Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
I tried it for about a month. Worked great for work. But then the Earth got hit with a Solar Storm and the service went to crap for a couple days. And that ended my T-Mobile 5G Home Internet relationship. Regards, George Toft On 10/30/2022 3:43 PM, Daniel Stasinski via PLUG-discuss wrote: A while back I gave impressive stats and glowing praise on my switch to T-Mobile Home Internet. It had a few limitations that I had to work around, but it was fast. However, for almost a month now it has dropped to just above T1 speed most of the day and is pretty much useless. I'll be switching back to DSL, which unfortunately is my only other option where I live. *Daniel P. Stasinski* dan...@genericinbox.com ✞ /Jesus Is King /✞ --- PLUG-discuss mailing list:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss--- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
Actually, if you have some clout, AT&T or most providers will give you a dedicated apn for your biz to connect cellular direct devices to a dedicated circuit, and you mpls route to them via that way as a private cellular network. We use that at my client today and before, it's useful, att, tmo/sprint and verizon do the same on their networks. I know various carrier folk for eons now, I thought to ask for my own cell cell data apn, but they care little of the little fry and laughed mockingly asking how much cash I had. Not that much, natch. -mb On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:09 PM Michael Butash wrote: > On Starlink, now that you mention it, I'm kinda curious too. What *do* > they allow for ports? I've been on a list asking for a starlink for years, > but I don't tweet with twits, so guess I don't get invited. > > My guess: They treat it like a cellco, ie all cgnat with no inbound ports, > only outbound. If you want inbound ports, you need to talk to our > "business" division. > > No cellco allows inbound service generally, if they do, consider > yourselves fortunate of a bygone era. If you need that, you need something > like zerotier, tailscale, or random vpn here, and some port forwarding > engine between. It's what people do these days. > > I don't think any cellco allows inbound ports other than on the local lan, > or any vpn service that acts as an intermediary the same in theory. > > -mb > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 1:21 PM Joe Neglia via PLUG-discuss < > plug-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org> wrote: > >> Slightly OT but somewhat related questions: >> 1) Are web servers allowed on these cell-based ISPs? >> 2) What about Starlink? >> --- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> > --- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
On Starlink, now that you mention it, I'm kinda curious too. What *do* they allow for ports? I've been on a list asking for a starlink for years, but I don't tweet with twits, so guess I don't get invited. My guess: They treat it like a cellco, ie all cgnat with no inbound ports, only outbound. If you want inbound ports, you need to talk to our "business" division. No cellco allows inbound service generally, if they do, consider yourselves fortunate of a bygone era. If you need that, you need something like zerotier, tailscale, or random vpn here, and some port forwarding engine between. It's what people do these days. I don't think any cellco allows inbound ports other than on the local lan, or any vpn service that acts as an intermediary the same in theory. -mb On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 1:21 PM Joe Neglia via PLUG-discuss < plug-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org> wrote: > Slightly OT but somewhat related questions: > 1) Are web servers allowed on these cell-based ISPs? > 2) What about Starlink? > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
T-Mobile, and for that matter Starlink, don't give you the options of port forwarding or any kind of DMZ, and therefore you're effectively unable to directly access any resource past the gateway. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, at 1:21 PM, Joe Neglia via PLUG-discuss wrote: > Slightly OT but somewhat related questions: > 1) Are web servers allowed on these cell-based ISPs? > 2) What about Starlink? > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
Yes I know the FCC auctioned off what were tv channels and cell phone companies paid for them. From having lived in rural areas of Arizona for much of my life, I can say from experience that the UHF channels from Phoenix didn't reach out into rural areas very well. At one time Phoenix had tv stations on 15, 21,33,45, 61 and several other low power stations. My point was that frequencies once used for television are now being used for cell phone service, including 5G. On 10/31/22 12:58, David Schwartz via PLUG-discuss wrote: The UHF TV channels were hardly used, mainly for servicing rural areas. Large densely populated areas did not use them. And the FCC tended to allocate the lower-end frequencies first. So not many people got exposed to the upper-band emissions. None of this airspace was “given away” to anybody. The FCC has public auctions from time to time, and has raised several billion dollars in leases for these licenses. Each license is for a local geographic area; to get similar band frequencies in multiple areas, companies must bid on them individually. T-Mo bought Sprint in large part b/c of the big swaths of licenses they had been sitting on that complemented T-Mo’s existing infrastructure. And in the most recent auctions, hardly anybody placed any bids, so T-Mo/Sprint captured the lion’s share of the licenses being auctioned at a significant discount. T-Mo has been rolling out their Home Internet for a few years now. I’ve had it since not long after it launched on 4G and it’s the best service I’ve ever had. But its availability has been restricted until recently. In the zones where they’d offer it, it worked well. But since they opened it up to everybody, there are zones where it does not work well. A friend of mine just tried it out and it didn’t work for him, so he returned the device the next day. I had the same problem with Sprint’s phone service at one place I lived, and other carriers’ cell service elsewhere. There are lots of “blind spots” for EVERY carrier where their service doesn’t work. At least T-Mo knows this and they are really great about taking back the equipment and cancelling the service. I once got a cell phone at Costco and Sprint service, and as I said it did not work at my home. That turned into a nightmare b/c while Sprint was happy to cancel the service, the marketing company selling it at Costco refused to take the phones back and refund anything. It wasn’t either Sprint nor Costco, just some jerk-ass vendor who hada no-return / no-cancellation policy that they weren’t up-front about, and Costco didn’t seem to care at the time. But I’m very happy with my T-Mo Home Internet, mainly b/c the only other option I’ve got is Cox, and it kept going down when I had it b/c the equipment was old and they kept prioritizing newer areas to upgrade. I have been getting flyers from CenturyLink for years about how they’re installing fiber in the area, but it always stops 1/4 mile away. I guess they just don’t have enough customers in my subdivision to make it worth their while. The Good News is T-Mo installed a new 5G tower 1000 feet south of me and it beams a signal right into this neighborhood. It’s way stronger than the old 4G signal I was getting from AT&T. It’s always a crap-shoot with these folks. -David Schwartz On Oct 31, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Jim via PLUG-discuss wrote: What the carriers are calling 5G is a portion of the 5G standards that don't provide the high speed service that the mmwave tech does. For the last 40 years, the FCC has been handing over to cell phone companies chunks of spectrum that previously were reserved for over the air television. Until some time in the 80s, the top tv channel was 83. Then it was reduced to 69 with 70 - 83 given to cell phones. Later they did it again with the highest tv channel being 51. More recently the government again gave channels 38-51 to the cell phone carriers. Currently the top tv channel is 36. 37 is reserved for radio astronomy. I laugh when I read something about these moonbats who go on about 5G signals being hazardous to human health. They've been exposed to those frequencies for decades when they were used for television. My guess is that T Mobile's service went down the crapper because people signed up for it, they don't have the capacity to handle the demand customers are placing on the network and either are unable to correct the problem or unwilling to spend the money to fix it. on 10/30/22 16:11, Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote: Thanks for the feedback, though that really bites. Reminds me of Sprint wireless broadband circa 2001 using fixed antennas, it was great at first, but then only in the middle of the night, as it sucked entirely during the day as it couldn't deal with the capacity either. I'm not surprised, real 5g using mmwave technology is really only decent to around 700ft or so, as I've used a f
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
Slightly OT but somewhat related questions: 1) Are web servers allowed on these cell-based ISPs? 2) What about Starlink? --- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
>> I laugh when I read something about these moonbats who go on about 5G signals being hazardous to human health. Agreed, if only they understood what they do every day that is far worse for their health. >> My guess is that T Mobile's service went down the crapper because people signed up for it, they don't have the capacity to handle the demand customers are placing on the network and either are unable to correct the problem or unwilling to spend the money to fix it. Yup, put it out there for sale, we'll figure out if it scales or not later! I've been wondering how cellcos were *really* going to deal with mmwave tech, as it implies dropping radios pervasively, not to mention what it means in a city like Manhattan or Chicago. with no openness what so ever. Traditional telcos use regional POP's all over an area to distribute that, but it's hard to build a small enough enclosure and antenna array to drop every 1/2 mile, not to mention cost. Cable MSO's had an interesting concept, one I didn't particularly agree with, but they were using their residential cable modem/routers in your house, adding an extra radio for themselves, to advertise *their* Cox Public Wifi SSID for anyone to use that had a valid Cox, or other cable provider account. My buddy that works there told me about that, I was like hold on, wut? So Cox, if I used their combo modem/router thing, would take upon themselves to offer my neighbors wifi on my dime? And, well yeah, sorta... Apparently it's a back-end secret handshake with all the MSO's that divide and conquer the sheeple among themselves, that they all share logins between each other to allow sort of federated access doing this in each provider that participates, which was all the big ones and more. Upside is if you pay for cox, and go to a visit someone in a comcast market, you can probably hop on someone close advertising that network, and it might be the modem of the person you're staying with! Cable providers have lots of overhead in bandwidth on the pipe potentially you don't even use, so why not. I see this as something like the cable mso's trying to provide something akin to pervasive high-speed wireless anywhere you go without being a cellco too (fcc frowns on those sorta things), if nothing else taking a bit of a jab at the cellco's as competition, particularly that they're now competing directly with their residential fixed-home solutions now too. Cox apparently was planning to do cell phones at one point too, as they have fiber everywhere in their markets already, but see prior comment on fcc. -mb On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:23 AM Jim via PLUG-discuss < plug-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org> wrote: > What the carriers are calling 5G is a portion of the 5G standards that > don't provide the high speed service that the mmwave tech does. For the > last 40 years, the FCC has been handing over to cell phone companies chunks > of spectrum that previously were reserved for over the air television. > Until some time in the 80s, the top tv channel was 83. Then it was reduced > to 69 with 70 - 83 given to cell phones. Later they did it again with the > highest tv channel being 51. More recently the government again gave > channels 38-51 to the cell phone carriers. Currently the top tv channel > is 36. 37 is reserved for radio astronomy. > > I laugh when I read something about these moonbats who go on about 5G > signals being hazardous to human health. They've been exposed to those > frequencies for decades when they were used for television. > > My guess is that T Mobile's service went down the crapper because people > signed up for it, they don't have the capacity to handle the demand > customers are placing on the network and either are unable to correct the > problem or unwilling to spend the money to fix it. > > on 10/30/22 16:11, Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback, though that really bites. Reminds me of Sprint > wireless broadband circa 2001 using fixed antennas, it was great at first, > but then only in the middle of the night, as it sucked entirely during the > day as it couldn't deal with the capacity either. > > I'm not surprised, real 5g using mmwave technology is really only decent > to around 700ft or so, as I've used a few products for fixed wireless point > to point or multipoint as well. It's also what drives ultrawideband > technology used by apple now pervasively, marketed as a "personal area > network" for short range optimized use. It's simply not *good* as a wan > technology. > > That said, carriers use 5G generically whether they're talking real mmwave > 5G or just some enhanced version of 4G they can't market anymore unless > they call it 5G too, so who knows what you're really using. > > My customer is starting to use 5g in a large local 1100-some store retail > chain to get off the last remnants of the last of old T1's and other crap > rural broadband providers as the only choice until now, it'll be > inte
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
The UHF TV channels were hardly used, mainly for servicing rural areas. Large densely populated areas did not use them. And the FCC tended to allocate the lower-end frequencies first. So not many people got exposed to the upper-band emissions. None of this airspace was “given away” to anybody. The FCC has public auctions from time to time, and has raised several billion dollars in leases for these licenses. Each license is for a local geographic area; to get similar band frequencies in multiple areas, companies must bid on them individually. T-Mo bought Sprint in large part b/c of the big swaths of licenses they had been sitting on that complemented T-Mo’s existing infrastructure. And in the most recent auctions, hardly anybody placed any bids, so T-Mo/Sprint captured the lion’s share of the licenses being auctioned at a significant discount. T-Mo has been rolling out their Home Internet for a few years now. I’ve had it since not long after it launched on 4G and it’s the best service I’ve ever had. But its availability has been restricted until recently. In the zones where they’d offer it, it worked well. But since they opened it up to everybody, there are zones where it does not work well. A friend of mine just tried it out and it didn’t work for him, so he returned the device the next day. I had the same problem with Sprint’s phone service at one place I lived, and other carriers’ cell service elsewhere. There are lots of “blind spots” for EVERY carrier where their service doesn’t work. At least T-Mo knows this and they are really great about taking back the equipment and cancelling the service. I once got a cell phone at Costco and Sprint service, and as I said it did not work at my home. That turned into a nightmare b/c while Sprint was happy to cancel the service, the marketing company selling it at Costco refused to take the phones back and refund anything. It wasn’t either Sprint nor Costco, just some jerk-ass vendor who hada no-return / no-cancellation policy that they weren’t up-front about, and Costco didn’t seem to care at the time. But I’m very happy with my T-Mo Home Internet, mainly b/c the only other option I’ve got is Cox, and it kept going down when I had it b/c the equipment was old and they kept prioritizing newer areas to upgrade. I have been getting flyers from CenturyLink for years about how they’re installing fiber in the area, but it always stops 1/4 mile away. I guess they just don’t have enough customers in my subdivision to make it worth their while. The Good News is T-Mo installed a new 5G tower 1000 feet south of me and it beams a signal right into this neighborhood. It’s way stronger than the old 4G signal I was getting from AT&T. It’s always a crap-shoot with these folks. -David Schwartz > On Oct 31, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Jim via PLUG-discuss > wrote: > > What the carriers are calling 5G is a portion of the 5G standards that don't > provide the high speed service that the mmwave tech does. For the last 40 > years, the FCC has been handing over to cell phone companies chunks of > spectrum that previously were reserved for over the air television. Until > some time in the 80s, the top tv channel was 83. Then it was reduced to 69 > with 70 - 83 given to cell phones. Later they did it again with the highest > tv channel being 51. More recently the government again gave channels 38-51 > to the cell phone carriers. Currently the top tv channel is 36. 37 is > reserved for radio astronomy. > > I laugh when I read something about these moonbats who go on about 5G signals > being hazardous to human health. They've been exposed to those frequencies > for decades when they were used for television. > > My guess is that T Mobile's service went down the crapper because people > signed up for it, they don't have the capacity to handle the demand customers > are placing on the network and either are unable to correct the problem or > unwilling to spend the money to fix it. > > on 10/30/22 16:11, Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, though that really bites. Reminds me of Sprint >> wireless broadband circa 2001 using fixed antennas, it was great at first, >> but then only in the middle of the night, as it sucked entirely during the >> day as it couldn't deal with the capacity either. >> >> I'm not surprised, real 5g using mmwave technology is really only decent to >> around 700ft or so, as I've used a few products for fixed wireless point to >> point or multipoint as well. It's also what drives ultrawideband technology >> used by apple now pervasively, marketed as a "personal area network" for >> short range optimized use. It's simply not *good* as a wan technology. >> >> That said, carriers use 5G generically whether they're talking real mmwave >> 5G or just some enhanced version of 4G they can't market anymore unless they >> call it 5G too, so who knows what you're rea
Re: T-Mobile Home Internet followup
What the carriers are calling 5G is a portion of the 5G standards that don't provide the high speed service that the mmwave tech does. For the last 40 years, the FCC has been handing over to cell phone companies chunks of spectrum that previously were reserved for over the air television. Until some time in the 80s, the top tv channel was 83. Then it was reduced to 69 with 70 - 83 given to cell phones. Later they did it again with the highest tv channel being 51. More recently the government again gave channels 38-51 to the cell phone carriers. Currently the top tv channel is 36. 37 is reserved for radio astronomy. I laugh when I read something about these moonbats who go on about 5G signals being hazardous to human health. They've been exposed to those frequencies for decades when they were used for television. My guess is that T Mobile's service went down the crapper because people signed up for it, they don't have the capacity to handle the demand customers are placing on the network and either are unable to correct the problem or unwilling to spend the money to fix it. on 10/30/22 16:11, Michael Butash via PLUG-discuss wrote: Thanks for the feedback, though that really bites. Reminds me of Sprint wireless broadband circa 2001 using fixed antennas, it was great at first, but then only in the middle of the night, as it sucked entirely during the day as it couldn't deal with the capacity either. I'm not surprised, real 5g using mmwave technology is really only decent to around 700ft or so, as I've used a few products for fixed wireless point to point or multipoint as well. It's also what drives ultrawideband technology used by apple now pervasively, marketed as a "personal area network" for short range optimized use. It's simply not *good* as a wan technology. That said, carriers use 5G generically whether they're talking real mmwave 5G or just some enhanced version of 4G they can't market anymore unless they call it 5G too, so who knows what you're really using. My customer is starting to use 5g in a large local 1100-some store retail chain to get off the last remnants of the last of old T1's and other crap rural broadband providers as the only choice until now, it'll be interesting to see how they fare here and other region markets in the long run. -mb On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 3:44 PM Daniel Stasinski via PLUG-discuss wrote: A while back I gave impressive stats and glowing praise on my switch to T-Mobile Home Internet. It had a few limitations that I had to work around, but it was fast. However, for almost a month now it has dropped to just above T1 speed most of the day and is pretty much useless. I'll be switching back to DSL, which unfortunately is my only other option where I live. *Daniel P. Stasinski* dan...@genericinbox.com ✞ /Jesus Is King /✞ --- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --- PLUG-discuss mailing list:PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss--- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
