MacInTouch Amazon link...

Internet (and phone) services

Channels
Other, Products, Internal/development, Questions
Here is quite an interesting article (from the CBC! why not the New York Times?) about how wireless mesh networks might undercut the Big Cable and maintain Net Neutrality in the Bay of Fundy of Capitalism:

'Anti-authority' tech rebels take on ISPs, connect NYC with cheap Wi-Fi

What's wrong with this picture? It all seems too easy. For example, who is the IXP? What control does the mesh provider, NYC Mesh, have over it so that the service isn't suddenly cancelled or the access fee raised out of sight? And what about interference with the wireless signals? Yes, mesh is supposed to be resilient; but big cities and densely packed apartment buildings are notorious for EM interference. Do we have any New York City readers who have experience with NYC Mesh? I really want to like this venture, but it seems a bit too good to be true.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
For example, who is the IXP? What control does the mesh provider, NYC Mesh, have over it so that the service isn't suddenly cancelled or the access fee raised out of sight?
It's a what, not a who. An Internet Exchange Point is a facility where major networks (e.g. Verizon, Spectrum) connect to each other and not the sort of thing that should be subject to whimsical or arbitrary changes, as far as I know.

This page (and video) may also be helpful for understanding the system:

https://ams-ix.net/about/about-ams-ix/what-is-an-internet-exchange
 
Last edited:


Thanks, Fred and Ric, for info about this undertaking. It seems pretty straight-forward, and the individuals involved seem to have their heads on straight. Of course, they also seem to have good intentions; we know where that can lead. But I sent a donation, and intend to contact them. As of now, the network is lower-east-side Manhattan and Brooklyn; I live on the Upper West Side, so that's quite a few (as yet, nonexistent) nodes away from the super node. But I hope to be able to help out, and help extend that network. Incidentally, the federal government is apparently helping create a mesh network in East Harlem. We'll see how that goes...
 


I was unable to connect to the internet yesterday from any wired or WiFi device in my house. After a couple of hours on the phone with Spectrum and Apple support this morning, I was able to fix the problem. It appears that Spectrum implemented an IPv6 change yesterday that prevented my 5th Generation AirPort Extreme, fully updated, from connecting. The fix is to edit the “Configure IPv6” setting to “Link-Local only”. Perhaps this might save someone else a couple of hours. It can be done from the Airport Utility app in iOS or on the Mac, although the navigation is different.
 


I was unable to connect to the internet yesterday from any wired or WiFi device in my house. After a couple of hours on the phone with Spectrum and Apple support this morning, I was able to fix the problem. It appears that Spectrum implemented an IPv6 change yesterday that prevented my 5th Generation AirPort Extreme, fully updated, from connecting. The fix is to edit the “Configure IPv6” setting to “Link-Local only”. Perhaps this might save someone else a couple of hours. It can be done from the Airport Utility app in iOS or on the Mac, although the navigation is different.
Do you have any details of what IPv6 change Spectrum made?

I noticed that starting yesterday, DNS lookups are hit or miss. I finally gave up and changed DNS servers.

Note that before this, Spectrum (Time Warner)'s IPv6 was working great -- the only deficiency was lack of a IPv6 DNS server address. (Meaning, you could get IPv6 answers from their DNS server, but that server wasn't on a IPv6 address).
 


Good to know. I called Spectrum at about 9:30 Thursday night 06/07 after troubleshooting for a bit and the tech said Airport routers were the problem of the day. He tried a few things but wasn't able to make it work and then transferred me to Apple, but they were already closed for the night. I was able to get my router working again by manually forcing custom 3rd party DNS servers (Open DNS 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220), but anytime one of Spectrum's servers would populate as the 3rd or 4th DNS server it would kill the connection again. This morning it wasn't working so I tried setting the connection to a static IP leaving all of the entries that were populated from DHCP before, leaving just my two DNS servers and that worked. I'll give the IPv6 Link-Local setting a try tonight.
 


Do you have any details of what IPv6 change Spectrum made?
Unfortunately not. The Spectrum reps, helpful but clearly level 1 support, were unable to describe the actual change at all, and the Apple Rep, who was very knowledgeable, didn't know either.

I should point out that the Apple rep described my router's firmware as an "old version" because my router itself is older and Apple hasn't issued updates for it in some time. The implication is that newer routers' firmware was somehow able to cope with the change properly with no user intervention.
 


Unfortunately not. The Spectrum reps, helpful but clearly level 1 support, were unable to describe the actual change at all, and the Apple Rep, who was very knowledgeable, didn't know either.

I should point out that the Apple rep described my router's firmware as an "old version" because my router itself is older and Apple hasn't issued updates for it in some time. The implication is that newer routers' firmware was somehow able to cope with the change properly with no user intervention.
I should have mentioned, I'm using a Netgear router, so if there is a Spectrum IPv6 problem, it isn't confined to Apple routers.
 



I believe we’ve already seen the negative effects of the demise of net neutrality. I refer to the sudden explosion of sites harassing—and in some cases barring—access because I’m using an ad blocker. I’d not seen much of this until this week. All of a sudden, sites by the dozens are now bleating about how they have to force their advertising otherwise they can’t stay in business. (I’ve also seen a rise in “Site X wants to send you notifications.”)

I briefly checked a TV channel for something trivial—no go. I checked for a single article from a nearby newspaper. To see this article I had to either (1) buy a subscription, or (2) buy an exception that would allow me to block ads. The latter was 2x the price of the former. This was the Tucson Star, not exactly an earth-shaking news source.

The concept that one could have limited access to a paid site of maybe 10 “looks a month” (Embraced by organizations like the New York Times, Manchester Guardian, et al) allows the best of both words. Now, no quarter is given.

It’s hard for me to believe that the use of ad blockers is so widespread that it threatens business models. It’s not hard to set one up, but in talking with “normal users” I haven’t found a single person who does so.

I fervently hope the writers of ad blocking software will come up with a way to “spoof” a site into thinking its ads are getting thru. I will pay a reasonable sum—say $50 a year for this service.

It pains me to suggest that I participate in my own assault on the Internet. If I were watching TV (I haven’t owned one in 20+ years), I would have the absolute right to turn down the volume or switch channels. We are denied this on the net. (I can of course ignore the site.) Absolute blocking is counterproductive when limited access could entice people to pay for the site.

Any thoughts on, or suggestions of, a technical or social solution would be appreciated.
 


I've been seeing more sites essentially blocking me if I don't agree to accept their ads, but it's been going on for months. So it's not just the repeal of net neutrality.

Having long written for industry trade magazines, which are supported totally by advertising, I understand publishers need to make a living, and I'm willing to accept some ads, but not the crappy ads served up by some places. What ticks me off the most is the New York Times pushing its digital subscribers to accept advertising. I think it's good strategy for publishers to allow a few free visits a month, and ask you to pay or accept advertising if you want more. But you can't expect all publishers to accept ad blocking from nonsubscribers; they need to make a living, too.
 


I fervently hope the writers of ad blocking software will come up with a way to “spoof” a site into thinking its ads are getting thru. I will pay a reasonable sum—say $50 a year for this service.
One of the filters provided for Adblock Plus is the Adblock Warning Removal List which "removes anti-adblock warnings and other obtrusive messages."

It's not perfect - I still see some sites complaining, but it seems to help. I certainly don't see the extreme amounts of warnings that you are describing.
 


Having long written for industry trade magazines, which are supported totally by advertising, I understand publishers need to make a living, and I'm willing to accept some ads, but not the crappy ads served up by some places. ...
If they were still serving up "old school" ads - static text and images in the "leaderboard" 728x90 image (see also ad sizes), I wouldn't have a problem, and I suspect most people wouldn't.

But it never stops there. Today, there are full-screen interstitial ads. There are video ads that suck down CPU cycles and play sound. There are ads that float around over your content, making it impossible to read. Ads are written in Flash and Java and other scripting languages. And they are often used as vectors to deliver malware.

I am perfectly fine with looking at an ad in order to view content. I am not going to permit some ad-serving network to install viruses on my computer in order to view that content. And the advertising industry has repeatedly demonstrated that they are completely unwilling to show even the least bit of responsibility. They say they are doing all they can, but if that is true then it simply proves them to be incompetent, which isn't any better.
 


I fervently hope the writers of ad blocking software will come up with a way to “spoof” a site into thinking its ads are getting thru. I will pay a reasonable sum—say $50 a year for this service.
I think it's interesting that you're willing to pay a third-party to block ads, but not directly support the sites with content you wish to consume. Not saying you shouldn't be able to make that choice, just that it's an interesting way of voting with your wallet, as the saying goes.

Have you tried Safari's Reader mode? It works wonders on my local newspaper's web site. A recent update, perhaps Safari 11, added the ability to set certain sites to always open in Reader mode.
 


Disabling Javascript is a good quick way around the ad blocker blocking sites, just remember to turn them on. The sites getting snarky about ads and also trying to push their notifications has been going on for months at the very least. Any supposed increase over the last week is just a coincidence.

As for paying for ad blocking, a big part of the reason to block ads is to protect your computer from malware. That's not really a big deal on the Mac, but on Windows it's one of the primary vectors for infection. It can be worth paying for protection from that. Supporting the websites via ads is non-negotiable in that situation since it doesn't address the underlying vulnerability. Only Patreon or a subscription would work there.

Of course, the site owners could always self-host and curate their ads directly with the advertiser, but that's more work and apparently not as remunerative. That said, child labor and environmental exploitation are also more lucrative, but just as we as a society have decided exploiting others in that way is wrong (mostly), one can't be expected to open up their computer to attack just so someone else can make a buck. There are options between zero revenue and bottom-feeding sleazy ad networks. If the latter is the only way for a site to survive, well, too bad I guess.
 


Disabling Javascript is a good quick way around the ad blocker blocking sites ...
JavaScript has become ubiquitous for displaying and manipulating content. Disabling JavaScript will cripple many sites and may make them unreadable.

Internet ads are an arms race with no winners, it's become as bad as telemarketing. As soon as one side has a new weapon the other side figures out how to defeat it.

Like others, I don't mind unobtrusive ads. I detest auto-playing video, whether it's an ad or not. I close most sites that autoplay videos and never return.
 


I use Adblock because there are too many web sites out there that use really aggressive, obnoxious ads. Probably because they pay a little better, but in some cases because their obnoxious purpose is to sell “ad free” premium mode. That premium mode is almost always ridiculously expensive, like $30 a month for one local newspaper with very little content. The whole ecosystem in those cases is designed not to lure you into paying reasonably for good content, but to bully you into paying for next to nothing.

But they aren’t all like that. MacInTouch and Ars Technica are examples of sites heavy on content and with more reasonable optional fees for it. They are unfortunately victims of those other sites in that their ads end up blocked because of the worst actors out there.

It seems like web sites are now going through what music did during the 90’s. The RIAA wanted people to pay each time they played digital music. The backlash was people would rip the music from CD or download it instead, which then hurt the artists. Maybe web sites will eventually see compromise the same way the music industry did.
 


JavaScript has become ubiquitous for displaying and manipulating content. Disabling JavaScript will cripple many sites and may make them unreadable.
If you're on a news website trying to view an article, but it's blocked with an overlay, turning off Javascript will show the underlying content, because the Javascript is only providing the overlay/blurring that's hiding the text below, disabling right-click, etc. Yeah, you won't be able to navigate to another page or anything, but it removes the veil, so to speak.
 


I've been using NoScript on Firefox (and, more recently, JS Blocker on Safari) to limit which JavaScripts run. Usually only the top-level domain scripts need to run to make the site basically functional and I then take the time to figure out which other 'Scripts need to run - -- for example, disqus has three domains running scripts; disqusads doesn't get to run ;-)

Like others, I have nothing against advertising per se. If only it were handled like it is in print. If printed periodicals had ads that jumped out of the page at you or played audio (at a volume of their choosing) as soon as you flipped to that page, most periodicals would be dead.

If the people pushing on-line ads can restrain themselves from not leaving every last eyeball on the table (sorry...) I'd consider removing NoScript. Till then, I don't need even casual one-time visits to Web sites to leave a footprint (hello, Google, Facebook, and Amazon) that will follow me the rest of my on-line days.
 


... If only it were handled like it is in print. If printed periodicals had ads that jumped out of the page at you or played audio (at a volume of their choosing) as soon as you flipped to that page, most periodicals would be dead. ...
Remember perfume ads in magazines that would contain sample packets. If they hadn't broken and polluted all my mail for the day, I'd rip the offending pages out of magazines and put them in the corner for a few days for the smell to dissipate. I would, of course, no longer subscribe to such publications. The publishers finally realized the problem and advertisers eventually stopped the assault.
 


For those wondering why there is a sudden increase in blocking of ad blocking, it’s because of the recent Facebook scandals.

When all those articles about microtargeting in Facebook appeared, the natural trend of “all ad dollars go to Facebook” was accelerated. I think every CEO in the country went to their CIO and asked, “Why aren’t we doing this sleazy thing like everyone else?”

In any case, it’s been documented, but don’t ask me where, that Facebook ad revenues increased during that scandal. I know that ad revenues fell for my own sites, rather quickly, during 2018. I can understand that people with full payrolls would be getting a bit desperate. If you can’t run at a loss, it may well be “do or die” when it comes to blocking freeloaders.

There are ad agencies that purport to show ads to those with blockers; I think the Pi thing would avoid that by causing something to load in place of the ads. I had a neat little Javascript that could detect blocking of AdSense ads that way — if nothing from Google loaded, it inserted its own text. However, I found that 99.9% of people with ad blockers were not willing to donate a dollar.

As Ric said, running a good web site is not cheap in time or money... I don’t see a great future for the little guys unless they really have a dedicated community.
 


I've been using NoScript on Firefox (and, more recently, JS Blocker on Safari) to limit which JavaScripts run. Usually only the top-level domain scripts need to run to make the site basically functional and I then take the time to figure out which other 'Scripts need to run - -- for example, disqus has three domains running scripts; disqusads doesn't get to run ;-)

Like others, I have nothing against advertising per se. If only it were handled like it is in print. If printed periodicals had ads that jumped out of the page at you or played audio (at a volume of their choosing) as soon as you flipped to that page, most periodicals would be dead.

If the people pushing on-line ads can restrain themselves from not leaving every last eyeball on the table (sorry...) I'd consider removing NoScript. Till then, I don't need even casual one-time visits to Web sites to leave a footprint (hello, Google, Facebook, and Amazon) that will follow me the rest of my on-line days.
A simple summation of the on-line advertising issue is that, we do not mind looking at advertisements, but take exception to ads looking at us.

It is no website's business where we were (on-line or physically,) what we looked at or purchased. Obviously, creepy voyeuristic spying makes for a viewer's turn off. Well, mine anyway. Lots of sites have dozens of tracking companies paying good money to be allowed to do it . . . to us.

I seems a great deal of revenue is made from just that. Instead of selling content or products with static ads that pertain to the genre - like trowels or adventure travel sold at an archeology site, websites can survive selling our viewing history, purchasing tendencies, and gullibility to click on click bait "in order to provide a richer experience." As I cough up a hairball, it is an affront to normal people, in my opinion.

Tracking cookies are why we engage in ad blocking. Any sites slipping off the map because all, or even some of what they sold was tracking us, richly deserve to.
 


A simple summation of the on-line advertising issue is that, we do not mind looking at advertisements, but take exception to ads looking at us.
I fully agree with this — along with the popups, video ads, expanding ads, audio ads, and such. That is why I, sadly, also have an ad blocker! though my livelihood depended on ads.

The problem is, nobody wants to sell those ads any more. Agencies make a name for themselves by being different. Sites need a dedicated salesforce to do traditional ads, and that dramatically increases the income they need, to support the salesman (who typically takes half or more of the revenue they generate; our society very definitely rewards salesmanship). It’s sad for me to see the day of the enthusiast-turned-entrepreneur is pretty much over... except for sensationalists, who always do well.
 


A simple summation of the on-line advertising issue is that, we do not mind looking at advertisements, but take exception to ads looking at us.
I don't even necessarily mind being tracked. I rather like seeing ads and "suggested content" relevant to my interests. ...

I do object to sites helping themselves to my battery power and bandwidth, especially with autoplay video, but also with Javascript that gives my browser a new hobby to pursue in the background. I tend to leave lots of tabs open, but on my MacBook Pro I have to restart both Safari and Firefox regularly to keep them from consuming 100% or more of a core. Working locally or with only well-behaved sites, I get many hours of battery life; browsing at random, it's two or three hours if I'm lucky, cutting my battery life by more than half. And if I'm tethering through my not-unlimited-data phone, at roughly a penny a megabyte, ads run up my bill.
 


I was unable to connect to the internet yesterday from any wired or WiFi device in my house. After a couple of hours on the phone with Spectrum and Apple support this morning, I was able to fix the problem. It appears that Spectrum implemented an IPv6 change yesterday that prevented my 5th Generation AirPort Extreme, fully updated, from connecting. The fix is to edit the “Configure IPv6” setting to “Link-Local only”. Perhaps this might save someone else a couple of hours. It can be done from the Airport Utility app in iOS or on the Mac, although the navigation is different.
Whatever was wrong with Spectrum appears to be fixed, at least where I am. If you disabled IPv6, try re-enabling.
 


Ric Ford

MacInTouch
I have a feeling that this doesn't bode well for personal privacy....
Reuters said:
AT&T to buy online ad exchange firm AppNexus
AT&T Inc (T.N) said on Monday it would buy online advertisement exchange company AppNexus Inc, less than a month after the No. 2 U.S. wireless carrier closed its $85 billion deal to acquire media company Time Warner Inc TWX.N.

... AppNexus, which runs a digital platform for advertisers to purchase online ads, will become part of AT&T advertising & analytics, as the U.S. telecom company aims to expand its online advertising to better compete with Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google and Facebook Inc (FB.O).
 


Have you tried Safari's Reader mode? It works wonders on my local newspaper's web site. A recent update, perhaps Safari 11, added the ability to set certain sites to always open in Reader mode.
I’ve found that, often, this will allow pages whose content is covered to still be read. It works especially well with the auto-open in Reader turned on, as it allows the content to be displayed before the cover is put in place, which sometimes won’t allow Reader to be turned on.
 


I have a feeling that this doesn't bode well for personal privacy....
Using Little Snitch, I monitor all communication between my machine(s) and any entity interested in what's going on. It is distressing how much and how deep Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, et. al. go, but sites like eBay and such delve so much deeper. I'm not given to conspiracies, but I wonder if we are moving to a place where only whispered conversation has a possibility of being private.

Progress is not always good.
 


only whispered conversation has a possibility of being private
I think even that is subject to surveillance capitalism now...often with full and knowing consent!

Facebook has been caught keeping mobile phone mics active, Hey Siri/Hey Google/Hey Alexa listen constantly as a core feature, and Internet-enabled TVs have made Orwell's technology predictions of 70 years ago a reality today. Not to mention the AI work IBM/GOOG/FB/APPL are doing probably already has made HAL-style lipreading possible (a Kubrick and Clarke prediction made 50 years ago).
 


I do object to sites helping themselves to my battery power and bandwidth, especially with autoplay video
If you use Safari 11, you can enable "Debug", which allows you stop autoplay (along with some other features) from most sites. In Terminal type the following;
Bash:
defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeInternalDebugMenu 1
Hit Return and relaunch Safari. In the menu you should see Debug. Under Debug in the drop-down menu > Media Flags, select "Disallow Inline Video". It stops almost all autoplay videos, which are annoying at best.

To disable Debug in Terminal type the following;
Bash:
defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeInternalDebugMenu 0
Hit Return and launch Safari.
 


It's not clear to me if throttling has changed since the scrapping of the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations.
Bloomberg said:
YouTube, Netflix Videos Found to Be Slowed by Wireless Carriers
The largest U.S. telecom companies are slowing internet traffic to and from popular apps like YouTube and Netflix, according to new research from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
...
While slowing speeds can reduce bottlenecks and congestion, it raises questions about whether all traffic is treated equally, a prime tenet of net neutrality.
...
Throttling was happening well before the FCC stopped enforcing net neutrality. T-Mobile has been streaming video at different speeds since it started offering free streaming through Binge On in 2015. It was an agreement between customers, T-Mobile and video providers like Netflix.

"We do not automatically throttle any customers,” said Rich Young, a Verizon spokesman. “To manage traffic on our network, we implement network management, which is significantly different than blanket throttling."

John Donovan, head of AT&T’s satellite, phone and internet operations, said "unequivocally we are not selectively throttling by what property it is. We don’t look at any traffic differently than any other traffic."
 


Sounds like they are rate-limiting bulk transfers of all kinds. They don't care if that 5GB transfer is an HD movie or the latest macOS installer image - they both put a load on the network and may sometimes need to be limited during periods of congestion in order to let other customers have their share of bandwidth.
 


Perhaps off topic, but recently I was vacationing in a remote place without any wi-fi, but Verizon signal is good there. Before leaving I had switched my account to unlimited data, so I figured I was safe to watch movies, etc, by hot-spotting. Then I got a message that I had exceeded a 15 GB cap per device on mobile hot-spotting, which I think is a new thing. After that I was still getting 30-40 mb/s down on my iPhone, but all hot-spot devices were getting 600 kb/s, which is pretty much unusable.

Not sure just how they achieve this - whether it is with the cooperation of the iPhone OS or not. What really surprised me is that a Pantech USB modem on that account, whose only purpose is to provide internet to my laptop, is even considered to be a hot-spot.

Then I found this:

Despicable, really.
 


It's not clear to me if throttling has changed since the scrapping of the FCC's Net Neutrality regulations.
Sigh. The measurements here don't really look all that good. Pragmatically, measuring that data from YouTube is different from other services makes a presumption that differing servers are approximately of equal hops away from the same set of routers/switches. That is probably not true. It is about as likely here that they are largely measuring access to different routes on the Internet, one to whatever baseline this app is pinging and the others to the other services.

Quality of Service (QoS) is not uniform on the Internet. That has been true since before it was even called the Internet, before even the invention of the "net neutrality". Much of the net neutrality hype of late tends to treat QoS as a complete non-issue (that the Internet is almost uniformity super-fast, and vendors can always slap more fiber/routers/servers/bandwidth on any choke point relatively quickly).

The fact that number of users on the [connection] had a direct effect makes it about as likely that they are looking at a chokepoint than some sinister active throttling. Capping some specific routes off so they don't choke off the bandwidth for the rest of the routes through the Internet is QoS. "Net neutrality" hype was supposed to be the "little guy on some non-top-super-premium tier network" has an equal chance. If it's supposedly a contest of whoever spends the most money beats down everyone else, then YouTube, Netflix, Amazon, etc. being the small-resourced victims is a joke.

Massive distribution of video over the Internet is inefficient. It just is. At some point of massive scale, the distributors try to herd more users onto a few "as possible" number of servers. That likely leads to chokepoints.
 


Perhaps off topic, but recently I was vacationing in a remote place without any wi-fi, but Verizon signal is good there. Before leaving I had switched my account to unlimited data, so I figured I was safe to watch movies, etc, by hot-spotting. Then I got a message that I had exceeded a 15 GB cap per device on mobile hot-spotting, which I think is a new thing. After that I was still getting 30-40 mb/s down on my iPhone, but all hot-spot devices were getting 600 kb/s, which is pretty much unusable. Not sure just how they achieve this - whether it is with the cooperation of the iPhone OS or not. What really surprised me is that a Pantech USB modem on that account, whose only purpose is to provide internet to my laptop, is even considered to be a hot-spot.
Then I found this:
Despicable, really.
If this just wouldn't call it "unlimited", they might not get such bad PR. I returned a Verizon stand-alone WiFi hotspot, because I thought it was broken. Turns out it was just throttling back to <1Mbps because I had used too much data in the given 30-day time frame.
 


... I had switched my account to unlimited data, so I figured I was safe to watch movies, etc, by hot-spotting. Then I got a message that I had exceeded a 15 GB cap per device on mobile hot-spotting, which I think is a new thing.
This isn't new, and it's not a secret:
Verizon Unlimited plan comparison said:
Compare Unlimited

Plan Feature

Above Unlimited

Beyond Unlimited

Go Unlimited

Mobile Hotspot data per month

20 GB at 4G LTE speeds

15 GB at 4G LTE speeds

Unlimited at 600 Kbps speeds
Verizon Go Unlimited FAQ said:
Go Unlimited FAQs
Will Mobile Hotspot be fast enough for me?

Go Unlimited provides unlimited Mobile Hotspot at speeds up to 600 Kbps. Although this isn't as speedy as 4G LTE, it's ideal for occasional Mobile Hotspot use with devices that won't be regularly streaming HD video and music or sharing large files.

If you plan to use Mobile Hotspot regularly and/or share it with devices for things that require a faster connection, Beyond Unlimited or Above Unlimited may be right for you.
Verizon Beyond Unlimited FAQ said:
Beyond Unlimited FAQs
What happens once I've used the 15 GB limit for Mobile Hotspot? Can I buy a Data Boost with Beyond Unlimited?

With Beyond Unlimited, you get a 15 GB allowance of data at 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot each bill cycle. Once you've used the 15 GB of 4G LTE data, your Mobile Hotspot data speed will be reduced to up to 600 Kbps speeds for the rest of the bill cycle. Non-Mobile Hotspot data will continue to be unlimited at 4G LTE speeds until 22 GB, while your Mobile Hotspot is reduced to up to 600 Kbps.

You can purchase a Data Boost on a line to get 5 GB more of 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot to use until the end of your bill cycle. Limit 20 Data Boosts per line per bill cycle. Visit our Data Boost FAQs to learn more.

Note: A Data Boost will not extend your 4G LTE speeds on non-Mobile Hotspot data use once you've used 22 GB a month. Once you've used 22 GB of data on a line, in times of congestion your data may be slower than other traffic.
Verizon Above Unlimited FAQ said:
Above Unlimited FAQs
What happens once I've used the 20 GB limit for Mobile Hotspot? Can I buy a Data Boost with Above Unlimited?

On each line with Above Unlimited, you get a 20 GB allowance of data at 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot each bill cycle. Once you've used the 20 GB of 4G LTE data, your Mobile Hotspot data speed for that line will be reduced to up to 600 Kbps speeds for the rest of the bill cycle.

Non-Mobile-Hotspot data will continue to be at 4G LTE speeds until 75 GB, while your Mobile Hotspot is reduced to up to 600 Kbps.

You can purchase a 5 GB Data Boost on a line for $35 to extend 4G LTE speeds for Mobile Hotspot. You can buy up to 20 Data Boosts per line per bill cycle.

Visit our Data Boost FAQs to learn more.

Note: A Data Boost won't extend your 4G LTE speeds on non-Mobile-Hotspot data. Once you've used 75 GB in a month on a line, in times of congestion your data may be slower than other traffic.
And this comes as no surprise. Unlimited plans have always had bandwidth caps for hotspot usage because desktop/laptop devices have very different bandwidth usage patterns compared with mobile devices.

Back during the times of their original unlimited data plans, hotspot usage was disabled altogether. Or it would have to be purchased as a separate add-on package with its own (not unlimited) fee structure.

With a metered plan, they don't care. You're paying $x for y GB of bandwidth, and they don't really care what you do with it. But with an unlimited plan, their prices are based on statistical models of typical usage patterns. Hotspot usage has a different pattern, so it is not surprising that it has a different billing model as well.
 


After hearing an NPR piece yesterday including a discussion of 5G with a Verizon executive, it dawned on me that Apple's bailing from the WiFi router market may be due to a perception that all current WiFi hardware, mesh and otherwise, will be legacy hardware (at best) when 5G becomes widespread in a few years. The first 5G products to be rolled out, supposedly, are not phones but hotspots, which will provide very high bandwidth in-home or in-business connections. Ethernet- or fiber/cable-connected WiFi may be a fading memory five or six years from now.
Good point, but fiber is still going to be the backbone, because the high frequencies that offer the broadest bandwidth don't travel reliably over long distances. The big question is how far the fiber will go and how aware users will be of its presence.
 


Good point, but fiber is still going to be the backbone, because the high frequencies that offer the broadest bandwidth don't travel reliably over long distances. The big question is how far the fiber will go and how aware users will be of its presence.
It's also a matter of the bandwidth. The latest Ethernet standards can send 100Gbit/s over a single wavelength (current 400Gbit transceivers use 4 wavelengths) and DWDM technology can pack hundreds of wavelengths onto a fiber. Multiplied by the fact that fibers are run in bundles, not individually, you end up with an incredible amount of bandwidth that no other technology can keep up with.

But that having been said, there's plenty of work being done to use a wide variety of alternate mechanisms for backhaul (that is, from a cell site to the rest of the operator's network) including 4G, 5G, microwave, DOCSIS (coax cable), and even DSL (G.Fast) for areas where nothing else is available.
 


Good point, but fiber is still going to be the backbone, because the high frequencies that offer the broadest bandwidth don't travel reliably over long distances. The big question is how far the fiber will go and how aware users will be of its presence.
You can take anything a corporate exec says publicly with multiple grains of salt, but she sounded quite enthusiastic about 5G to rural areas. I'm assuming that means the last mile (or whatever the effective range of 5G cells is likely to be), with anything longer carried on fiber.
 


You can take anything a corporate exec says publicly with multiple grains of salt, but she sounded quite enthusiastic about 5G to rural areas. I'm assuming that means the last mile (or whatever the effective range of 5G cells is likely to be), with anything longer carried on fiber.
The communication between the cell site and the rest of the network (the backhaul network) is fiber in urban and suburban areas, but operators will use other technologies if it is not cost effective to run fiber to remote/rural locations. A wide variety of technologies may be used for these areas.

Once the signal gets to the rest of the network (a central office or some aggregation point), then yes, it will almost certainly be carried over fiber from there.
 


Amazon disclaimer:
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Latest posts