Verizon To Criss-Cross USA With Speedy Data Service

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040408.html">http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20040408.html</a><br /><br />"True wireless broadband is coming to the U.S. this year and next. By the end of 2005, courtesy of Verizon Wireless, you should be able to wirelessly connect a laptop, PDA or cellphone to the Internet at real broadband speeds from almost any location in every major U.S. metropolitan area. I'm not talking about the spread of more Wi-Fi "hot spots" in airports, coffee shops and similar places. I'm talking about wireless high-speed Internet service that you can use just about anywhere -- even on the street or in a car."<br /><br />Speeds will be in the 300-500kpbs range. Man, GPRS is cool, but it is <i>so slow</i> sometimes.

[jump23]

Nextel is testing something similar in Raliegh, NC right now. They are claiming 1.5 mbs. It is supposed to be rolled out later this year.

[anthonymoody]

The most interesting thing about this article to me (besides the fact that I want it, NOW, for $20 a month please :)) is his mention of a few phones and PDAs enabled for it...

EVDO enabled Treo 600 anyone?

TM

[that_kid]

I have access to an EVDO card but I nee to goto DC to test it out. I'll see if I can get to DC soon and see how well it works, wow this would work wonders for me using snapstream. I could increase the bitrate of the stream and get a much nicer picture :D.

[whydidnt]

AND still no Bluetooth enabled phone to make it easy for us to use the service. :roll:

First off, this sounds like an awesome type of service for heavy travellers. I would gladly pay $80.00/month for unlimited data access - if it's widely available, can achieve these broadband type speeds, and is easy to use. However, something tells me that Verizon won't let me just have an EVO enable phone with Bluetooth that can act as a modem for my PDA and laptop. I'm either going to have to hope to find some sort of cable (unlikely for my PDA) or purchase a separate flash/PCMCIA card to actually use the service.

I't seems companies like to advertise great services, but aren't always real excited when you actually want to use them-- think ATT Wireless' new "unlimited" data access that really isn't.

[jalm1]

When this service was released back in October I jumped on the opportunity, and had my company buy me one to test out. And the service really did work great! I live in DC, and rarely had a problem. in fact I really didn’t notice to big of a difference between my office connection and this one, in terms of real usability for email and mostly non multimedia web browsing and often just left the card in and used the wireless connection all day. However, at this point I have canceled the service (although I still have the card). The $80.00 a month on top of everything else that we deploy starts to add up, especial when we are trying to cut as many costs as possible, and having GPRS data services and then EV-DO as well for the same people get costly. I also found that I really didn’t use it all that often out of the office or meetings (I would attribute this to testing the service in the winter, and we got a cold winter this year in DC, so no one wanted to spend much time outside (although now that it is nice I almost wish I still had service) and second, I rarely need laptop access outside of the office here in DC. if I carry my laptop (which is middle weight 14", so sort of a pain to carry around) I will normally be going somewhere there is wireline or wi-fi access, so there wasn’t much of a use. It was a blast to use in my tablet in most places, so for me one of issues is the portability of the machine I am using. We are keeping the cards so once VZW has better roll out in their network we can redeploy them, it would be great to travel with if the coverage area is large enough, and at that point it would be worth the $80.00/mo, it may also be possible to cut users wi-fi subscriptions (TMO hotspots) with this service.
Overall the service is amazing, when I was testing there fewer users on the network so hopefully with they will keep the load to a reasonable amount so as not to affect speed to much. If you are in coverage and are out a lot with your laptop it is a great service.

[ctitanic]

did they mention the price?
That service will cost a fortune. One of the reason why I still dont have DSL at home is the price, 40 $/month is more than what I'm willing to pay for any Internet service (currently I'm paying just 9 dollars to my local telephone cia for a dialup connection ;))

[burtman007]

did they mention the price?


Yeah, in the article it said $80/month. Actually, that's not a bad price when you consider it...

1. NEW TECHNOLOGY IS EXPENSIVE!!!

2. Verizon has a LOT of capital $$$ to make back. $80/month is a good way to start.

3. WIRED broadband will cost you $40 to $50 (not counting "special deals"). This technology is a premium now. Expect the price to drop or the features to increase. Look at mobile phones now compared to 5 years ago in terms of pricing and features.

[jalm1]

It is pricy, but they are targeting business users that are higher revenue customer and will normally pay more then the customer. But I agree with Mossberg the price should come down. And I am sure that it will. They do have a premium product that no one else has right now, that is worth charging more. And in one of VZW's press releases they will be spending more then $1 Billion in this EV-Do roll out through 2005, so they have to generate a return.

[sub_tex]

40 $/month is more than what I'm willing to pay for any Internet service (currently I'm paying just 9 dollars to my local telephone cia for a dialup connection ;))

I once thought that way, too. $9 is a lot nicer sounding than $40, but good lord is dial up unbearable! I can take the 3 less times a month of eating out and put that cash to my net connection. :D

As to this $80/month thing, I really don't see anyone other than corporate accounts rolling this out for employees. As a home user? To pay more than my cable connection AND my GPRS combined just to have faster wireless on my PDA? No, suh.

I'll happily wait the extra year or two for the prices to come down to earth. :mrgreen:

[SeanH]

AND still no Bluetooth enabled phone to make it easy for us to use the service. :roll:
I agree. Version and Sprint do not understand the need for a Bluetooth enable phones for Internet access. Everyone carries a phone, well at least everyone that would go to a web site with PPC info. Having your internet access every were you go that can be shared with devices around you is a great solution. With a Bluetooth based cell phone today you can connect to the internet at up to 200Kb using GPRS/EDGE in most of the US. With the phone never leaving your pocket you can connect devices to the internet like a PDA, Laptop, and a desktop with a Bluetooth USB dongle. Version and Sprint want you to buy a card for each of the devices.

As the bandwidth increases with GPRS and CDMA 2000 we will start seeing streaming audio from radio stations to your PDA, Laptop or maybe a future car radios. It might be the demise of XM radio. All Acura cars have Bluetooth now and many more will in 2005.

Sean

[ctitanic]

To me Wireless is less expensive than any wired technology. But knowing how everything works in this country... yeah I was expecting a price of around 80 dollars or more.

[disconnected]

It's expensive, but, like other people have mentioned, I'd be tempted if they offered it with a bluetooth phone that I could use with any PDA or laptop.

[ctitanic]

BlueTooth use a serial connection which will limit the speed you will get. ;)
So far I´m not so crazy about that option either. A good GPRS BT phone will be faster or could be faster than a 56kb modem but slower than a good WiFi connection ;) and even slower than a decent DSL connection.

[jjohn]

Sprint and Verizon don't have access to a lot of Bluetooth phones for the technology they use. The ones that are available aren't ones we would want. There will be some by the time Broadband Access roles out though, in some areas before it roles out (Motorola V710 YAY!). I can't wait.

[whydidnt]

BlueTooth use a serial connection which will limit the speed you will get. ;)

There isn't anything that says Bluetooth HAS to use a serial connection to transfer data. Bluetooth supports up to 700 kbs transfer rate, which is more than any of the Mobile Phone vendors offer today.

[whydidnt]

Sprint and Verizon don't have access to a lot of Bluetooth phones for the technology they use. The ones that are available aren't ones we would want.

I disagree, it's not that they don't have access to the phones, it's that they refuse to allow them on there network

[ctitanic]

BlueTooth use a serial connection which will limit the speed you will get. ;)

There isn't anything that says Bluetooth HAS to use a serial connection to transfer data. Bluetooth supports up to 700 kbs transfer rate, which is more than any of the Mobile Phone vendors offer today.

But still slower than 10 Mbps ;) (10 times slower) ;) but the point that I´m trying to make is that I don´t see the reason why to have BT involved when all they have to do is to implement a good WLAN accross the whole country. ; 0X

[Janak Parekh]

But still slower than 10 Mbps ;) (10 times slower) ;) but the point that I´m trying to make is that I don´t see the reason why to have BT involved when all they have to do is to implement a good WLAN accross the whole country. ; 0X
Because the cost of deploying WLAN at the coverage levels that Verizon has with 1x CDMA will be much more expensive? I finally ran an experiment on my train ride home out of Penn the other night -- I plugged my i700 in to my laptop, connected via 1xRTT, and saw how long it would last. I was shocked to realize that I only had one dropped connection during the entire trip -- and this was an express train that was flying along at about 60MPH for a solid half-hour. You won't get that with WiFi.

--janak

[ctitanic]

But still slower than 10 Mbps ;) (10 times slower) ;) but the point that I´m trying to make is that I don´t see the reason why to have BT involved when all they have to do is to implement a good WLAN accross the whole country. ; 0X
Because the cost of deploying WLAN at the coverage levels that Verizon has with 1x CDMA will be much more? I finally ran an experiment on my train ride home out of Penn the other night -- I plugged my i700 in to my laptop, connected via 1xRTT, and saw how long it would last. I was shocked to realize that I only had one dropped connection during the entire trip -- and this was an express train that was flying along at about 60MPH for a solid half-hour. You won't get that with WiFi.

--janak

Well I´m not so sure about. There are AP that works as repeaters or bridges I think that once you get connected to a WLAN using those repeaters or bridges you will get the same connectivity than in your CDMA network. So yes, I beilieve that you will get that or at least you could get that if they implement a national WLAN.

[ctitanic]

About the cost.... well I don´t know. I have read about some experiments with AP that can reach about 5 miles.

Any new technology has a start cost involved. But... charging 80 per month they will get that money back soon ;)

Right now We have some local companies around broward county offering WiFi Internet Connection in communities where they don´t have DSL yet.

[jjohn]

Sprint and Verizon don't have access to a lot of Bluetooth phones for the technology they use. The ones that are available aren't ones we would want.

I disagree, it's not that they don't have access to the phones, it's that they refuse to allow them on there network

Your opinion doesn't make it fact. I worked for Verizon for seven years. You need to look into providers (phonescoop.com) and see how many BT CDMA phones there are! Count how many you'd carry, let alone quality.

[SeanH]

BlueTooth use a serial connection which will limit the speed you will get. ;)
So far I´m not so crazy about that option either. A good GPRS BT phone will be faster or could be faster than a 56kb modem but slower than a good WiFi connection ;) and even slower than a decent DSL connection.
Serial does not mean slow. OC-192 lines send data down a serial stream at 10Gb that’s 1,000,000,000 bits per second. Bluetooth send data at 921Kb with out overhead raw data is spec'd at 720Kb that is 720,000 bits per second. WiFi is 11Mb but the connection on the other side of the router will be your max speed. Most DSL ISP's have downloads of 768Kb that is 768,000 bits per second that is very close to the 720,000 bits per second Bluetooth will handle. Most cable ISP's send data at 300Kb that is twice as fast as Bluetooth but I never expect to get that over a GRPS or CMDA 2000 network. My point is that Bluetooth has plenty of bandwidth for data on the road.

Well I´m not so sure about. There are AP that works as repeaters or bridges I think that once you get connected to a WLAN using those repeaters or bridges you will get the same connectivity than in your CDMA network. So yes, I beilieve that you will get that or at least you could get that if they implement a national WLAN.
You are correct that AP can be used as repeaters and it would be great if AP's were somehow on every other utility pole so we can have free internet access but they are not. Providing free WiFi access on utility poles does not bring revenue to the provider so no one does it.

About the cost.... well I don’t know. I have read about some experiments with AP that can reach about 5 miles.
It seems that cell towers 30 miles apart is the standard, AP’s or towers 5 miles is not enough. There is a new standard in the works called WiMax that will support 70Mb data streams up to 30 miles. The problem with standards like WiMax is they take many years to become established. A lot of times they fail because so many other standard emerge claiming there better. Bluetooth is going through this now. The advantage Bluetooth has now is the number of devices shipping today that all function with each other. Best Buy sells Bluetooth phones, PDA's, headsets, USB dongles and PCMCIA cards that all work together today. You can go to Best Buy and buy a Nokia 6820 phone, and a iPaq 4155 and surf the net or check emails today at 200Kb using AT&T GPRS/EDGE.

Sean

[whydidnt]

Your opinion doesn't make it fact. I worked for Verizon for seven years. You need to look into providers (phonescoop.com) and see how many BT CDMA phones there are! Count how many you'd carry, let alone quality.

I completely disagree with your premise. Verizon and Sprint both work closely outlining required specs for any phones on their network - since they both operate "closed" networks, unlike GSM. It's a self-fullfilng prophecy - if they don't request any bluetooth phones, then there won't be any manufacturers willing to build them, and thus "none available".

Sprint tried everything possible to kill the T608 because of bluetooth, eventually offering it in a very limited fashion. Sony-Ericsson basically gave up trying to sell CDMA phones in the US because it's too hard to get the carriers to agree to allow more full-featured phones.

Bottom Line, IMO, is that if either Sprint or Verizon "wanted" to offer a Bluetooth phone, there would be many manufacturers lined up to deliver said phone. It's a cop out for anyone to say that the phones just aren't available.

[SeanH]

Your opinion doesn't make it fact. I worked for Verizon for seven years. You need to look into providers (phonescoop.com) and see how many BT CDMA phones there are! Count how many you'd carry, let alone quality.
Try calling Verison or Sprint in the US and getting a plan to use data with those phones. They will tell you to buy a PCMCIA/CF card if you want data.

Sean

[ctitanic]

Providing free WiFi access on utility poles does not bring revenue to the provider so no one does it.
Sean

who is talking about free? Free to me means poor quality most of the time.

[ctitanic]

You can go to Best Buy and buy a Nokia 6820 phone, and a iPaq 4155 and surf the net or check emails today at 200Kb using AT&T GPRS/EDGE.

Sean

Well I don't know where do you live, but in my area with a SE T616 and AT&T I'm not getting more than 40 kb, I know that the 6820 Edge is a lot faster but the reception in most of the areas around Fort Lauderdale is so poor that I don't think that you are going to get more than 60Kb here.

[SeanH]

Providing free WiFi access on utility poles does not bring revenue to the provider so no one does it.
who is talking about free? Free to me means poor quality most of the time.
Free or not free I do not see any one making that type of investment. I predict we will move to higher bit rates using the existing cellular network.

Well I don't know where do you live, but in my area with a SE T616 and AT&T I'm not getting more than 40 kb, I know that the 6820 Edge is a lot faster but the reception in most of the areas around Fort Lauderdale is so poor that I don't think that you are going to get more than 60Kb here.
Like you said the T616 does not support EDGE. The existing GPRS network supports speeds up to 64Kb. Speeds of 40Kb are normal on a device supporting 64Kb with an average signal. AT&T merged with Cingular and recently doubled there network coverage. I live in Cleveland and it’s not unusual on my laptop to download files at 20KB (160Kb). 200Kb GPRS EDGE is a lot faster then standard 64Kb GPRS.

Sean

[ctitanic]

I still think that WiFi is better. I read in some where that AT&T was going to deploy a WiFi network. haven't you hear anything about it?

[SeanH]

I still think that WiFi is better. I read in some where that AT&T was going to deploy a WiFi network. haven't you hear anything about it?
We all like the speed and easy of use of WiFi. WiFi is not the same as the CDMA 2000 or GPRS network. WiFi has a range of about 1000 ft in open air. Most of the time the range is less then 300 ft. Like you posted there are people that using a directional antenna in a open area with power amplifiers pushing it to 5 miles. Best case that range is only good for Hotspot like environments. As far as I know no one is deploying a National WiFi network. CDMA2000 and GPRS are here today and offer and National data network. I can drive from Cleveland to Pittsburgh with a constant connection. WiFi supports roaming from one AP to another but all the SSID’s have to be the same. WiFi is the wrong technology for a national plan. Maybe WiMax will make it. AT&T does have a WiFi network at thier Hotspot locations.

Sean

[Stik]

EVDO? :idontthinkso: WLAN? :idontthinkso:

Ricochet, Ricochet, where art thou Ricochet? :grumble:

[that_kid]

Try calling Verison or Sprint in the US and getting a plan to use data with those phones. They will tell you to buy a PCMCIA/CF card if you want data.
Sean
Hmmm..... I wasn't told that and i'm posting this via a ipaq 5555 and T608 on the sprint network. I also have a cf2031 data card, all with unlimited data on a voice plan.

[SeanH]

Try calling Verison or Sprint in the US and getting a plan to use data with those phones. They will tell you to buy a PCMCIA/CF card if you want data.
Sean
Hmmm..... I wasn't told that and i'm posting this via a ipaq 5555 and T608 on the sprint network. I also have a cf2031 data card, all with unlimited data on a voice plan.
45 days ago I did research on upgrading my TDMA phone to something I could use for data. Both Sprint and Verizon told me I had to use a CF or PCMCIA card for data. Why do you have the CF card? You are using the DUN profile over Bluetooth to get on the net? What number did you tell the 5555 to dial? Is there a FAQ on Sprints site to set it up?

Sean

[that_kid]

45 days ago I did research on upgrading my TDMA phone to something I could use for data. Both Sprint and Verizon told me I had to use a CF or PCMCIA card for data. Why do you have the CF card? You are using the DUN profile over Bluetooth to get on the net? What number did you tell the 5555 to dial? Is there a FAQ on Sprints site to set it up?
Sean

The one thing I really dislike about sprint is their ability to give yo uthe same answer twice. I can call 10 times and each time get 10 answers. The worse is when you keep calling for an issue that you're trying to get resolved and each person that you talk to acts like it's something brand new eventhough the notes are in your account and the "Customer I don't Care" refuses to read it. So with that long rant that would explain the answers you recieved from sprint on the data issue. In Sprint's infinte wisdom they removed all data cables from the retail stores so users couldn't connect their phones to anything else yet one of their biggest third party partners "Radio Shack" sells cables all day long.

I have the CF card because no bluetooth phone was available on sprint when I needed data, I've had my data card over a year now and it works great(better than the phone) as far as data throughput. Plus there are times when I need to be on the phone and have data access at the same time. For this purpose the card is just great(that plus I can also use the data card for voice :) ) I am using the DUn profile to get on the net with my 5555 and 4350 and it does really work great. Connection time is fast and throuput is ok, not as good as the card but better than gprs. To get on the net with my phone and card I just dial #777, this used to be the way to get on using the qnc portion of IS-5 but it also works for 1xRTT. From there I'm in internet and vpn heaven.

As far as a FAQ's I'd go Here (http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=1477) and that should get you going.

[ignar]

EVDO enabled Treo 600 anyone?

TM

I doubt Treo 600 has enough power to handle the speed though. Treo 700 maybe? 8)

[Janak Parekh]

BlueTooth use a serial connection which will limit the speed you will get. ;)
So far I´m not so crazy about that option either. A good GPRS BT phone will be faster or could be faster than a 56kb modem but slower than a good WiFi connection ;) and even slower than a decent DSL connection.
Serial does not mean slow.
While serial as a concept is not limited by speed, he's referring to the Bluetooth Serial Profile, in particular. Most BT implementations use a RS232-style serial interface to handle it, which limits it to 56K. :( While one could use a different profile, it's just something extra to be considered...

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Bottom Line, IMO, is that if either Sprint or Verizon "wanted" to offer a Bluetooth phone, there would be many manufacturers lined up to deliver said phone. It's a cop out for anyone to say that the phones just aren't available.
You're right. As a matter of fact, Verizon was having an alternative version of the T608 developed -- the T606 -- who's biggest differentiating characteristic from the T608 was that it had... no Bluetooth!

That said, I remain hopeful that the CDMA carriers are starting to warm up, with things like rumors of a Bluetooth Verizon phone (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24476) on the horizon. :)

--janak

[the_rapture]

I'm hoping that they expand outward from the cities, because I can't get a decent broadband at my place since I live in the sticks, unless you think Satellite is good (50kbs up, yuck). So I'm hoping they get this rolled out quick. I might be able to use 1x but the cost is to much for just that. There is http://www.wave2net.com which if they were smart would start a VoIP type of service as well and compete with Cell networks and they can get some really good speeds for a wireless tech.

[SeanH]

While serial as a concept is not limited by speed, he's referring to the Bluetooth Serial Profile, in particular. Most BT implementations use a RS232-style serial interface to handle it, which limits it to 56K. :( While one could use a different profile, it's just something extra to be considered...

--janak
That is not true at all. The serial profile supports speeds of 921.5Kb. Bluetooth does have overhead just like all protocols. The max speed after the overhead is 720Kb.

RS-232 is the electrical spec for a wired serial transceiver. The Bluetooth serial profile emulates a UART that uses start and stop bits to send data asynchronously.

Sean

[Janak Parekh]

That is not true at all. The serial profile supports speeds of 921.5Kb. Bluetooth does have overhead just like all protocols. The max speed after the overhead is 720Kb. RS-232 is the electrical spec for a wired serial transceiver. The Bluetooth serial profile emulates a UART that uses start and stop bits to send data asynchronously.
:oops: Sorry, let me be more precise -- I was catching up on a lot of threads last night.

On many of the earlier iPAQs with Bluetooth implementations (certainly the 3870, not sure about others), HP's Bluetooth hardware implementation topped out at around 115.2kbps, for virtually any profile. Numerous tests showed this to be the case. Rumor had it that they used a RS232-style UART to handle communications to the Bluetooth chipset. Such an implementation is a hindrance to 3G Bluetooth phone pairing. I'd also be curious to hear how current iPAQs perform in comparison...

--janak

[SeanH]

On many of the earlier iPAQs with Bluetooth implementations (certainly the 3870, not sure about others), HP's Bluetooth hardware implementation topped out at around 115.2kbps, for virtually any profile. Numerous tests showed this to be the case. Rumor had it that they used a RS232-style UART to handle communications to the Bluetooth chipset. Such an implementation is a hindrance to 3G Bluetooth phone pairing. I'd also be curious to hear how current iPAQs perform in comparison...

--janak
The HP 3870 uses this Bluetooth device
http://www.alps.co.jp/e/press/new2001/f0605-e.htm
It’s spec’d at 723 kbps max. The HP 3870 has an Intel SA-1110 206 MHz CPU. The SA1110 has three UART’s (serial ports). One is tied to the Irda port and has a max speed of 4Mb. The other two have a max speed of 230.4Kb. Check page 271 of the hardware reference manual. http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/doc/specs/ic/cpu/arm/sa1100-techref.pdf
The next generation PDA’s have an Intel PXA250 in them. Its UARTs support speeds up to 921.5Kb. http://www.intel.com/design/pca/prodbref/252780.htm
So it is true that old PDA’s may have slow Bluetooth performance but everything with the PXA250 or better will support 720Kb of data. Most people with DSL have 768Kb download speeds and thats very fast for internet access.

Sean

[Janak Parekh]

Thanks for the details Sean -- I appreciate it. :)

--janak