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."
Don't blame technology -- the problem is good old-fashioned human stupidity. Inanimate objects do nothing by themselves, but in the hands of an idiot they can be dangerous. High-tech gadgets just give idiots more ways to inflict their stupidity on others.
-- Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Silent is better?
by
TommyBear
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Maybe publicity is the last thing they want. 3G has been labeled vaporware many times over, this could hurt them is they don't get it right.
The majority (32% of those who voted) said "Maybe never -- I don't plan to need that much wireless speed."
This number is mirrored by those saying "gimme now", which is interesting by itself and in view of the number you cited.
I bet those who say "never" had never used Ricochet.
My client is desparate for 3g. He (she? they? it?) saw Ricochet right before it cratered and is constantly asking "When can we go 3g?" or "When will Ricochet be back up?"
I have a big screen analog cell phone that I leave in the car too. But that's not the point. 3G doesn't affect the "phone" portion (ie., voice functions) as much as it does the "data" portion. We haven't seen the power of data on a wireless device (be it a cell phone or a PDA or a combination of the two) because the technology still sucks. When the technology stops sucking things will change. I think it would be great to have a little wireless phone/pda that I can suck data on demand into from a nice fat pipe. It will open up a lot of new innovations much like when the Internet took off and started to become used by average everyday Joes.
People think they won't want this stuff because they see the horrible WAP crap or the "wireless Internet" as it is today. The problem is that it really really sucks today, but it won't always be that way in the future.
This might be a rant or something, but is this technology really needed? I can understand if one had a web tablet or something like that, but do you _really_ need streaming video on your cell phone? I can't imagine myself being on the run and having to watch the latest jenna jameson video or some such nonsense.
-- I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
Re:Useless...
by
spellcheckur
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
More important than connecting that much bandwidth to your phone is sharing it among many devices.
The problem most people haven't realized yet (and the press coverage doesn't seem to understand) is that the existing wireless bandwith is getting eaten up, not because individuals are using more and more of it, but because more and more individuals are using it.
Have you noticed an increase in "all circuits are busy" or "unable to connect" messages, even when you're getting perfectly good signal? I know I have. As more people get phones/PDAs/computers connected to the wireless networks, it's only getting worse.
Yes, 3G provides a fat pipe to your phone, but a more important aspect is that it's just plain capable of sharing a fatter pipe among all the phones.
Puff, puff, give. We're pushing the limits of what the existing networks can handle; 3G *should* give us enough capability so that we dont f*** up the rotation.
This is NOT a 3G network.
by
carlhirsch
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Calling this network "3G" is pure marketroid hype.
Verizon is claiming they'll offer up to 144kbps throughput, which will work out to provide real-world speeds of 20-30k.
Here's a <A href=http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/01/28/rtr 494921.html>Reuters</A> article breaking it down.
-- .
We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
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:This is NOT a 3G network.
by
weave
·
· Score: 2
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.
So you share a "cell" but each person sharing still pays for minutes at the voice rate. And that is in addition to a $30/month fee just to play. Wonderful.
This will fail, then they will be crying the blues that there is no money to be made in wireless data service....
Methinks the bean counters never took a simple economics class and learned about price/demand curves, elasticity, etc.. Free clue: People don't generally NEED this.
Re:This is NOT a 3G network.
by
carlhirsch
·
· Score: 2
Verizon launches what it calls a 3G network
Daniel Terdiman - www.the451.com
Verizon Wireless says it has begun rolling out its third-generation wireless
network and that about 20% of its US subscribers will be covered. But the
company expects that most subscribers who upgrade to the network will use it
to get a 40-60Kbps connection for their laptops or PDAs, a scenario that
falls far short of the wireless industry's hype about what 3G is supposed to
deliver.
For months, a public relations battle has been raging among several of the
major US wireless carriers over who would be the first to upgrade to 3G.
Verizon, Sprint PCS, Cingular and AT&T Wireless have all said publicly that
they would be - or are - the first, and that their competitors are lagging
far behind.
But as the carriers argue over who is first, and whether cdma2000 is
superior to WCDMA or GPRS, they have begun to shy away from promising
super-fast networks capable of running the complex, multimedia applications
that will bring them billions of dollars in revenues. It used to be that
handset manufacturers blamed the carriers for not having the networks to
match the technological progression of the new handsets. Now, instead of
promising transmission speeds in excess of 2Mb, the carriers are trying to
get customers excited with talk of speeds of 144Kbps. Even more troubling,
they are beginning to point the finger at the handset makers when explaining
why the 3G multimedia killer app is still so far from reality.
Verizon's version of 3G - the Verizon Express Network - is a cdma2000 1XRTT
network. The upgrade will, at least initially, cover about 20% of the US,
with concentrations in the Northeast US, as well as in and around Silicon
Valley and Salt Lake City, Utah (site of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games). The
company says it should be able to cover about 50% of subscribers by the end
of 2002. Verizon is saying its network will top off at 144Kbps.
In the early stages, Verizon expects very few of its subscribers to upgrade.
The advantage of a 1XRTT network, explains company spokesperson Jeffrey
Nelson, is that it is forward- and backward-compatible and will allow
existing Verizon subscribers to continue using their current handsets. But
without upgrading to a 3G phone - and Verizon is pushing a Kyocera model as
its phone of choice - users would not be able to take advantage of the
higher speeds.
Further, most of the subscribers who upgrade will do so in order to use
their handsets as modems for their laptops or PDAs. As such, Verizon is also
pitching a Sierra Wireless card to offer this functionality. Users paying at
least $35 for a monthly Verizon wireless plan would have to pay $300 for the
card, $80 for the Kyocera phone and then $30 a month extra in service
charges just to able to use the 3G network. And even then, Verizon promises
transmission speeds of only 40-60Kbps, equivalent to what former Ricochet
wireless modem customers had before Ricochet's parent, Metricom, died last
year. Says Nelson of customers' expectations for complex 3G multimedia
applications: "This is a reality check right from the get-go..All that ooh
ahh stuff belongs in convention halls. We're after customers now with
realistic expectations from the service."
Certainly, in the US there is much disagreement about what 3G really is and
who is providing it. Last year, Sprint PCS said it would be the first to
unveil 3G in the US. Then AT&T Wireless said its GPRS networks had been
first. Earlier this month, Sprint PCS once again announced that it will be
the first when it rolls out its network this summer. Now, Verizon claims it
is first. Cingular Wireless, of course, says Verizon is exaggerating, and
claims its own 2.5G service is akin to Verizon's 3G: "Today's announcement
by Verizon essentially provides the same service that Cingular has been
providing customers in a number of markets since August of last year," says
Cingular spokesperson Monica Mears. "Cingular currently offers this 2.5G
service to consumers in [six states]."
It's all still hype. When the wireless industry began to talk in colorful
terms about the incredible applications that would soon be available on 3G
handsets, it was attempting to justify the billions and billions of dollars
its member carriers had invested in network upgrades. Clearly, no US carrier
has gotten anywhere near what has been promised. Although a 50Kbps wireless
connection for a laptop is a nice offering for a former Ricochet customer,
it is hard to see how anyone else is going to be impressed.
-- .
We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Re:This is NOT a 3G network.
by
Zigurd
·
· Score: 2
Verizon and Sprint will go CDMA2000. Voicestream, AT&T, and Cingular will go GSM/GPRS and follow that evolution to WCDMA/UMTS. One thing (among many, the sum of which would make your hair hurt) that complicates the picture is that AT&T and Cingular are starting with IS-136 networks.
3G, How about make PCS/GSM work
by
w_arthurton
·
· Score: 4, Offtopic
Honestly I don't really care about 3G. I would much prefer to be able to drive from work to my house (13 miles) without losing a call 3 or 4 times.
Phone companies should spend less time with data services and make voice work. Consumer reports has an article on Cellular this month. They say that 2% of all calls on a cell phone drop in the first 2 minutes.
That is unacceptable.
-- wayner@pobox.com -- Wayne A Arthurton -- www.pobox.com/~wayner
Re:3G, How about make PCS/GSM work
by
tswinzig
·
· Score: 2
Phone companies should spend less time with data services and make voice work. Consumer reports has an article on Cellular this month. They say that 2% of all calls on a cell phone drop in the first 2 minutes.
That is unacceptable.
Please realize that not every area in the country has such shitty coverage as you. In my area, I will welcome 3G when SprintPCS rolls it out nationwide this summer. And no, I won't use it to watch video, as the stupid-ass media reports, but rather as a data modem. (DUH!)
--
"And like that... he's gone."
Perhaps they're trying a silent rollout first.
by
Restil
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If they overadvertise and the network becomes clogged and people decide that due to insufficient bandwidth and excessive bottlenecks they don't NEED the services that badly, it could make getting it started more difficult. Rather they slowly introduce it, ramp it up slowly. Build the network as they go.
DSL had similar problems. The demand was greater than the infrastructure could handle, and service (technical and customer) suffered as a result, and in some cases, it still does. They might be trying to avoid a similar problem.
Of course, I haven't known Verizon and GTE before that of going out of their way to avoid problems. The best screwup I remember, is when they cut off the phone service for my entire city (Plano, TX ~ 200,000 people) for 8 hours. Cellular service and payphones were also out of commission. The police had an officer stationed at every major street corner in case of emergencies since 911 wasn't functional. I had to drive 5 miles just to find a working payphone to call someone from. This happened about 2 years ago, fyi.
Re:Perhaps they're trying a silent rollout first.
by
jandrese
·
· Score: 2
Amen to that. I remember salesdroids harping the values of DSL when we got our phone line (and we live too far from the CO to even get it!), only to learn later that there was a 2 month waiting list to get DSL and the service was a nightmare.
--
I read the internet for the articles.
Re:Perhaps they're trying a silent rollout first.
by
benwb
·
· Score: 2
I ordered DSL from Verizon November 18, 2000. My service was ready and working last week.
Link to verizon info
by
Gaijin42
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Here is a link from verizon showing coverage and pricing
grammar silliness, and relevance...
by
Mr_Matt
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Quoth timothy:
One would thing they would want to publicize these items. "
Sorry you've got a cold, man.:)
How long do you guys think it'll take for the service to make it out of the original three launch areas? (arrgh, they picked SLC instead of Denver, those tools! Stupid Olympics...) Seems to me like new wireless services come and go all the time...is this just another flash-in-the-pan?
--
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Some additional information
by
goldspider
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As (implicitly) requested, here are a few links to more information about this:
Its like leftovers, they taste better after they've been in the fridge for a couple of days. The trolls get an opportunity to fine-tune their topic-specific trolls, just like garlic tends to simmer in the food leftovers.
But if they're just trying it out with limited markets and such then why jump the gun? Better they sneak up on it quiet like, work out the kinks then roll it out.
Too damn much of this American -- Gottahavitrightnowgimmegimmegimmeawshititdoesn-
tworkanditsfullabugsmanyouguysallsucki-
mgonnapostnastyaboutyouwiththegoatsecxguyonslashdo t!
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I used to live in North West London (Camden Town), and had a few dead spots round the 'hood.
I've just moved to East London (Stepney), and now I've got multiple dead spots in my flat.
I have maybe six locations in the flat where I must sit to talk. No more wandering around, doing stuff while talking on my mobile.
And yet almost every month I get a solicitation from BT Cellnet, imploring me to upgrade to new services - usually things that would double my monthly bill.
All of these carriers have a lot of work to do to finish the job they started out on with voice.
Pity it had to be Verizon...
by
fleeb_fantastique
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I have yet to enjoy a Verizon Experience that didn't suck in some way.
They don't do a great job of handling my local phone service. They provided extreme discomfort when trying to acquire DSL (through a different carrier, mind you; I've already seen what they do to their own customers), and have not exactly heard wonderful things about their wireless phone service.
Now they have extended this wonderful track record to a 3rd generation wireless internet access?
Likely, they will embitter so many people with their poor service that the technology itself will be labelled 'bad'.
-- And so it goes.
Re:Pity it had to be Verizon...
by
King_TJ
·
· Score: 2
Ehh... as a Verizon customer myself (for a cellphone only, mind you), I have to say they seem to be the lesser of the evils that are cellphone providers.
Oh sure, I've had a lot of customer service screw-ups with them. (Most recently, I tried to request a copy of my packing slip or receipt for a new phone they shipped me, so I could send it in for a mail-in rebate. It took 3 cust. service reps before someone had a clue - and even then, she took 3 days to figure out how to get that sent out to me before calling me back.)
These days, this kind of thing will happen with any large company though. When it comes down to it, Verizon provides better coverage and reception than most of the competition. Their pricing plan fit my needs more closely than most of the others, too. I've been using them for close to 4 years straight - and still think they're the best choice for my purposes.
One would thing they would want to publicize these items.
Considering that the service has only been in a fraction of Verizon's coverage area, they may be attempting to maintain the option to retract their company from the 3G market in case significant service problems arise.
Yes, they've most likely executed extensive tests on the technology, but it is logical to wait and ensure that the implemented technology is stable before asking $30-50 a month per individual for the privilege of using it.
as cool as it is,
by
minus_273
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i must also ask, why we need it, i can understand in the case of preofessionals in certain industries and markets who need access to as much info as possible as quick as possible, hassle free.. in which case this is very good, however, for an ordinary user, what is the use? i dont see joe publuc using a 3G network right now.
What can you do that you can't currently do? Verizon may be targetting this towards certain markets that it would be profitable in rather than the general public, thus the lack of publicity
-- The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Eehhhhh no.
by
Morgahastu
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There are plenty of uses the 3G network. Its not only for cell phones. It can be used for PDAs (imagine the Treo with 3G). Or my laptop could have a 3G card so I can get some fast internet access anywhere. Cars could also use it to deliver information based on your whereabouts (or a computer in the backseat).
This technology is terrific and I think it will be a big boost for PDAs.
Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.
This was modded as "Funny", but this is really a sad reality. Many accidents are caused by irresponsible drivers who don't think about how talking on a cell phone impairs their driving ability. This problem is big enough that some cities have passed or are debating rules about cell phone use in cars.
I observe daily that some people just don't care whether they put other lives at risk while driving. These people just aren't qualified to drive, yet they all do.
My ultimate phone wishlist
by
DG
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the concept of streaming video to a phone.
For me, the ultimate cellphone would have the following:
1) A decent phone, with decent battery life, reception, and audio clarity (how many convergence devices overlook the fact that the primary purpose of the damn thing is a telephone?)
2) Palm Pilot-like functionality, with emphasis on providing space/ability for uploading apps of my own as well as the canned apps.
3) A GPS, with detailed street maps and wayfinding ability built in.
4) Integrate this stuff as tightly as possible, and keep as much of the data local as possible.
I can see, for example, having the complete North American phone directory on the phone, so I can look up numbers without hitting the network. Tie this into the GPS, and now I can do stuff like "get me the phone number for the house I'm standing in front of right now" or "Let me search the yellow pages for [whatever] and now that I've made a selection, give me driving directions to get there"
Or allow phones to transport GPS data on voice connections, and now I can get a map of where whoever it is I'm talking to is - geographic caller ID.
Network access is all well and good, but phones are phones first and foremost. Build in apps that support the "phone" part (things like searchable directories) and the "mobile" part (with the GPS) and now you're talking!
The Kyocera Smartphone (which is a Palm) seems close, and will probably be my next phone, but I'm still looking forward to a well-done phone+GPS combo.
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?
do you really need
by
Richthofen80
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
any more than 640 k?
come on, can't *anyone* think of good ideas for this? mobile videoconferencing with a pocket sized phone? on demand broadband almost anywhere? while talking on your cellphone, and giving / getting directions, you could also quickly pull up mapquest on your phone, and have images of landmarks sent over... Honestly, I'm a bad brainstormer... but someone else should be able to come up with something better.
-- Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
the service is lacking.
by
joshsisk
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I called earlier this morning, as I've been looking for a wireless provider. Verizon makes you sign up for a calling plan (though you dont actually have to have a phone, interestingly enough), the Express Network service uses the plan's minutes and costs an additional $30 a month. The person I spoke with said speeds were around 56k.
They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does, the person I spoke with said the Internet Express service is currently more limited (though I expect that to change).
Both have contracts, though there is only a $100 fee for early cancellation. I think I'm gonna get the CDPD service, as it's cheaper and the the constant connection is important to me. If they change the new service to constant connection, I'll just pay the fee and upgrade. Also, both offer a two week grace period where you can cancel with no fee. I'm gonna test my connection out in places i usually go, to make sure I can get a good signal. If not, I'm cancelling.
Re:the service is lacking.
by
TheSync
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does
I'm a big user of Verizon CDPD. 28.8kbps throughput is a significant overstatement. 14kbps is good for CDPD, 9.6kbps is what you get in general. That said, my wife uses it for her webcam, and it generally gets the job done. I've used CDPD on the Amtrak from DC to NYC. Both Verizon and AT&T (carrier for Palm-based Omnisky) have good coverage along the tracks with a few holes.
Of course, 144kbps sounds much better, but I can't imagine it being priced reasonably.
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
Could this be used for accessing the net?
by
Ryu2
·
· Score: 2
As a former Ricochet user who greatly got value from the service, I'm always looking for a suitable replacement.
Can the Verizon 3G be used to fully access the Internet (not just a watered down "wireless web" subset of it like the current 2G phones) What ISPs support this access mode?
If Verizon does this right, then maybe Ricochet users will finally have a viable substitute.
--
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re:Silently? Try *clicking* on the links
by
bribecka
·
· Score: 2
Although they do have an unlimited offer in effect:
Express Network service is available for just $30 per month on most digital voice calling plans.* Express Network data usage is taken from your airtime allowance just like your voice calls, so there's no need to keep track of a separate airtime allowance.
From now until March 15, 2002, when you sign up for Express Network, you get unlimited Express Network data session minutes! All you pay is the additional monthly $30 Express Network access fee - your Express Network usage will not be deducted from your airtime allowance.
--
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
They Ran a commercial Last Night
by
haplo21112
·
· Score: 2
They Ran a commercial for it last night...I was coding, so i can't remember the Channel I was on, but on the of the ones(75+) that charter Basic cable in the Worcester area carries anyway.
-- Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Silent REALLY IS Better
by
UNIBLAB_PowerPC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As a geek in a PR office, here's the inside scoop on why they're not beating their own drum on this one (or it's why 99% of all organizations will sit on newsworthy information like this): it's not "ready" yet (meaning they aren't ready to field internal or external questions about said stuff; they aren't ready to fill the rest of their own staff in on it yet or they're doing that right now while the public is left in the dark with rumors; there are problems that no one except a select few know of and they would like them "fixed" in whatever way necessary before the public is informed via the marketing droids; etc.). Mix any combination of said ingredients (or come up with your own possiblities and they're likely true) and you have a press release that's "on hold" until the events change or the marketing/PR folks find a way to respin things in their favor.... oh, and don't throw rocks, I'm not allowed to talk to outsiders in the office. I just know what happens....
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.
I wouldn't mind if the extra bandwidth was used to improve the sound quality. Modern cell phones still are not as clear as land line phones and I would rather that than extra features I'll never use.
Don't be surprised if new and exciting ad placement techniques are used in conjuction with the new connectivity as well.
Re:Sound Quality
by
sulli
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ain't gonna happen. People actually don't care about sound quality as much as they say they do, from what I understand from talking to folks in the industry.
IIRC TDMA (used by AT&T) allows the carrier to select various levels of sound quality, cramming more calls onto the circuit in exchange for crappier sound; since users always complain about dropped calls and don't usually complain about tinny voices, you can guess which choice they made.
My Verizon phone (Syracuse, NY) is crystal clear. Manytimes people I call are impressed, and don't even know until I tell them, that I am talking on a wireless phone. I have to say their network around here is known as the best in the area by far.
Just because they are owned by a former big bell doesn't mean they are all bad.
Very Limited.
by
A+Commentor
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It is currently only available in the NE, Salt Lake City, San Francisco.
For pricing, you must have a $35 or above voice plan with them. Then pay an additional $30 for data access, AND pay per minute (minutes come out of voice allowance minutes + charge the same as your voice minutes for any overage).
Also, billing based on minutes make absolutely no sense, since these data connections do not tie-up a line like a voice call does, it only transmits/receives when there is activity. Many people can share a single channel.
--
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Re:Very Limited.
by
Phil+Wherry
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I must admit that I'm impressed at Verizon's ingenuity here. I really didn't think it was going to be feasible to find a way to do per-minute pricing for a packet service, but I underestimated the company's ability to misunderstand the utility of packet data.
Whether it's the entertainment industry or the telecom industry, consumer preference is pretty clear: predictable costs drive product acceptance. The cellular industry, however, is justly famous for deliberately making costs hard to understand, let alone predict.
This pricing scheme is doubly insulting from a CDMA carrier; as those who are familiar with CDMA are aware, it's far and away the most bandwidth-efficient wireless communications system in widespread use. There's at least one carrier that's been quite successful in using CDMA technology to offer a truly flat-rate all-you-can-talk local calling service in a number of areas in the U.S. [Important disclaimer: I work for the aforementioned carrier's parent company, but don't speak for it in this forum; I'm mentioning the service here in order to illustrate a point, not advertise the service. If you live in a coverage area, you've heard about it already, I'm sure...]
Packet data can be even more bandwidth-efficient than voice traffic since the latency requirements are relaxed considerably, so it seems to me that there's really no excuse for Verizon to be billing for this service in such a boneheaded way.
It is currently only available in the NE, Salt Lake City, San Francisco.
The Wired article claims "...20 percent of Verizon's infrastructure in Philadelphia can accommodate the services. Verizon has also been testing the network in Philadelphia for at least a year..."
Those cities I listed was directly from Verizon's own pages.
--
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Cell phone porn was the only app you thought of???
by
JohnDenver
·
· Score: 2
Maybe you don't have enough imagination or you don't understand that the existing CDMA standard doesn't offer anything close to 144kbs (even if that's just a theoritical limit), let alone 56K. Try more like 9600 bps if you're lucky.
This is a DATA service primarily aimed at laptops and PDAs and the users who want to connect to the Internet from anywhere.
2 years ago, I wrote a small order-entry application for a automotive parts company. Salesmen would download the update for catalog in the morning (about 400K) and send thier orders when they needed to later.
If such a wireless system has existed, this would have enabled me to expand the application to provide realtime inventory updates and order status updates without having to hook up to the customers phone line.
I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of killer uses for wireless Internet access than just watching Jenna Jameson porn on thier cell phone.
-- "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
A couple of Applications
by
JohnDenver
·
· Score: 2
* Police, Fire, EMT services (Forms, MAPS, real-time info)
* Order entry/tracking for roaming salesforces
* Inexpensive Logistics Tracking System using Commodity Technology (Combine w GPS and map system)
WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS!!!
Doesn't wireless Internet Access say it well enough?
-- "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
I don't want a unit with that whole set of tightly integrated features. I don't want a phone with everything built in. I want a modular system of digital tools.
I want a little black box with no particular features that I can drop in a pocket that connects to a 3G network on one end and creates a bluetooth cloud around me on the other. It doesn't have to have any real interface.
I want a handsfree bluetooth earpiece which interfaces with the black box.
I want a bluetooth PDA which interfaces with the earpiece and the black box to provide directory and dialing services, and to browse the web and do wireless email.
I want a bluetooth digital camera which interfaces with the black box to transmit my photos to my mac, so when I get home the photos are already in iPhoto. Perhaps it could cache them in local storage and transmit them when I happened to have the bandwidth available. That would also give me the opportunity to review them and delete any duds, and mark pictures I want printed so the mac could know to send a copy directly to Kodak for me. It would also be nice if the camera would interface with the PDA so I could use the PDA's more comfortable screen and interface to manipulate my photos (delete some, select others for printing) before they get sent to my machine at home.
I want all of this stuff to be separate so I can choose whatever manufacturers, models, and features I want, but to communicate seamlessly so I can use it pretty effortlessly together.
I don't expect to ever get what I want. It would be too... consumer focused. Manufactuers want to sell you an all-encompassing, proprietary device to ensure you pay *them* for everything you want. I'm looking for an open, standards-based system of interchangable devices to perform specific tasks well and interoperate smoothly. It'll never happen.
Re:already available in Japan
by
geekoid
·
· Score: 2
Man this is so obviouse, and cool! I'm sitting here thinking why would I need this?
Now if they can only support all the users and maintain a high speed link.
-- The Kruger Dunning explains most post on/. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You don't get unlimited minutes: time you spend on the data network is taken from your call minutes. Spending two hours reading up on news one day could eat half of your monthly minutes -- if you've gone over, your per-minute Internet access cost could be as much as forty cents, or $48 for a two-hour session. Yikes.
You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go, where you have 3G coverage, you have a fast wireless network connection.
Cool, so this 3G also supplies power to the desktop and monitor as well?;-)
I sure hope Verizon can make it work
by
LM741N
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I work in the cellphone chip business, and we and many others really need some carriers that can make a 2.5G phone that people will really want. In order for them to want it, it has to be easy to use and truly deliver on the bandwidth. So far we have seen none of that, and its reflected in the poor earnings reports for Nokia, Motorola, and Ericsson, which has rippled down to everyone else in the supplier business
Lil' Ol' Salt Lake City
by
BermJumper
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I was surprised to see Utah in the same list as Silicon Valley and the Northeast for this coverage-- Maybe it has to do with the Olympics, which are fewer than 300 hours away. Still, according to SLOC, two of Verizon's competitors, AT&T and Qwest, are the official sponsors, not VZ itself. Maybe it's planning to upstage them while the world is watching the Beehive State?
As long as the rates stay relatively low (HA!-- not likely) it may be that the Olympics got something for Utah, aside from a few billion in highway money--
The reason you enable streaming video on a cellphone is so you can have a video phone. You are correct that nobody is interested in watching a Britney Spears video on their cellphone; but once our phones are powerful enough to do video encoding, you'd be able to do a video call as easily as a regular voice call.
Pricing issue - what is a "minute" of data time?
by
TheSync
·
· Score: 2
Charges for each Express Network data session that connects begin when you press or click the "SEND" or "Connect" button and have selected the "Express Network (1XRTT)" option at the user interface. Charges end when you press or click the "END" or "Disconnect" button.
OK, now imagine you are using the Sierra Aircard 550 PCMCIA card. Does just turning on the laptop start the session (and billing)?
I wonder if the PC card or interface software can be smart enough to recognize that it only needs to be connected to the network when you are sending or receiving data. The actual data utilization of most Web browsing at 114 kbps is probably only 10-20% of actual time spent by the surfer.
Of course, it you are watching video pr0n, your results may be higher.
You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go
(tongue->cheek)I prefer to carry my laptop around instead(/tongue->cheek)
As a CDMA Verizon customer who regularly goes over his minutes using the Internet access, I can finally say "yee haw". Last June, when I finally got around to buying a data cable for my StarTAC, I called Verizon to confirm the setup, and the tech actually did say to me that they were going to 144k in January. 3 years late on DSL, but hey, he nailed that one perfectly! I've always joked with my friends that with the Linux firewall, I could NAT my network over my cellphone. But now? hmmm... ISDN-speed failover link.. (Rubs chin and raises eyebrow like The Rock).
But seriously, I can see some MP3-Car freaks using this to extend their network reach so they could, say, scp down some new MP3's while they drive to the store instead of sitting in the car running in the garage.:) As for me, I'd rather listen to text-to-speech of IRC or something amusing like that during the morning or evening commute. Or how about scrolling/. stories on a heads-up display in the windshield???;)
If your cellphone acted like a gateway, with PDA's and laptops and car systems connecting through it using bluetooth (or another short range solution), wouldn't that help out? You would still move the same amount of information, but through a common pipe. Am I mistaken that this would ease the load on the service provider equipment? There would be fewer circuits needed per person, eliminating some of the bandwidth used on protocol overhead.
Folks - am I way off? This is not my specialty, after all.
It seems we think alike!
In fact, I just bought a Kyocera smartphone. Let me tell you, if you get one - you'll be very happy with it!
First and foremost should always be the fact that these things are telephones. I can't stand when they do things like drawing the keypad on a flat screen (can't dial without looking at it first)!
But I agree, an integrated GPS would be icing on the cellphone cake. I suspect the only limiting factor is battery life. I've owned several portable GPS devices, and all of them ate through AA batteries in only a few hours of operation.
If you have to power a phone in standby + some actual talk time, and still run a GPS in the background, today's small batteries just aren't going to last.
You can't really just power on a GPS "as needed" either. They take as long as 10 minutes to calibrate themselves to satellites on initial power-up. You can cut this time down to maybe 2-3 minutes by giving it a rough idea of your current location, so it knows which satellites to listen for; but that's still pretty inconvenient. If you're in front of a house and want it to fetch the number, it'll suck to key in your city and state from a list, and then wait 3 minutes for the GPS to sync.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I can ciew postage-stamp sized video clips while I browse the postage-stamp sized web!
Maybe publicity is the last thing they want. 3G has been labeled vaporware many times over, this could hurt them is they don't get it right.
Poll Results:
How ready are you to utilize a "3G" service like Verizon's new Express Network?
The majority (32% of those who voted) said "Maybe never -- I don't plan to need that much wireless speed."
I find this quite interesting.
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
This might be a rant or something, but is this technology really needed? I can understand if one had a web tablet or something like that, but do you _really_ need streaming video on your cell phone? I can't imagine myself being on the run and having to watch the latest jenna jameson video or some such nonsense.
I SURVIVED THE GREAT SLASHDOT BLACKOUT OF 2002!
here
Calling this network "3G" is pure marketroid hype.
r 494921.html>Reuters</A> article breaking it down.
Verizon is claiming they'll offer up to 144kbps throughput, which will work out to provide real-world speeds of 20-30k.
Here's a <A href=http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/01/28/rt
. We've got computers, we're tapping phone lines, you know that ain't allowed - Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
Honestly I don't really care about 3G. I would much prefer to be able to drive from work to my house (13 miles) without losing a call 3 or 4 times.
Phone companies should spend less time with data services and make voice work. Consumer reports has an article on Cellular this month. They say that 2% of all calls on a cell phone drop in the first 2 minutes.
That is unacceptable.
wayner@pobox.com -- Wayne A Arthurton -- www.pobox.com/~wayner
If they overadvertise and the network becomes clogged and people decide that due to insufficient bandwidth and excessive bottlenecks they don't NEED the services that badly, it could make getting it started more difficult. Rather they slowly introduce it, ramp it up slowly. Build the network as they go.
:)
DSL had similar problems. The demand was greater than the infrastructure could handle, and service (technical and customer) suffered as a result, and in some cases, it still does. They might be trying to avoid a similar problem.
Of course, I haven't known Verizon and GTE before that of going out of their way to avoid problems. The best screwup I remember, is when they cut off the phone service for my entire city (Plano, TX ~ 200,000 people) for 8 hours. Cellular service and payphones were also out of commission. The police had an officer stationed at every major street corner in case of emergencies since 911 wasn't functional. I had to drive 5 miles just to find a working payphone to call someone from. This happened about 2 years ago, fyi.
That was a fun day.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Here is a link from verizon showing coverage and pricing
Quoth timothy:
:)
One would thing they would want to publicize these items. "
Sorry you've got a cold, man.
How long do you guys think it'll take for the service to make it out of the original three launch areas? (arrgh, they picked SLC instead of Denver, those tools! Stupid Olympics...) Seems to me like new wireless services come and go all the time...is this just another flash-in-the-pan?
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
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://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/27/144241 &mode=thread
Geez, the thread isn't even cold yet!
Too damn much of this American -- Gottahavitrightnowgimmegimmegimmeawshititdoesn- tworkanditsfullabugsmanyouguysallsucki- mgonnapostnastyaboutyouwiththegoatsecxguyonslashdo t!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I've just moved to East London (Stepney), and now I've got multiple dead spots in my flat.
I have maybe six locations in the flat where I must sit to talk. No more wandering around, doing stuff while talking on my mobile.
And yet almost every month I get a solicitation from BT Cellnet, imploring me to upgrade to new services - usually things that would double my monthly bill.
All of these carriers have a lot of work to do to finish the job they started out on with voice.
A message from our sponsor
I have yet to enjoy a Verizon Experience that didn't suck in some way.
They don't do a great job of handling my local phone service. They provided extreme discomfort when trying to acquire DSL (through a different carrier, mind you; I've already seen what they do to their own customers), and have not exactly heard wonderful things about their wireless phone service.
Now they have extended this wonderful track record to a 3rd generation wireless internet access?
Likely, they will embitter so many people with their poor service that the technology itself will be labelled 'bad'.
And so it goes.
One would thing they would want to publicize these items.
Considering that the service has only been in a fraction of Verizon's coverage area, they may be attempting to maintain the option to retract their company from the 3G market in case significant service problems arise.
Yes, they've most likely executed extensive tests on the technology, but it is logical to wait and ensure that the implemented technology is stable before asking $30-50 a month per individual for the privilege of using it.
Do you like German cars?
i must also ask, why we need it, i can understand in the case of preofessionals in certain industries and markets who need access to as much info as possible as quick as possible, hassle free.. in which case this is very good, however, for an ordinary user, what is the use? i dont see joe publuc using a 3G network right now. What can you do that you can't currently do? Verizon may be targetting this towards certain markets that it would be profitable in rather than the general public, thus the lack of publicity
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
There are plenty of uses the 3G network. Its not only for cell phones. It can be used for PDAs (imagine the Treo with 3G). Or my laptop could have a 3G card so I can get some fast internet access anywhere. Cars could also use it to deliver information based on your whereabouts (or a computer in the backseat).
This technology is terrific and I think it will be a big boost for PDAs.
Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the concept of streaming video to a phone.
For me, the ultimate cellphone would have the following:
1) A decent phone, with decent battery life, reception, and audio clarity (how many convergence devices overlook the fact that the primary purpose of the damn thing is a telephone?)
2) Palm Pilot-like functionality, with emphasis on providing space/ability for uploading apps of my own as well as the canned apps.
3) A GPS, with detailed street maps and wayfinding ability built in.
4) Integrate this stuff as tightly as possible, and keep as much of the data local as possible.
I can see, for example, having the complete North American phone directory on the phone, so I can look up numbers without hitting the network. Tie this into the GPS, and now I can do stuff like "get me the phone number for the house I'm standing in front of right now" or "Let me search the yellow pages for [whatever] and now that I've made a selection, give me driving directions to get there"
Or allow phones to transport GPS data on voice connections, and now I can get a map of where whoever it is I'm talking to is - geographic caller ID.
Network access is all well and good, but phones are phones first and foremost. Build in apps that support the "phone" part (things like searchable directories) and the "mobile" part (with the GPS) and now you're talking!
The Kyocera Smartphone (which is a Palm) seems close, and will probably be my next phone, but I'm still looking forward to a well-done phone+GPS combo.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
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?
any more than 640 k?
come on, can't *anyone* think of good ideas for this? mobile videoconferencing with a pocket sized phone? on demand broadband almost anywhere? while talking on your cellphone, and giving / getting directions, you could also quickly pull up mapquest on your phone, and have images of landmarks sent over... Honestly, I'm a bad brainstormer... but someone else should be able to come up with something better.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I called earlier this morning, as I've been looking for a wireless provider. Verizon makes you sign up for a calling plan (though you dont actually have to have a phone, interestingly enough), the Express Network service uses the plan's minutes and costs an additional $30 a month. The person I spoke with said speeds were around 56k.
They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does, the person I spoke with said the Internet Express service is currently more limited (though I expect that to change).
Both have contracts, though there is only a $100 fee for early cancellation. I think I'm gonna get the CDPD service, as it's cheaper and the the constant connection is important to me. If they change the new service to constant connection, I'll just pay the fee and upgrade. Also, both offer a two week grace period where you can cancel with no fee. I'm gonna test my connection out in places i usually go, to make sure I can get a good signal. If not, I'm cancelling.
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
As a former Ricochet user who greatly got value from the service, I'm always looking for a suitable replacement.
Can the Verizon 3G be used to fully access the Internet (not just a watered down "wireless web" subset of it like the current 2G phones) What ISPs support this access mode?
If Verizon does this right, then maybe Ricochet users will finally have a viable substitute.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Although they do have an unlimited offer in effect:
Express Network service is available for just $30 per month on most digital voice calling plans.* Express Network data usage is taken from your airtime allowance just like your voice calls, so there's no need to keep track of a separate airtime allowance.
From now until March 15, 2002, when you sign up for Express Network, you get unlimited Express Network data session minutes! All you pay is the additional monthly $30 Express Network access fee - your Express Network usage will not be deducted from your airtime allowance.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
They Ran a commercial for it last night...I was coding, so i can't remember the Channel I was on, but on the of the ones(75+) that charter Basic cable in the Worcester area carries anyway.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
As a geek in a PR office, here's the inside scoop on why they're not beating their own drum on this one (or it's why 99% of all organizations will sit on newsworthy information like this): it's not "ready" yet (meaning they aren't ready to field internal or external questions about said stuff; they aren't ready to fill the rest of their own staff in on it yet or they're doing that right now while the public is left in the dark with rumors; there are problems that no one except a select few know of and they would like them "fixed" in whatever way necessary before the public is informed via the marketing droids; etc.). Mix any combination of said ingredients (or come up with your own possiblities and they're likely true) and you have a press release that's "on hold" until the events change or the marketing/PR folks find a way to respin things in their favor .... oh, and don't throw rocks, I'm not allowed to talk to outsiders in the office. I just know what happens ....
Even superheroes once were losers
I wouldn't mind if the extra bandwidth was used to improve the sound quality. Modern cell phones still are not as clear as land line phones and I would rather that than extra features I'll never use.
Don't be surprised if new and exciting ad placement techniques are used in conjuction with the new connectivity as well.
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
For pricing, you must have a $35 or above voice plan with them. Then pay an additional $30 for data access, AND pay per minute (minutes come out of voice allowance minutes + charge the same as your voice minutes for any overage).
Also, billing based on minutes make absolutely no sense, since these data connections do not tie-up a line like a voice call does, it only transmits/receives when there is activity. Many people can share a single channel.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Maybe you don't have enough imagination or you don't understand that the existing CDMA standard doesn't offer anything close to 144kbs (even if that's just a theoritical limit), let alone 56K. Try more like 9600 bps if you're lucky.
This is a DATA service primarily aimed at laptops and PDAs and the users who want to connect to the Internet from anywhere.
2 years ago, I wrote a small order-entry application for a automotive parts company. Salesmen would download the update for catalog in the morning (about 400K) and send thier orders when they needed to later.
If such a wireless system has existed, this would have enabled me to expand the application to provide realtime inventory updates and order status updates without having to hook up to the customers phone line.
I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of killer uses for wireless Internet access than just watching Jenna Jameson porn on thier cell phone.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
* Police, Fire, EMT services (Forms, MAPS, real-time info)
* Order entry/tracking for roaming salesforces
* Inexpensive Logistics Tracking System using Commodity Technology (Combine w GPS and map system)
WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS!!!
Doesn't wireless Internet Access say it well enough?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Since the 3G service uses minutes from your plan, does that mean it's circuit-switched? I think I'll stick with GPRS.
(Also, can someone mod up the comment about how this service is not targeted to phones but to the AirCard that goes in your laptop?)
Two Words.
Bluetooth.
Laptop.
(Note: You can replace "Laptop" with "Handheld" if you wish.)
I don't want a unit with that whole set of tightly integrated features. I don't want a phone with everything built in. I want a modular system of digital tools.
I want a little black box with no particular features that I can drop in a pocket that connects to a 3G network on one end and creates a bluetooth cloud around me on the other. It doesn't have to have any real interface.
I want a handsfree bluetooth earpiece which interfaces with the black box.
I want a bluetooth PDA which interfaces with the earpiece and the black box to provide directory and dialing services, and to browse the web and do wireless email.
I want a bluetooth digital camera which interfaces with the black box to transmit my photos to my mac, so when I get home the photos are already in iPhoto. Perhaps it could cache them in local storage and transmit them when I happened to have the bandwidth available. That would also give me the opportunity to review them and delete any duds, and mark pictures I want printed so the mac could know to send a copy directly to Kodak for me. It would also be nice if the camera would interface with the PDA so I could use the PDA's more comfortable screen and interface to manipulate my photos (delete some, select others for printing) before they get sent to my machine at home.
I want all of this stuff to be separate so I can choose whatever manufacturers, models, and features I want, but to communicate seamlessly so I can use it pretty effortlessly together.
I don't expect to ever get what I want. It would be too... consumer focused. Manufactuers want to sell you an all-encompassing, proprietary device to ensure you pay *them* for everything you want. I'm looking for an open, standards-based system of interchangable devices to perform specific tasks well and interoperate smoothly. It'll never happen.
Man this is so obviouse, and cool! I'm sitting here thinking why would I need this?
Now if they can only support all the users and maintain a high speed link.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You don't get unlimited minutes: time you spend on the data network is taken from your call minutes. Spending two hours reading up on news one day could eat half of your monthly minutes -- if you've gone over, your per-minute Internet access cost could be as much as forty cents, or $48 for a two-hour session. Yikes.
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
Cool, so this 3G also supplies power to the desktop and monitor as well? ;-)
I work in the cellphone chip business, and we and many others really need some carriers that can make a 2.5G phone that people will really want. In order for them to want it, it has to be easy to use and truly deliver on the bandwidth. So far we have seen none of that, and its reflected in the poor earnings reports for Nokia, Motorola, and Ericsson, which has rippled down to everyone else in the supplier business
I was surprised to see Utah in the same list as Silicon Valley and the Northeast for this coverage-- Maybe it has to do with the Olympics, which are fewer than 300 hours away. Still, according to SLOC, two of Verizon's competitors, AT&T and Qwest, are the official sponsors, not VZ itself. Maybe it's planning to upstage them while the world is watching the Beehive State? As long as the rates stay relatively low (HA!-- not likely) it may be that the Olympics got something for Utah, aside from a few billion in highway money--
It has been asked, so I will answer.
The reason you enable streaming video on a cellphone is so you can have a video phone. You are correct that nobody is interested in watching a Britney Spears video on their cellphone; but once our phones are powerful enough to do video encoding, you'd be able to do a video call as easily as a regular voice call.
On the Verizon Express Network Terms and Conditions page, it states:
Charges for each Express Network data session that connects begin when you press or click the "SEND" or "Connect" button and have selected the "Express Network (1XRTT)" option at the user interface. Charges end when you press or click the "END" or "Disconnect" button.
OK, now imagine you are using the Sierra Aircard 550 PCMCIA card. Does just turning on the laptop start the session (and billing)?
I wonder if the PC card or interface software can be smart enough to recognize that it only needs to be connected to the network when you are sending or receiving data. The actual data utilization of most Web browsing at 114 kbps is probably only 10-20% of actual time spent by the surfer.
Of course, it you are watching video pr0n, your results may be higher.
You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go
:) As for me, I'd rather listen to text-to-speech of IRC or something amusing like that during the morning or evening commute. Or how about scrolling /. stories on a heads-up display in the windshield??? ;)
(tongue->cheek)I prefer to carry my laptop around instead(/tongue->cheek)
As a CDMA Verizon customer who regularly goes over his minutes using the Internet access, I can finally say "yee haw". Last June, when I finally got around to buying a data cable for my StarTAC, I called Verizon to confirm the setup, and the tech actually did say to me that they were going to 144k in January. 3 years late on DSL, but hey, he nailed that one perfectly! I've always joked with my friends that with the Linux firewall, I could NAT my network over my cellphone. But now? hmmm... ISDN-speed failover link.. (Rubs chin and raises eyebrow like The Rock).
But seriously, I can see some MP3-Car freaks using this to extend their network reach so they could, say, scp down some new MP3's while they drive to the store instead of sitting in the car running in the garage.
Intelligent Life on Earth
If your cellphone acted like a gateway, with PDA's and laptops and car systems connecting through it using bluetooth (or another short range solution), wouldn't that help out? You would still move the same amount of information, but through a common pipe. Am I mistaken that this would ease the load on the service provider equipment? There would be fewer circuits needed per person, eliminating some of the bandwidth used on protocol overhead.
Folks - am I way off? This is not my specialty, after all.
Stop the brainwash
It seems we think alike!
In fact, I just bought a Kyocera smartphone. Let me tell you, if you get one - you'll be very happy with it!
First and foremost should always be the fact that these things are telephones. I can't stand when they do things like drawing the keypad on a flat screen (can't dial without looking at it first)!
But I agree, an integrated GPS would be icing on the cellphone cake. I suspect the only limiting factor is battery life. I've owned several portable GPS devices, and all of them ate through AA batteries in only a few hours of operation.
If you have to power a phone in standby + some actual talk time, and still run a GPS in the background, today's small batteries just aren't going to last.
You can't really just power on a GPS "as needed" either. They take as long as 10 minutes to calibrate themselves to satellites on initial power-up. You can cut this time down to maybe 2-3 minutes by giving it a rough idea of your current location, so it knows which satellites to listen for; but that's still pretty inconvenient. If you're in front of a house and want it to fetch the number, it'll suck to key in your city and state from a list, and then wait 3 minutes for the GPS to sync.
I misunderstood the original post just like you misunderstood me.
I *BELIEVE* 1XRTT works. I was pointing out that before 1XRTT, you really couldn't dream of 100k.
Unfortunately, the original poster wasn't saying "this is useless", he was saying, "this is useless for a cell phone". (I didn't catch that)
We're both dopes for responding to each others respective parent threads.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce