2.5G Services Start Trial Run In Seattle

090h writes: "AT&T Wireless has started the tests of their GPRS 'always on' services in the Seattle area, according to this press release from Reuters on C|Net's News dot Com. GPRS is the first system in the States to offer simultaneous and always-on voice & data services to a cell device. As well as speeds greater than 56 Kpbs. (much better than 19.2 we currently see on CDPD, but still a far cry from 3G and the ability to have multimedia content delivery.)" Pricey, though -- $50 covers just 1MB of data. When will unmetered low-earth satellite coverage get here instead?

Comments

Careful there, not all that shines is gold

[kinkie]

You say that it will be faster than 56k.
It's not entirely true.
GPRS works by allotting a number of timeslots in the GSM usual time allocation fabric to packet-switched communications in each cell (as in zone covered by one ground [base] station). The maximum number of timeslots that can be allocated in this fashion is (IIRC) 8 downstream and 2 upstream, for a whooping max 115200 bps downstream and 28800 upstream.
What's the catch? The "packet switching" part, of course. If in a cell N phones are active and using all the available bandwidth, then each of those will only get 1/N of 115200 bps.

Why then using GPRS at all then? Well, first it's always-on. Then it has an higher maximum througput than plain circuit-switched (one-slot-up-one-slot-down) phone, and third it's statistics. Circuit-switched lines are losing the battle against packet-switched because while the former give guarranteed-quality services, the latter offer better resource usage, especially in conditions of bursty traffic.

This said, those prices are INSANE. In Italy (where I am writing this from) the major phone providers are offering GPRS service for FREE for a couple of more months to launch it, and the service is already available in most of the country.

satellites

[austad]

When will unmetered low-earth satellite coverage get here instead?

Teledesic is trying. Doesn't look like until 2005 though. They must have pushed it back because it used to say it would be available in 2003. I wonder how this is going to affect radio astronomy, the Iridium satellites already pose a big enough problem.

Actually...

[jfedor]

Here in Poland, where we have GPRS running for some time now, the fastest available GPRS phone (the Motorola Timeport 260) can only do 40.2 kbps and the fastest "conventional GSM" (actually HSCSD) phone (Siemens S40) does 56 kbps.

(both numbers are download speeds, it's asymetric)

So just because the theoretical max for GPRS is 115.2 kbps it doesn't mean you will be getting it - check your phone first.

-jfedor

Simultaneous voice and data

[Cabby]

Anyone actually subscribed to this?
We've had GPRS here in the UK for a while now and the Motorola GPRS phones we've got won't support simultaneous voice and data.
Indeed, looking at Motorola's own press release here they only claim to be able to switch between voice and data, not do both at the same time, which sounds more likely to me.
The GPRS standard does support simultaneous Voice + Data, but I don't think any of the handsets do yet.

You were wondering why freenets will be nailed?

[xtal]

$50 for 1Meg, or get a 802.11 device ..

I hope the ARRL or someone is lobbying to keep the 2Ghz bands open. It's not even that large of an allocation! Organized community wireless efforts have a real potential to put a great big ding in the profits of some of these commercial providers and users of bandwidth.

Remember, the RF spectrum is a public resource. The FCC in the US is supposed to act in the best interests of the public, and I think you could make a good case it's in the interests of the public to keep those bands open. The more 802.11 hardware out there, the harder it will be to stop, as well - so write your representatives (Congressmen, FCC Ombudsman, Member of Parliment, whatever).

I remember reading something about those bands being open by global agreement, too.. but I'm not sure.

low-earth satellite coverage, cost

[Doomdark]

When will unmetered low-earth satellite coverage get here instead?

Like Iridium? Never would be my guess. If you think cost of cellular data networks is prohibitive, don't even dream of using a swarm of low-orbit satellites. It is kind of intriguing why all those billionaires invest in an obviously flawed idea (Bill Gates et al). Perhaps they just don't know anything about economy? :-)

Thing is, with dozens of expensive relatively short-lived satellites launched dirt expensively, terminal devices that either need to use high energy transmitters and/or satellites having extra sensitive receivers... How could it be cheaper than using earth-based systems? The only (?) good thing is that in the middle of nowhere where it's not economical to build cellular networks, satellites may be your saviour. Unfortunately, 99% of time, cellnet is just fine (and depending on your usage pattern, 10-90% of time fixed line is fine)

If you don't need to move a lot you should use fixed wire stuff (in-house roaming with infra-red or short-distance wireless radio); practically unlimited bandwidth, low cost. If you need to move more, cellular networks are next in line; it's possible to get reasonable bandwidth, but operating costs are higher no matter what, so end user cost is as well (exception; if there's no ready decent infrastructure for fixed lines wireless might be competitive... like in Africa or some ass-kicked islamic country).

And if you just have to go in the middle of Sahara to browse porn, yeah, use Iridium. I'm sure this is enough to finance the multi-billion project on long-term.

talk about expensive....

[ledbetter]

Microcell Solutions in Canada is offering 56k GPRS service at much cheaper rates:

$75CDN for 25MB
$100CDN for 50MB
$150CDN for 100MB

But I'm sure this is the same thing with most new technologies (especially wireless ones); the prices start out high and drop from there!

Excellent for PDAs

[MagerValp]

Perfect for PDAs though, you can synch a lot of email and web pages with a MB. And still a lot cheaper than being charged per minute, which is what's keeping me from doing it now.

Re:Or...

[baptiste]

I've got a DSL line at home and no cell phone. Somehow, I get by.

No doubt - I've got friends just DROOLING over 3G till I ask them 'why?' I mean besides using your cellphone like a blackberry for email, what the hell do they need it for? I guess IMing over cellphones could be cool, but not THAT cool. Just talking on my cell costs me enough - I don't need to add wireless web costs to it to browse websites on tiny LCD screens. Sure the stuff will get bigger - but who wants that? I got my cellphone cause it was SMALL really small. I can read alert emails from my servers if necessary, but beyond that - I use it to talk - thats it. I sure as hell aren't browsing yahoo with it - don't need to.

I honestly think 3G is gonna be a flop outside of non-stop travelers and even then - its just not gonna see that much use IMHO because it is reaching a point where folks can't justify the expense. Sure the Blackberry concept and wireless Palm devices are doing OK, but they aren't racking up huge subscriber growth. And they use a platofmr you can actually read stuff on. But at some point it loses the appeal - I mean why carry a cellphone that can receive email when teh person can just CALL if it is urgent. If you really need somethign for remote email you'll already have a blackberry and will upgrade, but I doubt you'll see folks flocking to 3G like some analysts swear will happen.