will likely remove the requirement is underway and could be completed by summer's end.
       
      Is there really a shortage problem?
      The problem, analysts argue, is that the operators that control the greatest amount of unused spectrum may be under-capitalized or unwilling to build out networks to use the spectrum. "We do not believe the U.S. faces a spectrum shortage," Jason Bazinet and Michael Rollins wrote in their Citigroup report. "Too much spectrum is controlled by companies that are not planning on rolling out services or face business and financial challenges. And of the spectrum that is being used, 90 percent of it has been allocated to existing 2G, 3G, and 3.5G wireless services by larger wireless carriers, such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA.
      In total, U.S. operators have licenses for about 538MHz of wireless spectrum. Only about 192MHz of that spectrum is currently being used. Most of the unused wireless spectrum is owned by companies such as Clearwire, LightSquared, and Dish Network. But so far, LightSquared has been stopped and the other companies have been slow to build networks using their available spectrum.
      "There is definitely a mismatch when it comes to spectrum in the wireless industry," said Paul Gallant, an analyst with MF Global in Washington, D.C. "There are some companies that have spectrum, but they're struggling financially. Or they aren't quite sure what to do with the spectrum. And others that have the money and business model, but need the spectrum." The move to 4G is very important for these operators because it offers them a more efficient way to deliver service. 4G LTE uses the available spectrum roughly 700 percent more efficiently than the 3G wireless technology EV-DO. Carriers will soon be refarming 3G spectrum to 4G LTE in several years.
      A key factor in encouraging efficient use of spectrum has been largely overlooked in carrier boardroom discussions. Wireless providers can add capacity, without obtaining more spectrum, by adding more and more cell sites. Additional cell sites in spectrum constrained areas allow the same spectrum to be used by even more consumers, as well as adding picocells and microcells to denser population areas. So far, the carriers have not expressed too much interest in this method due to additional capital expenditures and overhead. Their strategy is like what Microsoft, Apple and Google have used. It's just cheaper to buy what you need than to invest the time and energy to do the actual work.
      So what can the wireless companies do? To some extent, re-farming their existing networks will help. But so will finding ways to use other spectrum. For example, only T-Mobile lets users make phone calls using Wi-Fi, yet most of the mobile devices available from carriers have this capability; the carriers just don't enable it.
      Allowing Wi-Fi calling could unload millions of voice and data users on to alternative networks and ease the spectrum crunch, at least to some extent. Encouraging VoIP use would also help for two reasons. VoIP doesn't require a lot of bandwidth, and it means that the phone in question uses only the data spectrum, not both voice and data while this is going on.
      These points illustrate that the carriers do have options beyond just buying up spectrum. They can offload more wireless traffic than they do now, build more cell sites into their networks and they can allow the use of other types of communications. While the spectrum crunch isn't going away, that doesn't mean that the process can't be slowed.
       
      Sensational graphic extolling the dire spectrum crisis. Maybe a tad exaggerated???
       
       
      Images courtesy: Spectrum Bridge, iqmetrix.com
       
      Source: FierceWireless.com, Denver Post, Ecommercetimes.com, CNET
    • By danlodish345
      I just saw a news article that the United States government is investigating AT&T and Verizon for wireless collusion. I'm going to post a link below. Let's please keep this discussion on track.
       
      https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1HR2Z8
    • By Paynefanbro
      Yikes! T-Mobile shouldn't have spoken so soon about deploying 5G nationwide before VZW and AT&T. It'll only be a dozen cities by year end but nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if AT&T fast-tracked this roll out just to spite T-Mobile. I'm expecting a similar announcement from VZW very soon.
      Source: AT&T announces plans to start rolling out a true 5G network by the end of 2018
    • By xmx1024
      Hate to bring up another carrier on here, but I am on AT&T right now and do plan to switch to sprint as soon as my contract is up. is there a forum similar to this but relating to the AT&T network?
    • By Nrbelex
      The rumor mill has fully geared up, so it seems time for a thread in which the potential HTC-made 2016 Nexus phones can be discussed.
       
      Rumors suggest two phones: a 5" device codenamed Sailfish, and a larger device codenamed Marlin. Both are thought to be produced by HTC. [There's also a report that Google is making its own phone, without an OEM partner--along the lines of a Pixel phone--but that report has been largely discounted.]
       
      Android Police has claimed it knows with 8/10 certainty some specs of the smaller device--Sailfish:
      Manufactured by HTC 5" 1080p display (~440PPI) Quad-core 2.0GHz 64-bit processor (model unknown) 4GB RAM 2770mAh battery 32GB storage (unknown if multiple models will be available, or even if this is the base storage level) 12MP rear camera, 8MP front Rear-mounted fingerprint scanner USB-C port (bottom) Bottom-firing speaker or speakers (unknown if dual) Top-mounted headphone jack Bluetooth 4.2 Any thoughts on these devices? The last several Nexus devices have been Sprint compatible; is there any reason to think these won't be? Any hints in regulatory filings? How is HTC's radio performance, generally? Will Sprint sell them directly, and even if they do, will it still be preferable to buy directly from Google?
  • Posts

    • Because public WiFi has an ongoing maintance cost, plus the cost to set it up and properly isolate it from your network. The magic box is just easier. You aren't responsible for it. The magic box (via LTE) also has vastly superior QoS so that one person won't bog it down.

      My parents house is one place where a magic box works amazingly. Their only internet option is 3 mbps DSL. B26 only on phones, and that's upstairs only. The magic box latches on to b25 and provides 15-30 Mbps consistently. They actually use it now with a Sprint mobile broadband plan. For some people, the magic box is a better solution than an Airave or wifi calling (which won't work well on 3 mbps DSL if someone is using the internet). For businesses, it's a $0 cost, easy deployment to help customers. And they aren't responsible for what people do on it.

      Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

    • Because if you're not offering public WiFi, why would you go out of your way to set up a Magic Box??
    • I really don't see why it is that you think that if you don't have public wifi then you wouldn't use an MB. The MagicBox is a repeater for Sprint's network requiring essential zero exposure or expenditure for the retail provider beyond electricity. It is also zero maintenance or setup. It's a highly superior solution in my view.
    • Anyone having issues with the messages app receiving late or not sending messages? Received a few pics and see the attachment downloading but app closes unexpectedly. This happens with Sprint to Sprint phones (Pixel to iPhone) as well with AT&T numbers 
    • Speaking of WiFi calling being inconsistent. Do you ever have issues when receiving a call? Sometimes when receiving calls with WiFi calling enabled and WiFi is on but not connected to a network. The phone calls are choppy and I sound like a chipmunk to people on the other side of the call.
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

×