Rural Internet & Cell Phones

[Bill Guenthner]

Most areas of the US have at least voice cell phone service, and you have to get pretty far from the interstate to not get enough data for email and messaging. This assumes you're using ATT or Verizon. Some of the discount carriers, you're lucky if you can browse the web even in large cities. I guess you get what you pay for.

My rural telco is building out fiber as part of the government's rural broadband initiative. I get faster home internet than most people in major cities can get. Before that it was DSL and usable but not great. I would not have bought property where I couldn't get at least decent internet service.

 

[rScotty]

Most areas of the US have at least voice cell phone service, and you have to get pretty far from the interstate to not get enough data for email and messaging. This assumes you're using ATT or Verizon. Some of the discount carriers, you're lucky if you can browse the web even in large cities. I guess you get what you pay for.

My rural telco is building out fiber as part of the government's rural broadband initiative. I get faster home internet than most people in major cities can get. Before that it was DSL and usable but not great. I would not have bought property where I couldn't get at least decent internet service.

I guess that idea of near universal cell phone coverage may true for the eastern areas of the US - or maybe on some interstate highways - but here in the west it would be more correct to say that most areas do not have voice cell phone service at all. Phone service gets very spotty if over a mile from town. If I absolutely have to make or receinve a cell phone connection it has to be either in the house where we have DSL, or or drive 30 miles to town. Nothing in between.
rScotty

 

[Torvy]

I guess that idea of near universal cell phone coverage may true for the eastern areas of the US - or maybe on some interstate highways - but here in the west it would be more correct to say that most areas do not have voice cell phone service at all. Phone service gets very spotty if over a mile from town. If I absolutely have to make or receinve a cell phone connection it has to be either in the house where we have DSL, or or drive 30 miles to town. Nothing in between.
rScotty

I would put a tiny additional spin on that and make it the Intermountain West. I have had the good fortune to travel via car around much of the country...the mountains are beautiful, but not great for cell service.

We have Verizon and it works wonderfully on our property as well as in the city. The internet part remains to be seen. Much of that problem is that it is not cost effective for the cabled systems to run lines with few customers. Starlink seems like a possible solution for us...it probably will still be tough in the mtns.

 

[oosik]

I will never live long enough to see some form of land based internet service( like fiber optics ). That's just fine with me. It would mean a total build up of what is now open range or farm land.

I have HughesNet for internet and ATT for cell service. They can both be sketchy, at times. But better than throwing rocks or yelling.

Besides - if we did get fiber optics or more cell towers it would mean somebody/somewhere is subsidizing this expansion. I don't much cotton to this idea either.

 

[deserteagle71]

Here is a map of cell phone coverage for my area. As you can see, huge portions of Nevada have NO coverage at all (white areas on map). And the same with large portions of Idaho, Utah, Arizona and even California. Even driving across I-80 (the red band showing signal availability across northern Nevada) I can tell you getting a signal is spotty at best. (Why I carried a satellite phone for years, and now carry an InReach satellite communicator.)

 

[rScotty]

SNIP

now remember i said T-mobile. ATT and verison say they have 5G, but it's not. TMobile bought all the UHF broadband towers from fox so they could have a clear frequency base, on 600mhz, to work with. att and verizon are not. the FCC put out a ban against both att and verizon to halt all 5G communications. their signal interferes with airport communications to the tower.

Can someone give me a technical explanation on this. RATPIE?
Why is T-mobile 5G while AT&T and Verison are not?
I didn't know that one service was allowed near airports and the others are not.
Why is that?
rScotty

 

[Torvy]

Here is a map of cell phone coverage for my area. As you can see, huge portions of Nevada have NO coverage at all (white areas on map). And the same with large portions of Idaho, Utah, Arizona and even California. Even driving across I-80 (the red band showing signal availability across northern Nevada) I can tell you getting a signal is spotty at best. (Why I carried a satellite phone for years, and now carry an InReach satellite communicator.)
View attachment 734767

I am rather surprised that there is that much coverage in NV. My recollection from my Nevada history course is that the feds own most of the land...pretty easy to see where the interstates and hwy 91/93 are.

 

[Larry Caldwell]

No cell service at our house at all. No broadcast TV either. Wonder of wonders, they wired our road for fiber last year, so we went from a 800 kbit DSL service and a land line that went out once a month, to 100 mbit FIOS and VOIP. Our local rep is chair of the House Transportation Committee, which oversees things like internet. I think he took care of his constituents. We suddenly can stream all the TV we want, which isn't much. We're not in the habit.

 

[kcflhrc]

Can someone give me a technical explanation on this. RATPIE?
Why is T-mobile 5G while AT&T and Verison are not?
I didn't know that one service was allowed near airports and the others are not.
Why is that?
rScotty

Complete BS. They all have 5G and the FAA said that 5G could interfere with certain IFR Landing procedures. I think it had to do with low limit visibility landing systems. Not sure what the outcome was but yes, they all have 5G and the airport thing is universal across all carriers. If you like read this, and remember, this is the internet and you can definitely post non factual information and not be held accountable.

https://www.5gandaviation.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiA9tyQBhAIEiwA6tdCrF5NGhFDdQybuDLwgmNat5ZLDp5otVaH8cvnapUr_9ayBapSfjhE4hoCDjYQAvD_BwE

 

[Raul-02]

In the photo forum, PILOON just posted something that got me to thinking.....



I've also wondered about just how this difference in communication speed will add to the different was of looking at the world between rural and city populations.

Take cell phones for example.....When I go to town, I see people absolutely glued to their pocket phones. No matter what they are doing, they seem to think it is equally important that they be simultaneously talking to someone while they are doing it*.

That doesn't happen so much in the rural US simply because there still isn't much cell phone coverage in rural areas. In fact, where we live, there isn't any cell phone service at all.
We are only 100 miles from Denver - close enough that we sometimes shop there - and our telephone plugs into the wall. Basically it is a type of dial up via wires. Long distance is an expensive premium service.

Us rural folks have always spent our time differently than our town cousins, and with the difference in cell phone coverage our divide seems to be growing larger.
rScotty

*what ARE they talking about so much??

check out Star link.
Hughs net frustrates a lot of people because they get the cheapest service but even if you get their top o the line uoploading is dead slow.
Starlink gets 100 to 500 Mbps both ways
Problem with starlink is they have no customer service not even a phone number. It's all low altitude satellites and they aren't good ones.