When Comcast Goes Down: Using Your iPhone Hotspot to Power Your Home WiFi

Mobile Cellphone Hotspot Providing Home WiFi

When my Comcast/ Xfinity Internet service recently went offline due to a technical outage in our neighborhood, my home instantly lost WiFi. That meant no television streaming, no work-from-home access, and no connection for several computers and devices.

Instead of waiting for the outage to end, I used a simple backup solution that many people already have in their pocket: my iPhone hotspot.

Surprisingly, it worked very well.

My home Xfinity connection normally delivers about 950 Mbps download speed to my Ethernet connected devices while my iPhone cellular connection provides roughly 250–350 Mbps. That is slower than my wired internet service, but it was still more than enough to keep the household running.

Within a few minutes I had the iPhone hotspot powering:

• Television streaming
• Multiple computers/ iPad
• Work-from-home applications

Everything was operating in the same room as the phone, and performance was quite good.

However, because the phone itself becomes the home WiFi router, you should expect lower signal strength and slower speeds in rooms farther away.

---

Why a Phone Hotspot Works So Well Today

Cellular networks have improved dramatically in recent years. Modern 5G cellular networks can easily deliver hundreds of Mbps in many areas.

In my case:

Connection	Approx Speed
Comcast/ Home Internet	~950 Mbps
Verizon iPhone Hotspot	~250–350 Mbps

Even though the hotspot was slower, it still had plenty of bandwidth for:

• Zoom meetings
• Streaming TV
• Email and cloud access
• Web browsing

For most households, a temporary hotspot can keep things running during a short internet outage.  Note: In Longmeadow not all homes have access to sufficient cellular service.  

---

Limitations of Using a Phone as Your Home Internet Backup

A hotspot is a great temporary backup, but there are some limitations.

1. WiFi Range

Your phone becomes the router, which means the signal is strongest near the phone.

Devices located farther away may experience:
• weaker WiFi signal
• slower speeds
• buffering on TV streaming

2. Data Usage

Many cellular plans include hotspot limits. Streaming TV can consume a lot of data.

Typical usage:
• HD streaming: 3–5 GB per hour
• Zoom meeting: ~1 GB per hour

Check your cellular plan if you plan to rely on this often.

3. Battery Drain

Running a hotspot consumes significant battery power. Plugging the phone into a charger is recommended.
_____________________________________________________ 

Written by Jim Moran/ LongmeadowBiz

Before We Blame Comcast — or Build a New Network

 

Many residents say they’re not getting the speeds they pay for.

But here’s something worth considering in the Longmeadow Fiber discussion:

Your internet speed is only as fast as the weakest device in your home.

If you’re using:
• An 8–10 year old computer
• A spinning hard drive instead of SSD (solid state drive)
• 8GB RAM or less
• Older WiFi 4/5 hardware
• A 1-Gig Ethernet port on a 1.2-Gig plan

You may never see advertised speeds — even if the network is performing perfectly.

I recently replaced a 10-year-old Lenovo desktop with a modern SSD-based system.

Same Comcast plan 
(1 Gigabit plan- $85/month including taxes, fees and Gateway rental)
Same Xfinity gateway.
Dramatically better performance and measured speeds.

A townwide fiber network build will not automatically fix:
• Old routers
• Outdated laptops
• Mechanical hard drives
• Weak internal WiFi cards

That doesn’t mean fiber isn’t valuable. It means we should separate:

Infrastructure limitations from In-home technology limitations

Before concluding that the problem is “the provider,” it’s worth asking:

Is the bottleneck outside the house — or inside it? 

 

Jim Moran/ LongmeadowBiz, LLC

What Problem Are We Trying to Fix?

Working from Home (WFH)

Longmeadow is considering construction of a $25–30 million town-owned fiber network, financed over 20–30 years and ultimately backed by taxpayers. The proposed financial model suggests a 40–50% take rate (roughly 2,320–2,900 of 5,800 homes) is required to break even through subscriber revenue.

Before committing to long-term debt in a town already facing major capital obligations (new middle school, roads, infrastructure), it is reasonable to step back and ask:

What specific problem are we trying to fix?

Do Most Homes Need Symmetrical Gigabit Speeds?

There is a common perception that 1 Gig up / 1 Gig down — or even 5 Gig symmetrical — must be better.

But most households do not use bandwidth that way.

Typical 2026 Residential Usage Needs

[click chart to enlarge]

For most households:

• Download demand dominates. Every household does not need 1 Gig download speed.
• Upload demand matters primarily for multiple simultaneous HD video calls or heavy cloud uploads.

Most residents today report satisfactory performance with:

• 1 Gig / 100 Mbps cable service
• Streaming TV via Roku
• Video conferencing
• Gaming

References:

1. What is the Best Internet Speed for Netflix?
2.  FCC- Broadband Speed Guide
3.  Best Internet Speed for Gaming: Download, Upload & Ping Explained

1.     What are the Current Market Conditions?

Longmeadow is not a broadband desert.

Current competitive landscape:

 - Xfinity / Comcast

•  1 Gb down / 100 Mb up
•  Approximately $85/month
•  5-year rate guarantees (no contract)
•  Planned DOCSIS 4.0 upgrades nationally 

 - Verizon & T-Mobile 5G Home Internet

•  Wireless alternatives
•  Existing wireless technology already supports multi-WFH homes which could dramatically impact take-rate.

New DOCSIS 4.0 technology is designed to enable:

•  Multi-gigabit service
•  Symmetric or near-symmetric capabilities
•  2Gb/2Gb and potentially higher tiers over time

 The competitive environment could shift significantly over the next 5–10 years.

2.     Financial Framework: 5,800 Homes

Assume:

- 5,800 total serviceable homes
- Break-even requires 40–50% take rate
- 2,320 – 2,900 subscribers
- $90/month estimated municipal fiber cost

Annual Revenue at 45% Take Rate (2,610 homes):

2,610 × $90 × 12 = $2.82 million per year

If take rate drops to 35% (2,030 homes):

2,030 × $90 × 12 = $2.19 million per year

That’s a revenue difference of $630,000 annually.

In a 20–30 year debt structure, sustained shortfall can create significant financial pressure. Even if structured as an enterprise fund, bond markets and rating agencies view the municipality holistically.

3.     Capital Risk in Context

Longmeadow taxpayers are already facing:
- ~$100 million local share for new middle school
- Potential additional $200+ million of capital needs for road, water/sewer and storm sewer, school, DPW, etc. improvements as outline in the 5 year capital program (March 2025)
- Inflationary construction costs

Adding $25–30 million of subscriber-dependent infrastructure debt introduces:

• Market risk
• Competitive pricing risk
• Technology evolution risk
• Take-rate uncertainty
• Political risk if a taxpayer subsidy becomes necessary

4.     Is Symmetry the Problem to Solve?

Symmetrical speeds are technically superior.

But the policy question is: 
How many households are meaningfully constrained by 100 Mbps upload today?

If the number is small, then:

• The issue is one of preference, not access.
• The project becomes a competitive choice, not an infrastructure necessity.

That distinction matters when debt is taxpayer-backed.

5.     Technology Risk Over 20–30 Years

Fiber is long-lived infrastructure.

But:

• Cable is upgrading (--> DOCSIS 4.0).
• Wireless 5G continues improving.
• Pricing strategies may change dramatically.
• Promotional competition could suppress municipal take rate growth.

A project financed over 20–30 years assumes:

• Stable subscriber growth
• Competitive resilience
• Sufficient ARPU (Average Revenue Per Home)
• Technology relevance

In telecom markets, those assumptions carry risk.

6.     The Core Policy Question

The town must determine whether this is:
Critical Infrastructure Gap or Competitive Enhancement

If residents:

• Already receive gigabit download
• Have competitive pricing
• Have alternative providers
• Report minimal service dissatisfaction

Then the “problem” may not be capacity.

It may be:

• Price stability
• Local control
• Long-term competitive leverage

Those are policy goals — but they are different from fixing a service failure.

Conclusion

Fiber is excellent infrastructure, but infrastructure should solve a clearly defined problem.

In a town with:

• Existing gigabit service
• Competitive providers
• Major concurrent capital obligations
• 20–30 year borrowing horizon

It is reasonable to ask:

Are we solving a broadband deficiency — or entering a competitive telecom business at scale? 
Longmeadow has already heard from at least one major Internet service company that is interested in investing their own "risk capital" to bring Internet performance improvements to Longmeadow residents as well as serious competition to the existing players.  

Why is the Longmeadow Select Board continuing to block these efforts?  Let's not risk taxpayer money investing "risk capital" in this technology.
                                 _______________________________

I urge all town voters to learn about this Longmeadow Fiber project and the potential impact on the financial well being of our town and not just listen to all of the fiber "hype".

I will vote NO when this project is voted on at the upcoming Town Meeting in May.   

Jim Moran
48 Avondale Road

Vote NO on Article 4

This letter to the Select Board was sent by Mark Gold, a former Longmeadow Select Board member recommending a Vote NO on Article #4 at the Longmeadow Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, November 4.

_________________________________________________

M Gold <mgold129@yahoo.com> Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 3:58 PM 

To: "selectboard@longmeadowma.gov" <selectboard@longmeadowma.gov>, "jlevine@longmeadowma.gov" <jlevine@longmeadowma.gov>, "alam@longmeadowma.gov" <alam@longmeadowma.gov>, "vhemavathi@longmeadowma.gov" vhemavathi@longmeadowma.gov>
Cc: "adminassistant@longmeadowma.gov" "lsimmons@longmeadowma.gov" 

To the Longmeadow Select Board:

I've stayed away from town politics for the past four months, feeling that the Select Board deserves the right to oversee the town without the peanut gallery getting involved. But my recent reading of Article 4 on the warrant for the November 4th Special Town meeting requires my comments, primarily because it has misinterpreted at best, and twisted at worst, the intent of the streetlight purchase and LED conversion.

Let there be no misunderstanding: the funds that are under discussion for being placed into a "revolving fund", both the lump sum amount and the ongoing revenue stream, are the direct result of the conversion of our streetlights to LEDs. I believe I may be one of only a handful of town residents who lived and understand this entire story. I am happy to go into greater detail at your request, but there can no disagreement that the funds under discussion resulted from the conversion of streetlights to LEDs and the SIGNIFICANT reduction in electricity use in the accounts that charge the town for powering our street lights.

The concern I have, and the reason for this letter, is that the street light purchase and LED conversion was done for one reason, and one reason only: to reduce the cost of that line item in the town budget and allow for the control, if not lowering, of the Longmeadow tax rate. The street light purchase and LED conversion was NOT done to create a "DPW Electricity and Energy Improvement Revolving fund". The diversion of funds from lowering taxes to providing a special fund is a significant deviation from the intent of the LED conversion program. No one, particularly me who individually worked extensively on this program, went through the effort of converting our streetlights so we could create a (pardon the expression, but it seems to apply here) slush fund for the DPW to use to address issues as they see fit.

The purchase of the streetlights has indeed reduced the street light line item cost by eliminating light and pole rental charges. This purchase was accompanied by the conversion of our streetlights to LEDs, and that conversion was not done only to be more "green" and reduce our energy consumption, it was specifically directed at reducing our energy (and overall budget) costs. To divert those saved funds from a reduction in the budget (and effectively a reduction in the taxes that need to be raised) to a revolving fund is a disregard for the intent of town residents and the vote of the town meeting at which funds were appropriated for LED conversion.

In summary, I believe the Select Board and town administration is wrong in submitting this proposal to Town Meeting. The intent of the street light conversion to LEDs cannot be misinterpreted, and as the person who identified this cost savings opportunity and who, along with our Town Manager, worked harder than anyone in town to make this happen, I can state unequivocally that Warrant Article #4 gets it wrong on every account. We should be using the revenue (and accumulated lump sum) into reducing our energy costs and our taxes.

Therefore, I intend to vote against this warrant article, and urge all town residents to also vote against Warrant article #4 at the November 4th Special Town meeting. Funds returned to the town as energy credits should be used to pay other energy costs in town (ideally electricity) and reduce the overall budget of the town.
 

Regards,
Mark Gold

P.S. This letter should appear as "correspondence" in the November 3rd Select Board distribution packet as it is directed to a majority of the Select Board members. To delay it's distribution until after the Special Town Meeting is to further disregard the intent of the voters.