Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Review Of Verizon's New Wireless Network 202

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review Of Verizon's New Wireless Network

Comments Filter:
  • by weave ( 48069 ) * on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:46PM (#8574140) Journal
    I think I'd pay $80/month for speeds like that. I have T-mobile GPRS and it's really nice having wireless net access on the road, although T-mobile's service is painfully slow.

    The biggest blocking factor for me on Verizon is the lack of bluetooth phones. My t610 joined with my Powerbook is a shear joy (except for the speed). Bluetooth is great. Verizon sucks for not having any handsets that use it (or pressuring manufactures to make a decent CDMA phone with bluetooth).

  • Good stuff (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mytec ( 686565 ) * on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:47PM (#8574144) Journal

    We are starting to deploy the cards on sales laptops. While most of our sales guys are out of the highest speed markets noted in the article, the card and software have worked very well and both are an absolute cinch to install and use.

  • Re:Suspicious... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by falconed ( 645790 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:48PM (#8574155)
    Sounds pretty lame. The article says it's $80/month, you don't get email or voice phone, and it isn't an always on service. And you have to use their hardware. Lot of money for not a lot of features. I bet you could get better service by wardriving.
  • Re:Suspicious... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:52PM (#8574186) Homepage
    Well, the big thing is probably that there's probably not too many folks using it.

    Wait till it gets popular, then it'll start slowing down. ;)
  • Personal outlook (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:55PM (#8574213)
    I can see this as being a promising service.. as of now Verizon Wireless has the largest nation-wide network and one of the best coverages in the nation..
  • VOIP anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phat_Tony ( 661117 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @08:57PM (#8574226)
    "...it includes neither an e-mail account nor voice phone service."

    But it does sustain rates around 500 kbps or over...

    Voice over IP, anyone? It seems like they're practically begging that application- why carry and pay for a cell phone too, especially if you can get this service on a PDA some day?
  • Latency? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:08PM (#8574293)
    What's the latency like on this network? It's typically a problem with wireless that they have slow response times. The article covers the bandwidth problem but does not tell us anything about this. Inquiring gamer wants to know.

    Michael
  • by rustycage ( 550599 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:23PM (#8574376)
    I just got wireless broadband out here in rural West Virginia. Amazing..I know. It is great as I get 1.3Mb down about the same up for $50 a month. Anyhow I just bought a wireless router and it seems to interfere with my wireless broadband antenna. When I enable the wireless functionality on the router my internet connect goes bye-bye. Anyone else had similar experience. I'm pretty sure my wireless broadband is over 802.11b and the wire router I bought is 11b as well. Any solutions?
  • by davidstrauss ( 544062 ) <david@@@davidstrauss...net> on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:23PM (#8574378)
    although T-mobile's service is painfully slow

    Actually, T-Mobile's service is pretty fast. If you're getting consistant speeds of 5-10 kilobytes per second, you're doing well. Really, it's the latency that worries me. I always get 800 to 1000ms in that department. That's fine for some things, but it seems to make intolerant programs time out, and multiplayer gaming is out of the question.

    P.S. Look into T-Mobile's Unlimited Internet VPN service. It's no more expensive than the normal unlimited, but you have to actually ask for it. You get a public IP, although incoming connections are blocked.

  • Re:Suspicious... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:35PM (#8574455) Homepage Journal
    think Nextel 2-way wireless radio on your cell phone. Nobody gets it except companies who can drop the money and write it off.

    I think that there is another reason for that.

    Imagine if people were using that 2-way walkie talkie function for "regular" as in non business related ways.

    Picture an executive in a high level meeting. He's laying down the law to mid level execs and as he's deriding them for their lack of vision and focus...BEEP BEEP "Henry! I told you to pick up diapers and tampons on your way home last night. Maybe I should just have the pool boy do it, he takes care of the rest of my needs anyway!"

    Or imagine you're at a bank going over the terms of the mortgage for your first home. Suddenly your Stiffler-Esque buddy from college chimes in BEEP BEEP "Yo fuckstick! I've been calling your apartment all day, I know you're not at work, I tried there too. You're not fucking my mom again are you?"

    I suspect that only businesses have signed on to this because they still have the ability to fire people for misuse.

    LK
  • did you RTFA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MC_Cancer_Pants ( 728724 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:37PM (#8574474)
    3G has been put off for a long time, i'm suprised it hasn't come until now. This (to the best of my knowledge) qualifies itself as 3G. From a company like verizon I believe it. Rikachet failed because it was a solo project of a company that relied on their wireless internet service only. Verizon is already well-established and doesn't need this to produce revenue immediately. As far as $80/month being too much, take a look at how many people pay $50/month to bluetooth through their cell-phone with increadibly long login time and unreliable service-coverage.

    By the way, this article was written by a reporter who probably either didn't know very much about the technology or was addressing it as being nice and easy to use, even for lusers (the "difficult to get working in a PC" comment). He claims it works wonderfully without any problem, he hasn't been payed to say it, and didn't say very much of anything on the negative side about it. This technolgy is not new (look at japan) I suggest you save your tinfoil for annother day's hat.
  • by D-Fly ( 7665 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:40PM (#8574501) Homepage Journal
    The article leaves out some interesting details. Like--how many antennas per square kilometer do you need to get this kind of speed? When I lived in Santa Cruz, Ricochet [ricochet.net] did one of their first deployments around town. This was in the early 90s, so you were getting 2400bps (yeah, bps) wireless all over town, which was kind of cool. Except they had to hang transmitters from every other light pole to blanket town. I think that's one of the reasons they never caught on: deploying infrastructure was too expensive.

    It sounds to me like Verizon has something with much better range going here, but I guess Pegoraro didn't think to ask.

    One of the reasons I'm interested is that my parents live in one of those oft-forgotten places in the US where high speed internet is a far-away dream. The town (population 500) is about an hour's drive over a terrible mountain road from civilization, so the local CLEC never bothered to run phone lines in: they just set up this crappy microwave link on top of a mountain.

    No cable, no wired phone lines: needless to say, broadband is impossible (satellite being the unacceptable semi-exception). Which makes going back to hang out at the ranch pretty annoying.

    The point (I'm getting there!) is that if these guys have figured out a way to get high speed internet to travel a good long distance, this could help solve the access problem for rural america.

    Of course, I've seen so many supposed solutions [wired.com] come and fade away, that I sort of doubt it.
  • by dcarolin ( 563116 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:40PM (#8574509)
    The other day I was talking to some Qualcomm guys (who do the chipsets) and they told me this basically works by using an entire channel multiplexed in time. Since the service has not yet been widely deployed, the reviewer probably got most or all of the available time slots. I'd imagine the average bit rates to go down as the number of users increases.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:50PM (#8574592)
    I get unlimited MB for $20 a month through my T-Mobile GPRS connection via Bluetooth. Way slick, and I get dialup speeds consistently. I don't see 3G and semi-3G services gaining in popularity until they start to get down to that level. GPRS is good enough, at that price.

    ---
    thewired.blogs.com/teotwawki
    the techno-mediated cultural conspiracy
  • by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @09:56PM (#8574638) Homepage
    Very true.

    The odd thing is that the idea of a wireless bluetooth headset is very long in the ...ehrm... tooth. Support for it is in the standard, but they took their time including bluetooth chips in the phones.

    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.

    The other problem, I think, is that nobody's spent the time to really think of some whack applications other than that to sell it. The Bluetooth GPS paired with the digital camera that notes the current location, time, etc. The digital camera that queries all of the people in the area's PDAs for their business card so that you know who's in the picture. Off-the-wall stuff like that which nobody's given much thought to writing universal interfaces and support for.
  • Re:EDGE (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RzUpAnmsCwrds ( 262647 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:07PM (#8574717)
    Sorry, Mr. ATT/Cingular GSM apologist.

    - ATTWS/Cingular/T-Mobile all have roaming agreements. Their coverage areas are already "merged". And Verizon's coverage is still *way* better. Try going up into Wyoming with your ATT GSM phone. Then try doing it with a Verizon phone. With Verizon, I had CDMA2000 + 1xRTT in Yellowstone National Park. With ATT, I had nothing. And it's not just Wyoming. I often have trouble in major metro areas with ATT.

    - ATT's EDGE is nowhere near "nationwide". It's being rolled out in New York, San Diego, and some areas in Florida. Moreover, EDGE is little faster than Verizon's 1xRTT service which has been deployed accross their entire network for years. EDGE suffers from the same problems as GPRS - notably that data rate drops as you move away from the transmitter and that relatively little bandwith is shared by everyone in the cell.

    - UMTS is slower than CDMA2000 1xEV-DO. 1xEV-DO is gaining support in Japan and Korea for this very reason - UMTS is slower, requires more radio spectrum, and UMTS phones heat up like toasters.

    - ATT hasn't even launched its service commercially. They have been conducting "trials" of UMTS for over 2 years. When they start selling it and I can test it out, I'll believe ATT's claims. Verizon's service works. I've used it myself.

    Verizon has to do *nothing* to counter the Cingular "advantage". They have better coverage, their 3G service is faster, and they don't have craploads of IS-136 users to migrate.
  • Re:Good stuff (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:07PM (#8574718) Homepage Journal
    So when will we mac and linux users be permitted to use it? Or is there an exclusive deal with MS that locks us out?

    My job requires that I do all the development on linux and OSX. Windows isn't permitted except as a leaf node (for UI testing), due to the extreme security problems. So I could easily get a business deduction for it, but not if I have to use MS software in the gateway/firewall.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:10PM (#8574735)
    ...for a while now, but the more I think of it, and knowing monopolies, the more dubious this whole thing becomes. They've announced the nationwide rollout "by year's end" this last January. Problem is, as someone already pointed out, they don't support Bluetooth phones, nor even USB. In other words, the "DO" in 1xEV-DO seems to mean "it's the card or else." Not to mention it's also Windows "or else." Since my 12" PB has BlueTooth but no PCMCIA slot, and since Windows would be out of the question even if I owned an x86-based laptop, it's pretty much a non-starter still. Supposing they get around to supporting Macs and maybe even Bluetooth, I'd still be suspicious of having to run any "installers" reminiscent of PPPoE and spyware. Is it going to support my VPN, which I currently use without problems with my T-Mobile Hotspot account? I'd be happy to upgrade from $30/mo for "Starbucks only" to $80/mo for "everywhere," but it seems to me there are so many roadblocks ahead, there might as well be no service and no expansion plans at all. It might happen eventually, but it's probably just as likely that some other, better company, maybe even a non-monopoly, will roll out something better first.
  • Re:Suspicious... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Arker ( 91948 ) on Monday March 15, 2004 @10:35PM (#8574910) Homepage
    I'd happily pay that here, but not for a service that is windows only.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 16, 2004 @12:26AM (#8575718)
    get yourself a kyocera 2235 phone and a serial cable. this will allow you to use verizon's 1x network (nationwide) at 130 kbps. the neat thing about the 2235 is that there are no drivers required - the phone speaks hayes commands all by itself - i have even hooked it up to a dial-up router to share connections with multiple computers. oh and if you take the cable off, you can use the phone as a phone.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...