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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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: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.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I can ciew postage-stamp sized video clips while I browse the postage-stamp sized web!
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://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/27/144241 &mode=thread
Geez, the thread isn't even cold yet!
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.
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?
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 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
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
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.
sulli
RTFJ.