OK, time for a bit more controversy. I get fed up with meaningless mantras like "competition is good", "all I can eat", "fastest" and "cheapest". Time to get out of the kindergarden. Nothing wrong with liking cheap, but if we want to swap slogans then "you get what you pay for" is one to bear in mind too.
You're trying it on in running a business on a residential connection, but often you can get away with it (and I've done so too) but you might not get what you want and/or might mess it up for others too by hogging your connection. But i don't have sympathy (and nor I suspect do others) for the resultant moaning. Many WISPs offer a business option.
VOIP is great and better than analogue (which is obsolete tech), I have both. But the English are addicted to their "rosy" past, and you can always think of an excuse (like what happens when I need to make an emergency call in a power cut or I won't cross the road this morning because I might get run over), and I've even read some on forums claim their bodies can detect fixed wireless signals in a locality! Sometimes they're even abducted by aliens (well it's as good an explanation as any).
Much fixed line broadband is limited by or affected by faults on the infrastructure, which are the devil to deal with, and BT simply don't maintain the local loop (not wickedness but economics), they do piecemeal repairs. What first attracted me to fixed wireless was it bypasses all that dodgy stuff, the air is a fantastic transmission medium, not fault prone neither does it need repair, and the network architecture is often much simpler.It's as close to WYSIWYG broadband as you can get, short of full FTTP. Not to mention that a cable modem is a much simpler and reliable piece of kit than a modem/router, and it's no coincidence that BT use separate kit at last for fibre-based services. Contention can be an issue, but I can equally as well argue that is the fault of the extreme hoggers rather than the network, and the same can be true of fixed networks. That said, I've not noticed any such problems, but then most people are reasonable. Do any of you follow the lengthy performance sagas on all varieities of DSL which afflict this forum?
Since the cable operators stopped their roll-out I'd suggest that all the competition has done nothing to improve the infrastructure. In my locality you can have BT-based 20CN or 21CN, LLU, cheap or expensive ISPs and you'll still get a max 4Meg ADSL. Improvement comes through BT's commercial decisions on technological deployment, same as for the WISP's then.
So, even though I've FTTC now on the landline, BT still need to give me an acceptable speed range of 12-37Mbps - no faults are accepted below the min, and yes it does achieve the max but also regularly runs at the min. And some of the cheaper providers throttle downloads to or below the min anyway, so BT's best can be no better than my fixed wireless service. And the fact that at best a download on FTTC which I can do in 10 minutes might take 25 minutes on the fixed wireless, well that's a real downer isn't it: NO. I'd hit the FTTC download limit well before it became a practical problem.
Still if we want to discuss broadband in terms of a comic book, it doesn't matter does it?
We see things not as they are, but as we are . - Anais Nin
Edited by smurf46 (Thu 15-Mar-12 10:49:07)