Review Of Verizon's New Wireless Network

jagger writes "The service gives you the speed of broadband, the ease of WiFi and the coverage of cellular... sort of. The service is currently rolled out in Washington D.C. and San Diego, CA but offers speeds comparable to broadband. Read the full review from Rob Pegoraro of the Washington Post at Yahoo News."

sign me up.

[Brigadier]

I have to give some credit to Verizon for really putting their competitors to shame. I pay $30 a month for DSL thats 1024/256 Mb/s I get excellent customer service. I had been an earthlink customer prior to this for over 5 years and got tired of there ever creeping up prices. My only concern here is it seems this is basically WiFi via there current cell phone network. if so then again we are going to run into the local bells muscling the market.

Re:Suspicious...

[twilightzero]

I agree, as the article says probably nobody will get it except those who can write it off as a business expense. Unless the price drops precipitously it will quickly become just another service that home users will never get - think Nextel 2-way wireless radio on your cell phone. Nobody gets it except companies who can drop the money and write it off.

Good idea..

[brain1]

Lets see.. I pay $50 / month for DSL. I also have to pay for a $20 / month "basic phone" line just to get the DSL. By basic, it's just a dial tone, no caller id, no features, even the ringer stays turned off so I dont have to deal with telemarketers. I could care less about it. I get free long distance, 400 anytime minutes, free nights and weekends, and free mobile-to-mobile minutes on my wireless phone. Plus voice mail, caller ID and I can take it anywhere. So why do I need a wired phone? Just so Bellsouth can establish DSL service. Yuck! It stands as an emergency 911 phone in case the wireless phone's battery is dead (if ever..).

That means I already pay $70 / month just to get DSL. I already have Verizon Wireless, so I might qualify for some kind of package deal discount.

The wireless phone I have is already a data-capable G3 phone. Possibly just a flash upgrade will enable the higher rates. So, I am probably out just a USB cable to get online. Anywhere, whenever. Hmmm.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

You know, it seems that where the telco's dropped the ball with fiber-to-the-curb, the wireless providers stand to prosper using RF.

Re:Suspicious...

[iminplaya]

...those who can write it off as a business expense. Unless the price drops precipitously...

The gov't will have to raise taxes to make up for lost revenue.

Security?

[pholower]

The article didn't go in depth (or mention at all) about security the wireless service uses. If this is something that is widespread, I only hope that the security is something to be applauded. I would hate for a user in the home to go to their bank and enter their information only for the ever lurking hacker/cracker to gain access to their information.

Does anybody know of the security protocals used for this?

Re:Suspicious...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I bet you could get better service by wardriving."

Yeah, it makes a lot more sense to go around looking for hotspots rather than having broadband access whereever you are. I can just see you running around looking for a free cell spot because you don't want to pay cell phone charges.

Re:Suspicious...

[ezzzD55J]

Indeed, but what if you could replace your home connection and phone? It'd be worth $80..

Re:On a related note ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> At first I didn't realize what was going on (being that I was late for class, and rushing like crazy). But then it dawned on me, that this was a fake AP setup to steal real verizon user-names and passwords. Pretty slick if you ask me.

No kidding! OK, so now that we know, how do we ID the fake APs to avoid 'em? Always enter a bogus login first, or?..

$80/month must be a business expense??

[Tailhook]

"But at $79.99 a month, it's only a good deal to those who can write it off as a business expense."

Grrr. I'm paying $60 for a (highly rate limited due to the # of subscribers) 256Kbps 802.11 uplink, $99 for 128Kbps IDSL (yeah, I know it's just repackaged ISDN) because the former is too unreliable, and $15 for a decent dial-up to backup all the others because I can not afford not to have a connection! If I thought it would help I would kill someone to get 600Kbps for $80.

You can not function in the modern employment world above the level of "service" without solid, fast Internet connections. If you haven't figured this out yet you're grist for the unemployment line. It's a personal expense the same way a plumber pays for a toolbox full of tools. Get it?

Rob says

[Lord Kano]

"But at $79.99 a month, it's only a good deal to those who can write it off as a business expense."

This guy apparently doesn't know any geeks.

With VOIP becoming so popular, a laptop with this would be portable broadband and mobile VOIP all in one. That would be well worth the expense to lots of us.

LK

Re:Security?

[petecarlson]

shttp, ssh?? If your bank is letting you log in plain text on there web server, you have biger problems then your Wifi provider.

Re:On a related note ...

[Anonymous Coward]

even that can't work for long.

All the phisher has to do is proxy the info to the real thing, and they know (maybe even before you do) if you've entered a good user/pass combo.

Re:$80/month must be a business expense??

[King_TJ]

I don't know what you do for a living, but I can't personally say I really agree. Connectivity is a must for today's fast-paced business. But high-speed wireless connectivity at high prices? Count me out.

I already have to shell out close to $100 per month for my cellular service, but that gives me the *voice* communications I *need* to do business, plus the ability to get online at a slower speed to send/receive short messages, or look something up on the net.

For me, that's really good enough. DSL gives me plenty of bandwidth for around $30 per month when I'm at home. A similar arrangement does the trick at the office. Why spend another $80 per month for a high speed connection when I'm between those points and a customer site?

Re:I actually used this...

[Tin Foil Hat]

The card essentially is a modem, and a 'software modem' at that. Although it is not for a phone network, it still must negotiate a connection much like a phone, so hence the dial-up networking. Theoretically speaking, there is nothing preventing someone from writing a driver for Linux, but as a practical matter, noone will unless the manufacturer releases the specs.

It also means that Verizon always know who is connected where and when. It is not at all like war-driving.

Come to think of it, the network protocol is probably based on wireless phone networks. Verizon has lots of experience with those. So yeah, dial-up networking.

Re:Suspicious...

[twilightzero]

I find it very interesting that, with all the good arguments you give, the example you have at the end goes right back to IT departments and rebooting servers, i.e. business environment ;)

Re:Security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the same security protocols your wired Internet connection is using. Just because you're using a wire, it doesn't mean you aren't being intercepted.

Re:EDGE

[Smitty825]

First, let me say this: I think that it is important that we have more than one competing wireless standard! They will constantly try to out-innovate each other, leaving the consumer as the big winner.

1. Verizon has committed to rolling out EV-DO nationwide. I don't work for Verizon, so I don't know any exact dates, but I would guess a year from now would be reasonable to have major city coverage.

2. I doubt ATTWS has trial UMTS stations in all 7 markets. I work for a large cell phone manufacture in San Diego (one of the "initial rollout markets"), and I have used a UMTS device that can receive signals on the 1900MHz band. In San Diego, I have not seen any sort of UMTS pilot. (I know a trial network exists in Dallas, though)

3. You seem pretty optimistic that the ATTWS/Cingular merger is going to go through perfectly! I anticipate that this merger will slow things down for 6 months to a year.

4. IMHO, UMTS won't be ready to be rolled out until 2005 at the earliest in the US. By that time, Verizon and Sprint will likely have begun to roll out their 1xEV-DV networks, which (from what I've seen) competes very will with WCDMA. Also, there are rumors of a second-generation EV-DO, which likely will either be faster, or have a better latency (guessing)

5. There is no 5 :-)

Dude, people DO that

[EvilStein]

I hear it every...single..bleedin'...day on BART.

The same clueless wonders are surprised when their phone cuts off as the train heads into a 2 mile tunnel, too.

I *HATE* Nextel phones for just that reason. People think that the rest of us want to hear both sides of their inane conversation. :P

Re:EDGE

[dokebi]

Sounds like you know a lot about GSM systems but not about CDMA systems. So I would like to point out a few things.

- 1xEV-DO is 2.4Mbps UMTS is 2Mpbs on paper, real world trials are showing 1xEV-DO pushing 650Kpbs and UMTS is pushing 2100Kpbs.

Um, you can't push more bits than the spec allows. Also, 1xEV-* is running on 1.25MHz wide band. UMTS (WCDMA) is running on a 5MHz wide band. That's a lot more bandwidth for similar data rates.
And there is something called 3xEV (3 x 1.25=3.75MHz) that triples the data rate in smaller space than UMTS. And I'm not even talking about 1xEV-DV (Data/voice together in one 1.25Mhz channel up to 2Mbps. Imagine 3x versions of these)

- 1xRTT isnt upgradable to 1xEV-DO, this is why Verizon only has 2 markets.

Well, if by "not upgradable" you mean having to clear out existing 1x users out of a carrier to put in the DO carrier than yes, it's not upgradable. But that's like saying GSM/GPRS isn't "upgradable" to UMTS. In fact it is easier to switch from 1xRTT to DO because you just reassign one carrier from RTT to DO. In order to switch to UMTS from GPRS/EDGE you have to 1) install a whole new base-station, 2) clear out 5MHz of spectrum. I think it is much easier to clear out 1.25MHz than 5Mhz. Also, I hear verizon is planning to role out DO nation wide.

In fact, ATTWS cannot deploy UMTS across all their markets because they don't have enough spectrum. In markets with only 10MHz of PCS spectrum, there is no way they are going to deploy 5MHz+guardband while pushing out existing customers to rest of less than 5MHz of space. Even in cellular markets with 25MHz, ATTWS have to support three separate carriers (Analog/TDMA/GSM). Only in markets where they had cellular 25MHZ plus PCS spectrum would they be able to deploy UMTS. Maybe with Cingular merger they'll have enough bandwidth to deploy UMTS nationally. But they still have to move people out of TDMA to clear that bandwidth, which will take a long time, and which is what the other poster pointed out.

- ATTWS and Cingular rank higher in data speeds and connect time, and lower ping.

Usenet reports points to the opposite. GPRS/EDGE users report 800-1000ms ping times, where is 1x hovers around 400-500. YMMV.

For GSM, EDGE is the end of the road. Seriously. 200Kbps is the best it'll do now or in the future. In order to achieve higher data rates, they have to deploy UMTS. But unlike CDMA companies deploying 1x-DO or DV, GSM companies have to invest more money, equipment, spectrum, and labor to deploy UMTS. In fact, many European companies don't have any plans to deploy faster data beyond EDGE. Where as in the US, Verizon, Sprint, Alltell are all itching to deploy DO.

In any case, it's good to see some competition happening in broadband data.

Re:Nice, but how about bluetooth?

[WuphonsReach]

And, really, a tiny Bluetooth earbud that you pull out like your stylus (shades of star trek, really) is what would make a Treo form-factor phone more marketable.

Cultural norms might kill off that idea... the wired ear-bud phones with the "lapel" mike are bad enough. Ever watch someone walking down the street having an animated conversation with no cell phone in sight?

Now imagine what it looks like when you can't even see any wires...

"Gee, he looks awfully well-dressed for a drugged-out wino, but let's cross the street to be sure anyway."