Anyone using cellular for home/office internet?

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
Gmail has been great, GAD, I agree. However, I've found their spam filters to be very draconian at times and I've turned everything off. Having said that, I agree.

My only problem here is that my "charter.net" email has been with me for 25 years. Mostly I've used gmail to pull from the charter (spectrum) server and I use that everywhere.

Anyway, I'll get it sorted. I'll have to visit all my websites and change the destination email.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,795
Reaction score
8,928
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
The downside of Gmail is that Google reads your mail. What they do with it has varied over the years but they were once looking for keywords to suggest targeted advertising. I still use Gmail and am just careful what I write.

Google will also do domain hosting for email so me@mydomain.com could still exist, just using Googles servers and technology.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
The downside of Gmail is that Google reads your mail. What they do with it has varied over the years but they were once looking for keywords to suggest targeted advertising. I still use Gmail and am just careful what I write.

Google will also do domain hosting for email so me@mydomain.com could still exist, just using Googles servers and technology.
I'll have to look into that, fro, but my previous email was xxx@charter.net. I'm not sure they can host a domain that's already reserved.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,795
Reaction score
8,928
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
I'll have to look into that, fro, but my previous email was xxx@charter.net. I'm not sure they can host a domain that's already reserved.
That was more to @GAD's comment. If you don't own charter.net you are going to either have to walk away from the address or make arrangements so it is still accessible to you. I'm sure they could but it would cost money.
 

GAD

Reverential Morlock
Über-Morlock
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
23,360
Reaction score
19,236
Location
NJ (The nice part)
Guild Total
112
The downside of Gmail is that Google reads your mail. What they do with it has varied over the years but they were once looking for keywords to suggest targeted advertising. I still use Gmail and am just careful what I write.

Google will also do domain hosting for email so me@mydomain.com could still exist, just using Googles servers and technology.

This is a REALLY good point and thanks for bringing it up! This is also one of the big reasons why I continue to run my own email server.

FWIW, if you do *anything* in the cloud then someone else is looking at your data. Encrypting it is a good idea but it's a PITA so few actually do that. Any free email service is likely scanning emails or has the ability to. Any site that's encrypting stuff for you has a back door to unlock it at will.

Security is a balance between convenience and paranoia. I'm more paranoid than most and in my experience easily 99% of users just don't care about security ESPECIALLY when it inconveniences them. I once consulted for a major fashion company that you would probably recognize if I told you the name. They had their email server outside the firewall because the execs didn't like having to enter two passwords (this was 1998ish). The email server got hacked because the VP of freaking personnel used her daughter's name as her password. *Everything* got breached by a disgruntled ex-employee. They still refused to put the email server behind the firewall.

I had a document that I would make customers like this sign acknowledging that I recommended in the most strenuous terms that the customer not do what they insisted on continuously doing. I used that document a lot as a consultant.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,800
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Sorry, Al. It just means that we haven't been in touch. I just asked him about Starlink and here's what he said. Remember this is in rural low pop. area near Seattle...

Starlink has been great for me. Just ran the speed test. 164mbps down 11mbps up 25ms latency. Max latency in last 24 hrs 83ms. This is more than adequate for Me [. . . My son] says he see an occasional glitch gaming but it’s ok. We are supposed to get fiber next year and I’ll switch for 1Gb. When I started it was $100 a month, cheaper than a hotspot but the price is now $120 - blah
It was just a joke bud. ;)

My AT&T cable w/100mb download unlimited data's running $52.95 bundled w/ landline and DirecTV so actual monthly total including taxes etc. right now's about $190.00. Grandfathered in on a DTV package that runs about about $90/month after customer loyalty discounts that I call for and renew as often as possible. It's a nice package, all the NatGeo, History, A&E, locals, couple of classic movie channels like AMC, TCM and Fox fill my movie-watching desires. Can always get F1 between NBC Sports or Fox or ESPN this year. Offbeat channels like Vice and Heres & Icons, and Bloomberg TV, you get the drift. Even get a DVR and 'net access to archives.

No pay per views or Movie Channels. I couldn't sign on new with DTV or Comcast and get everything I get for less than $150.00 with a bunch more extra garbage like shopping channels, etc. So current package fills my needs as I don't want to stream. Just don't want to watch TV on the 'puter. :)

PS I hate AT&T but in the near 2 years I've had 'em I only experienced one failure that lasted more than 8 hours, but still only about 12 hours.
Not including the time they told me my router was bad and I discovered it was actually ok but the connection was wonky, a couple of hours later....but what the hell I got a wiring service call and a new router.....

(Edit) And I use Gmail. Sparingly. :)
 
Last edited:

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
This is a REALLY good point and thanks for bringing it up! This is also one of the big reasons why I continue to run my own email server. ...

Security is a balance between convenience and paranoia. I. . .
Straight up right on!

These days, Google offers a (non-free) corporate office, and I suspect their document and spreadsheets, etc. are relatively secure from scanners. I used their products at my last company (by decree) and had no issues. But, yeah, email is a problem.

Good to maintain a reasonablly high level of paranoia on the internet. A great public service announcement, @GAD and @fronobulax !
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,795
Reaction score
8,928
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
Not including the time they told me my router was bad and I discovered it was actually ok but the connection was wonky, a couple of hours later....but what the hell I got a wiring service call and a new router.....

<veer>I have always owned my own cable modem. I got a new one. It worked and then it didn't. I was on the phone with Cox and they finally concluded the modem was bad. I prepared to return it. But i could only return it with an RMA and I could not get an RMA without accessing the vendor's website. After rage against the system I reactivated retired hardware and got a dial up connection (because there was a pure copper landline) that worked and got the RMA. I then thought I'd give the modem one more chance and it worked and continued to work until Cox gave me a brand new modem for free so they would not have to support the older standard that my modem was still using.

Upon occasion Cox tried to blame my router for something but after the first time I didn't even call until I could demonstrate the problem with an ethernet cable directly from my computer to the modem. That meant the problem was Cox, the modem, the cable or the laptop and even the script reading customer service folks had tricks they would try before they blamed it on me.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
I, too, use my own equipment. I have had a couple of cable modems quit on me over the years.

The new cellular system I'm getting on Monday has a device that T-Mobile calls a "gateway" and it acts in the same capacity. They don't charge anything for it, which is good, as those hidden (cable) equipment charges always added up to robbery.

It's interesting that "gateway" has instructions for how to find the best place for it in your house to get the best cell signal strength. It also has it's own wi-fi like pretty much all the cable modems these days, but I will be turning that off (if I can figure out how) to use my home (Linksys mesh) wi-fi.

I'm kinda jazzed about this. Hope it doesn't lead to disappointment. My only concern is having a cellular device in my house that's generating microwaves all the time. Of course, my wi-fi is already doing same. It's a good thing I'm not fathering any more children!
 

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,451
Reaction score
3,185
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
The service speed for my cable internet is excellent for my purposes (300Mb download). The 10Mb upload speed is not a problem for me. And Spectrum has been very reliable and (mostly) easy to deal with. But, at $80/mo, it's still kinda pricey just for internet access.
Jeez, 300 Mbps is huge. We're getting around 30 and that's plenty for streaming on two TVs at the same time.....

Has anyone cut the DSL/cable cords entirely and gone purely with a cellular-based home internet?
We are super remote. We don't even get cell service! And the cable offerings were ridiculous. But we got TOTALLY lucky that a young guy was just starting up a radio/microwave-type internet service in the area when we moved in. We were his FIRST customers! (He's doing real well now!) And massively appreciative we were! So we've got a little receiver that collects a "tight wifi" signal that shoots across the bay which the router then spreads the wifi out throughout the house. It's amazing. Like I said, streaming two TVs -- no problem. Plus, it's the only way we'd be able to use our phones -- just set them to wifi calling -- so our data usage is next to nothing -- it all goes out over wifi. We dumped Verizon and went with Mint -- $15/month each phone. Living the dream!
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
Jeez, 300 Mbps is huge. We're getting around 30 and that's plenty for streaming on two TVs at the same time.....


We are super remote. We don't even get cell service! And the cable offerings were ridiculous. But we got TOTALLY lucky that a young guy was just starting up a radio/microwave-type internet service in the area when we moved in. We were his FIRST customers! (He's doing real well now!) And massively appreciative we were! So we've got a little receiver that collects a "tight wifi" signal that shoots across the bay which the router then spreads the wifi out throughout the house. It's amazing. Like I said, streaming two TVs -- no problem. Plus, it's the only way we'd be able to use our phones -- just set them to wifi calling -- so our data usage is next to nothing -- it all goes out over wifi. We dumped Verizon and went with Mint -- $15/month each phone. Living the dream!
Sounds like an awesome solution. I know you guys are really remote. I'm glad someone out there is helping the situation as I suspect your only alternative would otherwise be satellite.

But I'll admit I'm a little concerned about what a "tight wifi" signal is, Cougs. I presume it's microwave, right? But anyway, that's great.

It's kind of the same concern I have with T-Mobile when they talk about "extended range 5G"... I'll admit, microwave technology all scares me a bit.
 

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,451
Reaction score
3,185
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
But I'll admit I'm a little concerned about what a "tight wifi" signal is, Cougs. I presume it's microwave, right?
Yeah, I think that's right. I actually ran into Ryan, the owner of the system, earlier today and asked him "Just how is this system we've got working?" I initially asked radio?, but he eventually mentioned microwave. I guess "radio" is not as far from microwave as I thought on the electromagnetic spectrum. Our little receiver, about a foot across, is high up on the side of our house. It's surprising it's got an open shot through the trees to his "station" on the other side of the bay. Apparently he goes fiber from there to I don't know where, lol. Before finding Ryan, we'd looked into satellite, but even that was too close to the horizon from here, so that was a no go. Otherwise we'd have to be going with Starlink, which is pretty much made for places like this.
 

GAD

Reverential Morlock
Über-Morlock
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
23,360
Reaction score
19,236
Location
NJ (The nice part)
Guild Total
112
"tight wifi" sounds like marketing BS. Any chance of a link to the company so I can read up on it?

It's kind of the same concern I have with T-Mobile when they talk about "extended range 5G"... I'll admit, microwave technology all scares me a bit.


Long tech rambling follows. :)

Energy propagation is ruled by the inverse square law. This states that the amount of energy delivered over distance is inversely proportional to the distance. This is an absolute fact that is easily proven, and it's true for light, radio, gamma waves, lasers, masers, sound, and every other form of energy that is radiated.

For anyone who doesn't like math, here is a useful pic from Wikipedia:

1691285336337.png


In this drawing if we consider r to be the prime distance measured (let's say one foot) then 2r (two feet) means that for the same area measured at r (one square foot) the energy dissipated by 1/4th. 1/4th is the inverse square of 2 (2 squared is 4, so the inverse is 1/4th). At three times the distance (3r = three feet) then the same area (1sqft) receives 1/9th the energy.

This inverse square law means it's *very* difficult to send signals over long distances - and that's not considering things that interfere with signals like buildings, mountains, etc. You know how a flashlight becomes useless over distance? Inverse square law. You know how modern LED flashlights work better over distance? They output more power.

Different frequencies propagate differently. Long wave frequencies like the type used AM radio - or even longer waves ike those used in short wave radio naturally propagate for long distances and can even be bounced off of the ionosphere.

Higher frequencies don't propagate as well, which is why things like VHF and UHF (like traditional TV signals) are pretty much line of site which is why TV stations were local to the cities from which they were transmitted.

Extremely high frequencies like microwaves and even up to cosmic rays are very energetic and can pass through things , with cosmic rays being able to pass through the Earth and have been measured in deep caverns underground.

The traditional way to overcome the signal weakening over distance due to the inverse square law is with power. This is why AM radio stations used to advertise 50,000 watts of power!, because increased power at the base meant that their listening area was wider and so could reach more people.

Remember CB radios? CB radios are actually 11-meter shortwave radios but they had limited range because the FCC limited them to 5 watts (later lowered to 4W) in an effort to keep them from interfering with other services. A typical ham radio operating in the HF (high frequency, which is actually "short wave" which is a whole different topic) are usually 100W and with a 100W transceiver I can make contacts all over the country (and sometimes the world) depending on atmospheric conditions and antenna design. As an Extra class licensee I can run up to 1500W. With a 1500W VHF rig and a well-tuned and aimed antenna (or even better an antenna array) I can bounce signals off the moon and hear the very weak reflections seconds later.

Back to Wifi, the wifi in your house is limited to 4W on 2.4 GHz and 1W at 5GHz (It's a bit more complicated than that but those wattages are correct).

Cell phones are limited to 3W, but they almost never use that much. Have you ever noticed that when you don't have a signal your battery dies faster? That is because when your phone can't find a digital signal it reverts to analog, and analog cell phones require a lot of power. Old cell phones were analog but all modern cell phones for probably the last 15-20 years or so are digital. Digital signals require substantially lower power levels than analog. What's more, cell phones are so smart and the processing on the towers is so smart that your phone automatically adjusts to use the lowest power it needs at all times.

Finally, "radiation" from cell phones (electromagnetic) is completely different from radiation from uranium (ionizing) and a lot of people don't understand that. The radiator in a house emits radiation but no one complains about that! :) X-Rays and Gamma-Rays (both electromagnetic) are dangerous (and useful) because they pass through the body. Microwaves don't, which is why they heat food in ovens with the same name. Danger from a Microwaves is the same risk for standing near a powerful ham radio antenna: if you're too close and/or the power is too high you will get burned or even cooked. Microwave ovens are small because of the inverse square law, and most microwave ovens are 800-1500 watts! If it takes 1500 watts to cook something less than a foot away, so if you put a microwave on top of a cell phone tower, rigged it to run while open, and watched it from a mile away would it hurt you? The answer is no, because of the inverse square law.

Cell towers have much lower powered transmitters than radio or TV stations because of their design - a cell only communicates with clients in a small area then hands off the client to a different cell as it moves. Modern mesh Wifi works much the same way.
 

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,451
Reaction score
3,185
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
"tight wifi" sounds like marketing BS. Any chance of a link to the company so I can read up on it?
Yeah, it's Kaniksu Internet. I'd looked at his site earlier but couldn't really find the technical aspects of how our system was working. You likely know what to look for. Lots of marketing of course, and new fiber coming in.....

 

GAD

Reverential Morlock
Über-Morlock
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
23,360
Reaction score
19,236
Location
NJ (The nice part)
Guild Total
112
Yeah, it's Kaniksu Internet. I'd looked at his site earlier but couldn't really find the technical aspects of how our system was working. You likely know what to look for. Lots of marketing of course, and new fiber coming in.....


Thanks! Not marketing BS after all! I'd not seen ISPs offering service like this to end customers but it's a great solution for a remote area with no physical infrastructure for high speed. Here's what I found.

This pic is on their site so I presume this is what they're using:

1691296606718.png
That is a Ubiquity airMAX LiteBeamM WiFi bridge antenna.

This kind of antenna would commonly be used for using WiFi as a bridge link between two buildings in a company. Back in the early 2000s when WiFi was still 11Mbps I installed similar systems with antennas that looked like this (the horizontal part is the antenna). This was pointing to a building down the road that had a matching antenna pointing right back at it. We did this because it would have cost millions of dollars to get a dedicated private physical link between the buildings.

1691297024802.png

Both of these are super-directional amplified antennas, but the modern one is capable of 450Mbps (note that this varies greatly with distance due to the inverse square law). Both have an effective range of about 30km which is the limit of all point-to-point communications due to the curvature of the Earth. Not that this is VERY dependent on the height of each of the antennas involved.

"Tight WiFi" is actually a reasonably accurate name if you consider these antennas to be doing something like what SciFi often calls "tightbeam" communications, though that's usually incorporating lasers over vast distances. This is not quite the same, but about as close as you can get with radios.

Antennas work in a variety of patterns, very similar in principle to how microphones have patterns, though antennas are used for transmit (TX) as well os receive (RX). A typical WiFi antenna that you would have in your house has a donut shaped pattern like this:

1691297678032.png


It's a donut because the signal is radiated from the central antenna which is in the form of a (usually) vertical pole. This is generally called an omnidirectional antenna. Those circular plots describe the pattern of the antenna from the side (left) and from the top (right). These are called Antenna Polar Plots.

A directional antenna has one extreme lobe in one direction (front lobe) and generally a smaller lobe in the opposite direction (back lobe), and many smaller side lobes. The size of of the front lobe compare to the back lobe is called the front to back ratio.

From what I can find these are the polar plots for the Ubiquite LightBeamM antenna that Kaniksu is using:

1691298355771.png

So it's just a WiFi antenna, but it's amplified to the extent allowed by law and given the relatively low power available through PoE, and it's VERY directional, so it would need to be aimed towards a matching antenna on the other end of the "link". This is why they advertise "If you can see the lake, chances are we can get you service." Max TX power of the Kaniksu antenna is 25 dBm and max power consumption is 7W (it's a PoE device).

This video has some pretty great 3D plots with explanations of various patterns.
 

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,451
Reaction score
3,185
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
Thanks! Not marketing BS after all! I'd not seen ISPs offering service like this to end customers but it's a great solution for a remote area with no physical infrastructure for high speed. Here's what I found.
Wow, thanks for the review, GAD!
This pic is on their site so I presume this is what they're using:
Apparently what they're using now. As Customer #1, this is what we got several years ago.

antenna.jpg

"Tight WiFi" is actually a reasonably accurate name.... So it's just a WiFi antenna, but it's amplified to the extent allowed by law and given the relatively low power available through PoE, and it's VERY directional, so it would need to be aimed towards a matching antenna on the other end of the "link". This is why they advertise "If you can see the lake, chances are we can get you service."
Like I said, we got totally lucky this "kid" Ryan came up with this. And of course, lake view is one of the reasons we bought this place. :cool:

jun433.jpg
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
Thanks! Not marketing BS after all! I'd not seen ISPs offering service like this to end customers but it's a great solution for a remote area with no physical infrastructure for high speed. Here's what I found.

This pic is on their site so I presume this is what they're using:

1691296606718.png
That is a Ubiquity airMAX LiteBeamM WiFi bridge antenna.

This kind of antenna would commonly be used for using WiFi as a bridge link between two buildings in a company. Back in the early 2000s when WiFi was still 11Mbps I installed similar systems with antennas that looked like this (the horizontal part is the antenna). This was pointing to a building down the road that had a matching antenna pointing right back at it. We did this because it would have cost millions of dollars to get a dedicated private physical link between the buildings.

1691297024802.png

Both of these are super-directional amplified antennas, but the modern one is capable of 450Mbps (note that this varies greatly with distance due to the inverse square law). Both have an effective range of about 30km which is the limit of all point-to-point communications due to the curvature of the Earth. Not that this is VERY dependent on the height of each of the antennas involved.

"Tight WiFi" is actually a reasonably accurate name if you consider these antennas to be doing something like what SciFi often calls "tightbeam" communications, though that's usually incorporating lasers over vast distances. This is not quite the same, but about as close as you can get with radios.

Antennas work in a variety of patterns, very similar in principle to how microphones have patterns, though antennas are used for transmit (TX) as well os receive (RX). A typical WiFi antenna that you would have in your house has a donut shaped pattern like this:

1691297678032.png


It's a donut because the signal is radiated from the central antenna which is in the form of a (usually) vertical pole. This is generally called an omnidirectional antenna. Those circular plots describe the pattern of the antenna from the side (left) and from the top (right). These are called Antenna Polar Plots.

A directional antenna has one extreme lobe in one direction (front lobe) and generally a smaller lobe in the opposite direction (back lobe), and many smaller side lobes. The size of of the front lobe compare to the back lobe is called the front to back ratio.

From what I can find these are the polar plots for the Ubiquite LightBeamM antenna that Kaniksu is using:

1691298355771.png

So it's just a WiFi antenna, but it's amplified to the extent allowed by law and given the relatively low power available through PoE, and it's VERY directional, so it would need to be aimed towards a matching antenna on the other end of the "link". This is why they advertise "If you can see the lake, chances are we can get you service." Max TX power of the Kaniksu antenna is 25 dBm and max power consumption is 7W (it's a PoE device).

This video has some pretty great 3D plots with explanations of various patterns.
This looks like a potential solution to my club's multi-building internet problem, GAD. Thanks for turning me on to it. I get (most of) what you wrote here.

If I find that the T-Mobile solution works well at my house, I might look into this for my club. Comcast business costs us $280/mo (!!) which is complete rapeage... and we make practically no use of that.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
"tight wifi" sounds like marketing BS. Any chance of a link to the company so I can read up on it?




Long tech rambling follows. :)

Energy propagation is ruled by the inverse square law. This states that the amount of energy delivered over distance is inversely proportional to the distance. This is an absolute fact that is easily proven, and it's true for light, radio, gamma waves, lasers, masers, sound, and every other form of energy that is radiated.

For anyone who doesn't like math, here is a useful pic from Wikipedia:

1691285336337.png


In this drawing if we consider r to be the prime distance measured (let's say one foot) then 2r (two feet) means that for the same area measured at r (one square foot) the energy dissipated by 1/4th. 1/4th is the inverse square of 2 (2 squared is 4, so the inverse is 1/4th). At three times the distance (3r = three feet) then the same area (1sqft) receives 1/9th the energy.

This inverse square law means it's *very* difficult to send signals over long distances - and that's not considering things that interfere with signals like buildings, mountains, etc. You know how a flashlight becomes useless over distance? Inverse square law. You know how modern LED flashlights work better over distance? They output more power.

Different frequencies propagate differently. Long wave frequencies like the type used AM radio - or even longer waves ike those used in short wave radio naturally propagate for long distances and can even be bounced off of the ionosphere.

Higher frequencies don't propagate as well, which is why things like VHF and UHF (like traditional TV signals) are pretty much line of site which is why TV stations were local to the cities from which they were transmitted.

Extremely high frequencies like microwaves and even up to cosmic rays are very energetic and can pass through things , with cosmic rays being able to pass through the Earth and have been measured in deep caverns underground.

The traditional way to overcome the signal weakening over distance due to the inverse square law is with power. This is why AM radio stations used to advertise 50,000 watts of power!, because increased power at the base meant that their listening area was wider and so could reach more people.

Remember CB radios? CB radios are actually 11-meter shortwave radios but they had limited range because the FCC limited them to 5 watts (later lowered to 4W) in an effort to keep them from interfering with other services. A typical ham radio operating in the HF (high frequency, which is actually "short wave" which is a whole different topic) are usually 100W and with a 100W transceiver I can make contacts all over the country (and sometimes the world) depending on atmospheric conditions and antenna design. As an Extra class licensee I can run up to 1500W. With a 1500W VHF rig and a well-tuned and aimed antenna (or even better an antenna array) I can bounce signals off the moon and hear the very weak reflections seconds later.

Back to Wifi, the wifi in your house is limited to 4W on 2.4 GHz and 1W at 5GHz (It's a bit more complicated than that but those wattages are correct).

Cell phones are limited to 3W, but they almost never use that much. Have you ever noticed that when you don't have a signal your battery dies faster? That is because when your phone can't find a digital signal it reverts to analog, and analog cell phones require a lot of power. Old cell phones were analog but all modern cell phones for probably the last 15-20 years or so are digital. Digital signals require substantially lower power levels than analog. What's more, cell phones are so smart and the processing on the towers is so smart that your phone automatically adjusts to use the lowest power it needs at all times.

Finally, "radiation" from cell phones (electromagnetic) is completely different from radiation from uranium (ionizing) and a lot of people don't understand that. The radiator in a house emits radiation but no one complains about that! :) X-Rays and Gamma-Rays (both electromagnetic) are dangerous (and useful) because they pass through the body. Microwaves don't, which is why they heat food in ovens with the same name. Danger from a Microwaves is the same risk for standing near a powerful ham radio antenna: if you're too close and/or the power is too high you will get burned or even cooked. Microwave ovens are small because of the inverse square law, and most microwave ovens are 800-1500 watts! If it takes 1500 watts to cook something less than a foot away, so if you put a microwave on top of a cell phone tower, rigged it to run while open, and watched it from a mile away would it hurt you? The answer is no, because of the inverse square law.

Cell towers have much lower powered transmitters than radio or TV stations because of their design - a cell only communicates with clients in a small area then hands off the client to a different cell as it moves. Modern mesh Wifi works much the same way.
This is really tough for me to digest, @GAD , but THANKS! for explaining it so well! I understand the inverse square law regarding energy, but I don't understand the difference between electromagnetic and ionizing radiation. I didn't get that far in Physics in college (now regretting it). I have always operated under the assumption that microwaves are dangerous... period. As I've watched cellular (and wi-fi) frequencies since the old analog days, I've been scared about the ultimate effects of these devices. Part of me thinks that the numb spot on my right leg is due to carrying a phone in there since long before digital cellular was a thing. But, anyway, thanks for this! I have to study this and figure it out. @Cougar if I frightened you at all about this, please forgive my ignorance as I think GAD is finding a way to convince me that my fears are unfounded. Of course, this is the world we now live in. I hope this abundance of microwave energy everywhere is harmless to us. Really.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,481
Reaction score
7,834
Location
Central Massachusetts
OK, gang. My whole house is now running on cellular home internet. My mesh system reports 35ms pings, anywhere from 135 - 300 Mb/s download, and 10-20Mb/s. The variance in download speed is interesting, but that is fine operation for my house. It took a while to find a good place to put the gateway, but thankfully the T-Mobile application provides a neat/easy way to find the best location. But, regardless, the best I can get is "good" connection to the nearest tower. Speeds might be a little higher with an excellent connection, but this is way better than good enough for me!

So happy to finally stop using cable!

A+ T-Mobile (so far).
 
Top