Tetherless Wireless

TolkiEinstein writes "Here's an interesting tidbit from the NY Times on Verizon's new EV-DO network they've dubbed simply, BroadbandAccess Plan. A mere $80/mo. gets you wireless access over Verizon's 3G network at "giddy" speeds of 400-700 kbps. True, that's not exactly breakneck, compared to my 2800-3400 kbps desktop connection. But, the fact that it's hotspot-free (tetherless) wireless access from major metropolitan areas should count for something. One negative is slow upload speeds of around 100 kbps."

Comments

Can someone explain to me?

[kaosrain]

Why is it that the download:upload speed ratios are almost always at least 2:1, and usually 3 or 4? Is it solely to deter servers/filesharing?

Re:Can someone explain to me?

[moonbender]

It might be a "political" decision in some cases, but at least with ADSL it seems to be technically motivated. See the Wikipedia article on ADSL. (Note: Maybe the article is false, I probably wouldn't notice.) When ADSL was first introduced in a large scale, P2P file sharing wasn't much of an issue, anyway, distribution was pretty much exclusively client/server, so limiting it for "political" reasons wouldn't have made much sense.

Re:Can someone explain to me?

[DanteLysin]

When Time Warner first opened cable modem service, I had 5 mbps download and 1 mbps upload. It didn't last long before Time Warner lowered their upload speeds. The city I lived in was entirely fiber. The reason the uploads were capped were to prevent running businesses at home. Let's face it, at $40/month, cable modem service was the optimal choice for small business.

Now Time Warner offers the higher upload speeds as part of their bBusiness package". But the costs are also a lot higher. I'll still miss running an FTP server wit a 1 mbps upload in my studio apartment. Ahh, those were the days.

Re:Can someone explain to me?

[Myself]

In this case, it has to do with spectrum and equipment. It's easy for the tower to blast out a strong signal with tons of data, and each mobile to hear it. The only limit here is spectrum allocation.

In the reverse direction, the signal from the mobile is much more tightly power-limited, so if there's too much data per unit of energy, the tower can't hear it above the noise. The solution if you can't yell, is to speak slowly.

For wireline services, it's murkier. The noise budget of a DSLAM has a few things in common with the wireless situation, but in most cases, the upload could go much faster than they sell, and yes, it's a political decision rather than a technical one. With cable, the upload is a shared channel, so they're fairly conservative in what they allocate. They should allow more upload when the network is busy, but that would take effort on their part, and only help a few percent of the customer base.

Here's what's funny: The EV-DO tower equipment is served by T1 circuits, which are symmetric. I understand using T1s for the voice stuff, since it's delay-sensitive, but they could've saved a bundle by using DSL for the data. The equipment is capable of it too, just in a nonobvious way. I bet it was never even considered.

uplink - downlink

[caluml]

For me, it's uplink speed that's important. I could upgrade my 512k connection to 2Mb/s, but the uplink would stay at 256k. The more that downlink outweighs uplink, the more it prevents home users from starting sites, and leaves the content of the web in the hands of the large companies with the outgoing bandwidth.

That article doesn't say much

[Travoltus]

What benefits do I get with 3G over wireless/wifi access?

I rarely encounter a wifi hotspot that is that slow, and certainly the cost per month for a commercial wifi spot is not as bad; my neighborhood coffee shop near the Albertson's around Fair Oaks blvd (Sacramento) charges way less than that for much faster service.

At such high prices and low speeds I am not convinced that this 3G thing won't jump the shark.

Big Deal

[vought]

I had 3-400kbps wireless access all over the Bay Area in 2001.

It was called Ricochet...and no, it didn't succeed, because they charged too much for the all-you-can eat plan. How much, you ask?

$80.00 per month.

Another reason Ricochet failed was the FUD spread by the cellcos. They told everyone who would listen that 3G access at 300-500kbps would be ready in 2002 at $25.00/month.

Guess that didn't happen, hunh?

No News Here

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheesh, TFA is an ad for Verizon masquerading as news.

The real news will be to the folks who actually buy the service: speeds will eventually suck. People: cellular networks are shared so the bandwidth is only available so long as nobody else is using it. The only way Verizon et al can be profitable is to oversell the hell out of the thing. There's a wakeup call coming for those who think the high bandwidth will be there at any given point in the future.

Location, location, location!

[grumling]

Verizion has a history of making sure things work very well in Washington DC. I guess this is to convince the .gov that they are serving the public intrest. When I can get it in rural CO with the same speed you see (and remember, I pay more for my cell service due to a "High Cost Fund Surcharge"), I'll be impressed.

I just want to make a phone call in downtown Winterpark.