US LTE network is lacking

[94lt1]

I would allow a tower in my backyard I bet they would pay money and free cell phones for life and fios and dvrs etc lol[emoji6]



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Actually.. If you own your property and make the proposition... They will do a study and if they find they can..they pay like 4k per month for a small tower or repeater...all depends on your zoning in your town..which you can always petition to change...

 

[SMYDSMITH]

Good idea but the service at my house is good didn't they would need it service at my work that has a repeater that isn't good enough is bad and they haven't fixed yet as they haven't been able to focus the dinar tower signal to the repeater

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Ollie]

But a palm tree in the middle of Pine trees doesn't look right.

Yes, I would tend to agree with you. In my neighborhood the person across the way has palm trees. The stretch of land behind my house has pine trees. They shouldn't be around each other lol.

 

[94lt1]

Here in southeast Texas..we don't have the rules like California for s about hiding cell towers..but we do have palm trees and pine trees together.. It seriously had me concerned... Can't even fake Christmas with palm trees LOL (for a guy from Montana)

 

[xeene]

Top 5 fastest countries

New Zealand, 36 Mbps
Singapore, 33 Mbps
Romania, 30 Mbps
South Korea, 29 Mbps
Denmark, 26 Mbps

The thing they don't mention is that these countries are the size of a small state in USA.

If it was Russia, Brazil or China on top of that list I'd be impressed. Not these tiny little countries the size of NYC.

 

[kodiak799]

Top 5 fastest countries

New Zealand, 36 Mbps
Singapore, 33 Mbps
Romania, 30 Mbps
South Korea, 29 Mbps
Denmark, 26 Mbps

The thing they don't mention is that these countries are the size of a small state in USA.

If it was Russia, Brazil or China on top of that list I'd be impressed. Not these tiny little countries the size of NYC.

Exactly. These numbers are meaningless without adjusting for population density. Also, I wonder how they even calculate the average because I've easily gotten in the 30's with VZW LTE when I have a good signal.

 

[Ollie]

There is absolutely no reason for Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint not to have one hundred percent penetration in the U.S. They rake in so much cash monthly. Take Verizon for example. They have how many customers? 100 million or so? Multiple that by a low, low average customer's monthly phone bill of $50.

 

[cr6]

IDK Ollie....Maybe from Oklahoma east.... but there's hundreds of thousands of square miles that have little to no population in the Western US. It makes sense that they've been dragging their feet in this part of the country. The eastern half, not so much.

 

[Mustang02]

There is absolutely no reason for Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint not to have one hundred percent penetration in the U.S. They rake in so much cash monthly. Take Verizon for example. They have how many customers? 100 million or so? Multiple that by a low, low average customer's monthly phone bill of $50.

No money to be made on a tower that has less than a few thousand people on it. My hometown has 3500 people. Cell service is horrible unless you're near the highway.

 

[kodiak799]

Yeah, and it's not just about how much money they take home...you'd have to look at "excess return on capital", which while their returns are nice there's nothing there to finance even 20% more infrastructure before the returns start dipping below what they should be.

 

[Ollie]

So it's cool by y'all for them to take in (minimum) 5 billion dollars a month and rest on their laurels?

They're talking about 5G now and their current network isn't even complete.

 

[Mustang02]

So it's cool by y'all for them to take in (minimum) 5 billion dollars a month and rest on their laurels?

They're talking about 5G now and their current network isn't even complete.

That's not our point. Verizon doesn't do anything for us, they do it for their stakeholders and shareholders. They don't want to lose money by building towers that cost $30-50k a month to operate to bring in maybe $5K in profits from that tower.

 

[Ollie]

That's not our point. Verizon doesn't do anything for us, they do it for their stakeholders and shareholders. They don't want to lose money by building towers that cost $30-50k a month to operate to bring in maybe $5K in profits from that tower.

$30-$50k? I doubt it costs that much to even erect a tower.

I could see your point if cellphone plans were ten bucks. They're not though. I'm willing to wager that Verizon alone pulls over ten billion dollars a month for their service.

 

[Mustang02]

$30-$50k? I doubt it costs that much to even erect a tower.

I could see your point if cellphone plans were ten bucks. They're not though. I'm willing to wager that Verizon alone pulls over ten billion dollars a month for their service.

Not sure where you are but reliable backbone fiber optic lines are around $5k a piece here with redundancies. We have 4 lines dedicated to each major facility.

Can't just have a 30Mbps cable line going to the tower. Servers, monitoring, power, etc. It all adds up.

 

[Ollie]

Not sure where you are but reliable backbone fiber optic lines are around $5k a piece here with redundancies. We have 4 lines dedicated to each major facility.

Can't just have a 30Mbps cable line going to the tower.

Fiber optic lines for what? Are we still talking about spectrum data transmissions or land based ones?