# Net Neutrality



## knight1fox3 (Dec 14, 2017)

Anyone else following this at all?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/12/14/fcc-overturns-net-neutrality-rules-but-supporters-pledge-continue-fight/950734001/

https://lifehacker.com/what-the-end-of-net-neutrality-means-for-you-1820647171


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Dec 14, 2017)

I've been loosely following it. We don't have it here in NZ and don't seem to have any issues, but society seems to have a bit more common sense and decency. Businesses don't seem to be as scrupulous and politically driven.

TBH, I don't think the vast majority of Americans will ever notice a difference. The vast majority of information is already filtered by those disclosing it and we all have the attention span of a fruit fly. Someday down the road we'll look back and notice say, "wait a minute, I haven't seen anything about ____ recently. What ever happened with that?" and then we'll resume scrolling and forget about it again.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 14, 2017)

I'll trust in the free market.

This is my simplistic comparison as this previous action was in place of a "could"

For example I "could" charge everyone that uses this site a fee to access it. And I would have like 2 members and it would cease to exist because people would just find an equivalent free alternative, or someone would make a free version and people would 
Migrate there


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Dec 14, 2017)

^^^ Assuming there is a free market alternative. For many Americans, their options are very limited.

Look at something like Electricity. You have the "option" to get it anywhere, but in your region the only supplier is Xcel Energy. Because of these regional monopolies, they are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to ensure rates remain "fair". If your only local internet provider is Comcast, who prevents them from jacking your rates or limiting access to certain websites?


----------



## Dleg (Dec 14, 2017)

Yeah I'd be screwed up here. Wait I already am!


----------



## P-E (Dec 14, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> I'll trust in the free market.
> 
> This is my simplistic comparison as this previous action was in place of a "could"
> 
> ...


That reminds me I need to renew.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Can someone please tell me any positives that come from the net neutrality repeal for the 99.9% of the population that is not an ISP? Having trouble seeing how this isn't just and opportunity for my bills to go up.


----------



## matt267 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

[No message]


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

My bad. Thanks.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

I'm all for free market when it creates competition that has the potential to lower prices or provide a superior service but that is not what I see going on here.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

and what is going on? What was the problem that was supposedly "fixed" by the Obummer administration when this was passed a few years ago?

If the providers start royally screwing people (like they have been doing since the dawn of their existence, the market will compensate and something better will come along) sort of like how we all used to go to blockbuster video a few decades ago to pay $5 bucks to rent a movie..


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Net Neutrality was a solution in search of a problem.  Look at how far the internet advanced without the government stepping in to "protect" it.  The end result of treating an ISP like an electric utility is that you wind up with the same service and quality as any other monopoly.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Not trying to enter a debate. Really trying to understand how this will benefit the nation as whole. It has been proven that the capital being spent on R&amp;D and infrastructure related to the internet was not effected by the regulation. And I hate using the word regulation like I'm for it but won't this just give the ISPs the opportunity to regulate how, what, and at what speed we use the internet? Sure I could just not use the internet or invent an alternative but realistically where is the benefit the general public?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Dec 15, 2017)

Jbone27 PE said:


> Not trying to enter a debate. Really trying to understand how this will benefit the nation as whole. It has been proven that the capital being spent on R&amp;D and infrastructure related to the internet was not effected by the regulation. And I hate using the word regulation like I'm for it but won't this just give the ISPs the opportunity to regulate how, what, and at what speed we use the internet? Sure I could just not use the internet or invent an alternative but realistically where is the benefit the general public?


For just one minor benefit, less federal regulation means fewer federal workers to enforce the regulation, which means smaller federal government, and ultimately a smaller deficit.  Now, it could mean a smaller tax bill to you, but realistically it won't pan out to that.

But any time the federal government has less power... that's a good thing.


----------



## psuae08 (Dec 15, 2017)

I didn't read all the comments, but I can't tell if some of you are joking or not... there was absolutely an existing problem.  Providers were picking and choosing which services that you had full and faster access to.  That IS NOT okay.  Comcast did it with BitTorrent, ATT did it with FaceTime, Verizon did it with Netflix.  I don't want Comcast to limit my speed while I watch DirectvNOW service because I don't subscribe to Comcast TV.  Do you???

Imagine.  Comcast, which does not have a stake in Netflix.  But does have a stake in Hulu.  They can now be allowed to provide better service to those that subscribe to Hulu than to Netflix.  And I don't have another ISP choice where I live.  How can anyone support this.  The internet should be a "dumb pipe" of information, freely and openly flowing, to those big corporations like Netflix, and small start ups that don't have money to pay Comcast for a better/faster service.  It's totally asinine


----------



## psuae08 (Dec 15, 2017)

And if you don't believe that the Government should regulate the internet a la China, then how can you agree it is okay for big corporations to regulate what websites you visit.  Hold them to the same standard, and they won't do it through Capitalism, there's only a handful of these nearly monopolistic internet providers in most areas.  Otherwise, I just think you guys don't know what you're talking about.  You hear the word "regulation" and you think "that's wrong!", but you can't honestly be as intelligent to have your PE license and also not agree with Net Neutrality.


----------



## leggo PE (Dec 15, 2017)

I don't have permission to see whatever this was.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> I don't have permission to see whatever this was.


It was a link to where I created a post similar to this one. It was deleted and moved over here.


----------



## Ramnares P.E. (Dec 15, 2017)

leggo PE said:


> I don't have permission to see whatever this was.


Net neutrality strikes!


----------



## leggo PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Jbone27 PE said:


> You can
> 
> I was a link to where I created a post similar to this one. It was deleted and moved over here.


Gotcha.


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

psuae08 said:


> And if you don't believe that the Government should regulate the internet a la China, then how can you agree it is okay for big corporations to regulate what websites you visit.  Hold them to the same standard, and they won't do it through Capitalism, there's only a handful of these nearly monopolistic internet providers in most areas.  Otherwise, I just think you guys don't know what you're talking about.  You hear the word "regulation" and you think "that's wrong!", but you can't honestly be as intelligent to have your PE license and also not agree with Net Neutrality.


Here's a tip for ya: Don't insult folk's intelligence when you don't agree with them, especially with your second post. Your first post was constructive (albeit condescending) and had good content and then you had to follow it up with this.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

I'm thinking about going into the admin control panel and exercising little net neutrality myself


----------



## matt267 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

psuae08 said:


> but you can't honestly be as intelligent to have your PE license and also not agree with Net Neutrality.


Na, you don't need to be intelligent to have a PE license.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Dec 15, 2017)

psuae08 said:


> I don't want Comcast to limit my speed while I watch DirectvNOW service because I don't subscribe to Comcast TV.  Do you???


Let's play devil's advocate here for a bit based on what others have posted above that I tend to agree with. Let's say you are being throttled to some extent (with the current mandate being over-turned) with Direct TV NOW, yet your stream isn't impacted enough to become interrupted. Will that really matter to you and/or will you even notice unless you are that closely monitoring your connection speed continuously (via WireShark or equiv.)? Most consumers will not even care/notice so long as they can keep doing what they're doing.

And I also agree, no need for insults in constructive discussions, regardless of whether you agree or not. That's going to earn you a one-way ticket on the ban-hammer train. :thumbs:


----------



## Dleg (Dec 15, 2017)

De-regulation always works out well. The Free Market is the ultimate answer to everything. 

(then suddenly remembers the 2008 mortgage crisis and subsequent global recession)


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

..... im pretty sure there was government / political involvement into that decision as well

&amp; most of that crisis was caused by people buying shit they couldn't afford, and the banks being encouraged to do so.. &amp; the market corrected, try and get a loan lately? HFS Im like a 780 credit score and they still want to see bank statements


----------



## Dleg (Dec 15, 2017)

Yeah that market correction.... took half of my retirement money and several years to catch back up to where I was.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

I just think that at the end of the day I am paying the ISP to transfer data from point A to point B. The where and what is my business. 

For comparison sake, how would it be different than if they started charging more for water in your sink than water in your toilet? It's the same product, it takes up the same amount of space in the system and you will be billed on the amount you use but one is more expensive than the other. Is that a fair analogy?


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

yep government interference is grand isn't it?

Ill take the 30% return over the last year. A few more years at that rate and I may be able to call it quits...


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

All told, I'm not a big fan of the decision, but I'm not entirely convinced it's going to drastically impact our internet experience. I could be wrong, but at the same time, I have at least two choices for ISPs with Google Fiber coming soon, so they are still going to have to compete.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

So if I want to fly from Denver to Atlanta should Delta be able to charge people triple to sit in first class and give them a better experience along the way? were all going to the same place? why not charge everyone on the flight the same and give everyone a tablespoon of wine? Not just those schmucks in 1st Class (btw I have only flown 1st class once and it is amazing)

Why can Disney sell "fast passes" and other park perks for people if we all paid the same to get in the park? Even the movie theatres are doing this now, oh premier members can get in line to buy their popcorn ahead of you - &amp; I think all those things are crap and very rarely "participate" in places that operate that way.

IMO the internet is not a utility and Netflix isn't a necessity, its a convenience item. If Netflix, or FB says hey were going to have to charge you $5 bucks extra a month then me and 90% of their customers are going to say no thanks and seek entertainment elsewhere &amp; IF this even happens the market will make a correction..


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

1.  Corrections are part of the business cycle.  Don't put anything in the market that you think you'll need in the next 5 years.

2.  The housing bubble was the end result of a massive set of moral hazards set up by government interventions in the housing market.  If the banks wouldn't have been allowed to shift the risk on those loans to the tax payer, they wouldn't have made the loans in the first place.  The federal government took it upon itself to boost home ownership among groups of people that couldn't or wouldn't put up the traditional 20% down payment.  With no risk of loss, bad loans were the norm.  Like any  condition that can't go on forever, it didn't.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> IMO the internet is not a utility and Netflix isn't a necessity, its a convenience item. If Netflix, or FB says hey were going to have to charge you $5 bucks extra a month then me and 90% of their customers are going to say no thanks and seek entertainment elsewhere &amp; IF this even happens the market will make a correction..


The other possibility is that somebody comes along with a better business model than Netflix (putting Netflix in Blockbuster's shoes).  Net Neutrality was just a way for companies like Netflix and Facebook to use the power of government to isolate themselves from competition from startups.


----------



## Jbone27 PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> So if I want to fly from Denver to Atlanta should Delta be able to charge people triple to sit in first class and give them a better experience along the way? were all going to the same place? why not charge everyone on the flight the same and give everyone a tablespoon of wine? Not just those schmucks in 1st Class (btw I have only flown 1st class once and it is amazing)
> 
> Why can Disney sell "fast passes" and other park perks for people if we all paid the same to get in the park? Even the movie theatres are doing this now, oh premier members can get in line to buy their popcorn ahead of you - &amp; I think all those things are crap and very rarely "participate" in places that operate that way.
> 
> IMO the internet is not a utility and Netflix isn't a necessity, its a convenience item. If Netflix, or FB says hey were going to have to charge you $5 bucks extra a month then me and 90% of their customers are going to say no thanks and seek entertainment elsewhere &amp; IF this even happens the market will make a correction..


You want to pay more money for faster service. No problem I'm all for that aspect of it.

The part I'm against is:

Me - I'd like to buy some internet please. How much is it?

Them- Well tell us what are you going to do with it and then we'll tell ya. 

Hope I'm not coming off as regulation imposing fool but I just want to buy it and use it at my disposal within the limits of the law. I guess that's were I'm differing as I do think it is utility made to transfer information and nothing more.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 15, 2017)

Flyer_PE said:


> Net Neutrality was just a way for companies like Netflix and Facebook to use the power of government to isolate themselves from competition from startups.


Kind of like engineers do with the PE license?

This is fun, we haven't had a good old school EB argument in a long time.


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

mudpuppy said:


> Kind of like engineers do with the PE license?


Surely you jest.


----------



## FLBuff PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Flyer_PE said:


> 1.  Corrections are part of the business cycle.  Don't put anything in the market that you think you'll need in the next 5 years.
> 
> 2.  The housing bubble was the end result of a massive set of moral hazards set up by government interventions in the housing market.  *If the banks wouldn't have been allowed to shift the risk on those loans to the tax payer*, they wouldn't have made the loans in the first place.  The federal government took it upon itself to boost home ownership among groups of people that couldn't or wouldn't put up the traditional 20% down payment.  With no risk of loss, bad loans were the norm.  Like any  condition that can't go on forever, it didn't.


So what your saying is the banks should have been regulated not to do this?


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 15, 2017)

Ble_PE said:


> Surely you jest.




Not jesting, though I am being devil's advocate.  There's quite a few anti-regulation people out there making the argument that engineer licensing is an un-necessary regulation, stifles competition, etc, etc.  Seems to be popping up more and more lately.  NSPE is holding a webinar to discuss these threats to licensing next month:  https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-institute/live-educational-events/licensure-under-attack


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

mudpuppy said:


> Not jesting, though I am being devil's advocate.  There's quite a few anti-regulation people out there making the argument that engineer licensing is an un-necessary regulation, stifles competition, etc, etc.  Seems to be popping up more and more lately.  NSPE is holding a webinar to discuss these threats to licensing next month:  https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-institute/live-educational-events/licensure-under-attack


To me these are two completely different things, but I see where you're coming from. I'm not against regulation in general and think that it is necessary in certain situations. Like I said, I'm would have preferred that they not end "net neutrality", but I really don't think it's a big deal. I mean, hasn't it only been around a few years anyways? Were things drastically different before they regulated the internet? That's what I don't understand. The internet has effectively been unregulated ever since it became a thing except for the past 3-4 years, but now everyone thinks the shit's going to hit the fan because of this. :dunno:


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 15, 2017)

A different take on a similar issue -Google is trying to get into the internet provider business and are finding installing conduit and fiber is expensive - so they have been pitching the idea to local governments (they are doing this to mine currently) to let the local government "share" in the cost of installing the fiber and then in return providing all the tax payers a locked in rate that is supposed to be below the norms "the other guys" charge.  and by share I am sure they want the locals to pay like 90% of the install cost.

I've called BS on this because if Google wants to make it rain via selling fiber (internet / cable) they need to front the cost like "the other guys" did. Sure no one likes "the other guys" but they at least paid there way and didn't double dip by making my taxes pay them to install it plus then make money off the monthly service charge...

&amp; by install it Im referring to putting the conduit and fiber in the ground , on poles, etc..

and of course for old times sakes Google SUCKS!


----------



## Ble_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> and of course for old times sakes Google SUCKS!


FTW!!


----------



## Dleg (Dec 15, 2017)

Flyer_PE said:


> 1.  Corrections are part of the business cycle.  Don't put anything in the market that you think you'll need in the next 5 years.
> 
> 2.  The housing bubble was the end result of a massive set of moral hazards set up by government interventions in the housing market.  If the banks wouldn't have been allowed to shift the risk on those loans to the tax payer, they wouldn't have made the loans in the first place.  The federal government took it upon itself to boost home ownership among groups of people that couldn't or wouldn't put up the traditional 20% down payment.  With no risk of loss, bad loans were the norm.  Like any  condition that can't go on forever, it didn't.


:lmao:


----------



## Flyer_PE (Dec 15, 2017)

FLBuff PE said:


> So what your saying is the banks should have been regulated not to do this?




I'm not going to retype the man's book.  The following is worth a watch:


----------



## Madpiper (Dec 18, 2017)

Dleg said:


> De-regulation always works out well. The Free Market is the ultimate answer to everything.
> 
> (then suddenly remembers the 2008 mortgage crisis and subsequent global recession)


And in comes our glorious big brother mounted upon his/her/their steed of righteousness to right all wrongs and bail all entities deemed "unfailable" out.  Okay, so a little sarcasm there, but in all honesty, I don't  know what the answer is here. I believe in a very limited government, and a free market. But in our recent history, we've seen big business in bed with big government....blurring the line between the two. The government should have no say in the functionality and serviceability of the internet. However, I also don't believe that a company should be so big that it is a complete monopoly. Is it the government's job to chop these corporations at the knees to make sure the little guys can compete? And if the government can intervene in such a way, what's to stop/limit them from abusing that power? Like the saying goes, "give an inch and they'll take a mile". Has that not proven true of our government?

Just a side note: I heard through alternative news sources, that big corporations actually want net neutrality....kind of the opposite of what the main stream media is saying. It kind of makes sense because if ALL companies, big and small, have to abide by the same regulations and restrictions, who does that really affect the most....the big or the little guy? Anyone else heard this? Am I wrong here? Just curious.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 18, 2017)

The internet, TV, and video rental businesses are currently in the process of combining into one entity, and it's going to get ugly.  Cable companies are hemorrhaging subscribers to cord-cutting, ESPN is struggling to make money from streaming, Netflix and Hulu are not only dominating network and cable TV stations, they are now producing their own content.  The problem lies in the fact that most internet providers are also cable TV providers, so Netflix et. al. are a huge conflict of interest.  It may come to the point where Comcast throttles Netflix to the point where you can't watch a movie without loading screens or interruptions.  You say it'd be commercial suicide, but in many places, you only have one option for high-speed internet.  This is already reflected in the customer service ratings of cable companies.  They may have lower ratings than Congressmen or airlines.  They don't need to be nice to you...you don't have an option.  We either need more competition, or some sort of regulation.  It is dangerously close to monopoly territory.  I'm praying for Google Fiber to expand fast in Louisville...as soon as it's available, I'm dropping Spectrum like a bad habit.  

Eventually, the cord-cutting movement is going to gain critical mass.  Cable TV stations (including ESPN) are no longer going to be in the driver's seat for contract negotiations.  Everybody will be paying their current cable provide (or Google Fiber, etc.) for a high-speed cable connection, then there will be various options for their TV.  I believe there will be a la carte options to keep current cable channels, but I think a lot of them will fail.  Before you tell me that won't happen, go back to the 1900's and tell somebody that eventually newspapers will be failing due to falling subscriber numbers and the rise of internet news.  They'll also tell you it's impossible.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 18, 2017)

If I owned Comcast I would find a way to sell internet and cable for 50 bucks a month before I ceased to exist - and dominate by volume 

of course they will just start eventually charging us out the nose for just internet once they loose 50% of their business to cord cutters - regardless of whatever net law idiotic politicians come up with


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Dec 19, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> If I owned Comcast I would find a way to sell internet and cable for 50 bucks a month before I ceased to exist - and dominate by volume


That's exactly what Google Fiber is doing.  I currently only get high-speed internet from Spectrum, and it is still $64/month.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 19, 2017)

It may be hard for suburbanites to believe, but there's lots and lots of people who don't have access to cable broadband or fiber.  I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps, which isn't enough to stream SD, let alone HD tv.  My mom and aunt both have something similar.  I rely on satellite for TV, but both satellite internet and cell internet are too expensive to stream enough data for television watching.

My hope is some day we'll have access to some sort of wireless broadband at a reasonable price, but it doesn't exist yet.  In the mean time, I don't see the traditional model of television going away completely.  Or if it does I'll be back to exclusively watching TV over-the-air, and ordering seasons of netflix shows on DVD.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 19, 2017)

How much is Internet via satellite where you live? For some of our field offices that don't have access to broadband I think we use Hughes net? It's about 100 bucks a month but works pretty well


----------



## knight1fox3 (Dec 19, 2017)

On the PC forums I frequent and help manage, I typically only hear horror stories regarding satellite internet. While it's decent enough for browsing/email/etc, the connection and bandwidth is not sustainable for a continuous reliable media stream to support higher definition content.

But, in a pinch, it's still an option.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 19, 2017)

I've watched tons of Netflix on ours when I am "working" a late shift in the field  /emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20">

What's funny is there is absolutely no cell service in the area though I think the locals still use the string and cup method for phone calls


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 19, 2017)

Ours is "Rise Broadband" - never had any issue with it except when the contractor forgets to pay the bill


----------



## csb (Dec 19, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> Ours is "Rise Broadband" - never had any issue with it except when the contractor forgets to pay the bill


I think I've seen that porn.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 19, 2017)

The remote Alaska villages often use Hughes net for an internet option. It definitely doesn't have the bandwidth. If you're the only person using it, you might get enough bandwidth to stream SD, but usually there are multiple users and then you're screwed.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 19, 2017)

Hughesnet here claims I can get 25 Mbit/s (I'm guessing Alaska maybe worse due to the high latitude?), but the killer with both satellite and cell streaming is the amount of data.  Netflix says an hour of HD streaming uses 3 GB, and you only get 50 GB/month with the Hughes $100 plan, so we'd easily blow through that in a couple weeks.  From the research I've done, cell plans are similar in price.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Dec 19, 2017)

mudpuppy said:


> It may be hard for suburbanites to believe, but there's lots and lots of people who don't have access to cable broadband or fiber.  I have DSL at 1.5 Mbps, which isn't enough to stream SD, let alone HD tv.  My mom and aunt both have something similar.  I rely on satellite for TV, but both satellite internet and cell internet are too expensive to stream enough data for television watching.
> 
> My hope is some day we'll have access to some sort of wireless broadband at a reasonable price, but it doesn't exist yet.  In the mean time, I don't see the traditional model of television going away completely.  Or if it does I'll be back to exclusively watching TV over-the-air, and ordering seasons of netflix shows on DVD.


DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Dec 19, 2017)




----------



## csb (Dec 19, 2017)

Audi driver said:


> DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.


Try telling that to the phone company.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 19, 2017)

With the small size of copper circuits used for phone lines, there is a limit to the length of circuit that will support DSL (around 3-4 miles), even the newer technologies.  Given the location of my house, I was surprised we could get DSL at all (we're nearly a half mile from the road.)  I suppose the phone company could install a repeater, but I doubt they will for the handful of extra customers paying an extra $10-20/month they'd get out of it.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Dec 19, 2017)

Audi driver said:


> DSL that is limited to 1.5Mbps?  That is hard to believe, since faster DSL speed uses the EXACT same infrastructure.


@mudpuppy beat me to it. It's really location dependent. Heavily populated areas that still try to market DSL can piggy-back on existing infrastructure. In more rural areas though, DSL now has to rely on the copper-limited phone lines which ultimately restricts bandwidth.


----------



## Road Guy (Dec 20, 2017)

this is what we use in our field offices, works really good... https://www.risebroadband.com/check-availability/  there are usually 4-5 people in the trailers at a time and most are government employees so they are probably watching movies or something


----------



## Dleg (Dec 20, 2017)

mudpuppy said:


> Hughesnet here claims I can get 25 Mbit/s (I'm guessing Alaska maybe worse due to the high latitude?), but the killer with both satellite and cell streaming is the amount of data.  Netflix says an hour of HD streaming uses 3 GB, and you only get 50 GB/month with the Hughes $100 plan, so we'd easily blow through that in a couple weeks.  From the research I've done, cell plans are similar in price.


That could be, because the dishes point at the ground up here (I guess because of the way they focus the beam, they really do look like they're pointed at the ground, but they're pointed just a little above the horizon in actuality.


----------



## mudpuppy (Dec 21, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> this is what we use in our field offices, works really good... https://www.risebroadband.com/check-availability/  there are usually 4-5 people in the trailers at a time and most are government employees so they are probably watching movies or something


That's a fixed wireless service.  Basically they have a giant antenna somewhere that broadcasts &amp; receives a signal, similar to broadcast television except it's two-way.  My friends that live outside Hudson, CO use that.  I've checked and we don't have it available where I live, though a coworker on the other side of town has it--so maybe someday!


----------

