Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Service as High Speed Internet Link?
Gorm the DBA asks: "I live out in the boonies, where Cable is just another word for what the telegraph guy delivers and the nearest Central Office is over 27,000 feet away, so DSL is at best a (fat) Pipe Dream, and dialup speeds top out at 17,700baud on a good day. Currently we have satellite internet via DirecWay, but it's expensive ($60/month) and VPNlike applications are not supported, never mind gaming (high latency), which reduces it's utility dramatically. At the same time, I've been looking at getting a new cell phone. I see that Sprint, Cingular, and others all have cards that you can plug into your computer and use the cellular network to get data. The claim is 'wireless online surfing as fast as DSL'. I've confirmed I'm in the coverage areas, but is this really as good as they're making it sound? It's pricey ($79.99/month, plus the cost of the card), but it would be portable as well. Does anybody have experience with this sort of technology? Is it ready for prime time? Does it really work? Is it worth it? Is the internet access real, or a filtered 'You get what we want you to get' sort of thing?"
I've had to explain this to angry executives who couldn't dial in from the cottage/ski hill/resort so many times, I sound like a broken record. If you're in an area where the wired signal is awful, you can basically rest assured the wireless signal quality will be much worse. Wireless is by nature a less reliable medium, because it's passing through air and trees and walls -- as opposed to copper. If you're located somewhere so far from civilization that the wired infrastructure can't handle basic data, then neither will wireless. Don't believe the sales people. :\
Possible exception: your dad's the farmer who gave up part of his field for a cel phone tower. But even then don't bet on it.
Building out wireless is cheaper than building land line phone service.
Chances are, that you'll have great phone service in places where there are no land lines.
Many third world countries which never had land lines is skipping that step and going directly for wireless.
At least this is what I've heard.
I'd be glad if anyone could substantiate or refute this.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
We looked into the cell option versus cable, and here were the two show-stoppers for us (Cingular, YMMV):
;)
1. "Not all protocols are supported". No further eludication. Good luck finding somebody who knows if ssh or whatever you might realize you need in the future is supported.
2. "No bulk downloading JPEGS". I *guess* maybe they are saying they don't want you to download pr0n with their service, but I can think of legitimate reasons for wanting to do that, such as mirroring web sites for personal use. (terraserver anyone?
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
It works; the latency is bad, but not as bad as satellite. I get about 450ms ping to most servers in my country (US).
:)
The bandwidth is limited by two things: Network throughput and network load. I believe that the fastest (non-major-city) cell phones go up to 155kbps (I get 15.2 max kBps.) I'm using Sprint because, when I researched it a year ago, they and Verizon had the fastest networks for this sort of thing. Network load just means that if there are lots of people on the same tower as you, your connection will not run at full speed. I've rarely seen that happen with mine.
Run a search on different types of cell networks and make sure you have a signal with a fast one. I used to use Nextel, and it was like 1/5 the speed of dialup with 1000msec latency and downtime. That was on the old analog network.
Also, you know you can buy powered signal boosters for every type of signal? If you're in the boonies and want more signal, you might get one of those.
Email me if you want, put slashdot into the subject
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've used my cell phone to connect to the 'net on occasion. The speed actually impressed me, considering the road those packets were having to travel, but the latency was horrendous. It seemed like the connection would burst data at a high speed for a second or two, then completely pause for a second or two.
Worked fine for e-mail and casual web browsing, but if you're interested in gaming, keep looking.
I have used the PCMCIA Sprint wireless card when I was a consultant and traveled quite a lot. It is ok, I wouldn't quite say it is DSL speed, probably closer to ISDN speed or slightly faster. Certainly a good alternative if you want something faster then dialup. Just make sure you get good wireless signal in your area before you even bother.
If the latency for the DirecDish is an issue for you, then the latency from the celphone wireless will likewise be an issue.
I've linked my PDA and my laptop to my celphone via USB, IR, and bluetooth. I've tried it with 3G(1x) via SprintPCS(vision) and Cingular GPRS/EDGE.
All I can say is that on a celphone, you expect there to be delays. It is, afterall, a low-processing power device. On the laptop, websurfing is "okay".
With SprintPCS's vision plan, I found that I got a pretty good xfer rate of around 60kilobits per second to around 120 kilbits per second. Yes, that is kiloBITS. So, compared to the poster's dial-up speeds, that is much better. Note, though, that this is near a cel-tower with good reception.
In poor reception areas, you can expect around 9.6kilobits per second to around 14.4 kilobits per second.
If that's your only option, then it isn't a bad way to go. The highest speed you will be able to achieve is around 144 kilobits/second with the current generation of tech. This should grow to around 384kilobits per second as more of the next-gen tech arrives, but it still isn't what it should be. SprintPCS Vision does some kind of caching and image compressing, so you will get better rates, but lower quality images for web pages.
With Cingular, GPRS gives you 14.4kilbit/sec dial-up connection. With EDGE, you are supposed to be able to get 384 kilobits/second. I've experienced issues where given a good signal, you will still get less than admirable rates due to contention with other folk and with other voice usage of the network.
Verizon has their EVDO which is promising 1.5mbit/second capabilities(wireless DSL, basically). Haven't used them yet, but people who have used them say they are pretty good. They have pretty good coverage as well, so that might be an option. Without EVDO, you are basically dealing with the normal "wireless dialup" speeds as noted above.
If you are thinking of doing gaming, voip, etc... look elsewhere. For email, web surfing, and maybe newsgroups... ie, non-time sensitive applications, then wireless connectivity could be a good fit.
Another option is perhaps a long-distance 802.11b/g link with a neighbor. Ie, find someone who actually has a chance of getting good service. Work out an agreement with them and then have them setup a line-of-sight wireless (wifi) link to your place.
You become dependant on them for connectivity and possibly end up investing more in hardware, but you will have much better bandwidth and much better latency for games/voip/etc.
Winged Power Photography
Sometimes this service might be the right choice for your main IP connection, if you don't have DSL or CATV options, but the main reason for IP over cellphone technology is mobility.
Fiat Lux.
Yes, it really is unlimited. I have used it for about 8 months, and while the latency is bad (400 - 800ms or so), i can download from say, a fast ftp server at about 9kbps. Web browsing isn't too bad, just turn off the graphics and it's very quick. I can even play Command & Conquer: Generals on it with 600ms ping times. :)
Really though, it truly is $19.99 for unlimited.
For most of last year, I used my Sony Ericsson T610 via a Bluetooth connection for remote Internet access. The service was a cheap add-on ($19/month for unlimited use), but real slow. The 610 didn't support the highest-speed modes that Cingular had available at the time, and I've heard it said that they're pretty slow with their high-speed rollout.
Back in November, I switched to the Verizon service with the PC5220 card. Mac OS X supports it natively with no extra software - I just had to input my phone number settings and it worked. For the first two months I settled for the slower 1xRTT service, which seemed to me to be about twice what I could get with dialup and was still better than what Cingular had been giving me. At the beginning of January, Verizon turned on EV/DO in the Boston area, which has generally been an excellent performer. Most everywhere I travel routinely for work is EV/DO enabled, and the card automatically uses it when it has a signal, otherwise it falls back to 1xRTT.
Service for the data-only cards is $80/month for unlimited use. No, you can't run servers with it, but you wouldn't want to. It's a real good option otherwise for a laptop user.
I have a client using the service with the Audiovox PocketPC phones - they love the always-on sync and the capabilities of the device, but they hate the phone itself and are switching to standalone phones for voice (they have two of the PocketPCs now).
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I've heard that actual broadband speeds should be possible with latest-generation phones
And just like satellite, you have high latency. Sprint Vision will give you ping times that skip from 400ms to over 1000ms. Currently, there are no providers offering low latency broadband over cellular that I know of. I remember reading about a trial for a very small area that was supposed to begin soon somwhere in North Carolina I think, but as I recall, it would involve a forklift upgrade to get nationwide coverage.
For years to come, broadband over cellular will not be low latency for rural areas. Those are usually the last to get upgraded towers. Naturally, infrastructure upgrades happen where the customers are first.
In many cases, this is because of regulatory reasons, and not technical/logistical ones. Cellular providers can move more quickly than a bureaucratically-entrenched state-monopoly PTT.
For about $20, I was able to get a USB Cable for my LG VX6000 which I use on Verizon. With that, I can get about 140Kbps on the 1x network. I just pay my regular flat rate and my extra $5/month (iirc) for the "unlimited web".
Being in the boonies, you might not be able to get the 1x network service. On the LG VX6000, you can tell by looking for the "1x" service icon that apperas whenever the 1x service is available.
The drawback to this, of course, is that your phone is your "modem", and must be connected to your computer during the Internet session; and you will not receive phone calls during your Internet session. So it's okay for periodic use, but may not be suitable for an always-on Internet.
In my uses, I was able to use SSH, SMTP, POP, HTTP/HTTPS, and AIM. So for my needs, it was effectively unfiltered. One thing that was annoying was the auto-idle-hangup that would kick in from time to time.
Also, for web-surfing, there is an accelerator software that you can run that would compress images at a (user selectable) higher compression to speed download times of web pages.
That said, are you sure you are so far off in the boonies that you can't find a wireless ISP? A good WiFi transceiver with the right antenna could easily give you 1 or 2 Mbps over many many miles...
Wireless services (for phone, network, etc) and even local or co-gen electric service is popular for another, simpler reason also: People will dig up copper wire and steal it to sell. Wireless kind of prevents that from happening.
Wireless is by nature a less reliable medium, because it's passing through air and trees and walls -- as opposed to copper
Not entirerly true. For years, the majority of AT&T's long distance network backbone (Long Lines) was wireless. When old timers refer to the "Bell standard", they're referring to a rock-solid telephone network that actually ran mostly over microwave long-distance transmission facilities. When engineered in point-to-point configurations where each endpoint is a known quantity, wireless (aka microwave) has nearly identical reliability to modern fiber transmission systems.
Point-multipoint wireless (e.g. cellular last-mile) is a totally different animal in that you have your subscriber endpoint that is often mobile and nearly always at locations you have never engineered for. Your cell engineering becomes an estimate for coverage rather than actual end-to-end engineering, and subsequently has issues with fade and interference from objects, terrain, etc.
That said, if you're looking for reliable last-mile rural service, consider fixed wireless. Properly engineered, it will match any cable or fiber system.
*scoove*