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?"
Verizon dosen't have a 3G network.
Good for Verizon they at least gotto market with their 3G systems. I work in Telecom and most of our clients are European Telcom majors and they have spent so much on licenses they are now too cash poor to implement the system itself. And of course in this market they cant raise the money from stock
**Life is too short to be serious**
Sure, it's nice having the extra speed, but until I can get always-on access, I'll stick with Mobile Office, which is free.
It says up to 144 Kbps but with this disclaimer and no further explanation I wonder how fast it really is: 'The Express Network is capable of data speeds bursting up to 144 Kbps. You will experience slower data speeds dependent on network and equipment capabilities and other variables of wireless service.'
Sounds promising...
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
144kbps theoretical max. Wonderful stuff, you can even watch streaming movies. At 10 megabytes for $35, that's $3.69 a minute for that streaming movie. Still interested?
Would somebody please tell me what tangible benefits there are to a 3G network? I understand there is a higher transfer rate, but this is meaningless to me until there are services available that warrant it. Checking stock quotes through my cell phone only has limited appeal to me, same thing for email or instant messaging, and these functions are available on existing networks, anyway.
I guess my real question is: In areas where 3G has been rolled out, what services are available/are popular? 3G is touted as being the Next Big Thing in wireless, but I have yet to see anything that makes me get all that excited.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
According to this article
"Shauna Smith, a wireless industry analyst with ARS Inc., said the Verizon Wireless launch this week was a disappointment for the industry and users looking to capitalize on 3G.
(Verizon Wireless officials) say the maximum speeds that they provide are 144 Kbps, but actual speeds are 40 to 60 Kbps, which really qualifies it as a 2.5G technology, but it is not technically 3G yet," she said. "What we're looking for in 3G is speeds around 2 Mbps, but we won't see that kind of speed until 2003 or 2004 before we starting touching (that speed). "
so looks like "3G" is still a overhyped buzzword and not reality yet
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.
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?
whoops i meant 3G, see the buzzword hype is already getting to me
whereas, I routinely got 153 kbps with Ricochet, often exceeding 200 kbpx. I wish they would soon come back!
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
I had an opportunity to try out a Laptop that was connected via verizon's new network. The little PC card they supply as an interface option is stinking sexy but that's a separate issue... I would compare the speed to single ISDN. The verizon rep I talked to said the average sustained throughput was 45-65K with the occasional burst to 144K. The brief surfing session I had confirmed that the connection wasn't spectacular. I would say 45-65k is accurate based on my thumb in the air gadge. It does have tangible benifits though. Almost zero wait time to connect, totally wireless and slightly faster then 56k dialup. If travelling was part of my business I would be all over it. Beware of roaming to non-built out areas though: It will work but only at 14.4k.
How does this compare to AT&T's sometime-arriving mlife service, which is DoCoMo or so I hear? I am desparately wanting to buy a new phone but don't wanna get burned on getting rapidly-obsolete technology! Is Verizon's 3G equivalent to mlife?
In Europe we have a system called GPRS which is an enhancement to the existing GSM networks. GPRS gets about 56kbps, although some systems do up to 128kbps I hear (in an ISDN style dual-channel arrangement). In the US though, I hear that GPRS is limited to 19.2kbps-28kbps, which sounds nuts.
Is 3G also limited in the US? The theroetical maximum speed for 3G in Europe and Japan is 384kbps downlink and 64kbps uplink.. which makes 144Kbps mentioned here sounds kinda pathetic. If I were in the US, I'd stick with GPRS, which is pretty cheap and as fast as logging on with my 56.6kbps modem indoors!
CNET has an article comparing cellphone data protocols, although it seems to be using the American data rates and lists GPRS as only able to do 28.8kbps!
mogorific carpentry experiments
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
Wow, this is great. Now Verizon can fail to deliver my phone calls at even greater rates. They have great commercials but their service leaves much to be desired. My friend and I have fun leaving voice mail messages to each other when we are in the same room with our phones on within sight of two cell towers.
-Nails-
This is an important pubic notice. Putting mobile phones in your front pockets or in your Levi's "Mobile Pants" can give you testicular cancer.
Using the 3G Network will give you cancer 3x faster than current phones. It's also 3x more likely that you will have a child that looks like Bill Gates of Ozzie Osbourne.
Finally, this bill also protect you from talking dirty or sending dirty messages over your cell phone. Please men, talk dirty on the phone, and use those testicles while you still have them!
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.
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.)
In Japan, the best selling mobile handsets
are the ones with cameras in them.
I used a FOMA video phone in Japan, and the reaction I had was that I must get one. It is not
for showing your face when you talk, but for
pointing at things, like "I'm trying to unjam
this printer" or "I'm trying to remove my sink
in the bathroom, how do I disconnect the water pipes?". And when you have real 30 fps frame rate
on video, it is qualitatively different experience than
crappy ISDN video conferencing.
People will make imaging a mandatory feature
on phones, when they actually see it. It is only
the US mobile phone industry that is screwing
up so badly that we are 2-3 years behind the
Japanese in terms of technology. WAP was probably
the cause of at least half the lossage. In Japan,
they just deployed plain old HTML (i-Mode) on phones and it worked ten times better than
the WAP garbage that was being pushed in the US
and Europe.
sPh
...good.