Slashdot Mirror


Is Verizon Up to Speed?

Dejected @Work writes "IBM developerWorks just ran this article on Verizon's partial 3G network set up in some areas of the US, most of the North East. The article goes into some good technical background about these fatter pipes called Express Network. Has anyone tried this out?"

11 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Try 2.5 G network... by WebWiz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Verizon dosen't have a 3G network.

    1. Re:Try 2.5 G network... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) defines 1xRTT as 3G.

    2. Re:Try 2.5 G network... by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is untrue. 3G is an umbrella that
      includes 2 technologies. CDMA2000, which is
      used mostly in the North American continent
      and Korea, and Wideband CDMA, which is supposed
      to be used by the rest of the world. Verizon
      has a CDMA2000 network (1xRTT), which is very
      definitely 3G.

      Magnus.

    3. Re:Try 2.5 G network... by maroon_dog · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only true 3G in the United States is Ricochet...which I used at a true 80-250kbps. However, clueless executives and a little company called Aerie Networks have done a remarkably good job of killing that off, and we'll probably never see it again.

      Ricochet was not spectrally efficient. It could never serve more than a niche market (even if the demand wasn't so niche). That technology would never back it big simply because service providers wouldn't be able to serve large numbers of people (relative to what's happening with cellular networks) with it.

      Too bad. The mesh design of Ricochet was a boon to rescue and police efforts in New York, since many microcell nodes can go down without debilitating the network. With 3G, lose a couple of cell towers and everyone's suddenly got curiously-shaped handheld vibrators instead of phones.

      Not true. The network is not dehabilitated when a couple cells go down. Best case, some capacity is lost. Worst case, there is an outage in a small area.

      The bitrate of 3G sucks if you happen to be doing anything except sitting less than a half-mile from the tower, too.

      Again, not true. You can get the max rate at the cell edge. The fact that you won't is mostly a factor of other users using up the base station's power.

      2.5G is just a stepping stone. The money that the service providers invest in it is low risk. Even if data service doesn't take off, they still benefit because 1xRTT virtually doubles their voice users/sector capacity. They are more than happy to have that no matter what happens with data. If data takes off, there are much better things already in the pipe.

      Next, will come the real 3G. It will be called 1xEV-DO (1Xrtt EVolution - Data Only). It will be an overlay technology that will really rock. Basically, there will be one giant constant rate (!) pipe and each user will be given a slice of it based on how many other people want to get on, among other things. Realistically expect 100's of kbps when that comes out. Verizon is conducting a private trial of that technology this year.

    4. Re:Try 2.5 G network... by maroon_dog · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ricochet used public spectrum in the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrum. You want to talk about spectrally efficient? No, and I think you've missed the point. Spectally efficient != how much someone pays for spectrum. Spectrally efficient != how fast the throughput is. Spectrally efficient = most bang for the buck where bang = how many users you can serve while keeping the users satisfied enough to pay for the service and buck = how much it costs per users to provide the service. Oh, an let's not forget the number one feature of 3G (damn the hype): voice users/sector. Can ricochet support 20-30 voice calls/sector/carrier while still providing data service? Didn't think so. Richochet was a niche, not because the demand wasn't there, but it was a niche becuase it would never be able to serve a lot of people. And even if the users/sector numbers were there, the per-carrier numbers weren't. There's not enough spectrum to have 5-6 service providers out there (like the cellular industry has) all on different bands, all with multiple carriers serving a bazillion users with the stuff. Ease up, bud. I'm sure ricochet was great for you. It just wasn't a high capacity (capacity = serving very, very large numbers of people) technology.

    5. Re:Try 2.5 G network... by eqteam · · Score: 3, Informative

      I read through most of the posts, and everyone is bagging the service (atleast it seems to me). I've had it for more than a month now, and I will not be giving it up, even though it IS expensive. Why?
      1) 30-50kbps when the planets aren't aligned
      2) Works with my laptop OR my IPaq
      3) Meetings where there are no ethernet jacks and no APs are still productive
      4) I can share with my friends during company meetings and it's still decent!
      5) All TCP/IP protocols work, TightVNC works well enough to use for emergencies
      6) Traveling 65 (MPH) down the freeway, pulling FTP at 37kps for 13 miles

      It really doesn't hold a candle to Ricochet, but then again Verizon's service is up ;) and it doesn't have some of the problems (noted by others) that 3G and GPRS networks seem to exhibit.

  2. Might cause more problems than it's worth by miracle69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Besides having the really annoying "Can You Hear Me Now" commercials, this will probably end up being a bad idea.

    The way these things work is that it can allow 1 phone to use up to 6 phones worth of airway resources. Now, during peak times, it's hard to get cell phones out. Now imagine that a large portion of the population is using more than one share worth of resources. I wonder how much incentive Verizon will have to increase their resources by 3-6x.

    I bet this will be damn expensive for about 5-10 years, then we'll get "unlimited downloads" on weekends/nights, etc, until cellular data rates approach current voice deals..

    --
    Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
  3. Author Spedometer by FrankDrebin · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted up front that Verizon predicts 40-60 kbps will be the initial routinely obtained transfer rate in Express Network service, that is, the same as one would expect from a current V.90 dial-up modem. (Still, it's better than 14.4!) The system architecture (currently at the 1X-RTT level) can easily be scaled up to the 3X level, which would give it a 153 kbps transfer rate. The 3X upgrade works by chaining together enough bandwidth for 16 voice calls and delivering them to the same user.

    Some of these statements are inaccurate. 1x-RTT offers rates even beyond 153 kbps today. Verizon is choosing to limit speeds within the scope of 1x-RTT, but 153 kbps is certainly available. 3x takes three 1x channels and sandwiches their spectrum offering max speeds in the Mbps range, not kbps. However, almost no one believes 3x will ever happen, since it requires major changes to the RF portion of the network infrastructure (read: megabucks), and of course like 1x, requires brand new hand sets/modem cards. Far from an easy upgrade.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
  4. I've tried it, and it sorta works with Linux by thalakan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I stopped by a Verizon store on a whim and found out that the service can be obtained on a trial basis for 14 days, after which you can return the phone for a full refund. I already have Sprint PCS data service on my Motorola StarTAC 7867W and I didn't need the higher speeds, so I opted not to keep the service. Service is $30 for Express Network access (you can still get 14.4Kbps CDMA data without that fee), plus a monthly contract to get minutes which are shared between voice and data usage. The prorated amount for my 14 days of usage was:

    • Monthly plan access: $21.77 (14 days of the $45.00 / month plan for 400 anytime minutes)
    • Express network: $14.51 (not $30 because I only used it for 14 days)
    • 411 charges (I called information a couple times): 3 times at $0.99 each = $2.97
    • Taxes: $1.71
    • Total: $41.48
    They refunded my $150 for the phone and data cable upon return with no hassle.

    There was only one phone that supported the service at the time, the Kyocera 2235. I noticed that the voice quality was superior to my StarTAC, especially in analog mode. Since I'm a communications specialist, the lack of codec delays in analog mode was immediately apparent and the sound quality seemed superior to CDMA digital mode.

    The phone was about $75, and I had to pay an additional ~$70 for the data cable, which was a complete ripoff. The data cable package included the Windows driver CD, instructions, and the USB to phone cable itself. The phone didn't come with a belt clip (which I need when I'm in the field), but had indentations on both sides which makes me think that you could buy a clip that snaps onto the phone.

    The windows installation worked fine on my Windows 2000 SP2 partition on my laptop. The initial data transfers seemed to be modem speeds, but then I realized I was being limited by the network at the peer side. I connected to a site I knew was only a few hops away from the Verizon gateway, and wow, it was fast. It started pushing data at about 140Kb/s raw, in addition to the packet headers. I didn't do anything special to get good reception either - it was about 2 signal bars IIRC on the ground floor of a window office in an industrial park.

    The phone had a real IP, so I did some latency tests using pings. That resulted in about 300-400ms of delay, similar to a dial-up modem, but far worse than the typical 40-50ms on a BRI ISDN link. I didn't play any games, so couldn't tell you what the interactive performace will be like. SSH responsiveness was similar to a 33.6 modem. Ping times were usually within one standard deviation, although it would occasionally glitch and drop a packet or give me a 3000ms return.

    So I tried it under Linux, and found out that the cable wasn't supported. After taking the cable apart, I found out that it contained a Kawasaki KL105 USB to serial chip, which didn't even have a driver written for it. I contacted Kawasaki and got this document which contained the protocol for the chip. Turns out that the chip comes in several different flavors, some with custom firmware loads, all of which have different protocols. I wrote a preliminary Linux driver for the chip, but ran out of time before my 14 days were up. I think that the driver can do data transfers, but the control line code is still kind of screwed up. Email me if you want a copy of the driver source.

    The chip provides transfer speeds of up to 230Kbps, which is necessary to support the 153Kbps maximum speed of the network plus the packet overhead from the phone. The phone itself uses 11 pins of it's connector to talk to the chip in the cable. The PCB in the cable wart contains a power jack so you can charge the phone and use the cable at the same time, which is nice because the power connector from the AC adapter is mechanically incompatible with the data cable - you can't have both plugged into the bottom of the phone at the same time. The power lines account for 2 of the eleven pins, and I assume the other 9 are the standard 9 serial pins. Tracing the pins made me think that the UART outputs from the phone were electrically compatible with TIA-232, although I couldn't confirm it for sure.

    When I returned the phone, I found that they now have DB-9 serial cables which don't require any special driver software - you just plug one end into the phone and the other end into the computer. Note that this will limit your speed to 100Kbps, because most serial ports have a line rate of 115Kbps, but you have the protocol overhead which will limit you to 100 Kbps given a standard packet size histogram for someone browsing the web. Those cables are still overpriced, so I'd recommend looking on eBay or contacting your local plastic injection firm and asking them if they're interested in a little side business :)

    --
    -- thalakan
  5. Tried and quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I signed up for Verizon's Express Network while they were offering the unmetered access promotion in February. The service was $30/mo in addition to a regular calling plan, the cheapest of which at the time was $35/mo as well if I remember correctly. That's $70/mo once the nickel-and-dime taxes and other charges are included.

    Objectively, speeds rarely got to 56kbps; I think nothing needs to be said about their fanfared 144kbps. Subjectively, web pages didn't seem to load much faster than they do on Verizon's regular cellular data network.

    Browsing the web, checking my email, and making phone calls on my iPaq with the Sierra AirCard in the PCMCIA sleeve was really cool, but there was a problem. The AirCard is not a tri-mode or even a dual-mode cellular device. Translation: don't plan on using the AirCard for trips. It only works on Verizon's digital network, which is not nearly as complete as they would lead you to believe. If you'd like a phone that still functions as you travel around, you either need to buy the Kyocera 1x-RTT phone or activate an entirely separate phone (with analog capability) and account with Verizon. I discovered this fact *after* purchasing the AirCard for $299. Fortunately, Verizon has a 14-day return policy, so I went back and exchanged the card for the Kyocera phone, a data cable, and money.

    I never could get my iPaq/Kyocera combination to login to the Express Network, even after three long, drawn-out calls to Verizon customer service. (The combination works flawlessly logging in to a local ISP at 19.2kbps.)

    I cancelled my Express Network service. Even unmetered access wasn't worth hanging on to.

  6. Obsured by Xrkun · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work for Verizon Wireless in Rochester NY. We've been playing around with it, testing it etc... Well, here's the scoop. Right now the speed is about 128K (ISDN speed) and about as expensive. My phone is free because I'm on call 24 x 7 and they want me to support this product. However, they want to charge us, the employees, 30 bucks a month to have it. My boss won't let me expense it and I'm not about to pay for the service. However, the best use I've had with it is when I connect with my laptop and VPN into work. It's actually not too bad. I'm normally a very impatient person but I have to say that even with the encryption overhead, I was able to obtain my mail, logon to the network and even my CISCO softphone worked! (Boss, I'll be working from my pool today.) I did some benchmarks on the speed of the connection and with our special software, we average about 11K to both local broadband access providers. (Basically I ftped a 5 meg picture from my digital camera to both the Time Warner Roadrunner ftp server and Frontier's Lightning link ftp server.)