Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware Technology

2gbps Wireless Network Rollout this Summer 122

Posted by Hemos from the break-out-the-handsets dept.
cpfeifer writes "Washington Post has this article about Verizon rolling out it's ultrawideband wireless service based on EvDO (Evolution Data Only). Reiter breaks 1xEV-DO down for us."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2gbps Wireless Network Rollout this Summer More

2gbps Wireless Network Rollout this Summer

Comments Filter:
  • If so how much?
    • i would expect the charges to be similar to express network--$99.00 for unlimited usage. i am online 3-4 hours a day and haven't been booted. i could not get dsl in my area, but for double the cost i use wireless and get 88k. it is suprisingly useful and supposedly can go up to 144k. bandwidth can be overrated. being able to connect anywhere is very cool--almost anywhere...
    • EVDO and 1xEV-DO and "evolution data". New terms this week. What actually are we talking about that is different from last week's new pnemonics. Anybody ever thought that half the readers have no idea what you're talking about? Pnemonics are great, but remember your audience!

  • When can _I_ use it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rearl ( 262579 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:09PM (#5529264)
    I hate reading about this stuff. It seems to take years from when I read about it until something filters down to where I can use it. And then, it always seems to cost a fortune. Is it just me?

  • Sounds Pricey (Score:3, Insightful)

    by silvakow ( 91320 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:11PM (#5529282)
    It declined to comment on prices; a spokeswoman said the initial target market will be business customers.

    Looks like I won't be seeing it for a good, long time. By the time we consumers see it, it will probably be fairly bogged down. I love being the kill-joy.

    • Haha (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sulli ( 195030 )
      Usually when the "initial target market is business customers" this means cost is $100/month or more. Meanwhile, wardriving is free. Which do you choose?

  • Am I missing something? (Score:5, Informative)

    by justin_speers ( 631757 ) <`ten.tsacmoc' `ta' `sreepsaj'> on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:12PM (#5529289)
    2gbps? The article says 2.4mbps... 2gbps would be really cool :)

  • Another overblown title (Score:5, Informative)

    by eqteam ( 322882 ) <jasonNO@SPAMeqteam.com> on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:14PM (#5529304)
    This is not 2gbps nor is it "ultrawideband". As we all know, 1xEV-DO is more like 2Mbps, and the story is quoted as saying it "Ultra Fast Wireless", not UWB.

  • Why 2gbps.... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by DJPenguin ( 17736 )
    ... when you can't even get 56kbps right.

    And do the mean 2gbps? What's a little g? 2Gbps would be smoking. Note the big G.

    • Re:Why 2gbps.... (Score:3, Funny)

      by vrt3 ( 62368 )
      What's a little g?

      9.81 kg.m/s^2
      So 2gbps would be something like 19.62 kg.m.b/s^3.

    • If only I had mod points... ;) You are correct in your statement though. 2 gigabits per second would be a very fast wireless speed. I doubt it if we will see those kind of speeds any time soon though. I wouldn't mind the big B in there though. Sorry for the pun, but you have to admit gigabytes per second would be even better. I think my 8086 board would probably burn up though. hehe

  • NOT Ultra-Wide Band (Score:5, Informative)

    by univgeek ( 442857 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:14PM (#5529308)
    This is in fact not even CDMA - the voice technology used by Verizon. It is a TDMA technique which uses the fact that data is NOT delay-sensitive to increase the data-rate by waiting out 'bad times'.
    The technology provides a high bandwidth to users who are in 'less noisy' areas, where the signal is powerful, and a lower rate, delayed stream to users who are in 'more noisy' areas.

    The technology is Qualcomm's and they are coming up with a hybrid voice-data called EV-DV where DV = Data Voice).

    • Re:NOT Ultra-Wide Band (Score:2, Informative)

      by pshuman ( 68722 )

      This is in fact not even CDMA - the voice technology used by Verizon. It is a TDMA technique which uses the fact that data is NOT delay-sensitive to increase the data-rate by waiting out 'bad times'.

      The second link [weblogger.com] in the post clearly states that 1xEV-DO is CDMA. Qualcomm [qualcomm.com] also agrees. Traditional CDMA was standardized as IS-95 and 1xEV-DO has been standardized as IS-856 if you want to read more about the technology.

      Also note that it is 2.4Mbps peak per cell sector, per cell carrier. So if you and you

    • It is more of a hybrid as it is CDMA but uses time divided slots. UMTS will likely adopt a similar technique too.
    • So how does this differ to something like Motorola's Canopy [motorola.com]? The difference appears that the base station radios may be used for other things (like voice). The Canopy stuff supports bit rates of about 4.3mbit per sector and delivers on that. A Canopy base station equipment costs about $8500 and that covers an area of about 2mi diameter in a fully deployed system but a single access point is about $1000.

  • I can't wait until this "just happens" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:19PM (#5529355) Journal

    For years now, we've been getting the wireless internet dick tease and it hasn't really happened on a grand scale. I know that a lot of folks are probably going to say "yeah, but this is the real thing..." However, I am going to argure that it isn't. I think that the "REAL THING" will happen when people realize that all the world needs is just one big 802.11? blanket. Everything and anything connecting to each other for standard ports only and blocking everything else. No need for privacy since that is a thing of the past, just open the floodgates and let it happen. Once that happens, the wired Internet will dissipate into the background...

    Find out why it is that Slashdot's moderation system is broken by clicking here... [slashdot.org]

    • fade into the background? I think not, when there is still a significant difference between a wired and a non wired network.
      • That difference will fade... That's when it will happen. That's why I said 802.11? The standard that will make it happen isn't here yet. It will need to be at least 100Mb/s for clients and 1000Mb/s for servers/aps. At that point, I think you will see things like cell phones and radios (both analogue and digital) being replaced by a new more flexible digital communications device. One that can carry the dominant forms of media:

        -text
        -audio
        -video
        -executable

        • It will never be faster though. Don't you see that. even 802.11a in turbo mode, which claims 72mbps can only pull it off if your within like 10 feet of the access point. The fact is, that wires are already laid to our house, so why would I want something wireless that will cut out when theres a heavy storm or if my tree in my front yard is in full bloom and cutiing line of site?
          • That's now... just wait a few years and you'll see wireless in the gigabit range. Of course wired will always be faster and will be used for backbone stuff, but "Joe Average" is NEVER going to need the bandwidth that wired provides. Does Joe Average need it today? No.
            • how about high quality streaming videos to your home instead of renting movies, I'd like bandwidth for that. Or maybe making VPN more viable for companies. You sound like those people that told me a 1 GB hard drive was more space than I was EVER going to need, when I bought my IBM 6 years ago.
              • Yeah yeah... too much is never enough and all that jazz. But you know what? DSL at 608K is plenty for streaming movies into the home. I regularly watch MPEGs and DiVX files with my 802.11 card at about 2 Mb/s average speed. No skipping and it looks great. If I had a 802.11g card, it would I could watch these at DVD quality. Your argument still holds no
                water. BTW... I never thought 1 Gig was enough back then. I have .75 terabytes worth of drives at home right now. Not sure where you are drawing yo
                • I garantee you didn't have .75 terabytes, 6 years ago, when the first 1 GB IDE hard drives were coming out, and then the 1.6 GB hard drives. Don't be stupid, and lol, you only have .75 Terabytes. :) I have my home file server loaded with 6 180GB IDE drives. I pushed .75 a long time ago. Ummm... Your forgetting latency. Try streaming an actual DVD quality movie, which is about 900 KBps over your wireless. Goodluck. And I am hoping that quality gets higher and doesn't just stay the same, enough is never enou
              • You also seemed to miss the point I was making before. I didn't say that 802.11b at 2-10 Mb/s is what people should always use. I was just saying that "Joe Average" never needs the high-end. You don't sound like "Joe Average" to me.

  • But how much speed do you need? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vwpau227 ( 462957 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:20PM (#5529372) Homepage
    I am currently using GSM/GPRS for my wireless connectivity needs on my handheld (a PalmOS deice) and it's certainly enough for what I need on this sort of platform. Since this device only has 8MB of RAM a 2Gbps connection to the Internet using 1xEvDO won't do me a lot of good. Even on my Notebook computer, I don't need this much connectivity. This is especially the case if I have to pay a premium price of it.

    Part of the problem for Sprint and Verizon is that they have put out a lot of money for data networks that are not being used. Current 1xRTT usage is nowhere near the levels that were once forecast. The truth of the matter is that msot mobile wireless users are using PDAs and other handheld devices don't need these "high speed" data services yet. Until there is such a demand, I see little reason for these carriers to put in the capital required to roll out these services.

    • Well it seems to me that that are saving themselves in the long run. 5, maybe 10 years from now there are going to be some powerful devices using the networks and probably lots of 'em.

    • Re:But how much speed do you need? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:39PM (#5529520)
      Ah, but when you have your gsm phone bluetoothed (or tethered) to your laptop, then you have access in a significantly larger area than any measly WiFi hotpoints. Combine this with vpn, and one can easily extend their corp networks to those in the field. This means that people like real estate agents can get listings away from their offices, your appliance repair person can lookup a part and order it without involving a phone rep (cheaper for the repair company), and myriad other things that my feeble brain can't come up with right now. While private use may be lagging, I think that this type of techology will open up some very interesting possibilities in the business sector.
    • If they are under used, I got something for ya....HOW ABOUT REDUCING THE FRICKIN PRICE! Sorry for yellin. But seriously...you'd have to desparately need it or be real nutty to pay 40 EXTRA on top of your Cell bill for only a measly 10 MB per month! I pay around that for my Cable modem and I download WAY MORE then 10 MB a NIGHT and that would be just browsing. Does not count when I download a distro. I would pay like 10 extra to get the minimum and maybe 40 for unlimited. Then it WOULD get used by me e
    • Even on my Notebook computer, I don't need this much connectivity.

      Is this the same notebook computer that has 640k of RAM? Because that's enough for anybody.

  • Break Out A Thousand Handsets... (Score:5, Informative)

    by FrankDrebin ( 238464 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:22PM (#5529386) Homepage

    ...if you want 2 Gbps. The 1xEV-DO carrier supports up to 2.4 Mbps total bandwidth (ie. you share it with all other users of the channel). Spin it any way you want, it's still better than 14.4k dialup, but a far cry from wireline broadband.

  • "wireless service based on EvDO (Evolution Data Only)"

    actually, it should be "wireless service based on P2pDO (Peer2Peer Data Only)"

  • mad bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mrtroy ( 640746 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:26PM (#5529434)
    Really, what "good" use does joe blow have for having anything faster than about 100kb/sec, especially if you are including on their cellphone/pda/etc. The main things an overload of bandwidth brings with it is
    1. More porn downloading. And higher res!
    2. More games/movies/mp3 downloading...now I can download the 4.3 gig version (one dvd) of the movie still in theaters instead of the measely 1.2 gig version (2cds)
    3. Abuse. Hey...now I can packet you.

    To be completely serious now, bandwidth does have its advantages. I also notice a large difference between surfing the internet @ work *cough*, and surfing the internet at home.

    But, all I would like to bring across is that if you give someone a truckload of bandwidth, they are going to abuse it. Just like if you give someone a billion dollars, they wont be as economically sound with it as they would with a thousand dollars. After all, more bandwidth is nice, but it costs more somewhere, it doesnt magically appear.

    (I also do not condone/perform any of those 3 items on my list, excluding 1-3 which I may be known to sometimes do sometimes)

    And happy Saint Paddy's Day! Green beer for all, and possibly a presidential announcement that iraq is going to get blown up. At least the pres will be drunk during it.

  • Faster Connection & Security? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VGMSupreme ( 228396 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:32PM (#5529484) Homepage
    I am all for faster connection speeds. I would like to be able to download software apps at something faster than 30-100 kbps (depending on that site I am at). I am sure this will benefit tons of people, but I do have a few questions. Yes, I read the article, but I am still unsure about a few things.

    1) As always, service tends to go down, no matter what ISP you are using. So I was wondering how reliable this service will be when it gets up and running. I know Verizon is already known for it good service on cell phones, but I just want to make sure that it won't go down as often as RR, or any other Cable/DSL ISP.

    2) For the wireless people, how are they going to provide security for using this faster connection (if any would be provided. I am not sure if it is the company's or the customer's responsibility for the security of data transmitted over a wireless connection)

    3) Would this service require more digging/repairing/installing new component and ripping out the old on, or are they going to build on top of existing hardware/software already in the works?

    I know that some of these questions sound stupid to the average /.er, but I am just trying to understand a few things, and just like my mom taught me, there is no harm in asking.
    • my experience has been good in chicago. oddly enough evanston--northwestern u--has a crappy cell network, so my connection there blows. but, at home i measured 88k. connections are stable and i have not dropped any in 3 months of service. since i am essentially an ip address i block my tablet from access--security!... but likwise, if you are using a "secure" servic as opposed to telnet or something, you are secure--correct me if i'm wrong, i'm a lowly designer... the article states that new cards, drivers,
    • The wireless network itself is CDMA based which takes more than the average person to pull your signal out of the myriad of others within the cell's coverage.

      Secondly this is going to be mainly a business venture so most customers will be connected to a VPN client and those are encrypted also.

      Verizon also uses Lucent cell towers in seattle and SF which do not require anything but a few minor components to be replaced at the cell tower and a new software load at the cell processor.

      The only other thing in

  • Excellent... (Score:5, Funny)

    by archetypeone ( 599370 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:34PM (#5529491) Homepage
    Checklist for Summer -

    Shorts
    Sunblock
    Cold Beer
    Tinfoil Hat
    • For a practical alternative to mind-control, that would also satify the need for the last item in your list, check out (be sure to download the PDF, print it out and hang it on your cube wall, just to let everyone know that you don't take kindly to mind-control):
      Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie [zapatopi.net]
  • I just wonder when there will be support for Gigabit wireless devices in Linux.
    IIRC the support for Gigabit ethernet adapters came in the 2.4.x release.
  • Average Internet User: My hard drive used to take a week to fill up with pr0n but thanks to Verizon, it crashed from overloading in only 5 minutes... Thank you Verizon!

  • Better use (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:57PM (#5529654)
    Wouldn't it be cool if they allocated a little more bandwidth to the voice channel instead of allowing users to "download a spreadsheet" to their phone? When I can't tell you're calling from a cell phone, I'll be willing to listen to claims of high bandwidth.
    • Oh I dunno, I already have a hard time telling a CDMA phone call from a regular wired call. If anything is noticeable, it's the extra delay, especially when both ends are cell phones. But the voice quality at 13kb/s is fine by me.

      Disclaimer: I work for Qualcomm.

      Phil

  • EvDO, a new Wireless High-Speed Technology (Score:3, Informative)

    by rpiquepa ( 644694 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:58PM (#5529660) Homepage
    For more information about this wireless technology, please read this column [weblogs.com]. And for more comments abot today''s Washington Post article, check this one [weblogs.com].
  • it will be run by the phone company.
    • You are thinking of Verizon Communications. Verizon Wireless is fairly independent of VZC although they are a business unit of VZC.

  • DEVO (Score:2)

    by frankmu ( 68782 )
    i think there's a licensing issue here. lets see who gets sued first
  • It's freaking INSIDE the beltway. I wish I could move in there but it's to damn expensive.
  • Need I say more.
  • If this new service is as good as Verizons cell phone coverage in Northern VA, I wouldn't bother with it. You won't get a reasonable signal when you are stationary never mind if you are on the move.

    Of course, the same can be said for almost all of the cell phone providers for N.VA. I know, I have tried them all.
  • Here's a paper I wrote a few months ago entitled

    The Evolution towards 3G and Beyond

    http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~jgryn/research/evolution 3g .pdf
  • It seems like everyone is always talking about downstream speed like that is all that matters.. Actually, latency and packet loss are often times more important. I remember when everyone was saying that broadband by sat would take out terristerial networks.. These people didn't understand how far the radio wavs had to go. Latency on Sat connections sucks - bad.. Unless your just doing bonehead http surfing, it really slows things down.

    I use Verizon Wireless data connection on my CDMA cell phone and have f
  • Even with the event of this new high-speed data transmission; one would think that if WiFi ever reached even 70% coverage in a populus that maybe a "WiFi enabled" or even a "WiFi Only" mobile phone wouldn't be that far-fetched? I mean, for the casual user, imagine no charge calling...ever? (negating that WiFi networks you're on are free) 'course business users will still require real cells being WiFi is typically a hotspot paradigm.
  • Just like saying I have 2 grand = $2000, 2gbps means 2 grand bits per second

  • The article blew it - kinda - on one point... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @06:43PM (#5532546) Journal
    One barrier to rollout of EvDO has been that the technology requires wireless companies to set aside valuable airwaves just to carry data.

    Not really.

    You can just put the voice on the same packet stream. Use MPLS and a bandwidth-reservation protocol to reserve a slice of the channel, giving the voice connection the necessary bandwidth and latency gurarntees for voice service. Non-phone-call packet servcie get everything left over after the currently-active phone calls reserve their cut.

    This also lets the phone company charge you a telephone-ish rate for the reserved bandwidth. Charge cell-phone minutes for a phonecall-sized reserved slice, flat rate for taking your chances.

    They can also do multi-tier billing:

    - Charge regular rate for a cellphone-quality compressed connection.

    - Charge a premium (1 1/2 cell minutes per minute?) for a landline-quality 64kbps (plus overhead) slot and run G.711 (like a DOCSIS-compliant POTS-over-cable box) or some other DS0-in-packets protocol. Run your fax machine via your cellphone at full rate. (Or your laptop's 56k modem if you're feeling silly, or can't get hold of the right cables and software.)

    (If the base has a LOT of capacity they might just want to charge the same for 64k as for other calls, or just make all calls 64k: They take more bandwidth than compressed but are a straight encoding of a digital phone line, so the don't require a bunch of DSP crunch at the POTS/packet gateway.)

    - Charge a discount (1/2 cell minute per minute?) for highly-compressed voice.

    - Maybe charge a steeply discounted premium rate for, say, participating in an outbound multicast group to hear a broadcast stream. (Think XM radio or webcasts via your cellphone, or at least via its network infrastructure.)

    And so on.

    Maybe let you make premium-priced bandwidth reservations on any suitable stream, rather than just those that represent calls via, or broadcasts from, their own servers.

    This lets you take your own choice:

    - Make an internet "free" phonecall, and take your chances on voice quality. If it's breaking up too badly:

    - Reconnect (or promote) the call to a reserved-bandwidth service if the net weather is stormy.

    - Pay different rates for different quality connections. Sound just like a POTS landline for a bit extra. Sound like a cheap long-distance carrier if you're on a budget.

    Now the carrier might want to limit the percentage of bandwidth that can be reserved, so a heavy phone day will only slow, not stop, internet access. But there's no need to earmark a bunch of channels and install a bunch of hardware JUST for the low-dollar IP packets.
  • I would love something like this in my home, even if it was at 144k/s. I'd love DSL or Cable or anything with decent downloads and good pings. Sadly I doubt I'll see this come to little Camden WV, where basically putting broadband out here would justify the cost of doing it because all of 4 people (and maybe a couple cows and sheep) would subscribe. I hope for the day that maybe they either put a remote DSLAM out here or replace the current SLC-96 with a Litespan. Anybody know if that Verizon Virtual Of

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close