Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet
-
Also, I have already ordered this service for my house.
So depending on your hurry, I'll know soon.
-
image url)I have a T-Mobile home WiFi
-
-
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
-
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
That latency is fairly normal for consumer connections.
Also, he is not in a solid T-Mobile coverage area.
-
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
-
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
-
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
-
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
Yeah, once true 5G rolls out, those numbers should change dramatically.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
-
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
That's not what I've been hearing, but I'm behind on listening to my tech news. As of the end of last year, mmWave is still in only a few spots in select cities. Those spots being within ~100' of the transceiver, not even enough to call a single block covered.
The rest is all low-band being rebranded as 5G like you said.
-
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
That's not what I've been hearing, but I'm behind on listening to my tech news. As of the end of last year, mmWave is still in only a few spots in select cities. Those spots being within ~100' of the transceiver, not even enough to call a single block covered.
The rest is all low-band being rebranded as 5G like you said.
It's like 65 or so. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidauthority.com/5g-cities-us-1105898/amp/
I count 65 as quite a few. In comparison to all cities it's not much, but it's more than a small amount.
-
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
That's not what I've been hearing, but I'm behind on listening to my tech news. As of the end of last year, mmWave is still in only a few spots in select cities. Those spots being within ~100' of the transceiver, not even enough to call a single block covered.
The rest is all low-band being rebranded as 5G like you said.
It's like 65 or so. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidauthority.com/5g-cities-us-1105898/amp/
I count 65 as quite a few. In comparison to all cities it's not much, but it's more than a small amount.
I just glanced at that report, what I didn't see mentioned is WHERE 5G mmWave is available in those cities. IE: New York city only had a couple 100' zones where you could get it last I knew. Technically it's available, realistically you just won't get it. I'm sure the companies are working to change that fast as they can, I could see it being actually useful in New York and San Francisco by the end of this year.
-
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
That's not what I've been hearing, but I'm behind on listening to my tech news. As of the end of last year, mmWave is still in only a few spots in select cities. Those spots being within ~100' of the transceiver, not even enough to call a single block covered.
The rest is all low-band being rebranded as 5G like you said.
It's like 65 or so. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidauthority.com/5g-cities-us-1105898/amp/
I count 65 as quite a few. In comparison to all cities it's not much, but it's more than a small amount.
I just glanced at that report, what I didn't see mentioned is WHERE 5G mmWave is available in those cities. IE: New York city only had a couple 100' zones where you could get it last I knew. Technically it's available, realistically you just won't get it. I'm sure the companies are working to change that fast as they can, I could see it being actually useful in New York and San Francisco by the end of this year.
However, those results were achieved by practically standing under the 5G nodes. Across the city, the average download speed was a lot slower (but still fast) at 594Mbps.
I take that to mean it's actually across the city. Even still, the argument was it wasnt available in the US which was incorrect.
-
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@stacksofplates said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@travisdh1 said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
I may have to just go with Spectrum for now. Those latency numbers are a bit high. I assume the 5g would be better, but not sure if that's in the area yet.
5G is not a real thing in the US yet, tho it's likely to be in your area a lot quicker than the rest of the US.
Rural Ohio is not “America” only a small part of it. 5G has been rolling out for more than a year.
No, he is correct. The "5G" rolling out in the US is actually an improved 4G. True 5G doesn't have equipment available in the US yet. We work with an ISP and literally no actual 5G equipment is available on the US market yet. Because of the Huawei ban, the original source of 5G is cut off and to cover up that mistake, the US allowed higher speed 4G to be rebranded as 5G in the US so that the country wasn't up in arms about it, but like how they allowed 3G to be branded as 4G in the past. They changed the "G" from a tech term into a federally regulated branding term.
That's why the speeds everyone is seeing are standard old 4G speeds from the rest of the world and nothing like what 5G can do. There's a fake American 5G rolling out quickly, we have it hear in Dallas. But it's a mediocre 4G speed by global standards and using what every other country calls 4G because it's a 4th Gen technology. 5G in the US is 4th gen, that's why our 5G is slower than eastern Europe's 4G from half a decade ago.
Verizon has 5G mmWave deployed in quite a few cities. There still is low-band being branded as 5G but there is real 5G in many cities.
That's not what I've been hearing, but I'm behind on listening to my tech news. As of the end of last year, mmWave is still in only a few spots in select cities. Those spots being within ~100' of the transceiver, not even enough to call a single block covered.
The rest is all low-band being rebranded as 5G like you said.
It's like 65 or so. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.androidauthority.com/5g-cities-us-1105898/amp/
I count 65 as quite a few. In comparison to all cities it's not much, but it's more than a small amount.
I just glanced at that report, what I didn't see mentioned is WHERE 5G mmWave is available in those cities. IE: New York city only had a couple 100' zones where you could get it last I knew. Technically it's available, realistically you just won't get it. I'm sure the companies are working to change that fast as they can, I could see it being actually useful in New York and San Francisco by the end of this year.
However, those results were achieved by practically standing under the 5G nodes. Across the city, the average download speed was a lot slower (but still fast) at 594Mbps.
I take that to mean it's actually across the city. Even still, the argument was it wasnt available in the US which was incorrect.
Correct. T-Mobile also has the mmWave in various cities.
-
I went with the lowest tier Spectrum 200/20 for now. Once T-mobile shows support for the address I'll consider that. I hate the 20 upload, that's just weird, but whatever. 200 should work for now, if not upgrading is easy.
-
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
that's just weird
Umm, that is normal for coax delivery. It is how the modems are designed.
-
@jaredbusch said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
@obsolesce said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
that's just weird
Umm, that is normal for coax delivery. It is how the modems are designed.
Even a lot of fiber services are like that now. And satellite. Upload costs more than download, so providers tend to favour async services as the majority of customers only care about the download number. Most because they only use that direction heavily, but many also because two numbers for a speed is too much to understand so they just choose the bigger number and repeat that. So telling someone that they have 200/1 or 200/200 they just say "I'm getting 200", so the benefit to providing the extra bandwidth rarely pays off to the provider.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Spectrum VS T-mobile home internet:
Even a lot of fiber services are like that now. And satellite. Upload costs more than download
Not exactly how it works.
Fiber are doing because they choose to use modems that are built that way (looking at oyu AT&T UVerse), or to prevent "abuse" of their network by people buying low cost consumer internet and running everything.
Satellite works that way because power to broadcast versus receive. So yes more expensive only because of hte cost to have a strong enough transmitter.
