Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Promises 4G Wireless For Rural America

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the finally-the-dairy-twitter-market-can-explode dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "A Pew study last year found that only 38 percent of rural American homes have access to broadband Internet, compared to 57 percent in cities and 60 percent in the suburbs. All that could be about to change with the announcement that Verizon plans to start introducing a new wireless network in the 700 MHz spectrum in 2010. 'The licenses we bought in the 700MHz auction cover the whole US,' says Tony Melone, a Verizon Wireless VP. 'And we plan to roll out LTE [high-speed mobile service] throughout the entire country, including places where we don't offer our [current] cell phone service today.' Because the [700 MHz] spectrum is in a lower frequency, it can transmit signals over longer distances and penetrate through obstacles, and because the signals travel longer distances, Verizon can deploy fewer cell towers than if it used spectrum from a higher frequency band, which means it can provide coverage at a lower cost. President Obama's administration is well aware of the high-speed Internet divide that exists today, and as part of the overall economic stimulus package passed by Congress, the government is allocating $7.2 billion for projects that bring broadband Internet access to rural towns and communities."

135 comments

  1. Welcome by Mishotaki · · Score: 3, Funny

    Let us welcome our future monopolistic overlords! so... they're gonna cap them at 5 gigs of data transfer a month for 200$ ? gotta pay for the bills of the bran new network!

    1. Re:Welcome by timeOday · · Score: 1

      They are adding another route to the Internet on top of whatever exists today. How exactly does that create a monopoly?

    2. Re:Welcome by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Not for the 38% of rural customers who have access to broadband, true. But for the other 62%, they're going from no choice to one choice.

    3. Re:Welcome by Aranykai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one would welcome a monopoly over a lack of any service.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    4. Re:Welcome by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Let's see what you will say *after* you are bound to their contract...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:Welcome by halsver · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new monopolistic-service-providing overlords.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Roughly half my comments are never submitted. You may be reading the better half...
    6. Re:Welcome by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      Let's see what you will say *after* you are bound to their contract...

      Well maybe he will choose not to take their contract, he still has the choice to not use the service.

    7. Re:Welcome by Heather+D · · Score: 1

      Let us welcome our future monopolistic overlords! so... they're gonna cap them at 5 gigs of data transfer a month for 200$ ? gotta pay for the bills of the bran new network!

      Some may swallow that plan but it'll take a lot more than bran to pass it.

    8. Re:Welcome by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The government backed service will eliminate the market for non-government-backed competitors.

      In markets where, presumably, there isn't a competitor today.

      Sounds like the worst kind of monopoly. A government-backed one that will own entire regions of the US.

    9. Re:Welcome by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      Too true,there is always ....the good ol 56k modem! I knew I kept my Power Tower Pro G3 250 around for some reason. -Oz

    10. Re:Welcome by rabiddeity · · Score: 1

      Some may swallow that plan but it'll take a lot more than bran to pass it.

      Indeed, if the US had enough dark fiber we wouldn't need this plan at all.

    11. Re:Welcome by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Want to sell it? PowerPCs are cool. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Welcome by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Actually monopolies that are regulated by government are very effective. Reference your electric company. It is only when the gov't decides to stop regulating the monopoly's prices that things go to crap (reference Comcast). Hopefully the government will either price-fix Verizon's Wireless Internet, or other competitors like AT&T or Sprint will enter the rural market.

      >>>"Because the [700 MHz] spectrum is in a lower frequency, it can transmit signals over longer distances and penetrate through obstacles"

      For those that don't know, the Verizon spokesman is talking about channels 52 to 69 on the television dial. That's what was sold-off to Verizon and other companies. So rural viewers lost some channels, but they gained internet. I suppose that's a fair trade.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. But will it be capped? by kdekorte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just hope it is a service with a reasonable cap or without a cap. The current 5GB limit to the wireless internet is way to small. If it has a 100GB or over cap I'd sign up today. Currently, I run about 25GB over Sprint Broadband and would expect more with a faster service. And yes it is all legal stuff...

    1. Re:But will it be capped? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Just a big question, I think, is "will I be able to get a dumb pipe?" if Verizon will offer 4G accounts with high bandwidth and high allowances, without any kind of filter or "walled garden", then will there be anything to prevent hardware manufacturers from providing 4G VoIP handsets and killing the cell phone market? Will Verizon allow that to happen?

    2. Re:But will it be capped? by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      Each 4g handset would have to be registered on Verizon's network. Verizon will still get paid. Sure you could hook the 4G into a router and NAT it, but that is no different than using a DSL link for VOIP.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    3. Re:But will it be capped? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Each 4g handset would have to be registered on Verizon's network. Verizon will still get paid.

      Yeah, but the question is whether they'll try to force you (through some means) to pay for voice service on top of the data service that you'll be paying for. It's not as though they haven't put any effort into fighting 3rd party VoIP services on their DSL lines.

    4. Re:But will it be capped? by maxume · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe they will do something completely ridiculous and charge reasonable prices for metered bandwidth.

      Everyone one wins, light users pay less, heavy users get the bits they want for a reasonable amount, the company has the resources necessary to expand the network.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:But will it be capped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm? I go way over that each month on my current 3G service (Only halfway through the payment term and I've already used 12GB) and I've never noticed any overage charges or the like. Is there some "limited" plan that I happen to not be on?

      Anyway, I'm personally quite excited: My 3G dongle is amazing. It's a bit more expensive than I'd like for the size of the pipe ($60/month for top speeds of 200 KB/s) but it works everywhere, all the time, on any machine I plug it into, with no caps or throttling. It's well worth it considering my only other alternative is Commiecast.

      I'll be one of the first to look into this when it becomes available.

    6. Re:But will it be capped? by mobets · · Score: 1

      I assume it will work in much the same way as the current 3g network. They sell USB WWAN adapters that will give your computer an internet connection anywhere you can get a decent signal. The service on these devices is already data only.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    7. Re:But will it be capped? by Yez70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wasn't Verizon forced to agree to an open device network in order to even bid on this spectrum?

    8. Re:But will it be capped? by rawg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I 2nd this. Metered bandwidth is the way to go. Grandpa can afford to send his three emails a month and I can do my remote development 6 days a week.

      --
      The above is not worth reading.
    9. Re:But will it be capped? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't remember which of the provisions set forth by Google Verizon was required to agree with, but I think it was only one of them.

    10. Re:But will it be capped? by venuspcs · · Score: 2

      I use an AT&T cellphone as my internet connection. I used 165GB last month and it was all legal stuff....Mostly Hulu!

    11. Re:But will it be capped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in the country it was filmed

    12. Re:But will it be capped? by Daimanta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Everyone one wins, light users pay less, heavy users get the bits they want for a reasonable amount, the company has the resources necessary to expand the network."

      That's what happens if companies play nice.

      What really happens: Light users pay exactly the same, "heavy users" will pay a lot more.

      My proposition: do NOT oversell your capacity. You cannot sell what you do not have and if the network grinds to a halt, it's not the rightful users who are to blame.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    13. Re:But will it be capped? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yeah, hence the tone of the part that you didn't quote.

      On the upside, moves towards sane usually seem to have some traction.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    14. Re:But will it be capped? by bziman · · Score: 1

      My proposition: do NOT oversell your capacity.

      You already have this option... call up your local provider, and ask for a dedicated T1 line. Depending on your location, you can probably get one for only a few hundred dollars a month. You get a quality of service agreement, that guarantees 1.5 Mbps all the time with no limitations and some specific up-time guarantee.

      The rest of us are quite happy to share a fat pipe with a ton of other users. We realize that most people aren't using the pipe simultaneously, and that most of the time, we get close to the top speed of 6 Mbps, and even on the rare occasions when it's fairly busy we get speeds that are still very respectable. And we don't mind that our total bandwidth is capped at a certain pre-determined amount (like 40 GB per month in my case). That's plenty of room for me to download all the video I need, still get the latest ISOs for my Linux distros, and infinitely more than anyone might use for e-mail, web surfing, gaming, and chatting (which is all the average user seems to do).

      With the tiered service plans my cable provider offers, I could upgrade to an even faster connection with an even higher cap, and it would only cost me another $10 or $15 a month. But I'm pretty happy with my over-sold service the way it is, so why upgrade? If you REALLY need to saturate a high speed connection continuously, then you shouldn't be whining about consumer-grade connections... you should be paying for an enterprise connection.

  3. Because it worked so well last time by merreborn · · Score: 0

    the government is allocating $7.2 billion for projects that bring broadband Internet access to rural towns and communities

    Didn't Clinton throw a few billion down the same hole?

    We don't really have much to show for it, do we?

    1. Re:Because it worked so well last time by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is giving subsidies to private companies without anything that tracks where that money goes. Building Internet infrastructure is a worthwhile investment. Giving Verizon billions of dollars and saying, "I hope you build something good with this," is not such a great idea.

    2. Re:Because it worked so well last time by Gizzmonic · · Score: 0, Troll

      We've got my billion dollar penile implant to show for it! Wanna see it?

      --
      (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    3. Re:Because it worked so well last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, as GP said, it's not much...

    4. Re:Because it worked so well last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the second link in the summary:

      Melone said it's too early to say if Verizon will request money from the government as part of the package to fund building its network in rural communities. But he said that with or without government money, Verizon is committed to providing service in rural areas via its 4G network. "At this point we haven't made any attempt to get stimulus money for the LTE build-out," he said. "But it's still early in that process and there's not enough clarity around the stimulus package. We don't know what strings will be attached to that money. Regardless, we plan to blanket the country over a period of time with 4G. We bought the licenses to cover the entire continental U.S., and we plan on building the network where ever we have a license."

    5. Re:Because it worked so well last time by ksheff · · Score: 0, Troll

      Didn't Clinton throw a few billion down the same hole? We don't really have much to show for it, do we?

      His administration gave a lot of money to the Detroit automakers for R&D in producing fuel efficient vehicles too. Great ROIC on both projects, I see.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    6. Re:Because it worked so well last time by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      I live in a very rural area with two traffic lights. Level 3 dug up the whole town a few years ago. Broadband is just now available in some areas. I live about 1 mile from downtown. Not yet.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    7. Re:Because it worked so well last time by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You have two traffic lights? They took our single blinking caution light down about ten years ago, because it was a waste of electricity. ;) And, like you say, wireless broadband was available in town several years ago, but the tower just didn't reach me, 5 miles out of town. FINALLY, the telco offered DSL, and that's what I'll have til something better comes along. IF I CAN AFFORD IT!! 39.95/month for 300MB, which is really only about 200MB on good days just sucks.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Because it worked so well last time by LowlyWorm · · Score: 1

      I understand broadband radio frequencies are relatively high (700 MHZ +) and are highly directional. Where there are lots of buildings they can bounce off and increase the range. In rural areas they tend to be absorbed by trees or get dissipated to the point they cannot be used.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    9. Re:Because it worked so well last time by ksheff · · Score: 1

      pointing out the truth is a troll?

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  4. Prediction: by lessthanpi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Farm related porn will flood the interweb

    --
    One man with a gun can control 100 without one
    1. Re:Prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farm related porn will flood the interweb

      (emphasis mine, emphasizing future tense of verb)

      I'll take it you haven't been around the internet much, then?

    2. Re:Prediction: by couchslug · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Farm related porn will flood the interweb"

      But think of the boost in tourism!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Prediction: by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      "Farm related porn will flood the interweb"

      But think of the boost in voyeurism!

  5. This is great news if it happens -- by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 2, Informative

    Verizon did win the bid to get the 700 mhz spectrum but that is not what will elevate them into rural america alone.

    Verizon merging with Alltel will be a big factor as Alltel has had a presence in a lot of rural and small city suburbs.

    1. Re:This is great news if it happens -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it news at all? Who cares about internet speeds on mobile phones? Who uses their cell phone to perpetually surf the net and download misc crap whenever they go out?

      Even the editor knew it was non-news, so they worked "Wireless" into the summary subject. Of course it's wireless. No one's hitting youtube with their rotary dial telephones.

    2. Re:This is great news if it happens -- by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Gee I dunno - anyone who has or wants an iPhone, a G1 or a Blackberry for starters...

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  6. Thanks Obama! by randyest · · Score: 1

    As someone who is making ASICs for 4G (including LTE and WiMAX) $7.2 billion for 4G wireless is stimulus I can really believe in!

    (I hope no one tells him that many rich people are going to get a lot richer thanks to this. Or that it would have been done anyway without the "stimulus" because it's a huge fat cash cow!)

    --
    everything in moderation
    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You just keep sucking at that teat.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Thanks Obama! by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, because of the incredible rate at which Washington is printing money, inflation will soon wipe out any perceived riches.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    3. Re:Thanks Obama! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      New LTE service also means that someone's going to have to support that network. Sales, customer service, tech support, network deployment, etc. etc. While the moderately well off get richer,a nd the obscenely wealthy get even richer, there's also the result of new jobs being created.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    4. Re:Thanks Obama! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Eh, I wouldn't be giving crap to anyone who's actually producing somehting useful for a living, even if some bailout dollars do fall their way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Thanks Obama! by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I hope no one tells him that many rich people are going to get a lot richer thanks to this. Or that it would have been done anyway without the "stimulus" because it's a huge fat cash cow!

      The thing is is incumbent broadband providers are fighting tooth and nail to stop competition. I wouldn't surprised to see the same thing here.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    6. Re:Thanks Obama! by sonicmerlin · · Score: 0

      You don't need to write your screen name at the bottom of *every single freaking* one of your posts. Your replies automatically display your screen name, and if you insist on displaying it a 2nd time that's what signatures are for. Otherwise you appear like an annoying and pompous know-it-all.

    7. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Incredible rate?" Is the system being run by this guy?

  7. halp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is anyone else having the comments display totally borked?

    all i see is flat comments (no nesting) in rectangular boxes. wtf happened in the last hour?!?!

    1. Re:halp! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nesting is for the birds.

  8. High Speed Internet Availability by snowraver1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    compared to 57 percent in cities and 60 percent in the suburbs[...]

    That's pretty terrible...

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      makes you wonder why major suburbs and cities(i assume metro city areas are at least 100,000 people) don't break at least the 75% barrier of getting high speed internet. sure there might not be much choice but then again these days i can hardly justify dial-up being a viable choice. The issue i have is that there is a choice. i assume we are talking about high speed internet being 1.5mbps+ so with every one in these area at least able to get DSL why is it only 57/60% ??

    2. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Especially since the broadband of those who do have it isn't really all that fast....

      What are those other people stuck with, dialup? That's beyond terrible...

      --
      Qxe4
    3. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by Sardak · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for other places, but where I live we have pretty terrible options for "high speed" internet access.

      The main source, if you happen to be located near the downtown area, is the cable company, who offers UP TO 2Mbps. Sadly, where I live, they don't provide service, so I'm stuck with DSL from the phone company with a maximum down speed of 512 Kbps and a mere quarter of that up.

      There's another company starting up that claims to be planning to offer up to 12Mbps connections over DSL fairly soon in the area. I'll believe it when I see it, of course. Likely, if they ever do come into existence, they won't service my area anyway.

    4. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      but even if "isn't really that fast" is only 1 mbps thats still enough for most people to do web browsing and video streaming online and of course email. again even if there is only 1 dial-up, 1 DSL and 1 cable provider in most of these areas you have a choice to have "high-speed". perhaps we should define for the average joe was exactly high speed would be.

    5. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering how they are defining "have access to broadband Internet". I'm guessing they are defining it as broadband service in the neighborhood AND having a computer to use it. Since there are significant numbers of people who don't give a shit about computers or the internet, the telecoms will continue to use these low-ball numbers in order to get governments to subsidize equipment upgrades.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    6. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by pnutjam · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know I fell for the Cable is much faster then DSL garbage for a long time. On paper, that is true. Now that I have DSL, I can genuinely say it feels much faster. I get consistantly faster torrents and downloads. My VPN is more responsive.

      I do miss my "sticky" IP, it changes alot more w/ DSL, but that's easy to work around.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    7. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      It depends on the area you are in and how oversold the cable is. I have experience cable that is pretty fast (3,000kb/s downloads 5 years ago). Even though I'm only 1.5 miles from the local central office, I was too far away in the way they snaked those lines to get any DSL.

      Now, with Fios, it doesn't matter so much. But cable internet was the first decent internet I had. It was a way big step-up and much cheaper than the ISDN we had previously, which itself, was only marginally faster than dialup at times, but was the first always on internet we had.

      I believe AT&T already got big-ass tax breaks in return for promises of wiring up much of America with fiber optic. I wish they followed through. I don't see why most of the country can't get it. Over 99% of people get electric service and those thick wires are probably much more expensive. I don't think wireless is the way to go except for the remotest regions.

    8. Re:High Speed Internet Availability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still some people (I'm guessing the elderly, primarily) who only really need dial-up. They just want to check the weather on their ISP's homepage and send a few e-mails.

  9. Fewer towers = more congestion by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    And more deadspots.

    I'm sure LTE across currently unserved areas will be better than nothing, but the "I know, this technology gives us oodles of bandwidth, let's just roll it out with as few towers as possible!" is what made a lot of networks barely usable back in the 1990s.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Fewer towers = more congestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're on to the crux of the problem. If currently they can only manage (say, I can't tell exactly from their coverage map) 5% coverage of the US with 3G (EVDO) and that coverage only allows at most 2-3 simultaneous users (1.2 Mbps split 3 ways is still barely 3G) per RF carrier on a cell site segment, I figure that they are going to have to increase the number of cell sites on the order of 1000 times in order to provide 4G for a significant fraction of their user base - never mind the general population. It will be worse than that if they really intend to deliver 4G performance since the cell diameter must shrink even more. And of course, cost and zoning for that dramatically larger infrastructure will magically happen at $39/month per subscriber!
      Doing it in this "same old way" of flooding all users from a central cell site with 2-5 km radius is a pipe dream.

    2. Re:Fewer towers = more congestion by symbolset · · Score: 1

      You know, I read somewhere that in rural areas they don't have the device density that they have in urban corridors serviced by the standard Cellular tower density, so in practice congestion might not be as much of an issue. Also I hear that cows don't put out a lot of EMR interference and a cornfield doesn't have as many massive obstructions as a city core.

      Which leaves holes. And if you're in a hole in the ground and you're expecting good cellular reception, it doesn't matter whether the hole is in the city or in the country, you're going to be disappointed.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
  10. New network on phones? by ClaraBow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be nice if we could use this new wireless network on our smart phones and then let us tether our phones to our computers so that we could use it on the go and at home for one "reasonable price." --that is what I would love to see!

    1. Re:New network on phones? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      here you are.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:New network on phones? by ncohafmuta · · Score: 1

      i can tether my phone to any computer for $15 extra bucks a month. whether that's reasonable enough to drop [insert bane of your existance home provider here] for the drastic speed difference and limited cap is debatable.

    3. Re:New network on phones? by PitaBred · · Score: 2

      I can tether my phone to any computer for an extra $0 a month. Gotta love T-Mobile. I even clarified it with their rep before ordering it... I'm not breaking any TOS, and I didn't have to do any jailbreaking or any kinds of hacks to the phone firmware to get it working.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    4. Re:New network on phones? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It would be nice if we could use this new wireless network on our smart phones and then let us tether our phones to our computers so that we could use it on the go and at home for one "reasonable price."

      Yea, I read in an article on CNet broadband will be fixed not mobile.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    5. Re:New network on phones? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Yup. T-Mobile rocks.. Been tethering on their service for many years. And their services keep getting cheaper.

  11. New Qualcomm Technology by sarahbau · · Score: 1

    I've heard they're going to use Qualcomm's new dynamic network of Wolfpigeons to get as much coverage as possible - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3agYeT-T9co

  12. Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which means it can provide coverage at a lower cost

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  13. Fios or Wireless by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

    So their wireless network is superior but ridiculously expensive and their Fios support is good and cheap, but hardly anywhere.

    I wonder what path this will take?

    I can't help but wish Google had won the auction. Yes their a corporation like the others, but I like their products and prices better than Verizons' products and prices in general.

  14. Meh by dedazo · · Score: 1

    My sister can't even get FiOS where she lives.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    1. Re:Meh by Bodero · · Score: 1

      Neither can the vast majority of the country, dude.

  15. Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by NevDull · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems as though everyone's excited about "wireless broadband", but the speedtest app on my iPhone says 416ms ping while I'm on 3G.

    Latency that's even half that is useless for many applications, and just frustratingly slow for just about all the rest.

    Are we just heading for a new definition of the digital divide whereby some people don't have access to *useful* broadband?

    -Nev

    1. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Because with EVDO there are no bad latency issues. ATT 3G is not very good. HSDPA and UMTS in their current form are less capable than EVDO, which has ping times under 100ms. If ATT would support HSUPA, then they would get 3.6 Mb/s on the link.

    2. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      I consistently pull 100-150ms ping times when tethered to my EVDO phone. I am stuck with satellite internet (Wildblue) at home, so I am really hoping something good comes of this, esp WRT bandwith caps. My satellite is capped at 17gb down / 5gb up on a 30 day rolling window.

      Oh yea... my Wildblue ping times? 1000-1500ms.

    3. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      Latency does not matter for media streaming and downloads. This will soon be the dominant use of bandwidth.

    4. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      What desktop applications significantly deteriorate as a result of high latency?

      I suppose it'd be annoying for video conferencing and gaming, though it seems like it'd be adequately tolerable (ie. still way better than dial-up) for most web browsing.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    5. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude.. try rural satellite internet. Same sort of caps. You get 1/2 of the "burst" rate you pay for, equipment breaks once a year $200-$500 to fix, and the latency is up to about 1200-1500 ms pings. For $88/mo. Still it's better than dialup when your phone line goes out every two months because the pairs are >50 years old and QWEST won't run new ones. The problem with Verizon is the caps are even worse than the Satellite jerks. Hopefully Verizon won't be the only one out there offering this as they will restrict it so much as to be useless.

    6. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by kindbud · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems as though everyone's excited about "wireless broadband", but the speedtest app on my iPhone says 416ms ping while I'm on 3G.

      Speedtest.net from my PC when it is connected to my Cradlepoint WAP, which in turn is connected to Verizon's 3G EVDO network, shows me 150 ms latency all the time. Xbox360 games, EVE Online, other PC games, they all work great over my 3G service.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    7. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      From http://mobiledevdesign.com/tutorials/lte_next_step_cellular_3g-1027/

      "Network latency will also improve, from as much as 200 ms today to 5 to 10 ms with LTE."

    8. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am stuck with satellite internet (Wildblue) at home, so I am really hoping something good comes of this, esp WRT bandwith caps.

      I feel your pain. I was with wild blue and those latency times made my internet use almost useless. I got a sprint mobile on USB and my d/l is typically 1.2mbps but latency is usually around 100 and has never been over 200. Yes its 60 bucks a month but wild blue was 80 so get outta that contract homie.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    9. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of the specification for LTE is MUCH lower latency then 3G. According to the 3GPP site (the standards body for LTE) latency is supposed to be as low as 5 ms for some packets.

    10. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seeing AT&T's attempt at 3G. EVDO (Sprint, Verizon) doesn't suffer the same fate.

    11. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      I don't know what is with the Speedtest.net service but their latency calculation is terrible.

      If I manually ping a server based in London I can get pings of down to 20ms, when I do it on the site I get a ping of 300ms minimum.

      I don't know if their servers are struggling or it's just the site has been terribley written, but it sure isn't accurate.

    12. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, that's 3G. This is 4G. That's like 1G faster.

    13. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What desktop applications significantly deteriorate as a result of high latency?

      SSH, X, VNC, Remote Desktop, GoToMyPC by Citrix, etc. Or even web pages that use XMLHttpRequest.

    14. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by harmic · · Score: 1

      One of the design objectives of LTE is reduced latency (compared with 3g) - as low as 10ms. See this page for comparisons with various 3g technologies: http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/3g-lte-basics.php In fact the 3G technologies have also been improving steadily.

    15. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about looking at the LTE 4G specs before saying why everyone is ignoring latency issues?

      Why is it that there are so many nerds here that are not well informed or misinformed?

    16. Re:Why is everyone ignoring the latency issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because AT&T's 3G is shitty. I'm getting in the 220ms range with my old EVDO Rev 0 card on Verizon, Rev A is like 110ms. Embarassingly (for AT&T), the HSDPA technology AT&T is using gets about 90-110ms for almost everyone else that's rolled it out. (On paper, Rev 0 can do around 150ms and Rev A around 60ms... don't know HSDPA's ping on paper.)

  16. Obama is our gracious overlord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can expect to get a nice fat Verizon campaign contribution laundered his way a few years hence.

  17. 4G? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4G?

  18. What does "have access to broadband" mean? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 1

    I interpret that as meaning "can get broadband of some sort if they chose to pay for it"; if that's the case, then the numbers given for cities and suburbs are shockingly low -- so low, in fact, that I don't believe that the phrase means what it appears to mean. I'd guess they mean "actually have broadband in their home," in which case the figure cited for rural areas in meaningless if we're talking about potential broadband penetration.

    1. Re:What does "have access to broadband" mean? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I interpret that as meaning "can get broadband of some sort if they chose to pay for it"; if that's the case, then the numbers given for cities and suburbs are shockingly low -- so low, in fact, that I don't believe that the phrase means what it appears to mean. I'd guess they mean "actually have broadband in their home," in which case the figure cited for rural areas in meaningless if we're talking about potential broadband penetration.

      Even in New York City broadband isn't available everywhere.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    2. Re:What does "have access to broadband" mean? by Bodero · · Score: 1

      Even in New York City broadband isn't available everywhere.

      One of your three articles is about NYC nixing municipal wifi (a stupid idea anyway), and the other TWO are from five years ago.

    3. Re:What does "have access to broadband" mean? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      One of your three articles is about NYC nixing municipal wifi (a stupid idea anyway), and the other TWO are from five years ago.

      So, I didn't limit the tyme. Try this, from 7 August 2008: "New York City and State Each Craft Broadband Policies". "Cheap New York High Speed Internet..." dated April 2009 says "Most New York high speed services are available in New York City." As for the muni wifi article, perhaps you didn't read where it says "August 7 - New York City should not create a comprehensive municipal wireless network, but should instead take targeted actions to increase the public availability of high-speed internet service and encourage broadband adoption, city officials said last week." If it's available everywhere they don't need to increase availability.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
  19. America? by chaval7 · · Score: 1

    America is not US only, please fix that.

    1. Re:America? by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is in U.S. English.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:America? by chaval7 · · Score: 1

      so how do they refer to the continent? the-other-America?

    3. Re:America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "so how do they refer to the continent? the-other-America?"

      How about North America, or South America. There is no continent of "America".

    4. Re:America? by al0ha · · Score: 1

      Actually it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the United States as America: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=america

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    5. Re:America? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Which one?

      The northern one is referred to as "North America."

      The southern one is referred to as "South America."

      Both together are referred to as "the Americas."

    6. Re:America? by mobets · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I usually say North America to refer to the continent. This has the added benefit of distinguishing it from South America.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    7. Re:America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      America is not US only, please fix that.

      You want the US to annex the rest of North and South America? That's nut, but you did ask nicely, so I'll see what I can do.

    8. Re:America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll fix that for ya ...

      The northern one is referred to as "North America."

      The southern one is referred to as "South America."

      The one in between is referred to as "Central America."

      All together they are referred to as "the Americas."

    9. Re:America? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yes it is.

      The continents are North American, South America and Central America.

      America is short for the United States of America which is the only country to use the America on its own. So saying America is no different than saying Britain despite the fact the nation's actual name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      Britain is a good example too because, speaking of mistakes with locations, it's often referred to as a country but Britain is not a country but a nation or state made up of countries. But British people seem to have less of an issue with this than Canadians do with the term America even though it's 100% correct to abbreviate the USA as America and Canada has nothing to do with America as there is no continent America.

    10. Re:America? by maxume · · Score: 1

      'Chaval' is Spanish, so I wouldn't be surprised if gp is from Central or South America (or has such roots), rather than Canada (you loosely implied that they were from Canada, or, at least, I read your post that way).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:America? by mosherkl · · Score: 1

      Yes it is.

      The continents are North American, South America and Central America.

      America is short for the United States of America which is the only country to use the America on its own. So saying America is no different than saying Britain despite the fact the nation's actual name is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      Britain is a good example too because, speaking of mistakes with locations, it's often referred to as a country but Britain is not a country but a nation or state made up of countries. But British people seem to have less of an issue with this than Canadians do with the term America even though it's 100% correct to abbreviate the USA as America and Canada has nothing to do with America as there is no continent America.

      I'm not sure where you went to school, but there are only 2 "American" continents. They are North and South America. Central America is a region, not a continent.

    12. Re:America? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Actually, you would be incorrect. There is no "Central American" continent.

  20. How are we of service? by qw0ntum · · Score: 1

    This question has been on my mind and it's relatively related to the topic of the article, so I'm interested to hear you folks feedback. How can we as computer scientists and IT pros be of service to society?

    I've had some people tell me medical applications of CS are where it's at, others point to projects like OLPC, others say get rich and give away your money. Others still tell me to just do my work well and let the rest take care of itself. As a computer scientist, I feel like I have training and background in an area that's somewhat rare in society as a whole, and I feel like if I'm out to try to make an impact I should leverage those skills.

    For instance, urban-rural digital divide. What have any of you done with regard to this? Anything in the developing world? Specifically applicable to the developing world, what's the role that technology can/should play? Where do you feel our field has the largest social impact?

    PS: Yeah, I know it's youthful idealism. With all due respect, if you're just going to tell me that I'll just get slapped in the face by reality then you can save your breath; I hear that on a daily basis already.

    --
    'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    1. Re:How are we of service? by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 1

      Don't make it complicated. You don't need a huge organization to help people that need it, you pass by them every day. Next time someone asks for help, actually help them. Go to their place and sit with them in front of the computer and let your knowledge out. You also get the benefit of explaining things that you have not even thought about for years and when you explain it to them you have to rethink and put into simple terms the complicated nature of the tech. As soon as you help one person, that leads plenty others that will want to talk with you and discuss their "problems". I feel the homegrown approach to "just helping" is a lot more rewarding then getting caught up in commitees and board meetings that spend time figuring out how to help instead of just helping. Keep it simple.

      --
      Stay tuned for new sig...
    2. Re:How are we of service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't make it complicated. You don't need a huge organization to help people that need it, you pass by them every day. Next time someone asks for help, actually help them. Go to their place and sit with them in front of the computer and let your knowledge out. You also get the benefit of explaining things that you have not even thought about for years and when you explain it to them you have to rethink and put into simple terms the complicated nature of the tech.
      As soon as you help one person, that leads plenty others that will want to talk with you and discuss their "problems".

      Yeah, but, for the sake of sanity you've got to make sure the "problems" are actual problems and not "fix my windows install." This gets FAR too old too fast, people who screw up a machine over and over will not try Ubuntu, won't try Firefox instead of IE, won't try OpenOffice instead of (ancient version of office they still have), or quit using Outlook, then wonder why they've been pwned again.

      On the other hand, helping people with ACTUAL problems is in fact quite entertaining and informative, and helps people out.

  21. Deja Vu... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    If Verizon does as well with this as they did with Net Day and E-Rate, they'll get all $7B+ and deliver some moderately-broadband service to some of rural America.

    And get rural Americans to pay for it all over again. And again.

    Our patriotism at work, finally!

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  22. Lack of widespread demand ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

    Broadband penetration in rural counties is likely to plateau around 50% in the foreseeable future not for lack of supply but for lack of strong demand, especially when technical challenges will push the price considerably above dialup.

    I know that /. is the wrong place to say this, but many people (myself absolutely not included) can get by with minimal internet usage. Insisting that they must secretly want to be like us is flattering, perhaps, but it's delusional and paternalistic.

    Followup:

    http://techliberation.com/2008/03/07/debunking-rural-broadband-myths/
    http://voipservices.tmcnet.com/feature/articles/20381-rural-broadband-demand-not-supply-problem.htm

    1. Re:Lack of widespread demand ... by Bodero · · Score: 1

      I agree. The upside for Verizon, though, is that this will also provide voice services to rural America of which it is heavily lacking now (just view AT&T's or Verizon Wireless's coverage maps on their website). The users that want this for broadband is icing on the cake.

  23. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...as part of the overall economic stimulus package passed by Congress, the government is allocating $7.2 billion for projects that bring broadband Internet access to rural towns and communities."

    WTF? Didn't the US taxpayer *already* give these turkeys tax benefits to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars?

    I'm beginning to think these greedy SOB's ought to wire every home in the US with fibre, for free.

  24. Verizon has No Luv for Rural America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Verizon just dumped their land line business in the upper north east (NH, VT, ME). Where's my FIOS, CAN YOUR HEAR ME NOW?????? Chances of Fairpoint (the suckers who bought up Verizon's land line business) being able to figure out how to send light down a piece of fiber is laughable.

  25. Win / Win situation by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Rural America gets broadband access and the US government gets the infrastructure to roll out all of their privacy invading tools.

  26. Haha Yeah by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Just wait til they try to erect yet another tower in yeat another 'pristine' park that is just too close to someone's backyard.

    1. Re:Haha Yeah by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      *loads bazooka*
      OK, I'm waiting.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  27. Video conferencing by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Latency does not matter for media streaming

    It matters for video conferencing, which as far as I know has a similar bandwidth requirement to YouTube in each direction.

  28. Australia by Samah · · Score: 1

    And yet many of the heavily populated areas of Australia don't even have 3G.

    --
    Homonyms are fun!
    You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    1. Re:Australia by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Huh - all of 'heavily populated' Australia has 3G and even most of rural Australia has it. Telstra's NextG network covers 99% of the population (and yes, it's 3G/HSDPA, on the 850 Mhz band). Sure it's overpriced and Telstra is evil ... but virtually ALL of Australia has it available, and it's damn fast too as wireless services go.

      What you probably meant is the other carriers (Vodafone, 3, Optus etc) don't have 3G coverage in some heavily populated areas. Which is true. But it's not true to say there's no 3G service at all.

    2. Re:Australia by Samah · · Score: 1

      What you probably meant is the other carriers (Vodafone, 3, Optus etc) don't have 3G coverage in some heavily populated areas. Which is true. But it's not true to say there's no 3G service at all.

      Yes that is pretty much what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
  29. Been there, done that by admiralfurburger · · Score: 1

    I'm posting from my PC, tethered to my cell phone, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
    Live waaaay out in the boonies, surrounded by evergreen trees
    At&T (or are they cingular again?)
    HTC tilt via the "hidden" internet conection sharing & usb (winmo & windows xp (yeah, I know - boo, hiss!)) - standard internet plan
    13 dBi antenna from ebay (cellgear-usa)
    Went from 30-60kbps & 650+ ping, to minimum 150kbps(edge max) & 2-300 ping, popping up to 1.5mbps(3G) occasionally. On their advice, added a pizza pan as a ground plane(fiberglass motorhome). Goes 3G more often, but still not all the time. I'm going to get a longer cable & mount it up in a tree...

  30. Really? by symbolset · · Score: 1

    I just tested my cable broadband at 10.9Mbps down, 3285Kbps up. Usually it's much faster, but tonight 5 other users in the house are dinging it pretty heavy with games and downloads and such. I've seen 20Mbps down, 10Mbps up but to do that I have to kick everybody else off and use my best box and the Java benchmark because the flash one isn't reliable that high up. Cross-country latency can be as low as 27ms. At work I'm sharing a couple T1's with a crew of tech geeks, so if I need to download a DVD ISO sometimes it's faster to RDP to my desktop at home and download it there and make the round trip in the car, than it is to download it at my desk at work.

    You must have some awesome DSL connection. Back when I had it we were cruising at 1Mbps max.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Really? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      The top DSL tier is currently 6 down / 768 up. I get speedtests around 5 or 6 down and 650k up. I get torrents around 30k and my VPN just feels faster. Downloads have consistant speeds and longer downloads will maintain the speed or sometimes get a little faster.

      when I had cable I was on the 10M down / 3M up plan and I never tested above 2M down and 1M up. However when I actually downloaded things it would start fast and slow down fairly quickly. Torrents rarely exceeded 10k.

      I could be spoiled because I have a DS3 to the colo and 1mb burstable to 100 to the internet. I also live in an apartment.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
  31. Lower frequency isn't better by societyofrobots · · Score: 1

    "Because the [700 MHz] spectrum is in a lower frequency, it can transmit signals over longer distances and penetrate through obstacles, and because the signals travel longer distances"

    It also results in a lower bandwidth.

  32. Antenna size by SamMichaels · · Score: 1

    It's important to recognize that the size of the antenna is bigger at 700mhz. Remember the old phones with the antenna you extend? 1/4 wave at 700mhz is 4.2 inches. Compared to the 1.2 inches at 2.4ghz, I don't think manufacturers would be able to conceal it within the device and still get good performance.