2gbps Wireless Network Rollout this Summer

cpfeifer writes "Washington Post has this article about Verizon rolling out it's ultrawideband wireless service based on EvDO (Evolution Data Only). Reiter breaks 1xEV-DO down for us."

Comments

When can _I_ use it?

[rearl]

I hate reading about this stuff. It seems to take years from when I read about it until something filters down to where I can use it. And then, it always seems to cost a fortune. Is it just me?

Re:When can _I_ use it?

[TopShelf]

I'm sure by the time that the 2nd generation of wireless after this is rolled out, 2gbps will be accessible to the everyday consumer. So just sit tight, wait until 2007 or so, and quit whining! We'll get there when we get there...

Sounds Pricey

[silvakow]

It declined to comment on prices; a spokeswoman said the initial target market will be business customers.

Looks like I won't be seeing it for a good, long time. By the time we consumers see it, it will probably be fairly bogged down. I love being the kill-joy.

Am I missing something?

[justin_speers]

2gbps? The article says 2.4mbps... 2gbps would be really cool :)

Re:Am I missing something?

[cpfeifer]

I know, I screwed up when I posted it. Mea culpa. What's an order of magnitude among friends?

Re:Am I missing something?

[LoveMuscle]

Yeah an order of magnitude or 3.

Another overblown title

[eqteam]

This is not 2gbps nor is it "ultrawideband". As we all know, 1xEV-DO is more like 2Mbps, and the story is quoted as saying it "Ultra Fast Wireless", not UWB.

NOT Ultra-Wide Band

[univgeek]

This is in fact not even CDMA - the voice technology used by Verizon. It is a TDMA technique which uses the fact that data is NOT delay-sensitive to increase the data-rate by waiting out 'bad times'.
The technology provides a high bandwidth to users who are in 'less noisy' areas, where the signal is powerful, and a lower rate, delayed stream to users who are in 'more noisy' areas.

The technology is Qualcomm's and they are coming up with a hybrid voice-data called EV-DV where DV = Data Voice).

Re:NOT Ultra-Wide Band

[pshuman]

This is in fact not even CDMA - the voice technology used by Verizon. It is a TDMA technique which uses the fact that data is NOT delay-sensitive to increase the data-rate by waiting out 'bad times'.

The second link in the post clearly states that 1xEV-DO is CDMA. Qualcomm also agrees. Traditional CDMA was standardized as IS-95 and 1xEV-DO has been standardized as IS-856 if you want to read more about the technology.

Also note that it is 2.4Mbps peak per cell sector, per cell carrier. So if you and your ten buddies are sucking down data from the same base station cell, the 2.4Mbps peak data rate is split between all of the users.

I can't wait until this "just happens"

[Trolling4Dollars]

For years now, we've been getting the wireless internet dick tease and it hasn't really happened on a grand scale. I know that a lot of folks are probably going to say "yeah, but this is the real thing..." However, I am going to argure that it isn't. I think that the "REAL THING" will happen when people realize that all the world needs is just one big 802.11? blanket. Everything and anything connecting to each other for standard ports only and blocking everything else. No need for privacy since that is a thing of the past, just open the floodgates and let it happen. Once that happens, the wired Internet will dissipate into the background...

Find out why it is that Slashdot's moderation system is broken by clicking here...

Re:I can't wait until this "just happens"

[diablobynight]

It will never be faster though. Don't you see that. even 802.11a in turbo mode, which claims 72mbps can only pull it off if your within like 10 feet of the access point. The fact is, that wires are already laid to our house, so why would I want something wireless that will cut out when theres a heavy storm or if my tree in my front yard is in full bloom and cutiing line of site?

But how much speed do you need?

[vwpau227]

I am currently using GSM/GPRS for my wireless connectivity needs on my handheld (a PalmOS deice) and it's certainly enough for what I need on this sort of platform. Since this device only has 8MB of RAM a 2Gbps connection to the Internet using 1xEvDO won't do me a lot of good. Even on my Notebook computer, I don't need this much connectivity. This is especially the case if I have to pay a premium price of it.

Part of the problem for Sprint and Verizon is that they have put out a lot of money for data networks that are not being used. Current 1xRTT usage is nowhere near the levels that were once forecast. The truth of the matter is that msot mobile wireless users are using PDAs and other handheld devices don't need these "high speed" data services yet. Until there is such a demand, I see little reason for these carriers to put in the capital required to roll out these services.

Re:But how much speed do you need?

[binaryDigit]

Ah, but when you have your gsm phone bluetoothed (or tethered) to your laptop, then you have access in a significantly larger area than any measly WiFi hotpoints. Combine this with vpn, and one can easily extend their corp networks to those in the field. This means that people like real estate agents can get listings away from their offices, your appliance repair person can lookup a part and order it without involving a phone rep (cheaper for the repair company), and myriad other things that my feeble brain can't come up with right now. While private use may be lagging, I think that this type of techology will open up some very interesting possibilities in the business sector.

Break Out A Thousand Handsets...

[FrankDrebin]

...if you want 2 Gbps. The 1xEV-DO carrier supports up to 2.4 Mbps total bandwidth (ie. you share it with all other users of the channel). Spin it any way you want, it's still better than 14.4k dialup, but a far cry from wireline broadband.

mad bandwidth

[mrtroy]

Really, what "good" use does joe blow have for having anything faster than about 100kb/sec, especially if you are including on their cellphone/pda/etc. The main things an overload of bandwidth brings with it is
1. More porn downloading. And higher res!
2. More games/movies/mp3 downloading...now I can download the 4.3 gig version (one dvd) of the movie still in theaters instead of the measely 1.2 gig version (2cds)
3. Abuse. Hey...now I can packet you.

To be completely serious now, bandwidth does have its advantages. I also notice a large difference between surfing the internet @ work *cough*, and surfing the internet at home.

But, all I would like to bring across is that if you give someone a truckload of bandwidth, they are going to abuse it. Just like if you give someone a billion dollars, they wont be as economically sound with it as they would with a thousand dollars. After all, more bandwidth is nice, but it costs more somewhere, it doesnt magically appear.

(I also do not condone/perform any of those 3 items on my list, excluding 1-3 which I may be known to sometimes do sometimes)

And happy Saint Paddy's Day! Green beer for all, and possibly a presidential announcement that iraq is going to get blown up. At least the pres will be drunk during it.

Re:I hate when they define a rollout

[hal-j]

Hmm? 1XRTT (what Sprint is using for their "3g") is the same technology and speed as what Verizon is using for their "Express Network". IIRC, 1XRTT tops off at 144Kbps. They're talking about a different beast here.

Furthermore, it's common to roll out a new technology in a few test markets. It's quite a bit cheaper to work the kinks out on a limited scale, rather than do a national deployment and hope for the best.

BTW, the DC area isn't only home to politicos, it's also a high-tech hotspot.

Faster Connection & Security?

[VGMSupreme]

I am all for faster connection speeds. I would like to be able to download software apps at something faster than 30-100 kbps (depending on that site I am at). I am sure this will benefit tons of people, but I do have a few questions. Yes, I read the article, but I am still unsure about a few things.

1) As always, service tends to go down, no matter what ISP you are using. So I was wondering how reliable this service will be when it gets up and running. I know Verizon is already known for it good service on cell phones, but I just want to make sure that it won't go down as often as RR, or any other Cable/DSL ISP.

2) For the wireless people, how are they going to provide security for using this faster connection (if any would be provided. I am not sure if it is the company's or the customer's responsibility for the security of data transmitted over a wireless connection)

3) Would this service require more digging/repairing/installing new component and ripping out the old on, or are they going to build on top of existing hardware/software already in the works?

I know that some of these questions sound stupid to the average /.er, but I am just trying to understand a few things, and just like my mom taught me, there is no harm in asking.

Excellent...

[archetypeone]

Checklist for Summer -

Shorts
Sunblock
Cold Beer
Tinfoil Hat

Re:Why 2gbps....

[vrt3]

What's a little g?

9.81 kg.m/s^2
So 2gbps would be something like 19.62 kg.m.b/s^3.

Better use

[gr8_phk]

Wouldn't it be cool if they allocated a little more bandwidth to the voice channel instead of allowing users to "download a spreadsheet" to their phone? When I can't tell you're calling from a cell phone, I'll be willing to listen to claims of high bandwidth.

EvDO, a new Wireless High-Speed Technology

[rpiquepa]

For more information about this wireless technology, please read this column. And for more comments abot today''s Washington Post article, check this one.

Haha

[sulli]

Usually when the "initial target market is business customers" this means cost is $100/month or more. Meanwhile, wardriving is free. Which do you choose?

Sprint PCS? Nationwide???

[Andy Dodd]

Look at their coverage map... Sprint PCS coverage isn't nationwide, it's "Little itty bitty spots scattered across the nation".

Did you know that Sprint PCS doesn't even have coverage for their headquarters building?

Sprint also can't even cover more than 50% of the landmass of the most densely populated state in the USA (New Jersey). Verizon America's Choice, on the other hand, covers every single inch of NJ. Yes, VZW is much more expensive than any other wireless provider and has a more limited selection of phones. You get what you pay for. (In terms of service coverage and quality. Verizon's limited handset selection is due to their EXTREMELY high quality standards.)

Let's not forget that neither Vision nor Express Network are 3G. They are 2.5G interim. 1xEV-DO is true 3G, as is UMTS. (Although so far, EV-DO and EV-DV have had FAR more commercial success than UMTS. Only UMTS rollout so far has been DoCoMo, which was a flop. Meanwhile, KDDI rolled out EV-DO or DV with great success, and Korea also has one of the two.)

The article blew it - kinda - on one point...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

One barrier to rollout of EvDO has been that the technology requires wireless companies to set aside valuable airwaves just to carry data.

Not really.

You can just put the voice on the same packet stream. Use MPLS and a bandwidth-reservation protocol to reserve a slice of the channel, giving the voice connection the necessary bandwidth and latency gurarntees for voice service. Non-phone-call packet servcie get everything left over after the currently-active phone calls reserve their cut.

This also lets the phone company charge you a telephone-ish rate for the reserved bandwidth. Charge cell-phone minutes for a phonecall-sized reserved slice, flat rate for taking your chances.

They can also do multi-tier billing:

- Charge regular rate for a cellphone-quality compressed connection.

- Charge a premium (1 1/2 cell minutes per minute?) for a landline-quality 64kbps (plus overhead) slot and run G.711 (like a DOCSIS-compliant POTS-over-cable box) or some other DS0-in-packets protocol. Run your fax machine via your cellphone at full rate. (Or your laptop's 56k modem if you're feeling silly, or can't get hold of the right cables and software.)

(If the base has a LOT of capacity they might just want to charge the same for 64k as for other calls, or just make all calls 64k: They take more bandwidth than compressed but are a straight encoding of a digital phone line, so the don't require a bunch of DSP crunch at the POTS/packet gateway.)

- Charge a discount (1/2 cell minute per minute?) for highly-compressed voice.

- Maybe charge a steeply discounted premium rate for, say, participating in an outbound multicast group to hear a broadcast stream. (Think XM radio or webcasts via your cellphone, or at least via its network infrastructure.)

And so on.

Maybe let you make premium-priced bandwidth reservations on any suitable stream, rather than just those that represent calls via, or broadcasts from, their own servers.

This lets you take your own choice:

- Make an internet "free" phonecall, and take your chances on voice quality. If it's breaking up too badly:

- Reconnect (or promote) the call to a reserved-bandwidth service if the net weather is stormy.

- Pay different rates for different quality connections. Sound just like a POTS landline for a bit extra. Sound like a cheap long-distance carrier if you're on a budget.

Now the carrier might want to limit the percentage of bandwidth that can be reserved, so a heavy phone day will only slow, not stop, internet access. But there's no need to earmark a bunch of channels and install a bunch of hardware JUST for the low-dollar IP packets.