Is Verizon Up to Speed? 140
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?"
Try 2.5 G network... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:2)
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?
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1)
Davie
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Try 2.5 G network... (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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
Good for Verizon (Score:2, Interesting)
The only true 3G till now is NTT (Score:1)
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.
Re:Good for Verizon (Score:1)
Not unlimited (Score:2)
Re:Not unlimited (Score:2)
Re:Not unlimited (Score:2)
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...
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.
Re:Not unlimited (Score:2)
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)
But I'm not bitter...
Re:fix their current stuff (Score:1)
Land based Verizon != Verizon Wireless (Score:1)
144 Kbps (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds promising...
Re:144 Kbps (Score:2)
Re:144 Kbps (Score:1)
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?
Re:144 Kbps (Score:1)
In my (limited) experience (Score:1)
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)
Re:Sexy but expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sexy but expensive (Score:2)
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...
Re:Sexy but expensive (Score:1)
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.
Re:Sexy but expensive (Score:1)
Re:Sexy but expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Why 3G? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Two Words:
ROAD TRIP!
Re:Why 3G? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Actually imaging *is* the killer App (Score:2)
Re:Why 3G? (Score:1)
They already have...it's called Gnutella [gnutella.com]
I have a really great
Re:Why 3G? (Score:1)
Re:Why 3G? (Score:1)
Re:Why 3G? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why 3G? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Why 3G? (USB) (Score:1)
SAME SH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to have infrastructure before companies will invest in creating the killer app.
Re:Why 3G? (Score:1)
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).
So now we can send first posts from Mobile Phones (Score:1, Funny)
Re:So now we can send first posts from Mobile Phon (Score:1)
On a related note this can lead to hazards (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically its NOT 2.5g (Score:2)
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
Technically its NOT 3G (Score:2)
whoops i meant 3G, see the buzzword hype is already getting to me
Might cause more problems than it's worth (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Might cause more problems than it's worth (Score:1)
Thats Socialist thinking (Score:1)
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..
Can you hear me now? (Score:2)
Author Spedometer (Score:5, Informative)
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.
only, 40-60 kbps, 153 kbps max (Score:2)
I tried it... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about mlife? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about mlife? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
GPRS vs 3G (Score:2)
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!
Europe has always led in cellular telephony (Score:1)
Re:GPRS vs 3G (Score:2)
I'm anonymous and probably ignored, but I'll post (Score:1, Interesting)
I do work at Sprint so I'm not just pulling numbers out of the air.
Re:I'm anonymous and probably ignored, but I'll po (Score:1)
Phones (Score:1)
Re:Phones (Score:1)
this is not a new concept (Score:1)
waiting for flat fee (Score:1)
Re:waiting for flat fee (Score:1)
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've tried it, and it sorta works with Linux (Score:5, Informative)
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:
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 :)
Re:I've tried it, and it sorta works with Linux (Score:1)
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 $30 from many mail order supply houses. I think Sprint stores even sell it for that. YOU DO NOT need any special software, just the right config.
I find the 115Kbps speed doesn't limit anything. I tried with with the USB cable too, found no speed difference. I never get more than 100K anyway...
I have mine working with OpenBSD (3.1 Snapshot) without problem.
The latency is exactly as you describe, stinks.
Re:I've tried it, and it sorta works with Linux (Score:1)
Using the serial cable and a supported USB-serial adapter it works fine for me under Linux. These are the settings you need:
init string = AT$QCMDR=3
serial speed = 115200
phone number = #777
username = @vzw3g.com
password = vzw
Will TCP work ok? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Will TCP work ok? (Score:1)
Dropped Calls at Increased speed! (Score:2, Funny)
-Nails-
Burn some karma here? (Score:3, Funny)
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!
sweet mother of god! (Score:1)
i had thought better of ozzy than to get mixed up with his type. i guess we all screw up sometimes.
Tried and quit (Score:2, Informative)
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)
Re:Obsured (Score:1)
Ever hear of Unreimbursed business expenses?
Hint it's a deduction on your taxes.
Re:Obsured (Score:2)
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.
ATT GPRS (Score:1)
Can you hear me now? (Score:1)
I am writing to you using Verizon 3G right now... (Score:1)
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.
Old news (Score:1)
Also, this is a 3G network. See the other articles I just mentioned for more info.
Re:Old news (Score:1)
This is old news (Score:1)
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.
I have just two words to say... (Score:1)
Bad service from a bad company (Score:1)
Ive been using this since February (Score:1)
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.
Re:Ive been using this since February (Score:1)
lots of luck with the service (Score:1)
I am amazed at how many people respond about the commericals or non-article related posts. Can we pretend to stay on topic.
Use Verizon = Get What You Deserve (Score:2)
sPh
I have it- works for what I need it for! (Score:1)
Re:Verizon SUCKS (Score:1)