Slashdot Mirror
2.4 Megabit Cellular Modem
lew writes: "Ars has a review of a cellular modem that provides 2.4 megabits / second downsteam and 153 kilobits / second upsteam... and it works! Check it out" How much for unmetered service on such a system? :)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Why do all the new broadband technologies limit the upload to a very slow speed? 2.4Mbps is nice and all, but for it to be useful beyond surfing the web 153Kbps doesn't leave for much of anything else.
I think most likely will be a per MB charge as the 2.5g systems are. Gonna rack up the pounds/dollars/euros/yen mighty quickly at those speeds though! ;)
Sure, it works great when it's just a prototype and you're more or less the only one on. What happens to performance once you get everyone using it in a densely populated area? In big cities during peak times, the existing digital cell phone network drops enough calls as it is for me.
...You just watch.
I know how these phone companies are. They'll either use CDPD billing or some other way to charge you.
They'll either charge you by the minute or by the byte. Either way you'll get reamed.
Picture this: you're sitting on the beach sipping something cold and sweet while browsing your favorite website, listening to some streaming audio, and communicating with a friend or co-worker. You have untethered bandwidth at your fingertips. Pipe dream? No, it's 3G.
I suppose this is an unpopular opinion, but isn't the purpose of 'getting away' actually to avoiding talking to a co-worker? I mean I would love the bandwidth they talk about at home but it's just not here yet.
The last thing I want on the beach is some dweeb cellphone going off 'cos his download of the latest Britney video is done. Just enjoy your vacations and leave the office crap at home.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
i still live 500 feet out of range for dsl
can't these tech companies fix shit that's broken before coming out with new stuff?
You're entirely right. Cell phone pricing is silly, and I'm sure the vaunted 3G wireless will be underpowered and overpriced.
But changing that starts at the bottom of the communications industry, not the top. Why do cell phones have minute-based plans? Because land-line long distance does. They cost more because the consumer perceives greater value in the cell phone service (which is accurate), and therefore not only is willing, but demands to pay more. It's no secret that most people equate "more expensive" with "better."
Why does long distance charge per minute? Because local calls are flat-fee. Again, greater perceived value requires higher cost.
The same will be true of 3G connectivity. The only way to change that is to start at the bottom--why aren't local calls included gratis with the cost to have a phone line to a building?Why aren't long-distance calls flat-rate?
If that changed, everything above it would shift downwards. Either that, or someone has to hammer home to the public at large that cost and value don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.
Of course, if Windows hasn't done that already, I don't know that there's much hope...
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
In addition to the normal internet peak usage times, you can also through another one into the mix: rush hour traffic. I live in a major metropolitan city (of ~4 mil), and I can't hardly use my cell phone from about 4:30 to 5:30.
I wonder how that's going to work with data connections, that are constantly dropping and reestablishing? It'll be a mess, for sure.
Hang on...not everything should be flat-rate.
When my girlfriend and I lived in separate states, our long-distance bill was huge...but we expected that. We were able to minimize it by using calling cards and talking in the evening.
Now my girlfriend and I live together...and our long-distance bill is small. If there was a flat rate for long-distance, it would certainly be higher than I'm paying now. All that would do is anger the 80% of people who use a less than average amount of long distance. (Yes, my math is right - the top 20% of long-distance callers talk five times as long.)
I would actually be willing to pay for cable/DSL by the megabyte. Why? Because that would encourage adoption...my grandma would be able to get DSL for $3 a month because she just checks email. I'd pay $60 a month, but I'd be getting my money's worth. And when I go out of town for two weeks, my bill would reflect it.
Having the option of a flat-rate plan is fine, but I think that it's not best for most people.
The cable companies brought out DSL and didn't worry too much about that fact that heavy use could saturate the local segment of the network, because very few people would ever be downloading multi-megabyte files, they'd just be looking at web pages, reading email and instant messaging people....
Then Napster happened.
It's just a matter of time before someone figures out a high-bandwidth app that Joe Public wants on his phone.
Want an example? Wouldn't it be cool if Nokia (or someone else) put one of these modems, a small colour LCD, camera, and video conferencing software into a cheap phone? Suddenly everyone is sending/recieving high-bandwith multi-media streams, 'cause everyone just *has* to have a videophone.
Demand will always grow to exeed limitations, usually in ways that could not be predicted when the limitations were imposed.
grnbrg
Sure, if you follow the "normal" pattern of going into an office for n hours, then going home, that's entirely reasonable. But what about those of us with enlightened bosses who say things like, "Why don't you stay at home and work on project X tomorrow"? In the middle of summer, I'd love to be able to spend the day writing code at the beach while watching my email and maybe sshing in to check out a server problem instead of having to do it from home.
The ability to work from anywhere can also be used to let you get away from it all while working, not just to let work follow you when you're trying to get away.
Many people have brought up ther valid point that if this (seemingly large) 2.4Mbit bandwidth is spread amongstwhoever is using the cell, then some people will hog everything, and others will get almost none, thereby creating a really terrible situation for the great majority of users.
:)
The point has also been brought up that paying by the kilobyte sucks for those who want high bandwidth...
My point is that the two effects would tend to cancel each other out, or, more specifically, that The people hogging the bandwidth would have to pay more, thereby eliminating the use of a cell phone for downloading warez or such.
Okay, so its not so nice... but it works. People will end up using the system for IMing and light web page browsing, which is what it is designed for. No-one intended cellphones to be used as hotline servers.
Now, it would be really nice if 3G meant more bandwidth than you could shake a nokia at, but its just not feasible. And who really wants to host a quake 3 server on a laptop. Most laptops can't even PLAY quake 3 with decent FPS (note I said most). And the payment scheme, though I am sure it will exact several orders of magnitude more dollars than are needed, making you pay the jerks through the nose for some crappy junk, works. Don't be surprised. We live in a real world
True enough, but the fact that its capacity will be exceeded at some point doesn't make the per-cell limitations any worse than any other ultimately inadequate broadband solution. I'm not saying this will be better than wired broadband (in terms of bandwidth availability), I'm just saying it won't be worse.
Not to mention it's far and away better than the "wireless web" capabilities built into current cell phones, vastly superior to current cell modems, and just kind of neat in general.
I just think it's overly harsh to call the cell-shared nature of its bandwidth the "big lie" of 3G. It's no more nor less true than any other marketing claim; it has to be considered in context.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
my grandma would be able to get DSL for $3 a month because she just checks email.
And she'd be happy until the first month she gets a screenfull of animated adds, a mailbox full of spam, and a $750 bill for the privilege.
Current internet technology evolved in an unmetered, bandwidth-limit-only enviornment. The content of the web and email - or the intelligence of the browsers and delivery agents - will require major revision before metered broadband internet service becomes practical.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Of course, in a stiuation such as this, we'd all have a very real reason to make spam illegal.
Right now it is annoying, but if it cost me money over and above what my own bandwidth needs are, I'd sue in a heartbeat.