Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Hardware

Is Verizon Up to Speed? 140

Posted by Hemos from the getting-their-roll-out-on dept.
Dejected @Work writes "IBM developerWorks just ran this article on Verizon's partial 3G network set up in some areas of the US, most of the North East. The article goes into some good technical background about these fatter pipes called Express Network. Has anyone tried this out?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Verizon Up to Speed? More

Is Verizon Up to Speed?

Comments Filter:

  • Try 2.5 G network... (Score:4, Informative)

    by WebWiz ( 244386 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @06:48PM (#3454220)
    Verizon dosen't have a 3G network.
    • I think the only true 3G in the market nowadays is NTT [ntt.com]
      But then the Japanese are always the first to adapt small interactive things ala Pokemon [pokemon.com]

      • Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by vought ( 160908 )
        The only true 3G in the United States is Ricochet...which I used at a true 80-250kbps. However, clueless executives and a little company called Aerie Networks have done a remarkably good job of killing that off, and we'll probably never see it again.

        Too bad. The mesh design of Ricochet was a boon to rescue and police efforts in New York, since many microcell nodes can go down without debilitating the network. With 3G, lose a couple of cell towers and everyone's suddenly got curiously-shaped handheld vibrators instead of phones. The bitrate of 3G sucks if you happen to be doing anything except sitting less than a half-mile from the tower, too.

        I'll be impressed when Verizon and the other cellcos decide to offer real mobile broadband at flat-rate pricing: all you can eat (datawise, that is) whenever you want for $50.00 a month in a given service area, like Ricochet did just before running out of cash and going tits-up. Instead, they'll nickel-and-dime people who need more than 14.4k in the field.

        Yes, I was a user. It rocked 95% of the time. It even worked on Caltrain from all the way from San Jose to Burlingame towards the end.
        • The only true 3G in the United States is Ricochet...which I used at a true 80-250kbps. However, clueless executives and a little company called Aerie Networks have done a remarkably good job of killing that off, and we'll probably never see it again.

          Ricochet was not spectrally efficient. It could never serve more than a niche market (even if the demand wasn't so niche). That technology would never back it big simply because service providers wouldn't be able to serve large numbers of people (relative to what's happening with cellular networks) with it.

          Too bad. The mesh design of Ricochet was a boon to rescue and police efforts in New York, since many microcell nodes can go down without debilitating the network. With 3G, lose a couple of cell towers and everyone's suddenly got curiously-shaped handheld vibrators instead of phones.

          Not true. The network is not dehabilitated when a couple cells go down. Best case, some capacity is lost. Worst case, there is an outage in a small area.

          The bitrate of 3G sucks if you happen to be doing anything except sitting less than a half-mile from the tower, too.

          Again, not true. You can get the max rate at the cell edge. The fact that you won't is mostly a factor of other users using up the base station's power.

          2.5G is just a stepping stone. The money that the service providers invest in it is low risk. Even if data service doesn't take off, they still benefit because 1xRTT virtually doubles their voice users/sector capacity. They are more than happy to have that no matter what happens with data. If data takes off, there are much better things already in the pipe.

          Next, will come the real 3G. It will be called 1xEV-DO (1Xrtt EVolution - Data Only). It will be an overlay technology that will really rock. Basically, there will be one giant constant rate (!) pipe and each user will be given a slice of it based on how many other people want to get on, among other things. Realistically expect 100's of kbps when that comes out. Verizon is conducting a private trial of that technology this year.
          • Ricochet was not spectrally efficient.

            I call bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about.

            Ricochet used public spectrum in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum. You want to talk about spectrally efficient? It used FREE and available spectrum. Because Ricochet used wide, publicly available spectrum, spectrum reuse wasn't as much of an issue for the designers - although they broke new ground there too, by using an inexpensive microcellular architecture to maximise spectrum reuse. It was efficent logically and monetarily...too bad the network cost so much to build so fast. Thanks, Schellman!

            No spectrum auctions, no billion-dollar outlay for airwaves...and they were able to get over 1Mbps (that's Megabit...maybe your tech IQ is a bit thin) raw air-air speed between poletop radios. while I understand that true 3G is 2.4Mbps at the site, things seem to turn to junk when more users get on the network and you're moving.

            It could never serve more than a niche market (even if the demand wasn't so niche).

            Then why is the data rate of 3G such a big deal? It would seem that this niche market is fairly large - the people who want a lot of data on the move. I think it was a pretty immature market when Ricochet was available, but it certainly wasn't a niche.

            I would hesitate to believe that the cellcos have invested literally tens of billions collectively to bring high data rates to the U.S. inorder for people to goof with Pokemon on their phones.

            That technology would never back it big simply because service providers wouldn't be able to serve large numbers of people (relative to what's happening with cellular networks) with it.

            Again, you seem light on technology here. The Ricochet hardware and software could handle quite a bit more traffic at peak load and at lower cost/MB per user than 3G has ever been projected to achieve. Ever seen 40 simulated users hit one 3G base station at once?

            What seems odd to me is that people who discounted Ricochet two years ago are hyping 3G at two to three times the cost per minute per month.

            Ricochet was modeled after the internet itself - a mesh (about five $1500.00 radios per square mile) arrangement of programmable high-throughput devices that function independently of each other...each radio is not just a repeater, but a router.

            As far as Ricochet node failover goes - as long as you've got a wired access point somewhere, the poletop radios will find it, as long as there's one about every mile or so and they can see each other. After the WTC towers collapsed, they took out quite a bit of Ricochet equipment - and yet the workers could utilize the technology at ground zero at reported speeds of over 150kbps. Try that with 3G.

            It used to bug me when people I knew at Qualcomm bashed Ricochet without any idea of how it worked. Which wireless data network you rather: a few big towers that are easy to knock down, or thousands of poletop radios that depend on the streetlight infrastructure?

            • Ricochet used public spectrum in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum. You want to talk about spectrally efficient? No, and I think you've missed the point. Spectally efficient != how much someone pays for spectrum. Spectrally efficient != how fast the throughput is. Spectrally efficient = most bang for the buck where bang = how many users you can serve while keeping the users satisfied enough to pay for the service and buck = how much it costs per users to provide the service. Oh, an let's not forget the number one feature of 3G (damn the hype): voice users/sector. Can ricochet support 20-30 voice calls/sector/carrier while still providing data service? Didn't think so. Richochet was a niche, not because the demand wasn't there, but it was a niche becuase it would never be able to serve a lot of people. And even if the users/sector numbers were there, the per-carrier numbers weren't. There's not enough spectrum to have 5-6 service providers out there (like the cellular industry has) all on different bands, all with multiple carriers serving a bazillion users with the stuff. Ease up, bud. I'm sure ricochet was great for you. It just wasn't a high capacity (capacity = serving very, very large numbers of people) technology.

        • I'll be impressed when Verizon and the other cellcos decide to offer real mobile broadband at flat-rate pricing

          That would impress me, too, since its been demonstrated repeatedly that flat rate pricing is a good way to lose money, unless that flat rate is exhorbitantly high. Paying by the bit is the only way that makes sense - 3G or landline.

          • ...since its been demonstrated repeatedly that flat rate pricing is a good way to lose money...

            Could you please cite some studies or evidence on this for those that missed it in the past (me)? If it's a study, I'd prefer it not be sponsored by one of the big telecom companies.

      • Actually the first 3G network was build on the Isle of Man in the UK by Manx Telecom, and that was over a year ago!!
        • Note : I said "in the market" I am aware that test networks might probably have been setup at lots of places but NTT is offering it commercially with a large number of subscribers.
          • Its not a test nework, it is being offered to the entire state. The Isle of Man is a quasi-independant country. The market may be small but it is being offered, to use your word "commercially".
    • There has been some argument if Verizon really has a 3G network. The minimum requerment for 3G is 144kbps while moving and if you go by that, verizon does meet the minimum requirements. Now that is the low end of 3G and the high end of the verizon network, so even if it is 3G on paper, in the real world I wouldn't give it more that a 2.75G's. We are getting closer.

      Davie
    • This is untrue. 3G is an umbrella that
      includes 2 technologies. CDMA2000, which is
      used mostly in the North American continent
      and Korea, and Wideband CDMA, which is supposed
      to be used by the rest of the world. Verizon
      has a CDMA2000 network (1xRTT), which is very
      definitely 3G.

      Magnus.

    • Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:3, Informative)

      by eqteam ( 322882 )
      I read through most of the posts, and everyone is bagging the service (atleast it seems to me). I've had it for more than a month now, and I will not be giving it up, even though it IS expensive. Why?
      1) 30-50kbps when the planets aren't aligned
      2) Works with my laptop OR my IPaq
      3) Meetings where there are no ethernet jacks and no APs are still productive
      4) I can share with my friends during company meetings and it's still decent!
      5) All TCP/IP protocols work, TightVNC works well enough to use for emergencies
      6) Traveling 65 (MPH) down the freeway, pulling FTP at 37kps for 13 miles

      It really doesn't hold a candle to Ricochet, but then again Verizon's service is up ;) and it doesn't have some of the problems (noted by others) that 3G and GPRS networks seem to exhibit.

  • Good for Verizon (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ghoul ( 157158 )
    Good for Verizon they at least gotto market with their 3G systems. I work in Telecom and most of our clients are European Telcom majors and they have spent so much on licenses they are now too cash poor to implement the system itself. And of course in this market they cant raise the money from stock
    • NTT [ntt.com] with their DoCoMo [nttdocomo.com]service launched 3G services a few months back.

      One cool feature they are offering is if u (and the person u r speaking to) have a mobile phone with a camera and screen u can see the picture of whoever u r speaking to while u speak to them.

      Mind u that is a still JPEG not moving video yet but we are getting to mobile video.
    • This is so true, regarding the silly european carriers choosing wcdma instead of cdma2000, which can be deployed in existing spectrum, since it only needs 1.25mhz of bandwidth. This article does not mention 1xEV-DO, which also runs in 1.25mhz of bandwidth, but delivers 2.4mbps. It is already commercially deployed in South Korea [cdg.org], and Verizon is trialing it in Washington D.C., and San Diego. See here [cdg.org] for details on that. Monet Networks [cdg.org] is also trialing 1xEV-DO.
  • Sure, it's nice having the extra speed, but until I can get always-on access, I'll stick with Mobile Office, which is free.
    • It is always-on, just not unlimited - like GPRS, which is always-on but billed by the Kbyte transferred.

      • It's always-on in the sense that when I request data, it will automatically connect and retrieve that data (charging me for at least one minute). It is not always on in the sense that I can maintain a static TCP connection 24 hours a day. That would use up way too many minutes.

        Maybe you're thinking of the business plan, which charges by the Kb rather than the minute. I can see how that could be always on...

        • the Express Network data session automatically terminates after 5 minutes of inactivity.
        • the Express Network data session automatically terminates after 24 hours of activity.

        Nope, I guess not [verizonwireless.com]. Now if properly implemented, businesses could still send 4 bytes/second, 24 hours a day, and not use up its bandwidth allotment of 10 megs. Maybe 8 bytes/second, 12 hours a day makes more sense.

        Personally I'm holding out for richochet, or some other always-on service. I don't mind paying per meg, but I need the convenience of being able to push data, and I'd like to be able to set a daily usage limit if the allowance is small.

        In the mean time my iPaq sits here only able to sync with the world when it's around an open 802.11 access point. I'd like to install a hard drive with an 802.11 hookup in my car, so I at least have more than 64 megs storage space when I'm in the vicinity of my car, but that's a task I don't yet have the time/money/geekfactor to do.

        • GPRS, used by Voicestream, Cingular and AT&T Wireless, is a competing technology to CDMA2000 1x (i.e. what Verizon uses). I'm sure CDMA2000 services can be billed by the Kbyte, it's just that Verizon has chosen the older per-minute model. Every GPRS operator I know of (mainly in Europe, it's an upgrade of the global GSM mobile phone standard) uses per-Kbyte billing, to encourage people to stay on the network at all times. GPRS phones do have a 'connect' phase, but you can stay connected for days with no extra charges.

          Anyway - the key point is that GPRS and CDMA2000 are both *technically* always-on, but may be implemented with a billing scheme that discourages always-on. Perhaps this is more common in the US, but IMO it's a big mistake. Once people are always-on, they can start doing ad-hoc messaging and web browsing whenever they feel like it, without the connection delay.

  • fix their current stuff (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'd rather have Verizon working on keeping their current basic land-based stuff working - save the new stuff until they can figure out how to reliably keep a point-to-point T1 from fouling up once a month (and yes, so far it's always been Verizon's fault)...

    But I'm not bitter...

  • 144 Kbps (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dirvish ( 574948 )
    It says up to 144 Kbps but with this disclaimer and no further explanation I wonder how fast it really is: 'The Express Network is capable of data speeds bursting up to 144 Kbps. You will experience slower data speeds dependent on network and equipment capabilities and other variables of wireless service.'
    Sounds promising...
    • Do 100 megabit networks ever run at that speed? No, there's TCP overhead. Do 802.11 networks ever run at 11mbps? No, especially when you stick some trees or windows in the way. Same thing.
      • I see your point but wouldn't a wireless network like this be more susceptible to interference and degradation of the supposed 144 Kbps than a wired network?
        Apparently the average is around 50 Kbps (overhhead for wired networks isn't that bad is it? ~65%), which still isn't bad but as other posts mentioned if this takes off the airwaves are going to clogged up and bandwidth will suffer. Oh well, who really wants to post to slashdot on a cell phone anyways.
        BTW, don't cell phones cause cancer?
    • I spoke with a Verizon rep about this. Apparently what you'll get will be more like 80-100k unless you're standing under the tower. Bursts will be more like 128 or 130.
    • I actually have one of these, the Kyocera 2235, that I'm using with a serial cable to do dial-up with the Verizon supplied ISP under Linux. My perception is that it is perhaps marginally faster than landline dialup. I'm pretty happy with it, actually.

      I consider the combination of this with the Sharp Zaurus SL-5500 to be an excellent mobile data solution. Not perfect, but excellent.

  • Sexy but expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @06:57PM (#3454262) Homepage
    144kbps theoretical max. Wonderful stuff, you can even watch streaming movies. At 10 megabytes for $35 [verizonwireless.com], that's $3.69 a minute for that streaming movie. Still interested?
    • Those are the business rates. Personal rates just use your standard minutes, which usually includes thousands of free night and weekend minutes.
      • Unfortunately they don't give the personal rates right now because it's unlimited minutes for the first month. You can expect business rates to be higher than personal rates because business users expect higher reliability. So cut the rate in half. Or a third. Are you willing to pay even that much?

        The rate may be similar to other wireless services, but users learn to use those services sparingly because they're so damn expensive. I just don't see how a higher throughput is preferable when nobody will want to use even a fraction of it.

        Perhaps it will get cheaper (eg. actually useful) down then road, I dunno...

        • Unfortunately they don't give the personal rates right now because it's unlimited minutes for the first month.

          The rate is that it uses your regular minutes. So if you have 300 weekday minutes and 2000 night and weekend minutes, then if you use the express network for 100 weekday minutes then you have 200 left. If you use more than your allotment, I think the charge is $.40/minute.

          So basically unless you're using it mainly nights and weekends, it's expensive, and that's why I haven't signed up for it yet.

    • Can anyone explain why the wireless telcos are willing to exclude so much of the potential userbase with high costs when they seem to have allready comitted to the expense of 3G networks? What do they get out of it without subscribers?
      • It's called the early adopter tax, those that adopt early, have to have the technology at any cost, so they'd rather milk that market for a year or two then move their pricing to near reasonable.

  • Why 3G? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @06:57PM (#3454264) Journal

    Would somebody please tell me what tangible benefits there are to a 3G network? I understand there is a higher transfer rate, but this is meaningless to me until there are services available that warrant it. Checking stock quotes through my cell phone only has limited appeal to me, same thing for email or instant messaging, and these functions are available on existing networks, anyway.

    I guess my real question is: In areas where 3G has been rolled out, what services are available/are popular? 3G is touted as being the Next Big Thing in wireless, but I have yet to see anything that makes me get all that excited.

    • Re:Why 3G? (Score:2, Funny)

      by miracle69 ( 34841 )
      You buy a PCMCIA laptop 3G card and have nation-wide high-speed internet access.

      Two Words:

      ROAD TRIP!

    • Re:Why 3G? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      In Japan, video phones are available. Other similar applications that are possible are streaming video (eg. TV) and streaming audio (eg. radio). And since the better 3G phones have a camera on them, you can capture images (eg. digital camera), video (eg. sorta digital videorecorder), and audio (eg. digital tape recorder) as well. These captured multimedia files can easily be emailed to your friends. And all this fits in your pocket.

      Now ask when the USians are going to get this cool stuff. And then ask how much it costs. :)

      • Re:Why 3G? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by furiousgeorge ( 30912 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @07:10PM (#3454339)
        >>In Japan, video phones are available.

        sure - but does anybody really give a rats ass?

        Seriously - we could all have home videophones now if we wanted, and we don't. Videoconferencing is available, and use useful in some situations, but i think by now it's been shown that the general public could care less about videophones. I know I do... When I'm on the phone the LAST thing i want is the other person to be able to see what i'm doing. Don't know about u, but when i'm on the phone about 10% of my attention is directed to the call and the rest is elsewhere. Not to mention i'm probably in my underwear :)

        Popular Science has been promising us videophones for 50 years. And still nobody cares. 3G needs to find a different killer app.

        • Actually imaging *is* the killer App (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hqm ( 49964 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @08:23AM (#3456507)
          In Japan, the best selling mobile handsets
          are the ones with cameras in them.
          I used a FOMA video phone in Japan, and the reaction I had was that I must get one. It is not
          for showing your face when you talk, but for
          pointing at things, like "I'm trying to unjam
          this printer" or "I'm trying to remove my sink
          in the bathroom, how do I disconnect the water pipes?". And when you have real 30 fps frame rate
          on video, it is qualitatively different experience than
          crappy ISDN video conferencing.

          People will make imaging a mandatory feature
          on phones, when they actually see it. It is only
          the US mobile phone industry that is screwing
          up so badly that we are 2-3 years behind the
          Japanese in terms of technology. WAP was probably
          the cause of at least half the lossage. In Japan,
          they just deployed plain old HTML (i-Mode) on phones and it worked ten times better than
          the WAP garbage that was being pushed in the US
          and Europe.

          • I don't know that it's the US mobile phone industry that's screwing up. If so, then Docomo should be able to spread its standards over here (wait, they are) and the Japanese manufacturers should be able to crush Nokia, Motorola, etc. That isn't happening yet, which would indicate that the japanese don't mind paying upwards of $600 for such a toy, but americans do. Or some similar social difference between Japanese consumers and American consumers.
        • 3G needs to find a different killer app.

          They already have...it's called Gnutella [gnutella.com]

          I have a really great .sig, but I'm not going to share it with you.
    • I think NTT is offering a limited type of videophones. U get to see the persons jpeg image while u talk to them. Also they are offering some entertainment services. More on their site Docomo [nttdocomo.com]
      • Actually DoCoMo offers the genuine article good streaming video on your cell. I think data speeds are between 200 and 400 kb/s, with peaks in the 2mb/s. The main complaint I have heard is that the handsets get rather warm. And the initial rates were pretty steep, but I don't have any idea what voice rates were in Tokyo before their 3G network came in. DoCoMo is using a real 3G network. I believe its CDMA2000, but I'm not 100% sure. Verizon and PCS incidentally are using an intermediate step known as 1xRTT. Its similar in speed to GPRS. Although I guess classified as 3G, assuming its profitable I believe Verizion is planning an upgrade to CDMA 2000. Or atleast Lucent, Nortel, Motorola, Ericsson, and Nokia hope they will.

    • Re:Why 3G? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by terradyn ( 242947 )
      3G is great for the all-in-one mobile device but that is only a big thing in Asian countries where the culture supports the idea of being able to do everything on one device (streaming video, mp3, pictures, cell, sms, im). For the US there just isn't the market or demand for it. Studies have been done by the major communications companies and all came up with the result that it isn't cost effective to spend the money required to upgrade the infrastructure to support 3G (G3). That is the reason why G2.5 is being deployed. They are also considering the idea of G3 in major cities using a cheaper micronetwork architecture and then downgrading to G2.5 features when you leave the city.

    • Yahoo maps and faster email is about the only tangible benefit I'd get from the speed when using 3G on my Ipaq. Add always-on and I'd be able to use MSN Messenger, and access my entire mp3 library from anywhere. Especially nice now that I have an adapter to hook my Ipaq's audio out to my car stereo.

      True 3G is great. Verizon's current network is really 2.5G.

    • Do you remember when the only thing you could get for your new USB port was a USB hub?

      SAME SH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      You need to have infrastructure before companies will invest in creating the killer app.
    • The real benefit only comes when you have a device capable of displaying something more than small amounts of text (although getting your WAP page in 50 seconds vice 65 and thus only being billed one minute instead of two is an advantage. If you do that a lot, you might even notice. :)

      If you can hook up your phone to your laptop or handheld (or are patient and get a smartphone with 3G abilities) then you can do essentially what you do from your desk, from anywhere. Some people do not care about that, which is fine, but for others, it's a worthwhile advantage (I *LIKE* working from wherever I am, and yes, I've done it).

      For the pure voice user, calls will be clearer (the phone will at least have a shot at getting a retransmitted voice packet before it's needed, thus lowering the occurance of drop outs), capacity will be used more efficiently (packet switched vice circuit switched means multiple calls can share the same chunk of spectrum) and batteries will last longer (I have no idea why, but that's what they tell me).
  • I know we have had WAP for a long time but now true mobile Internet will arrive. Wonder what would happen to a site which gets Slashdotted from wireless phones.
  • New Scientist Magazine [newscientist.com] is reporting [newscientist.com] that cellphones, particularly large numbers of them as would be found in a packed commuter train of busily networked folks, could be hazardous.
    Passengers on packed trains could unwittingly be exposed to electromagnetic fields far higher than those recommended under international guidelines. The problem? Hordes of commuters all using their mobile phones at the same time.

    ...

    Mmm - just what I want - to be stuck on BART [bart.gov] with hordes of other techies all busily toasting each other's DNA.



  • According to this [internetnews.com] article

    "Shauna Smith, a wireless industry analyst with ARS Inc., said the Verizon Wireless launch this week was a disappointment for the industry and users looking to capitalize on 3G.
    (Verizon Wireless officials) say the maximum speeds that they provide are 144 Kbps, but actual speeds are 40 to 60 Kbps, which really qualifies it as a 2.5G technology, but it is not technically 3G yet," she said. "What we're looking for in 3G is speeds around 2 Mbps, but we won't see that kind of speed until 2003 or 2004 before we starting touching (that speed). "

    so looks like "3G" is still a overhyped buzzword and not reality yet

  • Might cause more problems than it's worth (Score:4, Informative)

    by miracle69 ( 34841 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @07:08PM (#3454322)
    Besides having the really annoying "Can You Hear Me Now" commercials, this will probably end up being a bad idea.

    The way these things work is that it can allow 1 phone to use up to 6 phones worth of airway resources. Now, during peak times, it's hard to get cell phones out. Now imagine that a large portion of the population is using more than one share worth of resources. I wonder how much incentive Verizon will have to increase their resources by 3-6x.

    I bet this will be damn expensive for about 5-10 years, then we'll get "unlimited downloads" on weekends/nights, etc, until cellular data rates approach current voice deals..

    • Re:Might cause more problems than it's worth (Score:4, Insightful)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @07:18PM (#3454370) Homepage
      Actually... one of the underhyped aspects of 3G (and probably its most important benefit [csc.com]) is that it uses the radio spectrum more effeciently due to the way signals are encoded at the physical layer. It may be two steps back and one step forward, but it won't be quite as bad as you suggest. If users stick to plain normal voice calling, it will be much better.

      This is one of the reasons that 3G is good in Tokya. People there are so densely packed that they were having severe availability problems. 3G is helping with that.

    • Next you will be propsing we all line up for ration cards which will have an amount of airtime entered in it for every month and we will only be able to use that much and doesnt matter if we are travelling businessmen or homemakers with a landline in the room.

      Of course this will increase traffic and if that leads to downgradation of service then the company really sucks but to blame the technology itself?

      I think that runs counter to the free market and the American spirit of enterprise..

  • Author Spedometer (Score:5, Informative)

    by FrankDrebin ( 238464 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @07:09PM (#3454329) Homepage

    It should be noted up front that Verizon predicts 40-60 kbps will be the initial routinely obtained transfer rate in Express Network service, that is, the same as one would expect from a current V.90 dial-up modem. (Still, it's better than 14.4!) The system architecture (currently at the 1X-RTT level) can easily be scaled up to the 3X level, which would give it a 153 kbps transfer rate. The 3X upgrade works by chaining together enough bandwidth for 16 voice calls and delivering them to the same user.

    Some of these statements are inaccurate. 1x-RTT offers rates even beyond 153 kbps today. Verizon is choosing to limit speeds within the scope of 1x-RTT, but 153 kbps is certainly available. 3x takes three 1x channels and sandwiches their spectrum offering max speeds in the Mbps range, not kbps. However, almost no one believes 3x will ever happen, since it requires major changes to the RF portion of the network infrastructure (read: megabucks), and of course like 1x, requires brand new hand sets/modem cards. Far from an easy upgrade.

  • whereas, I routinely got 153 kbps with Ricochet, often exceeding 200 kbpx. I wish they would soon come back!

  • I tried it... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bobcat7677 ( 561727 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @07:11PM (#3454346) Homepage
    I had an opportunity to try out a Laptop that was connected via verizon's new network. The little PC card they supply as an interface option is stinking sexy but that's a separate issue... I would compare the speed to single ISDN. The verizon rep I talked to said the average sustained throughput was 45-65K with the occasional burst to 144K. The brief surfing session I had confirmed that the connection wasn't spectacular. I would say 45-65k is accurate based on my thumb in the air gadge. It does have tangible benifits though. Almost zero wait time to connect, totally wireless and slightly faster then 56k dialup. If travelling was part of my business I would be all over it. Beware of roaming to non-built out areas though: It will work but only at 14.4k.

  • What about mlife? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by pimpinmonk ( 238443 )
    How does this compare to AT&T's sometime-arriving mlife service, which is DoCoMo or so I hear? I am desparately wanting to buy a new phone but don't wanna get burned on getting rapidly-obsolete technology! Is Verizon's 3G equivalent to mlife?

    • Re:What about mlife? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      mLife from AT&T Wireless, and the new offering from Verizon Wireless are very close to each other for 'real world performance'. About the speed of a V.90 56K modem in good signal areas, and dipping around the 28.8/33.6 region in lower signal areas. Everyone is using the modem standards to measure performance, but it isn't the best. Remember the equipment is tethered to whatever you're using (laptop, pocketpc, palm device). This 'tethered' connection is more like an Ethernet connection. So bandwidth is limited, but latency should be faster. I don't know if this is making sense! For nay-sayers who think Verizon Wireless is spot on with BREW, and other new features with their '3G' network just remember that all the other providers (excluding Nextel, and smaller 'rural' carriers like Alltel, Western Wireless, US Cellular etc.) have the same rollouts planned. In fact by the time Verizon Wireless comes to market with BREW enabled equipment the other major providers will have the same sort of offerings to compete, or will be close to rolling out equipment to compete with Verizon.

      What everyone needs to know is all the wireless providers are strapped for cash. I personally think that the real fun stuff will be with either Verizon, or AT&T Wireless. I'm leaning towards the AT&T side because of their relationship with NTT DoCoMo, and rumors of cHTML(rendered html for small devices, no more WAP bullshit) enabled equipment before the end of the year. Also they were the first provider to get a 2.5G network deployed (Seattle, July 2001 I think). Also they're not trying to play up their 2.5G GSM/GPRS network saying it is 3G. Sure. It'll be 3G when they're finished with it in 2003/2004 when the final upgrades rollout. Not until then will AT&T or any other provider really have a 3G network. We will have test markets, and small pockets of fun high-bandwidth stuff. Not anytime soon though. Don't let the marketing fluff cloud your judgement.
  • In Europe we have a system called GPRS which is an enhancement to the existing GSM networks. GPRS gets about 56kbps, although some systems do up to 128kbps I hear (in an ISDN style dual-channel arrangement). In the US though, I hear that GPRS is limited to 19.2kbps-28kbps, which sounds nuts.

    Is 3G also limited in the US? The theroetical maximum speed for 3G in Europe and Japan is 384kbps downlink and 64kbps uplink.. which makes 144Kbps mentioned here sounds kinda pathetic. If I were in the US, I'd stick with GPRS, which is pretty cheap and as fast as logging on with my 56.6kbps modem indoors!

    CNET has an article comparing cellphone data protocols [cnet.com], although it seems to be using the American data rates and lists GPRS as only able to do 28.8kbps!

  • I'm anonymous and probably ignored, but I'll post (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sprint will have a nationwide roll-out of 3G the beginning of this summer, FYI. First provider that will have it with that coverage. Verizon is second closest to rolling it out in more than just test markets.

    I do work at Sprint so I'm not just pulling numbers out of the air.
  • Important consideration: are new phones required to work with this service, or are all of Verizon's currently-available phones (that support wireless web, which seems to be all of them) compatible?
  • I think that maybe the people at the R&D department should take a look at some older technology. High data transfer rates over WAN type distances have been available for a long time; it's just that nobody has implemented it. Hop over to www.skystation.com [skystation.com]. There you will find some technology called meteor scatter. This is where they bounce radio signals off the ion trails from tiny meteors hitting and disintegrating in the upper atmosphere.
  • What a dream flat rate unlimited usage would be. Does anyone at Verizon know if these sort of rate plans will ever happen? The Express Network just piggybacks off your normal wireless rate plan.
    • Unlimited is a long way off...

      They offer per-MB, but the pricing is for "business idiots". If you transfer any amount (don't just sit idle), the per-minute works out better.

      Basically.. with per minute you pay $30/month on top of your normal plan... the you burn your minutes.

      Right now Verizon gives you 4000 night and weekend minutes on all their America's Choice plans.

      On the west coast, Evening starts at 8:00pm. Geeks are out late, right?

      The weekends are great, gives you an excuse to go our war driving or camping.

  • I stopped by a Verizon store on a whim and found out that the service can be obtained on a trial basis for 14 days, after which you can return the phone for a full refund. I already have Sprint PCS data service on my Motorola StarTAC 7867W and I didn't need the higher speeds, so I opted not to keep the service. Service is $30 for Express Network access (you can still get 14.4Kbps CDMA data without that fee), plus a monthly contract to get minutes which are shared between voice and data usage. The prorated amount for my 14 days of usage was:

    • Monthly plan access: $21.77 (14 days of the $45.00 / month plan for 400 anytime minutes)
    • Express network: $14.51 (not $30 because I only used it for 14 days)
    • 411 charges (I called information a couple times): 3 times at $0.99 each = $2.97
    • Taxes: $1.71
    • Total: $41.48
    They refunded my $150 for the phone and data cable upon return with no hassle.

    There was only one phone that supported the service at the time, the Kyocera 2235. I noticed that the voice quality was superior to my StarTAC, especially in analog mode. Since I'm a communications specialist, the lack of codec delays in analog mode was immediately apparent and the sound quality seemed superior to CDMA digital mode.

    The phone was about $75, and I had to pay an additional ~$70 for the data cable, which was a complete ripoff. The data cable package included the Windows driver CD, instructions, and the USB to phone cable itself. The phone didn't come with a belt clip (which I need when I'm in the field), but had indentations on both sides which makes me think that you could buy a clip that snaps onto the phone.

    The windows installation worked fine on my Windows 2000 SP2 partition on my laptop [lightconsulting.com]. The initial data transfers seemed to be modem speeds, but then I realized I was being limited by the network at the peer side. I connected to a site I knew was only a few hops away from the Verizon gateway, and wow, it was fast. It started pushing data at about 140Kb/s raw, in addition to the packet headers. I didn't do anything special to get good reception either - it was about 2 signal bars IIRC on the ground floor of a window office in an industrial park.

    The phone had a real IP, so I did some latency tests using pings. That resulted in about 300-400ms of delay, similar to a dial-up modem, but far worse than the typical 40-50ms on a BRI ISDN link. I didn't play any games, so couldn't tell you what the interactive performace will be like. SSH responsiveness was similar to a 33.6 modem. Ping times were usually within one standard deviation, although it would occasionally glitch and drop a packet or give me a 3000ms return.

    So I tried it under Linux, and found out that the cable wasn't supported. After taking the cable apart, I found out that it contained a Kawasaki KL105 USB to serial chip, which didn't even have a driver written for it. I contacted Kawasaki and got this document [lightconsulting.com] which contained the protocol for the chip. Turns out that the chip comes in several different flavors, some with custom firmware loads, all of which have different protocols. I wrote a preliminary Linux driver for the chip, but ran out of time before my 14 days were up. I think that the driver can do data transfers, but the control line code is still kind of screwed up. Email me if you want a copy of the driver source.

    The chip provides transfer speeds of up to 230Kbps, which is necessary to support the 153Kbps maximum speed of the network plus the packet overhead from the phone. The phone itself uses 11 pins of it's connector to talk to the chip in the cable. The PCB in the cable wart contains a power jack so you can charge the phone and use the cable at the same time, which is nice because the power connector from the AC adapter is mechanically incompatible with the data cable - you can't have both plugged into the bottom of the phone at the same time. The power lines account for 2 of the eleven pins, and I assume the other 9 are the standard 9 serial pins. Tracing the pins made me think that the UART outputs from the phone were electrically compatible with TIA-232, although I couldn't confirm it for sure.

    When I returned the phone, I found that they now have DB-9 serial cables which don't require any special driver software - you just plug one end into the phone and the other end into the computer. Note that this will limit your speed to 100Kbps, because most serial ports have a line rate of 115Kbps, but you have the protocol overhead which will limit you to 100 Kbps given a standard packet size histogram for someone browsing the web. Those cables are still overpriced, so I'd recommend looking on eBay or contacting your local plastic injection firm and asking them if they're interested in a little side business :)

    • Full time RV user here... I have the 2235 and use Express Network (writing this post with it).

      All you have to do is get the 9-pin serial cable for the Kyocera 3035. It uses a different power connector, but it can be made to work with the 2235's pretty easy (careful insertion, or cut and put a new connector on the end).

      The 3035 Serial Cable can be purchased for $30 from many mail order supply houses. I think Sprint stores even sell it for that. YOU DO NOT need any special software, just the right config.

      I find the 115Kbps speed doesn't limit anything. I tried with with the USB cable too, found no speed difference. I never get more than 100K anyway...

      I have mine working with OpenBSD (3.1 Snapshot) without problem.

      The latency is exactly as you describe, stinks.
    • Kyocera sells the serial and USB cables, a belt clip, cable to go directly to a Palm III or V (not the newer Palms :( ) software to sync the address book (and maybe other stuff, I don't have it yet) and some other useful accessories from their online store. Thesupplynet.com is working on a cable to go from this phone to the Sharp Zaurus SL-5500 (oh, the joy!).

      Using the serial cable and a supported USB-serial adapter it works fine for me under Linux. These are the settings you need:
      init string = AT$QCMDR=3
      serial speed = 115200
      phone number = #777
      username = @vzw3g.com
      password = vzw
  • The last time I looked into TCP/IP over RF, people were arguing that forward error correction was much better than retransmitting, because TCP is happiest with latencies that are relatively consistent and vary relatively slowly.

    On a wire, bit errors are almost a non-issue, so TCP assumes that a retransmission is the result of congestion. If you force a retransmission every time a bit is bogus, that assumption is problematic.

    The article made it sound like this system relies on NAK-ing and retransmitting packets.

    On the lighter side, didja notice that one of the applications listed as finally becoming possible was streaming audio? Just think -- soon we'll be able to get sound over our telephones! Amazing what we can do these days.
    • That's an excellent observation. (I can say that because I design these 1xRTT networks for a living) RLP does play havoc with TCP. Never fear though. The throughput reports are still accurate. And 153.6kbps isn't the maximum rate. 153.6kbps is the maximum (currently deployed) rate of the suplimental channel. There's another channel that all mobiles, voice or data, use; the fundamental channel. The fundamental channel gets 9.6kbps. So the max rate is 153.6 + 9.6 = 163.2kbps. Anyway, your concern is valid, but all it really means is that the speeds would be better if TCP could get along better with wireless frame (or bit) error rates. Optimization of the TCP stack for a wireless environment is possible, but it would really need to be done on the sending and recieving end. Since most internet users are wireline, that probably won't happen except on sites intended for mobile users. Oh, and the standards groups are working on TCP stack recommendations for wireless applications. Expect speeds to go up about 20% for free when that happens.
  • Wow, this is great. Now Verizon can fail to deliver my phone calls at even greater rates. They have great commercials but their service leaves much to be desired. My friend and I have fun leaving voice mail messages to each other when we are in the same room with our phones on within sight of two cell towers.

    -Nails-

  • Burn some karma here? (Score:3, Funny)

    by XBL ( 305578 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @08:02PM (#3454560)
    This is an important pubic notice. Putting mobile phones in your front pockets or in your Levi's "Mobile Pants" can give you testicular cancer.

    Using the 3G Network will give you cancer 3x faster than current phones. It's also 3x more likely that you will have a child that looks like Bill Gates of Ozzie Osbourne.

    Finally, this bill [house.gov] also protect you from talking dirty or sending dirty messages over your cell phone. Please men, talk dirty on the phone, and use those testicles while you still have them!

  • Tried and quit (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I signed up for Verizon's Express Network while they were offering the unmetered access promotion in February. The service was $30/mo in addition to a regular calling plan, the cheapest of which at the time was $35/mo as well if I remember correctly. That's $70/mo once the nickel-and-dime taxes and other charges are included.

    Objectively, speeds rarely got to 56kbps; I think nothing needs to be said about their fanfared 144kbps. Subjectively, web pages didn't seem to load much faster than they do on Verizon's regular cellular data network.

    Browsing the web, checking my email, and making phone calls on my iPaq with the Sierra AirCard in the PCMCIA sleeve was really cool, but there was a problem. The AirCard is not a tri-mode or even a dual-mode cellular device. Translation: don't plan on using the AirCard for trips. It only works on Verizon's digital network, which is not nearly as complete as they would lead you to believe. If you'd like a phone that still functions as you travel around, you either need to buy the Kyocera 1x-RTT phone or activate an entirely separate phone (with analog capability) and account with Verizon. I discovered this fact *after* purchasing the AirCard for $299. Fortunately, Verizon has a 14-day return policy, so I went back and exchanged the card for the Kyocera phone, a data cable, and money.

    I never could get my iPaq/Kyocera combination to login to the Express Network, even after three long, drawn-out calls to Verizon customer service. (The combination works flawlessly logging in to a local ISP at 19.2kbps.)

    I cancelled my Express Network service. Even unmetered access wasn't worth hanging on to.

  • Obsured (Score:4, Informative)

    by Xrkun ( 160736 ) on Thursday May 02, 2002 @08:28PM (#3454614)
    I work for Verizon Wireless in Rochester NY. We've been playing around with it, testing it etc... Well, here's the scoop. Right now the speed is about 128K (ISDN speed) and about as expensive. My phone is free because I'm on call 24 x 7 and they want me to support this product. However, they want to charge us, the employees, 30 bucks a month to have it. My boss won't let me expense it and I'm not about to pay for the service. However, the best use I've had with it is when I connect with my laptop and VPN into work. It's actually not too bad. I'm normally a very impatient person but I have to say that even with the encryption overhead, I was able to obtain my mail, logon to the network and even my CISCO softphone worked! (Boss, I'll be working from my pool today.) I did some benchmarks on the speed of the connection and with our special software, we average about 11K to both local broadband access providers. (Basically I ftped a 5 meg picture from my digital camera to both the Time Warner Roadrunner ftp server and Frontier's Lightning link ftp server.)
    • However, they want to charge us, the employees, 30 bucks a month to have it. My boss won't let me expense it and I'm not about to pay for the service.

      Ever hear of Unreimbursed business expenses?

      Hint it's a deduction on your taxes.

      • Ever hear of Unreimbursed business expenses?

        If you like that I'd be happy to give you an additional $5000 itemized deduction. Just mail me a check for $5000 for "income tax consulting". It's a perfectly legal deduction, feel free to call the IRS and ask them.

  • I have GPRS with ATT wireless and I love it. I can get speeds up to 56-65k on my cell phone using my laptop via bluetooth. It makes mobile computing so much better. I just cant wait until we get broadband speeds on cell phones. Also I heard the system ATT is using is a 2.5G network so verizon might be a little bit faster. The cost per MB is still expensive though probably.
  • I am a full time geek in a RV. My wife and I live full time in a 35 foot RV and operate web sites and do software development.

    We carry multiple cell phones, both Verizon and Sprint. We already have the Kyocera 2235 and the Express Network.

    We just installed some servers at HE.NET in Fremont and spent a week in the Bay Area using the 3G... we are right now in Portland area (heading our way to Seattle).

    The biggest problem: High latency and terrible routing. All the traceroutes go to New York and Back for west coast paths! I was parked in the Hurricane Electric parking lot and the traceroute to my co-located server went to NEW YORK CITY and back!

    395ms to ping the local router... so just getting on stinks.

    It is better than the 14.4 service - but still has "issues".

    Also - Verizon won't let you get the service unless you have a phone in the service area! I have my official residence in Seattle, but I had to get a Portland phone number before they would let me active the service (Express Nework is available in Portland, but not Seattle).

    Bleeding edge :)

    Sprint's plan is to turn on nationwide all at once in July. Can't wait.
  • This has already been discussed here several times. See this article [slashdot.org] and this one. [slashdot.org] By the way, I've been installing these networks for Verizon, Sprint and a few other (smaller) service providers. I've had quite a lot of experience testing them and I typically see speeds of about 8-9KB/s If I am in an area where the signal is strong and there is not a lot of other traffic on the cell, rates increase to about 11-12KB/s.

    Also, this is a 3G network. See the other articles I just mentioned for more info.

  • This has been discussed here several times before. See this article [slashdot.org]and this one. [slashdot.org]
    By the way, I have been installing these networks for Sprint, Verizon and a few other smaller service providers for about the last year. So, of course I have tested them dozens of times. The actual throughput is usually about 8-9KB/s. In an area where the signal is strong and the cell does not have a whole lot of other traffic these rates go up to more like 11-12KB/s. The amount of traffic on a cell will impact these speeds because the burst rate is negotiated between the switch, cell and CPE and depends on the amount of data being transfered and the available resources on the cell. Bursts typically last about 5 seconds and then have to be negotiated again. So, this system can use a lot of resources but will only use them when they are available.
    Also, this is 3G. See the articles I just mentioned for a lot more info.
  • ...Verizon's coverage sucks.
  • Dont they cover like 3 states that arent even the big city states? Verizon hasnt been the leader in customer service or service period.
  • I've been using Verizon's Express Network since its initial rollout in February. I chose to get the cute little Aircard instead of changing my phone which also meant getting a seperate cellular account just for data. Its not such a bad deal if you're in the coverage areas a fair bit. Particularly if you use the service during off-peak times when you can take advantage of their 3000 and 4000 minute off-peak promotions.

    I average about 30-50kbps, though I have seen 70+kbps on a few occasions during file transfers. The included venturi compression helps with basic web browsing and text email. I find it generally faster than the lower speed CDMA offering (Verizon calls it "Mobile Office").

    An intersting note - I was testing this one day on the high speed Acela Express train between Boston and NYC and was able to run a ping test for about 20 minutes while the train was doing 150 MPH outside of the Providence RI area. The signal would drop for periods of time but the connection would not be lost entirely and the ping would resume when the signal returned. Trying this same test with the low speed circuit switched data service was virtually impossible since I couldn't keep the connection up for more than a few minutes at 150MPH.

    If the pricing were a bit better for the "always on" plans ($35/10MB through $150/150MB) this would be an incredible offering.
    • just a correction- "Mobile Office" referrs to the software/cable used to connect the phone to the computer, not just the CDMA dialup service. I too have been using the Express network since it became available a few months ago, but I turned in my aircard when they told me I needed a new account and just opted for the Kyocera 2235 and the "Mobile Office Kit", which lets me hook up to the 3G network.
  • I have been using the service since the day it came out and had a ton of luck with it. I have used it in my iPaq and Laptop, no problem with either. Thru VPN, no problem. I routinely get express net coverage in the boston and NYC areas and had tremendous luck connecting thru the 2G networks in Cincinnati, upstate NY, DC, many others. I have used it in data and phone mode extensively and had little trouble. In building and out it works fine.

    I am amazed at how many people respond about the commericals or non-article related posts. Can we pretend to stay on topic.
  • I would humbly suggest that anyone who contracts with Verizon for any kind of service will be very sorry in the end. Their coverage, technical support, and customer service are the worst of any telecom company I have ever dealt with - and that is saying a lot. It took me 5 months and 6 letters cc'ed to the President and Corporate Counsel to break a contract when it was clear to everyone involved that Verizon just didn't have a signal anywhere near that area. Personally, I call selling a service you can't actually provide, billing for it, and sending threatening duns "mail fraud", but I guess that is how Verizon does business.

    sPh

  • I have this service for work, and although it isn't cable/dsl/isdn/name-your-favorite-high-rate-line-h ere, it is functional for what I need. Figure it this way, you are on the road going from meeting to meeting when a mission-critical service on your internal network goes down. From inside the airport, you fire up your laptop, plug in the phone, connect, and tunnel into your network using your vpn client. Start ssh with your favorite server, and start diagnosing the problem...we are talking text here folks...the server/router/etc... comes back up, you are a hero, and business continues normally. No hunting for an analog port. No hunting for an internet cafe. No kidding. Fix the problem right now. No, its not the fastest, but it is -less- frusterating than being bumped from the older cell dial-ups, and there is no waiting for the person on the only analog-capable pay phone at the airport who wants to tell their family about how Shamu V.23 soaked them and then they got to fling a dead fish at the captive whale as a reward....

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close