Verizon High Speed Wireless 113
TheSync writes: "Wired News has an article about Verizon's surprise announcement of "Express Network," a wireless data service with a speed of 144 kbps. Handsets to support the service could be sold as early as next week, and Emblaze Systems is already testing wireless video on Verizon's Philadelphia network." I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now.
DSL v Wireless (Score:1, Troll)
Question (Score:2, Funny)
Is the oxymoron "Verizon + Highspeed" or "Highspeed + Wireless" ?
Re:DSL v Wireless (Score:1)
Re:Are you sure you want this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Are you sure you want this? (Score:1)
Chris
Uh.. so.. (Score:1, Troll)
So it won't work? Damn Verizon and their vaporware! At least they figured out how to screw people out of real money with it.
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:1, Redundant)
I don't know where you live, but here in NYC Verizon is the best cell carrier out of the bunch. Only time I've ever had a busy signal was on Sept 11th, and I get a signal almost everywhere I go. Unlike ATT, Sprint and Nextel around here.
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:1)
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:2)
I've used their DSL, and it did suck, but it sucked intentionally.
First of all, they use PPP over ethernet. Conscious decision, but PPPoE sucks as far as client implementations.
Secondly, they would disconnect me whenever I received incomming HTTP (and certain other) connections. It took me a long time to figure out that that was what was causing the disconnections. Once I stopped accepting incomming connections, I had nearly flawless service.
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:1)
has been quite good. Sure my bandwith isn't as
high as I'd like it to be, and their decision to
use PPoE is limiting optionwise; but over the last
two-and-a-half years, my service has been pretty
good.
As far as their wireles is concerned, I can also
say that the only time I've ever had problems was
9/11. And even then, my cellphone was working
about an hour after the towers fell.
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:2)
Yeah, knock Verizon for everything but Wireless.
I couldn't believe it either. I've had Sprint and AT&T and I just kind of lived with the fact that cells suck. Three different people told me to go with Verizon Wireless because they were sick of my bitching.
I've never had problems since. I get service -everywhere- in NYC. Never seen it drop below 3 bars except in the obvious places (sub-basements, etc). It still doesn't sit right with me since Verizon sucks at absolutely everything else. This is something they do right.
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:2)
Re:Uh.. so.. (Score:1)
About 80% of the time when I attempt to connect (usually to pull local movie showing times) I fail to get through to the service. I am forever sitting with a "Connecting......." status until I quit. The local paper doesn't carry the times during the weekdays, so I have to phone the damn recording to get the times. What a pain!
But you can't beat their voice. They have a regional plan that allows me to roam anywhere in the multi state region free (it's all my home calling area), which is right up my alley due to my traveling. Hardly ever have a problem getting through.
After this.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:After this.. (Score:1)
Verizon is the devil? (Score:1)
Re:Verizon is the devil? (Score:1, Funny)
Mod parent to "+5, Slashdot Groupthink" or "-1, Pathetic Asshole"
Re:Verizon is the devil? (Score:1)
Besides, Verizon Wireless is the one part of that company that doesn't suck. Unlike Sprint...
Fix stuff first (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that companies insist on rolling out new "services" when they never got their old services working correctly. Cox.net is doing this now by telling us all that we are going to go really fast real soon, ignorring the fact that most people can barely get online and hold times for customer service are almost 2 hours.
The reason is pure greed. To make their existing products work they would have to spend money on infrastructure and upgrades. A new service is mostly marketting and great launch parties. New serices make a CEO look good to the stock holder while hiding the fact that their network is held together by Duct tape and sneaker nets. I say boycott this crap, I have told a cox rep at my work to his face that I did not feel good about installing a T3 from them because my home service was so bogged down, telling me their network sucks.
It's time we let corporations know that we want the old stuff to work correctly before we will buy their new crap. Send a message that poor service and flawed products are not the way to win us over.
Re:Fix stuff first (Score:2, Informative)
You will never be on hold for two hours calling Verizon Wireless {1}, generally your hold time is under 90 seconds.
As to the network, we have the best network in the US (this is using our own testing and independent nationwide testing). And we are constantly working on improving it.
And remember, we have nothing to do with Verizon Landline (totally different companies, not a single worker or executive in common as far as I know).
{1} I work for Verizon Wireless.
Re:Fix stuff first (Score:1)
1. If you re-read you will notice that I was referring to cox.net at the point I mentioned two hour holds, not verizon.
2. If verizon wireless is so great, as you claim, why is the rest of this forum section filled with people agreeing to the sloppy customer service and down times, including the article that leads it off.
3. National tests may show that you are the best in the US, which makes you cream del la crud. US wireless is some of the worst in the world. For the amount of coverage garaunteed the customer the amount of dead spots and cut offs is ridiculous. try traveling to japan or europe. You can travel around bucharest all day by car and never ever lose signal. I lose singal twice just driving ten miles to work in my major city.
Re:Fix stuff first (Score:1)
The transition to cox.net was trivial (change my email from @home.com to @home.net), reboot my airport to get a new dhcp address.
Of course, YMMV.
What about Bluetooth and 802.11 (Score:1)
I then wonder, why is it so amazing that someone invents a 144 kbps connection when we already have the technology to go 500KB per second... the card my flatmate uses is a typical small network connection card and I can't imagine that it is too big to fit into a mobile phone???
Re:What about Bluetooth and 802.11 (Score:3, Informative)
This is definitely coming off of existing cell phone towers. Those are very far apart (less maintenance costs, etc.)
T
existing cell phone towers? (Score:1)
I say no-thanks to Verizon Wireless Internet...
Re:What about Bluetooth and 802.11 (Score:3, Informative)
With "High-speed wireless" the idea is to use the existing cellular network and provide data access.
Oh, and the 144kbps? Don't count on it! They should say 144kbps aggregate bandwidth for the cell shared among all users on that cell. It's a typical marketing scam. Saw this at a trade show, and when I asked more detailed questions, the whole sales pitch fell apart.
Bad cell service? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know where you live, but here in NYC Verizon is the best cell carrier out of the bunch. Only time I've ever had a busy signal was on Sept 11th, and I get a signal almost everywhere I go. Unlike ATT, Sprint and Nextel around here.
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
-
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
At least in this area Verizon wireless is what used to be GTE, which is where I had my original cell service.
I've only used the customer service a couple times. Once I called to see if they could give me a different rate plan because I was only using 100 minutes a year. They fixed me right up. The other time I had a problem with my call forwarding, and it was solved within minutes. Excellent, if you ask me.
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
100 min/year... (Score:1)
Re:100 min/year... (Score:1)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2, Interesting)
It makes me wonder if the editor Michael knew anything about Verizon's wireless service or if he was simply taking a pot shot at Verizon because they're Verizon and it's the Slashdot thing to do.
If people want to bitch about Verizon, bitch in regards to their Internet service or customer service. Unlike their wireless service, there's a lot more problems with those other services.
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2)
Verizon may offer poor cell phone service elsewhere, and certainly their customer support can be a royal pain, but at least in Indy and apparently NYC they're one of the best cell carriers available.
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2)
** VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS AND VERIZON WIRELESS ARE SEPARATE COMPANIES! **
This is mandated by federal law because VZ Comm is regulated (DSL, phone service, etc.) and VZ Wireless (formerly BAM, Primeco, GTE, Airtouch) is unregulated.
THEREFORE, VZ Wireless acts quite differently from its parent company.
Trust me; I know.
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2)
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:2, Informative)
Verizon Wireless is a business unit inside of Verizon communications, but it is not a separate company. Look at the Verizon Company Profile [verizon.com] for more information.
Do they have a rep for bad coverage? (Score:2)
Does Verizon have a rep for bad coverage? I know they're running these really obnoxious TV spots with the geek in the wilderness.
I'm was an Airtouch customer, and Airtouch was spun off from US West and was the original 800 Mhz wireline carrier where I live, which may account for the quality of signal (loads of towers, existing infrastructure).
Are they bad in areas where they have expanded into and didn't have a good existing tower base or relied on roaming agreements?
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
But thank goodness for Michael's nice and unbiased reporting!
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
For the past couple of years I also had Nextel service (for work). It wasn't terrible, but it took them a long time to even get around to enabling all the features on my phone. And coworkers had lots of trouble with the coverage area, although in my travels, it was fair. Not nearly as good as Verizon Wireless.
The snide comment by the editor is uncalled for. I don't mind bashing entities when they deserve it, but that's not the case here. Now, if this was a story about Verizon
Re:Bad cell service? (Score:1)
However, I have had reoccurring billing issues and trying to deal with their customer support is hell.
Here is a little narrative on what happens EVERY time I call:
You call, you enter you phone number, you wait, you get a human, they ask for you phone number, they tell you that you reached they "insert any call area but yours" and they need to forward you. You are on hold again, rings, they ask for your phone number, they tell you that you reached they "insert any call area but your own", you ask how that can be since the first they you are required to do is enter your phone number, and since the last person verified your calling area and was suppose to route you to the correct place.. they do not say anything, and then say they will route you to your calling area.. you go on hold again... the phone rings, they ask for your phone number.
Now at this point, if you are lucky, they will ask for you security pin, and then help you (and they are usually pretty good at helping you and crediting the amount in err back to you account), however, it could potentially repeat the first cycle two or three more times. But this call routing gets you to at least three call centers before you reach the correct one. Could just be lazy tech support not wanting to help you so they route you to their cube neighbor. I was told by the local retailer that the call centers are actually all in one building in Chicago, with different departments for the different calling areas. And that when the automated system asks you to enter your number, it should pick your area code and route you to the correct place.
There is some flaw in their system somewhere, and it is really annoying.
Definitely Needed .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Definitely Needed .... (Score:2)
And why exactly is that? If it's to "prop up the economy" then think again. This is not a consumer driven recession. Personally, I see no market for the things 3G is being touted as bringing to the table, such as video on your cellphone. What I would like to see, and no on is talking about, are 3G modems for PCs so the rest of us can have broadband.
Who would use this? (Score:1)
Re:Who would use this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Who would use this? (Score:1)
Re:Who would use this? (Score:1)
info (Score:2, Informative)
Re:info (Score:5, Informative)
For all of the posters that have requested higher data-rates; don't worry, it's coming:
WCDMA: Wideband CDMA. It wil start to appear in Europe and some US networks later this year (IIRC). It will have a maximum data rate of 384Kbps (IIRC). However, it uses almost 5MHz of the spectrum (~2.5 forward link + ~2.5 on the reverse link)
1X-EV+DO: The add-on to the CDMA standard should allow data rates of between 1 & 2 Mbps. It's commonly reffered to as High Data Rate (HDR) and could appear late this year or sometime next year.
1xDV: This probably won't be out until 2003-2004 timeframe, but it should offer enhanced voice and data speeds. I don't think that the spec is totally finalized, but it could provide data speeds up to 10Mbps.
Re:info (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, it's 1X-RTT. 1X-EV is further off and is a different technology, but very cool
Re:info (Score:1)
Corrections and Extra Info
What they are actually referring to is "CDMA 2000-1XEV". The "EV" stands for "Enhanced Voice".
VZW is rolling 1xRTT, 1xEVxx stands for EVolutionary
WCDMA: Wideband CDMA. It wil start to appear in Europe and some US networks later this year (IIRC). It will have a maximum data rate of 384Kbps (IIRC). However, it uses almost 5MHz of the spectrum (~2.5 forward link + ~2.5 on the reverse link)
Maximum data rate is NOT 384 kbps, this is just what the Japanese early FOMA [nttdocomo.co.jp] adopters are limited to. The 5MHz is NOT split forward/reverse. Bandwidth and chip rate (3.84 Mcps) is same in BOTH directions.
1xEV-DO stands for EVolutionary Data Only
For those with even a slight interest in the actual facts and standards, there are two standards groups looking after the two 3G streams. The 3G Paternership Project [3gpp.org] is responsible for the GSM migration path aka WCDMA. The 3G Partnership Project 2 [3gpp2.org] covers the Qualcomm migration to cdma2000 (1xRTT, 3x, etc) etc.
Cell-Video on demand? (Score:1)
Do you ever get the feeling that many companies aren't really thinking about whether something is a good idea before they release it? Something tells me that marketing was behind this bold corporate strategy.
Re:Cell-Video on demand? (Score:1)
Verizon Cell Service in Omaha, NE - top notch (Score:1)
Sprint PCS dies as soon as I loose site of downtown, Alltel can't find their own butt with both hands let alone bill me correctly , and I have no experience with Nextel.
Verizon on the other hand, works fine all over the metro and keeps on ticking in weird places like Quick, Iowa (population 4).
First bit of "3G" cellular (Score:5, Informative)
There are two distinct technical flavors (air interfaces) to 3G, both based on CDMA. The GSM (most of world) and IS-136-TDMA (Cingular, ATT-W) carriers, with existing TDMA networks, are migrating to WCDMA. The CDMA carriers (Sprint, VZW, Korea) are migrating to CDMA2000. (Qualcomm favors CDMA2000, but makes patent royalties off of both. They really did invent it.) The CDMA2000 spec in turn has multiple variants. The "1XRTT" flavor is simply a software change to the way existing CDMAone carriers are allocated among calls. The peak speed is only 144 kbps (ten times what CDMA one gives you) but there's no forklift upgrade, and no new spectrum needed. Of course it needs new handsets to make use of the new features, but the base stations are backwards compatible. Very graceful, 3G on the cheap.
So VZW and Sprint are both rolling out 1XRTT this year. VZW announced faster, but they're both gated, in practice, by the availability of handsets and similar remote devices from the (mostly Korean) makers. The CDMA and GSM carriers are instead phasing in a "2 1/2G" technology, EDGE, as a sort of bridge to WCDMA. They'll need separate networks, or a forklift upgrade, to do 3G. Since WCDMA doesn't share spectrum with TDMA, they can't do the easy phase-in that CDMA gives you.
But don't think of 3G as a substitute for fast wireline. A 144 kbps call basically eats ten voice calls' worth of network bandwidth. So it will be expensive! Packetized data, by the byte, will be cheaper, but really aimed more at low-bandwidth things like email than high-bandwidth things like music or ordinary web browsing. (Look up EDGE pricing on the GSM networks to get an idea; it's in dollars/MB). This is a premium service for users who need it.
Soon to be followed by IS-856 (Score:1)
followed shortly by IS-856 rollouts, which
is a pure packet-data variant of 1xRTT.
Apparantly, this provides a 2.4Mbps shared
pipe downstream, 153Kbps/subscriber upstream
(peak). This makes it simply the fastest cellular
data system available, and rollouts are expected
early next year. This is also technology invented
by Qualcomm.
Hari.
Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (Score:1, Informative)
ACtually, 1X-RTT requires board-level upgrades to the cell. You swap out 2G boards with boards with new ASICS, and voila! You also get more voice capacity (the real win), but judicious rollout will be necessary to avoid overtaxing the network.
Oh, and the upgrades after that are, as you say, forklift upgrades. the newer network (1X-EVXX) is a completely different technology (but still spread-spectrum)
Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (Score:1)
-Bill
Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (Score:1)
Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (Score:2, Informative)
Anyhow, on GSM we have GPRS. Not EDGE. And its not that expensive. $40/10mb afaik. And its packetized. $4 per additional MB. Its not cheap, but its not insane.
And, its allways on at least.
3g services will be better than this 2.5g stuff.
GSM path to 3G (Score:1)
They will then have to do more major backbone modifcations to get 2mbps speeds when they move to CDMA-DS. I am baffled why certain TDMA carriers are investing millions in changing over to GSM only to have to eventually change over to CDMA in the future. Unless they are betting on further enhancement to the GSM standard to make such changes pointless.
Chicago (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this program would be great. Currently this is no real way of providing "regular" interent access such as web browsing. This service would seem to provide decent dl rates for those who don't find 14.4 kbs acceptable.
I would also think that this would work rather well with the Kyocera/Palm phones Verizon offers here. I am not aware if these phones have interent access presently, I would assume not being they are b&w. I would think Phone/palm combinations in color would be a huge hit with there ability to be a palm phone and web browser. I would also think that anything over 100kb/s would also suit most people needs. That seems to be a decent web browsing speed as long as you don't feel the need to try and run a direct connect [neo-modus.com] hub from your palm.
Credit where it's due (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Credit where it's due (Score:1)
Now we're both on Cingular and it works great. The only time I've ever had problems with Cingular is when I've been roaming on Alltel or Verizon networks. Go figure.
Ben
VZ Wireless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:VZ Wireless (Score:1)
I have had AT&T since 1998 and the quality of service is much better than Verizon.
I live on Long Island, and now currently goto school in Miami, FL.. and AT&T has great service there also.
I've always liked AT&T
Reputation. (Score:2)
Yeah, and when you combine that with the high reliability of their DSL offerings, how can the customer lose?
--saint
Great, but how much? (Score:2)
I'd happily pay $20/month for this service, if it worked reliably and had no usage restrictions. Maybe even $30-40, if it worked really reliably (enough that I could throw out my cell phone and just use voice over IP to my home telephone).
Somehow I'm guessing there will be usage charges or $80+/month fees. I can already get unlimited 14.4 for $60/month through nextel's unlimited incoming call plan.
Phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't get is why this article keeps harping on phones. Who needs 144kbps to your phone? Streaming video? Who is going to watch video on their phone? You can't browser. E-mail is possible, but not all that interesting.
Show me a PCMCIA adapter for my laptop, and then I get interested. Even a pocket PC might semi-interesting (although browsing would still suck, I'd imagine).
Re:Phones? (Score:2)
Re:Phones? (Score:2)
OK (Score:3, Informative)
Merlin C201 [novatelwireless.com]
AirCard 550/555 [sierrawireless.com]
Re:Phones? (Score:4, Interesting)
"blah blah blah and Who needs 144kbps to your phone? Streaming video? Who is going to watch video on their phone? You can't browser. E-mail is possible, but not all that interesting."
How bout heading on over to Japan to see what people do with wireless phones before you keep sqawkin like a person who basically has no clue what they are talking about.
In Japan it seems that cellphones are used for everything *but* talking so godamn loud about some breakup and what the hell is going on in your life so every freekin person within a mile radius can hear you. On the contrary, people in Japan (as far as I saw) use their phones for incredible functions: everyone is always typing emails or SMS on the trains in Tokyo, people send pictures and video to each other: we were watching some celeb on the backstreet getting filmed for a tv show, people whipped out their phones and started taking pics to send to their friends. etc..
The USA is godamn backwards as far as cell technology is concerned. I spent a year in Asia and the whole time I could not wait to get home and grab me a cellphone. Once I have been back, I could care less cos the cellphones here just dont have the features that make them cool and usable.
Sorry, I like wicked slim, with huge screen that has 65k colors and downloadable java apps for playing games or other things to do 'on the fly'.
Those fat nokias with LCD's just dont cut it.. Sorry.
http://www.nttdocomo.com/
http://www.3g.co.uk/Learn3G.htm
http://www.inq7.net/inf/2001/dec/07/inf_digital
etc.. etc..
Re:Phones? (Score:1)
Re:Phones? (Score:2)
1. Not everybody sends mail in English. The multi-tap input method works noticably better for Japanese than it does for English, which is why I tend to send e-mail in Japanese when using my phone. The pager input method is even better yet, though it has a larger learning curve.
2. There are input methods other than multi-tap that get you much closer to one keystroke per letter for western language input. In Europe already many phones use T9 text input [t9.com], and there are others as well.
cjs
Re:Phones? (Score:1)
It works OK at the current 9600 baud rate, but with 50-60 messages a day (spam!) and three or four accounts, 144K would be better.
BTW, if you want peace and quiet for getting some programming done, there's no place like a secluded cove.
Cell service is good (Score:1)
But, 100 metres down the road, the service is superb. Clear as a bell.
And their customer service has been good. They actually appear interested in the rapid drop in coverage near my house. Hopefully they'll send that twit from their commercial out here to fix it. Or at least add another tower on my side of the hill.
Hate Verizon's service? (Score:1)
A little more info (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure you're all wondering what kind of throughput you can really expect to see from this. In my tests I typically see rates of about 11-12KBps. You may not see speeds quite that good in an area where a lot of people are using wireless services but I'd expect most people to see speeds about that fast. It's not as fast as cable or DSL but it's at least twice the speed of a 56K dailup - pretty darn fast for a wireless phone.
I speak for myself and not for Lucent.
Re:A little more info (Score:1)
Any idea on the expected time-to-market of 3G-1XEV-DO services?
Re:A little more info (Score:1)
Speed is not useful-As it will cost too much (Score:1)
Viable Wireless Service (Score:1)
Ummmm...hasn't Canada had GPRS since last year? (Score:1)
Secondly, this isn't true 3G! It's 2.5G by the very nature that it's merely access to multiple channels for data transfer -- no other 3G call features or technology.