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

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.

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.