Helping people with computers... one answer at a time.
I live in an area that's not served by wired broadband providers such as DSL or cable. Am I really stuck with only dialup? It's so slow!
•
Surprisingly I can say this with all honesty:
I feel your pain.
OK, not the exact same pain, but my options are also limited, and it's frustrating.
Let me throw out the alternatives I'm aware of. Perhaps someone will chime in with something new and exciting and we can both get a faster internet fix.
•
My neighborhood also has no cable. As a result, my only wired option is DSL over the my phone line. Unfortunately, while I have a wonderfully strong signal, the technology at the telephone company limits me to 768kbps down and 128kbps up. Once upon a time that was blazingly fast - today it doesn't seem so. Until they upgrade their end, it's what I'm limited to.
So what options do we have?
Satellite
Satellite is what most people think of first. Companies like HughesNet (formerly Direcway) and StarBand give you a satellite dish, and you're on the net. It makes sense for many, many people, but there are drawbacks:
-
Speed: StarBand quotes speeds around my DSL speeds - between 500 and 1000kbps down and 100-256kbps up. That's certainly not an improvement for me, but it might be good for many. HughesNet quotes similar speeds.
-
Capacity: you may not get the highest speeds, and in fact you might be speed-limited if you use too much. This varies, dramatically, based on how busy the service is, but you can be reduced to nearly dial-up speeds without warning.
-
Phone: Speaking of dial-up, some services use the satellite in conjunction with a dialup connection. You may still need a phone line in order to connect. Double check with the service to make sure it's true "two way" satellite.
-
Latency: When you use a satellite the information is bounced off of that satellite 22,240 miles above the earth in what's referred to as the "Clarke Belt" after science fiction author Aurther C. Clarke, who wrote about using satellites in this fashion. 22,240 miles is a long way ... long enough that it takes about 1/4 of a second for the signal to make the 44,480 mile round trip. That doesn't seem like a lot to you and me, but to computers it's an eternity. In particular, certain communications protocols, often "ftp", will have problems and become very slow because of that delay. Normal internet browsing and downloading is, apparently, not as severely impact by the delay.
Satellite might be an option for you depending on your needs, and your usage. It's not for me.
Cellular
I've been quite surprised at how ubiquitous cellular coverage has become. As I've mentioned before it's my solution of choice for connectivity while traveling, and it works well for me.
Once again, there are tradeoffs:
-
Speed: cellular data plans now connect at around 128kbps. That's roughly twice quoted dialup speeds (54kbps), but more like 3 of four times more common actual dialup speeds of 28 or 33 kbps. There are new technologies in place such as EVDO that, if supported in your area, can take that up to something like 800kbps - but what I'm hearing from users is that it rarely gets that high. Regardless of technology, the speed may vary dramatically based on location and the strength of the cellular signal. In any case, it's once again no better than my basic DSL speeds.
-
Cost: most cellular providers give you two options for data: a small feed for a small amount of data (say $10/month for 10megabytes of data transfer), or an unlimited data plan. The "problem" here is that, particularly with newer technologies, I'm hearing reports that unlimited doesn't always mean unlimited - even after signing up for an unlimited plan, people are getting charged additional if they go beyond a certain amount of data transfer. Now, I've not encountered that, but I only use my cell as my primary connectivity while traveling. The bottom line: question your cellular provider, and question them hard. Skip the sales people and go directly to customer support or billing to make sure you're getting what you think.
-
Networking: most cell phones are designed to be plugged into a single computer. That's great when you need connectivity for only that computer. If you're attempting to set up a network, things get more complicated. The easiest approach is, probably, to leave that one computer on at all times, and use "internet connection sharing" to share the connection out its ethernet port to the rest of your network.
-
Dropped Calls: they happen in voice, and they happen in data. Depending on your phone, it's likely that you'll have to manually reestablish the connection if the call drops.
I love cellular - it's saved my bacon several times, but again, while traveling. Add to that the fact that my home is in a fairly cellular dead zone, it's not an option for me at home.
But it could be for you.
ClearWire
ClearWire's a cellular based ISP that attempts to address many of the issues I've just listed. When you sign up with ClearWire, you get something that looks more like a modem, into which you plug your computer or network. ClearWire then uses the local cellular network to provide you your connection. No worrying about dropped calls, limited data plans and the like.
And again, there are things to note:
-
Speed: 768 to 1500kbps download speeds are quoted. That's, at best, 2 times basic DSL, but represents great speeds using a cellular based system.
-
Availability: ClearWire is available in limited areas. For example, it's not currently available in the Seattle area.
If available in your area, ClearWire is worth a look.
WiMax
WiMax is another wireless technology that promises to provide high speed connectivity, along the lines of basic DSL, or somewhat faster, to large areas. I think of it as WiFi on steroids. (I'll speak to WiFi in a second.)
There are two problems with WiMax that I've seen so far: availability and price.
WiMax seems to be getting deployed slowly, and in limited, mostly business-core areas. And when it is available, it's prohibitively expensive for the home, or even the small business user.
But it's definitely a technology to keep an eye on.
•
WiFi (not)
WiFi, or the wireless connectivity that comes with many laptops today, is not an option as a replacement for broadband connectivity, unless you happen to live next door to an existing WiFi hotspot.
The problem here is simply that WiFi wasn't designed for this. Wifi has a limited range - roughly 300 feet unobstructed, less if there are things like walls in the way. That implies that you've already brought internet into your home through some other means, and use WiFi to simply connect your computers to what's already in your home.
Other?
With any of the solutions above, there are often ways to go custom or extreme - fancy antennas to pull in a distant WiFi or cellular signals, custom solutions from rural ISPs, and more. But those solutions typically require that either you have the time and resources to figure out what will work for you, and an ISP or other provider that will let you, or even help you, connect.
There may be other solutions, and I'd love to hear about them. Both general connectivity at that basic 768kbps DSL speed, and faster if at all possible, for those of us who've run out of wired options.
And no, moving isn't an option. :-)
Article C2670 - May 29, 2006 « »
Leo A. Notenboom has been playing with computers since he
was required to take a programming class in 1976. An 18 year career as a programmer at Microsoft soon followed.
After "retiring" in 2001, Leo started Ask Leo! in 2003 as a place for answers
to common computer and technical questions. More about Leo.
April 15, 2011 8:12 AM
We went down the T1 route when we first moved to rural SW MO. AT&T were contracted and proved to be useless as a provider. The line would constantly fail necessitating a service call to AT&T for restoration. This involved a long process of computerized testing that often reported the line as working even though the “smart jack” lights were completely off. The local carrier was Windstream and their service techs are the best around, usually fixing the problem within an hour of getting the trouble ticket from AT&T: However it sometimes took AT&T days to get that far due to their stupid, inflexible, process of “trouble escalation” through a series of bureaucratic layers that were completely unresponsive to customer complaints or suggestions. Once, after a 2 day outage I threatened a lawsuit for breech of contract and after that AT&T treated us with kid gloves.
As the end of the 2 year contract approached I found out that Windstream were offering a rural broadband connection based on the Actelis Networks Ethernet Access devices. They provided a symmetric 3 Mbs connection for 66% ($300) of the AT&T T1. So far, it has proved to be reliable and free from the troubles of the T1. It can be upgraded to higher speed connections but at a cost that cannot be justified by our usage requirements. My wife, the primary user, is a programmer and she needed a secure, reliable real-time connection to her mainframe computer on the east coast. She also has VoIP based, east coast phone line as she is in constant conference calls with her team as they maintain the database of a large healthcare insurance provider.
I wish that a more affordable alternative were available where we live but this Windstream service is the best we can find currently and we are thankful to have it.
August 26, 2011 6:18 AM
I find it really sad that this article was written in 2006, and we still have the same problems we had then. I live in a subdivision less than 3 miles from the closest cable or dsl internet connection, yet no one seems to be expanding their coverage area. We are still stuck using satellite service which is expensive and unrealistically limited. A single youtube video (4min.) uses up 1/5 of our daily allowance. Now the government has developed an "internet assistance program" for low income families with children in certain areas, because they say "everyone deserves affordable internet access"....Apparently everyone except those of us in rural or semi-rural areas!
August 30, 2011 11:34 AM
It is not always the rural areas that have the problem. Less than three miles from two major interstates and are unable to get DSL or cable even though the house right across the road from us has cable. Both AT&T and Time Warner refuse to service us and there are not any other viable options for us.
September 4, 2011 10:34 AM
Satellite seems to be the only option for many of us in rural locations. I was told that at&t was to have dsl available in my area within two years after moving into my home. Needless to say that was 6 years ago. Dsl was made available within a mile of my home in that time, but no further than that. 3G through verizon or any other such provider is out of the question, since I seem to be in a square mile deadzone for such service, the same is said for the providers of internet through radio signal. Cable options are much the same as dsl. No cable and they refuse to run it to our lowly subdivision of 20 or so residents. It is really sad that there are so many of us with few and poor options for service. As well, I read an article some time back that said according to a poll taken only about half of those within the cities and towns that have broadband access actually use it, while those of us in rural areas want it and can't get it. I have written my share of complaint letters and had the usual apologetic replies, so I suppose there is nothing else I can do but wait and hope someone will eventually deliver a service to those of us who have waited for so long. A word of advice if you go the satellite route. I would not use Hughes Net by any means, unless it is your only available provider. The daily download limit is terrible, 200MB...and that is easily exceeded if you do anything beyond a little simple browsing and checking your email. I suggest you find a provider that offers a monthly limit such as WildBlue. I am much more satisfied with them so far at least, though I am a gamer and sat net and gaming are a horrible mix. You can expect an average of 2k latency if you like to game. Hope someone finds this bit of info useful.
October 21, 2011 5:40 AM
I have many of same issues as everyone else here. Cable actually runs along the road I live on BUT on the opposite side. I was told that it would cost at least 1700 dollars (not a typo) to bring it across to us. They said that they can't run it overheard to the pole at the end of our drive. Of course, lines cross the road everywhere, just can't do it in front of ours, I guess. The phone company doesn't offer DSL although Frontier says that they are expanding everyday. Who hasn't heard that one. There is a wireless company out here but when I had them check for service they said the neighbors trees kept us from getting a signal. My son has the same service and his receiver faces straight into a 10 acre wooded area. The tress are about double the height of his receiver as well. This company recently purchased another and acquired another tower that is much closer to us. I haven' called them yet but plan to do so. Just tired of getting the runaround. We're only a mile from the city limits and there are plenty of options for city residents. I did read where the presidents wants to make the internet available to everyone. Maybe we arn't "everyone", no children and not considered low income.