Helping SE South Dakota Rural Internet current and potential consumers find affordable, reliable and financially competitive (with our city cousins) internet options and avoid misleading info about various types of broadband or high-speed internet.
"Thank
you for giving us the opportunity to show you how much better
SpeedConnect has become. To show our appreciation, we’re offering you
unlimited internet for the special price of just $49.95 per month!* And
to make switching back even easier, we’ll pay up to $150 toward any
early termination fees you may incur. *But for what speeds?
Home Internet Service -- ALREADY HAVE THAT!
SpeedConnect’s high-speed wireless internet technology keeps you
ahead of the bandwidth curve with new, upgraded networks, more robust
connectivity, and faster speeds for the best uninterrupted, unbuffered
streaming internet. LTEXtreme Internet --ALREADY HAVE THAT!
With speeds up to 50 Mbps, LTE broadband internet is the latest, fastest technology available. 150 Mbps coming soon! SpeedConnect Anywhere -- NO THANKS!
Enjoy the convenience of high-speed satellite internet service. SC
Anywhere can reach rural locations not covered by cable, DSL, or other
wireless options. Home Television Service--ALREADY HAVE THAT! PLUS 4K which DISH doesn't have a lot of
Add DISH TV for state-of-the-art satellite TV and video services for your premium home entertainment experience. Home Telephone Service ALREADY HAVE THAT! at $4 to $10 a month
Add VoIP phone service, and get a seamless all-on-one-bill technology
system for your home or office with unlimited calling to the
continental U.S. and Canada. Business Internet Service
SpeedConnect can serve as your IT partner to develop a connectivity
infrastructure that meets and exceeds the needs of any organization.
Ouch--tried the Bluetooth dentist for Ooma and they don't know what to do about the Bluetoothache. Found a relatively cheap bluetooth headset that Ooma recognized as compatible, tried to install, but no connectivity. Calling Ooma twice gave me conflicting information which contradicted what the Ooma CSR told me BEFORE I purchased the BT Headset.
Looked at some Youtube videos which was even more confusing. So, Ooma bluetooth--here's my own Goodbye to your attempt to make an aged technology "virtually" useless! So Happy Trails to Ooma Bluetooth--may we never meet again!
Still ticking--online consistently--internet holding with Phone service. I think I am even getting my Google Phone messages forwarded! Installed the app on my Android phone so I can get calls forwarded when away from home.
Oh, how I love blocking the calls from Telemarketers--they should be gone forever at this rate!
Trying to find a Bluetooth headset, but too busy with Christmas to try out other features.
Need to do the 3-Way conferencing and remoting to other computers to see if the telephony reduces my bandwidth for other things I want to do while on the phone.
Also, more analysis of the recent Net Neutrality roll-back--coming soon.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Instead of Christmas Cards this year, I'll be calling all my relatives!
I almost gave up, but stuck with it. Opened the box and activated the new number (has same exchange as my old number, which is still hooked up to AT&T)
THEN came the fun--trying to set up the Ooma box with my wireless router. Their Chat line did not help--they are only "Call screeners" and so called Customer Support and I had to help him figure out how this works. I had to connect an ethernet cable from the Ooma DIRECTLY to a computer (used my laptop) and get a set up screen where I input my Router username and password after given the Ooma's IP number. I asked today--what if I have to change my WiFi username and password. They finally told me that I didn't have to repeat the process,but could access the setup wirelessly via an internal IP to change WiFi password, etc, so not so bad as I thought.
Checking reviews on the Ooma one of the problem areas has been the Wifi vs ethernet direct connection being unstable. I can say that the Wireless connection via our router has been PERFECT. I believe this is due to the quality of our internet connection. So not all of you will have this type of success. Although the bandwidth requirements of this internet phone system are low--for Upload only about 384K and no minimum download--not sure why?, but we have had internet with "OK" download of up to 5 mbs, but the upload was the weak spot--only about 500 K, so that's too narrow a margin and probably would not work with this Phone system. But the internet we NOW have has WONDERFUL upload--for a Rural broadband carrier and thus, we have had solid connection past 24 hours.
OK--our fee will be $4/month--no state/local fees but other fees were the Regulatory Compliance Fee, 911 Fee, and Local Interconnect Recovery Fee:
MOVING ON....
Cons: Does not have battery backup so cannot take it on the road, but there are apps that allow calls to be forwarded or voice messaged to up to 2 mobile phones via WiFi whenever those phones have access to WiFi (Voice message) but call directly via the cellular network.
Cost Up Front: From Amazon (with wireless adapter) $79 (normally $99), but without the wireless adapter (to do a direct ethernet connection, was about $63. You can get similar discounts directly from Ooma or just hunt on the Internet for a good buy. Pays for itself in a few months.
Features of the Basic are minimal for $4, but still has unlimited US Calling, Call waiting, Online Call log, Caller ID, Caller ID blocking, 911 Notifications, BlueTooth adapter integrated with Wi-Fi to use Bluetooth headsets.
For another $10, you get Premier which includes all of the above, PLUS Canadian, Puerto Rico Calling, Voicemail forwarding via audio email, Spammer n Custom call blocking (up to 1000), Call Forwarding, 2nd LINE, 3-Way Conference Calling and more.
Can set up services online, such as number of rings before going to voicemail (can't do that with AT&T)
Superior HD voice quality -- better than AT&T--if you have problems with your Wireless router connection, switch to the direct ethernet connection, but so far we haven't had to do that as have very good voice quality, stability due to the way our internet is set up.
If we lose internet, our phone calls can be forwarded to our Cell Phones.
You can pay directly by C Cardor set up a Prepaid account where you put X amount in the account, out of which your monthly fee is deducted.
Can Integrate with a Home Security System
Can (see videos above) replace your entire Home phone system--either by feeding the phone line from Ooma to all the phone outlets in your home or just connecting to a Cordless Phone system with multiple handsets. We are doing both right now.
You can port your old number into Ooma--that fee is a bit pricey at $39.99 but if you choose to subscribe (after 60 day trial) to the Premier service for a year, that fee is waived.
2nd LINE is great for home businesses. No charge with Premier.
Advanced Call Spamming and Blocking features--lots of choices as to what to do with the call.
Contacts List can be imported easily.
BOTTOM LINE. So far it is no as bad as I was expecting and better phone quality than what I have.
I am so happy about the Wireless success, which am sure is because of the internet I have but wouldn't even want to guess what would happen with any other internet. You need good, stable upload speeds.
I am not sure about the Premium vs Basic, but if I find I use those features (which I will need 3-Way conferencing), then I will be willing to pay the extra $10 a month for those--I will have the next 2 months to decide.
I am still in a learning curve about all the features, online access and control, security and just the use of VoIP calling in general. Will continue to post experiences and discoveries periodically. Basically, wired anything is now a thing of the Past. The only thing left is Nikola Tesla's wireless electric power!
Thanks to these small-business entrepreneurs with the courage and intellect to go forward with Wireless Rural Broadband and give us all a choice, which leads to more choices, which then leads to even more choices--like this phone savings.
This type of phone service grabbed my attention because I now have pretty reliable, stable, high-speed broadband in my rural area and I want to save money on phone calls. I started researching what it was, how to get it and what to watch out for.
Although I now have AT&T Home Wireless for $27 (includes $7 Fees added to base price of $20 so that's about 30% already), those fees keep going up and although stable as it gets wireless power from a nearby cell tower, voice quality is somewhat muffled and so can I do better? I don't want the local land-line--dropped them because fees were close to 30% of my bill, so around $56/month.
It is portable and battery operated--I can take the base unit with me along with a corded phone and get "home" wireless service anywhere I travel for that same $20 a month, as long as I can find an AT&T tower close by. Similar service by Verizon.
It connects to our Panasonic cordless base unit and feeds 5 cordless phones around the house. We also have it feeding to a leftover land-line system that feeds phone outlets throughout the house for corded phone connections. It is NOT VoIP, but cellular based. BUT I CANNOT FAX with it.
I see that I can get a similar base unit that hooks into my Wi-Fi router (that will, at its sleak download and upload, furnish the guts to run this type of phone) either by a wireless dongle or ether-net direct (probably the best choice).
I am about to try the Ooma at https://www.ooma.com/telo/home-phone-service/
from an Amazon special that if I don't like it, I can return in 30 days. I can port over my old number, but won't do so till I know it's stable. I have read reviews which are mixed and seems the bad reviews are due to using wireless from router to the base unit OR having unstable internet. I CAN GET THIS SERVICE FOR $ 3 TO $4 A MONTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It will include what I have now, Caller ID, Call Waiting but not sure about 3-Way calling or Call forwarding, Voicemail. I think I would need to get the $10/month plan to include Call blocking, 2nd line, 3-way calling and call forwarding, so total of $13--which still saves me $14/MONTH (and pays for the equipment in about 4 months) with more features and flexibility. That plan ALSO includes free calls to Canada and Mexico!
BUT can I trust this phone service? How likely is my internet to fail vs the Cell Tower? With what I save, I can probably expand my cell service as a backup when needed, but my internet service will have a battery backup also and I have been told in past 4 years, maybe only 3 hours downtime for upgrades, so am hoping I can depend on this Internet-based phone service. Will it be easier to hear? Will soon see.....
Will I be able to hook it up to our cordless phone base unit to feed the whole house and also take it on the road for "Travel" calling?
Stay tuned for what happens when I try this new cost-saving system, which is supposed to arrive tomorrow.
Ajit Pai, the F.C.C.
chairman, said the rollback of the net neutrality rules would eventually
help consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast
could offer people a wider variety of service options.Credit
Tom Brenner/The New York Times
WASHINGTON
— The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle
rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet,
granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’
online experiences.
The
agency scrapped the so-called net neutrality regulations that
prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for
higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government will
also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a
utility, like phone service.
The action reversed the agency’s 2015 decision,
during the Obama administration, to have stronger oversight over
broadband providers as Americans have migrated to the internet for most
communications. It reflected the view of the Trump administration and
the new F.C.C. chairman that unregulated business will eventually yield
innovation and help the economy.
It will take weeks for the repeal to go into effect, so consumers will not see any of the potential changes
right away. But the political and legal fight started immediately.
Numerous Democrats on Capitol Hill called for a bill that would
reestablish the rules, and several Democratic state attorneys general,
including Eric T. Schneiderman of New York, said they would file a suit
to stop the change.
Several
public interest groups including Public Knowledge and the National
Hispanic Media Coalition also promised to file a suit. The Internet
Association, the trade group that represents big tech firms such as
Google and Facebook, said it also was considering legal action.
The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai,
vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of
the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband
providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of
service options. His two fellow Republican commissioners also supported
the change, giving them a 3-to-2 majority.
“We
are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said.
“Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks,
especially to underserved areas.”
The
discarding of the net neutrality regulations is the most significant
and controversial action by the F.C.C. under Mr. Pai. In his first 11
months as chairman, he has lifted media ownership limits, eased caps on how much broadband providers can charge business customers and cut back on a low-income broadband program that was slated to be expanded to nationwide carriers.
TechnologyBy AARON BYRD and NATALIA V. OSIPOVA00:48What Is Net Neutrality?
Video
What Is Net Neutrality?
The F.C.C. voted to dismantle rules
that require internet providers to give consumers equal access to all
content online. Here’s how net neutrality works.
By AARON BYRD and NATALIA V. OSIPOVA on Publish Date November 21, 2017.
Photo by Michael Bocchieri/Getty Images.
Watch in Times Video »
His
plan for the net neutrality rules, first outlined early this year, set
off a flurry of opposition. The issue has bubbled up occasionally for
more than a decade, with the debate getting more intense over the years
as digital services have become more ingrained in everyday life.
Critics
of the changes say that consumers will have more difficulty accessing
content online and that start-ups will have to pay to reach consumers.
In the past week, there have been hundreds of protests across the
country, and many websites have encouraged users to speak up against the
repeal.
In
front of a room packed with reporters and television cameras from the
major networks, the two Democratic commissioners warned of consumer
harms to come from the changes.
Mignon
Clyburn, one of the Democratic commissioners, presented two accordion
folders full of letters protesting the changes, and accused the three
Republican commissioners of defying the wishes of millions of Americans
by ceding their oversight authority.
“I
dissent, because I am among the millions outraged,” said Ms. Clyburn.
“Outraged, because the F.C.C. pulls its own teeth, abdicating
responsibility to protect the nation’s broadband consumers.”
Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner, said it was a “great day” and dismissed critics’ “apocalyptic” warnings.
“I’m proud to end this two-year experiment with heavy-handed regulation,” Mr. Carr said.
During
Mr. Pai’s speech before the vote, security guards entered the meeting
room at the F.C.C. headquarters and told everyone to evacuate. Th
commissioners were ushered out a back door. The agency did not say what
had caused the evacuation, other than Mr. Pai saying it had been done
“on advice of security.” The hearing restarted a short time later.
Despite
all the uproar, it is unclear how much will eventually change for
internet users. Major telecom companies like AT&T and Comcast, as
well as two of the industry’s major trade groups, have promised
consumers that their experiences online would not change.
Mr.
Pai and his Republican colleagues have echoed the comments of the
telecom companies, which have told regulators that because of the limits
to their business imposed by the rules, they weren’t expanding and
upgrading their networks as quickly as they wanted.
The Bits newsletter will keep you updated on the latest from Silicon Valley and the technology industry.
“There
is a lot of misinformation that this is the ‘end of the world as we
know it’ for the internet,” Comcast’s senior executive vice president,
David Cohen, wrote in a blog post this week. “Our internet service is
not going to change.”
But
with the F.C.C. making clear that it will no longer oversee the
behavior of broadband providers, telecom experts said, the companies
could feel freer to come up with new offerings, such as faster tiers of
service for online businesses willing and able to pay for it. Some of
those costs could be passed on to consumers.
Those
experts also said that such prioritization could stifle certain
political voices or give the telecom conglomerates with media assets an
edge over their rivals.
Consumer
groups, start-ups and many small businesses said there have already
been examples of net neutrality violations by companies, such as when AT&T blocked FaceTime on iPhones using its network.
These
critics of Mr. Pai, who was nominated by President Trump, said there
isn’t enough competition in the broadband market to trust that the
companies will try to offer the best services. The rule changes, they
believe, give providers incentive to begin charging websites to reach
consumers.
“Let’s
remember why we have these rules in the first place,” said Michael
Beckerman, president of the Internet Association, the trade group.
“There is little competition in the broadband service market.”
Dozens of Democratic lawmakers, and some Republicans, have pushed for Congress to pass a law on the issue.
One
Republican commissioner, Mike O’Reilly, said he supported a law created
by Congress for net neutrality. But he said any law should be less
restrictive than the 2015 rules, protecting the ability of companies to
charge for faster lanes, a practice known as “paid prioritization.”
Any
legislative action appears to be far off, however, and numerous online
companies warned that the changes approved on Thursday should be taken
seriously.
“If
we don’t have net neutrality protections that enforce tenets of
fairness online, you give internet service providers the ability to
choose winners and losers,” Steve Huffman, chief executive of Reddit,
said in an interview. “This is not hyperbole.”
Killing Obama-era rules will remove the FCC as political gatekeeper.
ByThe Editorial Board
....The FCC on Thursday voted 3-2 to approve chairman
Ajit Pai’s
plan to repeal “net neutrality” rules backed by the Obama Administration that reclassified internet-service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II prohibits “any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”
By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman
Tom Wheeler
turned the FCC into a political gatekeeper. The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr. Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies.
But as always in politics, treatment under the rules would depend on ideology and partisanship. Even as liberals howl that the Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is motivated by President Trump’s animus to CNN, they want FCC control over the internet. The left’s outcry at Mr. Pai “killing” internet freedom has been so overwrought that the FCC meeting room had to be cleared Thursday for a security threat.
Mr. Pai’s rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab.
Mr. Pai’s net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.
This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&T’s DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America.
By the way, Google has vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains “committed to the net neutrality policies,” the search engine uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me. Google ought to be transparent about its practices.
Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation, which Ajit Pai’s FCC has recognized by taking a neutral position and restoring the promise of internet freedom.
If
we live in a Rural area, should we not have similar choices as do our
city cousins? Why do they have more choices at a lower cost?
Basically,
as I have been surveying (and have tried) various "Broadband" Internet
choices, here's what I have found:
Dial up was available to
everyone on a land-line, same as city, then we tried HyBrid which
combined Satellite download and landline upload--same prices and
availability in city and rural.
Then we tried Satellite
only--not a lot of reliability, download was iffy, upload not so great
and latency (Ping) was very high and could not be used for Streaming
video. Today, Satellite has higher DL speeds, slightly better upload
and some improvement of ability to stream video, but the cap is so low,
you would use it up in a few days to stream any video.
Then we
tried LOS fixed wireless which improved DL, ping, but still lost DL
speed and service due to traffic problems on various sectors of the
tower--especially in evenings and on weekends. UL actually deteriorated
to .5 mbs upload and see post below of what we CANNOT do with that type
of service.
We were told by PUC that a phone company would be
bringing in Fibernet nodes with copper lines to homes in our County, but
we have since discovered (See website clipping below) that does not
include us or our close neighbors, but mainly county roads and "certain"
areas--so not universally available and the 10 mbs DL and 1 mbs UL
still has limits on streaming and cloud backups, etc. Here's portions of their website description:
....."bringing faster Internet Service to your community.
As a leading provider of Internet, TV and Voice, __________works hard
to make your services more accessible, more affordable and less
complicated. We are committed to strengthening and improving the
communities we serve. As part of that commitment, we are bringing fast
internet connection to over 1.2 million households and businesses across
33 states with a network designed to give you consistent speed every
time you log on.
*Roll out of high-speed Internet services of at
least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload – services may not be available
in your area."
A chat with their customer service rep could not
help in any way with where this would be available or what speeds they
offer for what prices. And yet we see their Nodes installed just 3/4
mile away.
So, from recent customers of this same Phone company
in the Madison area, we have found that the speeds are much lower than
expected due to old or long runs of copper lines to customer. (In
Brookings County, ITC runs Fibernet all the way to customer's home so
they can get the same high speeds as city customers). Also Prices are
deceptive--a special promotion price could double after the 1 or 2 year
commitment period.
So, what do we do? Do we wait for the
Microsoft project also coming to certain areas of SD? A recent white
paper they published online describing their proposal to use "TV WHITE
SPACE" (old VHF TV frequencies) to provide broadband to rural areas.
BUT when? Here's an outtake from that white paper which admits their
system is not the most economical answer:
"_However, the most
optimal deployment would be to provide a mix of several technologies on a
county-by- county basis. This could lower costs by at least 10 percent
($8-12 billion) compared with using TV white spaces alone."
So
we are back where we started, some of us in the rural areas have choices
I outlined in the post below on Alternate Internet Options:
1.
Cellular broadband, which has ridiculously low limits, high charges for
bandwidth. We have a T-Mobile hotspot that gives us about 15 MBS
Download, and maybe 5 MBS Upload, BUT regardless of the package you get,
the upper limit is 22 gB and that way above $75/month. We do the
$20/month for 2 gB (for backup)
2. Satellite (Hughesnet) See earlier post. Limits, high prices, latency, limited streaming.
3. LOS Microwave Fixed Wireless (see earlier post)--only choice for most of
us--5 mB DL and .5 mB UL and traffic trims that down in evenings. Not a
lot of streaming there or cloud backup
4. ??????????????????????????? Phone Company Fibernet (buried cable + copper cable to home)
5. Other DSL, T1, Wimax/
5. An option that beats all of the above 3 in terms of speed, unlimited
data and price is WIRELESS FIBERNET or variations. It's a new
technology and where do you think this might be available? I am going
to investigate and try to find out where and how to get it in your
county? How long to get it to, let's say 1000 customers vs 1000
customers of #4 above which would be the closest in terms of bandwidth,
data limits and price.
Think of how long it would take to dig copper or Fibernet to 1000 customers vs wireless?
What about NET NEUTRALITY--set to be de-Obamanized this month?
Who do you believe?
Had a conversation with a relative who is a cybernet insider and believes it could backfire,
BUT listened to an interview today with an Internet Provider in Rural
Pennsylvania who is a local entrepreneur with updated technology--sort
of hybrid wireless fiber-net with about 1500 customers who pay for the
bare bones wi-fi with the best of equipment, rare breakdowns and a price
that beats the cable guys, 4K Cell providers and most others with
speeds like you see in the Photo that themes this page and he said the
worst part of Net neutrality would to force all IP's to go under the PUC
and then pay all the exorbitant fees that other companies under the PUC
require--such as landline phones (we had a landline with bare bones
service, which was $14/month, but the fees, fed charges taxes were $14
so we paid $28 a month of practically nothing--and just fees to the
various levels of government. The service and upkeep of the
infrastructure was terrible. We haven't had it for years and don't miss
it.)
So this IP in Rural PA says that reversing the part of Net
Neurtality that would impose these 40% fees on Rural Internet
subscribers UNDER A PUC WOULD ONLY BENEFIT THE LARGE COMPANIES SUCH AS
VERIZON, AT&T, T MOBILE, ETC, and suffocate the "little guy" --the
local operator/owner who can provide the best for the least because of
not being burdened with so much overhead and fees.
