Posted by
timothy
on from the shhh-someone-might-buy-it dept.
Cesaro writes: "According to this CNN article here it looks
like Verizon has beaten all others to the punch on launching the
first 3g wireless network in the US. I was at a loss to find any
good information on this at Verizon's website. One would think they
would want to publicize these items."
There is the link from verizon. It seems that right now service is limited only to those that have wireless service with verizon already. Although unlimited at $30/month is not bad.
--
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
Not quite silently.
by
Jartan
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If you ever watch TechTV Live of the Screensavers regularly they had a whole lot of stuff about this the day they launched it. Supposedly theres no real services for it yet and the cost is going to be based on how much data you download. The only real reason to get it at this point would be a replacement for ricochet to use with your laptop. Also its not the same 3g they're using in Japan it's supposed to be limited to 144kbps whereas its 300+ something over there. One of the tech leads they talked to said Verizon basically released it a little ahead of time to be able to say they did it first. That's why theres no real product other than data to it.
The pricing will be disgusting no doubt and anything but browsing w/ pictures OFF will probably be unwise except for those with to much money. They were saying how some of the current providers using the already existing technology charged as much as 75 bucks per SESSION online average. That was the extreme but I think thats a good indication it's not the pancea of wireless communication we're hoping for yet.
Jartan
Re:This is NOT a 3G network.
by
Zigurd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It sounds like it is 1xRTT, which roughly corresponds to GPRS on a GSM network. Neither are generally accepted as being "3G." Many people call this kind of service "2.5G."
The main improvement over current cellular data services is that everyone in a cell shares a slice of bandwidth used for data. Since most data is bursty, this is much more efficient. It should feel, most of the time, like sharing an ISDN line. Of course, you don't control who you share with, so it will be intersting to see how good it is in the real world.
There are lots of ways to screw it up by not having enough bandwidth, to using too little bandwidth for data, to not controlling the number of users that can use data in a cell, etc. But if it is done right, the user expereince should be pretty good.
Real 3G uses two systems: An evolution of the CDMA system VZ and Sprint use called CDMA2000 (I bet they wish they didn't commit to that 2000!) and WCDMA/UMTS which vies with G.SHDSL for Worst. Acronym. Ever. These systems will do about the same thing: share data bandwidth among users in a cell. But they will enable up to a couple megabits shared capacity per cell.
The main advantage of data on cellular is that digital cellular is data ready now. You just have to get the phones to share access to the channels used for data, and built a moderate sized data network behind your radio network, and you have pervasive mobile data coverage. This is a huge advantage over systems like Ricochet, which had to build out networks just for data. By borrowing cellular bandwidth and piggybacking on the same digital radios in the cell sites and handsets, the amount of new stuff that has to be bought before we get really widespread coverage is vastly reduced.
Re:This is NOT a 3G network.
by
toby360
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The FCC has this posted on their site describing the 3G bandwidth Standards. Wireless 3G when implemented according to these fcc standards should allow for the following bitrates:
Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic
I'm not too sure how you pulled out a real world speed of 20-30k. According to the FCC standards this "IS" considered a 3G network for High mobility Vehicular traffic, but is not the full 3G deal, as it does not support the other bitrates or the full functionality of a complete 3G Network. The system when fully implemented will allow for much higher than 20-30k and will vary depending on the location you're in. 3G isn't all marketing hype, it's a very large step ahead of our current network (when fully implemented of course). Unfortunatly we won't see the full benefits of the system for a while, until the products using 3G become more available, and companies such as Verizon implement more aspects of the 3G standard.
Re:Silent REALLY IS Better
by
BrookHarty
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Absolutely correct, You can not deploy a 3G network from one vendor. No vendor has enough hardware to deploy an entire network. You have to use all Vendors, and those vendors equipment has to work seamlessly. And the hardware is brand new, there's daily maintenance, patches and software tweaks just to keep it running. There is no "Building it in the lab" with 3G, its tested and built in production. But the customers on those network are most likely internal employees and content providers who are testing applications. So its not really "Launched"..
Speaking of that, ever Telco is getting their hardware from the same vendors, Eriksson, Nortel, etc... So whatever Verizon is doing, all the vendors are learning and applying to other Telcos. My tech support is your tech support.
Slashdot Mirror
here
Here is a link from verizon showing coverage and pricing
http://www.techtv.com/news/computing/story/0,24195 ,3369727,00.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-824392.html
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
http://www.verizonwireless.com/express_network/ind ex.html
There is the link from verizon. It seems that right now service is limited only to those that have wireless service with verizon already. Although unlimited at $30/month is not bad.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
If you ever watch TechTV Live of the Screensavers regularly they had a whole lot of stuff about this the day they launched it. Supposedly theres no real services for it yet and the cost is going to be based on how much data you download. The only real reason to get it at this point would be a replacement for ricochet to use with your laptop. Also its not the same 3g they're using in Japan it's supposed to be limited to 144kbps whereas its 300+ something over there. One of the tech leads they talked to said Verizon basically released it a little ahead of time to be able to say they did it first. That's why theres no real product other than data to it.
The pricing will be disgusting no doubt and anything but browsing w/ pictures OFF will probably be unwise except for those with to much money. They were saying how some of the current providers using the already existing technology charged as much as 75 bucks per SESSION online average. That was the extreme but I think thats a good indication it's not the pancea of wireless communication we're hoping for yet.
Jartan
It sounds like it is 1xRTT, which roughly corresponds to GPRS on a GSM network. Neither are generally accepted as being "3G." Many people call this kind of service "2.5G."
The main improvement over current cellular data services is that everyone in a cell shares a slice of bandwidth used for data. Since most data is bursty, this is much more efficient. It should feel, most of the time, like sharing an ISDN line. Of course, you don't control who you share with, so it will be intersting to see how good it is in the real world.
There are lots of ways to screw it up by not having enough bandwidth, to using too little bandwidth for data, to not controlling the number of users that can use data in a cell, etc. But if it is done right, the user expereince should be pretty good.
Real 3G uses two systems: An evolution of the CDMA system VZ and Sprint use called CDMA2000 (I bet they wish they didn't commit to that 2000!) and WCDMA/UMTS which vies with G.SHDSL for Worst. Acronym. Ever. These systems will do about the same thing: share data bandwidth among users in a cell. But they will enable up to a couple megabits shared capacity per cell.
The main advantage of data on cellular is that digital cellular is data ready now. You just have to get the phones to share access to the channels used for data, and built a moderate sized data network behind your radio network, and you have pervasive mobile data coverage. This is a huge advantage over systems like Ricochet, which had to build out networks just for data. By borrowing cellular bandwidth and piggybacking on the same digital radios in the cell sites and handsets, the amount of new stuff that has to be bought before we get really widespread coverage is vastly reduced.
I wrote parts of this stuff
The FCC has this posted on their site describing the 3G bandwidth Standards. Wireless 3G when implemented according to these fcc standards should allow for the following bitrates:
Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic
I'm not too sure how you pulled out a real world speed of 20-30k. According to the FCC standards this "IS" considered a 3G network for High mobility Vehicular traffic, but is not the full 3G deal, as it does not support the other bitrates or the full functionality of a complete 3G Network. The system when fully implemented will allow for much higher than 20-30k and will vary depending on the location you're in. 3G isn't all marketing hype, it's a very large step ahead of our current network (when fully implemented of course). Unfortunatly we won't see the full benefits of the system for a while, until the products using 3G become more available, and companies such as Verizon implement more aspects of the 3G standard.
Absolutely correct, You can not deploy a 3G network from one vendor. No vendor has enough hardware to deploy an entire network. You have to use all Vendors, and those vendors equipment has to work seamlessly. And the hardware is brand new, there's daily maintenance, patches and software tweaks just to keep it running. There is no "Building it in the lab" with 3G, its tested and built in production. But the customers on those network are most likely internal employees and content providers who are testing applications. So its not really "Launched"..
Speaking of that, ever Telco is getting their hardware from the same vendors, Eriksson, Nortel, etc... So whatever Verizon is doing, all the vendors are learning and applying to other Telcos. My tech support is your tech support.