Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Verizon Launches 3G Network (Silently) 207

Cesaro writes: "According to this CNN article here it looks like Verizon has beaten all others to the punch on launching the first 3g wireless network in the US. I was at a loss to find any good information on this at Verizon's website. One would think they would want to publicize these items."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Launches 3G Network (Silently)

Comments Filter:
  • In sweden there are plenty of probz with the 3g syst, licenses been debated all the time. But when its up, give me a new ph0ne
  • Great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by IIOIOOIOO ( 517375 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:56PM (#2915770)
    Now I can ciew postage-stamp sized video clips while I browse the postage-stamp sized web!
    • More like full-sized videos on a postage-stamp size screen. I mean, it is high-speed right? :)
    • Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)

      by jsprat ( 442568 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:14PM (#2915938)
      Yeah, and the guy driving down the highway in the lane next to yours can be talking to his girlfriend _AND_ looking at pr0n!

      Think he'll have a hand left to drive??

      Technology isn't always a good thing...
      • Technology isn't always a good thing...


        Don't blame technology -- the problem is good old-fashioned human stupidity. Inanimate objects do nothing by themselves, but in the hands of an idiot they can be dangerous. High-tech gadgets just give idiots more ways to inflict their stupidity on others.

  • Not for Phones Yet (Score:1, Informative)

    by MrEnigma ( 194020 )
    Unfortunately it's just for a headset that attaches to your computer, or a card for your laptop. Which both are good, but for an extra 30 bucks, too bad you can't get a phone that you can use and a link to whatever. Now if you could use both devices at one time, that would rock, and be a cheap wireless internet provider.
  • Lets hope it doesn't go the way of Sprint Ion.

    Launching a First Generation Technology in a radically new market is hard for any company. Lets see if it actually catches on.
    • its 3rd generation for one. and been done in other countrys. it wont go the way of sprint ion because verison is already steadfast in the wireless market and this is just more for the wireless market. whereas sprint took a gamble at fixed wireless internet something very diffrent than mobile highspeed internet and cool phones.
  • Silent is better? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TommyBear ( 317561 )
    Maybe publicity is the last thing they want. 3G has been labeled vaporware many times over, this could hurt them is they don't get it right.
    • by UNIBLAB_PowerPC ( 443101 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:41PM (#2916163) Homepage
      As a geek in a PR office, here's the inside scoop on why they're not beating their own drum on this one (or it's why 99% of all organizations will sit on newsworthy information like this): it's not "ready" yet (meaning they aren't ready to field internal or external questions about said stuff; they aren't ready to fill the rest of their own staff in on it yet or they're doing that right now while the public is left in the dark with rumors; there are problems that no one except a select few know of and they would like them "fixed" in whatever way necessary before the public is informed via the marketing droids; etc.). Mix any combination of said ingredients (or come up with your own possiblities and they're likely true) and you have a press release that's "on hold" until the events change or the marketing/PR folks find a way to respin things in their favor .... oh, and don't throw rocks, I'm not allowed to talk to outsiders in the office. I just know what happens ....

      • by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @05:21PM (#2916441) Journal
        Absolutely correct, You can not deploy a 3G network from one vendor. No vendor has enough hardware to deploy an entire network. You have to use all Vendors, and those vendors equipment has to work seamlessly. And the hardware is brand new, there's daily maintenance, patches and software tweaks just to keep it running. There is no "Building it in the lab" with 3G, its tested and built in production. But the customers on those network are most likely internal employees and content providers who are testing applications. So its not really "Launched"..

        Speaking of that, ever Telco is getting their hardware from the same vendors, Eriksson, Nortel, etc... So whatever Verizon is doing, all the vendors are learning and applying to other Telcos. My tech support is your tech support.
  • Poll Results: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ekrout ( 139379 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:57PM (#2915785) Journal
    Poll Results:

    How ready are you to utilize a "3G" service like Verizon's new Express Network?

    The majority (32% of those who voted) said "Maybe never -- I don't plan to need that much wireless speed."

    I find this quite interesting.
    • The majority (32% of those who voted) said "Maybe never -- I don't plan to need that much wireless speed."

      This number is mirrored by those saying "gimme now", which is interesting by itself and in view of the number you cited.

      I bet those who say "never" had never used Ricochet.

      My client is desparate for 3g. He (she? they? it?) saw Ricochet right before it cratered and is constantly asking "When can we go 3g?" or "When will Ricochet be back up?"

  • Useless... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by L-Wave ( 515413 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:58PM (#2915787)
    This might be a rant or something, but is this technology really needed? I can understand if one had a web tablet or something like that, but do you _really_ need streaming video on your cell phone? I can't imagine myself being on the run and having to watch the latest jenna jameson video or some such nonsense.
    • 3G can be used for internet access. You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go, where you have 3G coverage, you have a fast wireless network connection.

      Who doesn't want that!
      • by RedX ( 71326 )
        You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go, where you have 3G coverage, you have a fast wireless network connection.

        Cool, so this 3G also supplies power to the desktop and monitor as well? ;-)

      • You plug a 3G client card into your desktop and anywhere you go

        (tongue->cheek)I prefer to carry my laptop around instead(/tongue->cheek)

        As a CDMA Verizon customer who regularly goes over his minutes using the Internet access, I can finally say "yee haw". Last June, when I finally got around to buying a data cable for my StarTAC, I called Verizon to confirm the setup, and the tech actually did say to me that they were going to 144k in January. 3 years late on DSL, but hey, he nailed that one perfectly! I've always joked with my friends that with the Linux firewall, I could NAT my network over my cellphone. But now? hmmm... ISDN-speed failover link.. (Rubs chin and raises eyebrow like The Rock).

        But seriously, I can see some MP3-Car freaks using this to extend their network reach so they could, say, scp down some new MP3's while they drive to the store instead of sitting in the car running in the garage. :) As for me, I'd rather listen to text-to-speech of IRC or something amusing like that during the morning or evening commute. Or how about scrolling /. stories on a heads-up display in the windshield??? ;)
    • I couldn't think of any use I'd have for 3G until you wrote that. Thanks!
    • Eehhhhh no. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Morgahastu ( 522162 ) <bshel@WEEZERroge ... ve bands n ame> on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:15PM (#2915947) Journal
      There are plenty of uses the 3G network. Its not only for cell phones. It can be used for PDAs (imagine the Treo with 3G). Or my laptop could have a 3G card so I can get some fast internet access anywhere. Cars could also use it to deliver information based on your whereabouts (or a computer in the backseat).

      This technology is terrific and I think it will be a big boost for PDAs.
    • Re:Useless... (Score:3, Insightful)

      More important than connecting that much bandwidth to your phone is sharing it among many devices.

      The problem most people haven't realized yet (and the press coverage doesn't seem to understand) is that the existing wireless bandwith is getting eaten up, not because individuals are using more and more of it, but because more and more individuals are using it.

      Have you noticed an increase in "all circuits are busy" or "unable to connect" messages, even when you're getting perfectly good signal? I know I have. As more people get phones/PDAs/computers connected to the wireless networks, it's only getting worse.

      Yes, 3G provides a fat pipe to your phone, but a more important aspect is that it's just plain capable of sharing a fatter pipe among all the phones.

      Puff, puff, give. We're pushing the limits of what the existing networks can handle; 3G *should* give us enough capability so that we dont f*** up the rotation.

      • If your cellphone acted like a gateway, with PDA's and laptops and car systems connecting through it using bluetooth (or another short range solution), wouldn't that help out? You would still move the same amount of information, but through a common pipe. Am I mistaken that this would ease the load on the service provider equipment? There would be fewer circuits needed per person, eliminating some of the bandwidth used on protocol overhead.

        Folks - am I way off? This is not my specialty, after all.
    • any more than 640 k?

      come on, can't *anyone* think of good ideas for this? mobile videoconferencing with a pocket sized phone? on demand broadband almost anywhere? while talking on your cellphone, and giving / getting directions, you could also quickly pull up mapquest on your phone, and have images of landmarks sent over... Honestly, I'm a bad brainstormer... but someone else should be able to come up with something better.
      • * Police, Fire, EMT services (Forms, MAPS, real-time info)
        * Order entry/tracking for roaming salesforces
        * Inexpensive Logistics Tracking System using Commodity Technology (Combine w GPS and map system)

        WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS!!!

        Doesn't wireless Internet Access say it well enough?
    • Wait until we have portable videophones, where the person shows up in the monitor real-time.

      Yeah, I know that this is slashdot, and I'm supposed to be all cynical about technology that doesn't have any real use, but that's going to be so freaking cool.
    • Once the cost of sending and receiving video is reasonable, it will be useful, any time the question of "well, what does it LOOK like?" arises, i.e.:

      "Honey, did you want _this_ one?"

      "How do I get there from here? I'm in a strange part of town, and I don't know where I am."

      "When your system locked up, did you get a screen like (picture) this, or (picture) this?"
    • Maybe you don't have enough imagination or you don't understand that the existing CDMA standard doesn't offer anything close to 144kbs (even if that's just a theoritical limit), let alone 56K. Try more like 9600 bps if you're lucky.

      This is a DATA service primarily aimed at laptops and PDAs and the users who want to connect to the Internet from anywhere.

      2 years ago, I wrote a small order-entry application for a automotive parts company. Salesmen would download the update for catalog in the morning (about 400K) and send thier orders when they needed to later.

      If such a wireless system has existed, this would have enabled me to expand the application to provide realtime inventory updates and order status updates without having to hook up to the customers phone line.

      I'm sure a lot of people have a lot of killer uses for wireless Internet access than just watching Jenna Jameson porn on thier cell phone.
    • Two Words.

      Bluetooth.

      Laptop.

      (Note: You can replace "Laptop" with "Handheld" if you wish.)
  • repeat (Score:3, Informative)

    by brucehappy ( 137202 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:58PM (#2915794)
    here [slashdot.org]
  • Perhaps they don't thing that thair advertizors can spell well enuff so they R still lookin for new wonz.
  • by carlhirsch ( 87880 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:59PM (#2915799) Homepage
    Calling this network "3G" is pure marketroid hype.

    Verizon is claiming they'll offer up to 144kbps throughput, which will work out to provide real-world speeds of 20-30k.

    Here's a <A href=http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/01/28/rtr 494921.html>Reuters</A> article breaking it down.
    • 144kbps?!? That's great!

      ... At least, it was 15 years ago. ;)

    • by Anonymous Coward
      You are actually incorrect. Although speeds will usually be around 70kbps (not sure where you pulled 20-30 from), by definition 3G requires 144kbps theoretical TOP SPEED, *not* sustained speed.

      So technically, this is a legitimate 3G network if Verizon can show 144kbps burst speed.

      -Dogpoop in the dishwasher.
    • *FORGOT TO LOGIN SORRY* the post with the text below is me, dog poop. Forgot to login and dont want the 0 when I can have the 1 :) You are actually incorrect. Although speeds will usually be around 70kbps (not sure where you pulled 20-30 from), by definition 3G requires 144kbps theoretical TOP SPEED, *not* sustained speed. So technically, this is a legitimate 3G network if Verizon can show 144kbps burst speed. -Dogpoop in the dishwasher.
    • CDMA2000 1X promises twice the voice capacity of current networks and data speeds of up to 144 kilobits per second initially. Realistically, Verizon said users should see speeds of 40 to 60 kilobits per second on average. Verizon said it will initially roll out 1X on 20 percent of its networks with nationwide availability by the end of the year. Source [forbes.com]

      Verison isn't calling it 3G -- the whole point of this article is that they haven't announced it at all. Where are you getting your 20-30k numbers? The Forbes link you gave says it IS 3G, and will provide 40-60kbps in the real world.
    • It is not pure hype. It is technically a 3G standard, but just barely. Verizon readily admits that 144k is a peak "burst" speed, and they are quick to point out that users should expect 40-60k average (not 20-30k - that's more like GPRS). Sprint claims their tests with the same technology average 60-70k.
    • by Zigurd ( 3528 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:28PM (#2916059) Homepage
      It sounds like it is 1xRTT, which roughly corresponds to GPRS on a GSM network. Neither are generally accepted as being "3G." Many people call this kind of service "2.5G."

      The main improvement over current cellular data services is that everyone in a cell shares a slice of bandwidth used for data. Since most data is bursty, this is much more efficient. It should feel, most of the time, like sharing an ISDN line. Of course, you don't control who you share with, so it will be intersting to see how good it is in the real world.

      There are lots of ways to screw it up by not having enough bandwidth, to using too little bandwidth for data, to not controlling the number of users that can use data in a cell, etc. But if it is done right, the user expereince should be pretty good.

      Real 3G uses two systems: An evolution of the CDMA system VZ and Sprint use called CDMA2000 (I bet they wish they didn't commit to that 2000!) and WCDMA/UMTS which vies with G.SHDSL for Worst. Acronym. Ever. These systems will do about the same thing: share data bandwidth among users in a cell. But they will enable up to a couple megabits shared capacity per cell.

      The main advantage of data on cellular is that digital cellular is data ready now. You just have to get the phones to share access to the channels used for data, and built a moderate sized data network behind your radio network, and you have pervasive mobile data coverage. This is a huge advantage over systems like Ricochet, which had to build out networks just for data. By borrowing cellular bandwidth and piggybacking on the same digital radios in the cell sites and handsets, the amount of new stuff that has to be bought before we get really widespread coverage is vastly reduced.
      • The main improvement over current cellular data services is that everyone in a cell shares a slice of bandwidth used for data. Since most data is bursty, this is much more efficient.

        So you share a "cell" but each person sharing still pays for minutes at the voice rate. And that is in addition to a $30/month fee just to play. Wonderful.

        This will fail, then they will be crying the blues that there is no money to be made in wireless data service....

        Methinks the bean counters never took a simple economics class and learned about price/demand curves, elasticity, etc.. Free clue: People don't generally NEED this.

    • The FCC [fcc.gov] has this [fcc.gov] posted on their site describing the 3G bandwidth Standards. Wireless 3G when implemented according to these fcc standards should allow for the following bitrates:

      Capability to support circuit and packet data at high bit rates:
      144 kilobits/second or higher in high mobility (vehicular) traffic
      384 kilobits/second for pedestrian traffic
      2 Megabits/second or higher for indoor traffic

      I'm not too sure how you pulled out a real world speed of 20-30k. According to the FCC standards this "IS" considered a 3G network for High mobility Vehicular traffic, but is not the full 3G deal, as it does not support the other bitrates or the full functionality of a complete 3G Network. The system when fully implemented will allow for much higher than 20-30k and will vary depending on the location you're in. 3G isn't all marketing hype, it's a very large step ahead of our current network (when fully implemented of course). Unfortunatly we won't see the full benefits of the system for a while, until the products using 3G become more available, and companies such as Verizon implement more aspects of the 3G standard.

    • Verizon launches what it calls a 3G network
      Daniel Terdiman - www.the451.com

      Verizon Wireless says it has begun rolling out its third-generation wireless
      network and that about 20% of its US subscribers will be covered. But the
      company expects that most subscribers who upgrade to the network will use it
      to get a 40-60Kbps connection for their laptops or PDAs, a scenario that
      falls far short of the wireless industry's hype about what 3G is supposed to
      deliver.

      For months, a public relations battle has been raging among several of the
      major US wireless carriers over who would be the first to upgrade to 3G.
      Verizon, Sprint PCS, Cingular and AT&T Wireless have all said publicly that
      they would be - or are - the first, and that their competitors are lagging
      far behind.

      But as the carriers argue over who is first, and whether cdma2000 is
      superior to WCDMA or GPRS, they have begun to shy away from promising
      super-fast networks capable of running the complex, multimedia applications
      that will bring them billions of dollars in revenues. It used to be that
      handset manufacturers blamed the carriers for not having the networks to
      match the technological progression of the new handsets. Now, instead of
      promising transmission speeds in excess of 2Mb, the carriers are trying to
      get customers excited with talk of speeds of 144Kbps. Even more troubling,
      they are beginning to point the finger at the handset makers when explaining
      why the 3G multimedia killer app is still so far from reality.

      Verizon's version of 3G - the Verizon Express Network - is a cdma2000 1XRTT
      network. The upgrade will, at least initially, cover about 20% of the US,
      with concentrations in the Northeast US, as well as in and around Silicon
      Valley and Salt Lake City, Utah (site of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games). The
      company says it should be able to cover about 50% of subscribers by the end
      of 2002. Verizon is saying its network will top off at 144Kbps.

      In the early stages, Verizon expects very few of its subscribers to upgrade.
      The advantage of a 1XRTT network, explains company spokesperson Jeffrey
      Nelson, is that it is forward- and backward-compatible and will allow
      existing Verizon subscribers to continue using their current handsets. But
      without upgrading to a 3G phone - and Verizon is pushing a Kyocera model as
      its phone of choice - users would not be able to take advantage of the
      higher speeds.

      Further, most of the subscribers who upgrade will do so in order to use
      their handsets as modems for their laptops or PDAs. As such, Verizon is also
      pitching a Sierra Wireless card to offer this functionality. Users paying at
      least $35 for a monthly Verizon wireless plan would have to pay $300 for the
      card, $80 for the Kyocera phone and then $30 a month extra in service
      charges just to able to use the 3G network. And even then, Verizon promises
      transmission speeds of only 40-60Kbps, equivalent to what former Ricochet
      wireless modem customers had before Ricochet's parent, Metricom, died last
      year. Says Nelson of customers' expectations for complex 3G multimedia
      applications: "This is a reality check right from the get-go..All that ooh
      ahh stuff belongs in convention halls. We're after customers now with
      realistic expectations from the service."

      Certainly, in the US there is much disagreement about what 3G really is and
      who is providing it. Last year, Sprint PCS said it would be the first to
      unveil 3G in the US. Then AT&T Wireless said its GPRS networks had been
      first. Earlier this month, Sprint PCS once again announced that it will be
      the first when it rolls out its network this summer. Now, Verizon claims it
      is first. Cingular Wireless, of course, says Verizon is exaggerating, and
      claims its own 2.5G service is akin to Verizon's 3G: "Today's announcement
      by Verizon essentially provides the same service that Cingular has been
      providing customers in a number of markets since August of last year," says
      Cingular spokesperson Monica Mears. "Cingular currently offers this 2.5G
      service to consumers in [six states]."

      It's all still hype. When the wireless industry began to talk in colorful
      terms about the incredible applications that would soon be available on 3G
      handsets, it was attempting to justify the billions and billions of dollars
      its member carriers had invested in network upgrades. Clearly, no US carrier
      has gotten anywhere near what has been promised. Although a 50Kbps wireless
      connection for a laptop is a nice offering for a former Ricochet customer,
      it is hard to see how anyone else is going to be impressed.
  • by w_arthurton ( 53211 ) <thewayner&gmail,com> on Monday January 28, 2002 @03:59PM (#2915804) Homepage
    Honestly I don't really care about 3G. I would much prefer to be able to drive from work to my house (13 miles) without losing a call 3 or 4 times.

    Phone companies should spend less time with data services and make voice work. Consumer reports has an article on Cellular this month. They say that 2% of all calls on a cell phone drop in the first 2 minutes.

    That is unacceptable.
    • I used to live in North West London (Camden Town), and had a few dead spots round the 'hood.

      I've just moved to East London (Stepney), and now I've got multiple dead spots in my flat.

      I have maybe six locations in the flat where I must sit to talk. No more wandering around, doing stuff while talking on my mobile.

      And yet almost every month I get a solicitation from BT Cellnet, imploring me to upgrade to new services - usually things that would double my monthly bill.

      All of these carriers have a lot of work to do to finish the job they started out on with voice.


    • Phone companies should spend less time with data services and make voice work. Consumer reports has an article on Cellular this month. They say that 2% of all calls on a cell phone drop in the first 2 minutes.

      That is unacceptable.


      Please realize that not every area in the country has such shitty coverage as you. In my area, I will welcome 3G when SprintPCS rolls it out nationwide this summer. And no, I won't use it to watch video, as the stupid-ass media reports, but rather as a data modem. (DUH!)
  • by Restil ( 31903 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:00PM (#2915813) Homepage
    If they overadvertise and the network becomes clogged and people decide that due to insufficient bandwidth and excessive bottlenecks they don't NEED the services that badly, it could make getting it started more difficult. Rather they slowly introduce it, ramp it up slowly. Build the network as they go.

    DSL had similar problems. The demand was greater than the infrastructure could handle, and service (technical and customer) suffered as a result, and in some cases, it still does. They might be trying to avoid a similar problem.

    Of course, I haven't known Verizon and GTE before that of going out of their way to avoid problems. The best screwup I remember, is when they cut off the phone service for my entire city (Plano, TX ~ 200,000 people) for 8 hours. Cellular service and payphones were also out of commission. The police had an officer stationed at every major street corner in case of emergencies since 911 wasn't functional. I had to drive 5 miles just to find a working payphone to call someone from. This happened about 2 years ago, fyi.

    That was a fun day. :)

    -Restil
  • Link to verizon info (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gaijin42 ( 317411 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:01PM (#2915814)
    Here [verizonwireless.com] is a link from verizon showing coverage and pricing
  • by Mr_Matt ( 225037 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:01PM (#2915820)
    Quoth timothy:

    One would thing they would want to publicize these items. "

    Sorry you've got a cold, man. :)

    How long do you guys think it'll take for the service to make it out of the original three launch areas? (arrgh, they picked SLC instead of Denver, those tools! Stupid Olympics...) Seems to me like new wireless services come and go all the time...is this just another flash-in-the-pan?
  • My boss's (is that spelled right?) boss is here from Japan. There, they have phones/digital cameras.

    No need for media, just point, click, then email to yourself! With the 3G service, it's lightning fast.

    Just imagine yourself on vacation with an almost unlimited supply of snapshots, anytime you want it.
  • As (implicitly) requested, here are a few links to more information about this:

    http://www.techtv.com/news/computing/story/0,24195 ,3369727,00.html [techtv.com]

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-824392.html [com.com]

  • Just how fast are we talking about when we say "high connection speeds"
  • REPEAT! (Score:4, Funny)

    by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:03PM (#2915842)
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/27/144241 &mode=thread

    Geez, the thread isn't even cold yet!
    • Re:REPEAT! (Score:2, Funny)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      Its like leftovers, they taste better after they've been in the fridge for a couple of days. The trolls get an opportunity to fine-tune their topic-specific trolls, just like garlic tends to simmer in the food leftovers.
  • ... it is a packet switched and supports Mobile IP and that fun stuff.

    You can get a pretty good deal from Nextel on a phone and service. The data service is unlimmited and you can receive calls when using it.

    Not to mention, the i90c is a sweet phone.
  • But if they're just trying it out with limited markets and such then why jump the gun? Better they sneak up on it quiet like, work out the kinks then roll it out.

    Too damn much of this American -- Gottahavitrightnowgimmegimmegimmeawshititdoesn- tworkanditsfullabugsmanyouguysallsucki- mgonnapostnastyaboutyouwiththegoatsecxguyonslashdo t!

  • by fleeb_fantastique ( 208912 ) <fleeb@@@fleeb...com> on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:08PM (#2915882) Homepage
    I have yet to enjoy a Verizon Experience that didn't suck in some way.

    They don't do a great job of handling my local phone service. They provided extreme discomfort when trying to acquire DSL (through a different carrier, mind you; I've already seen what they do to their own customers), and have not exactly heard wonderful things about their wireless phone service.

    Now they have extended this wonderful track record to a 3rd generation wireless internet access?

    Likely, they will embitter so many people with their poor service that the technology itself will be labelled 'bad'.
    • I have yet to enjoy a Verizon Experience that didn't suck in some way. So, does that mean that you've enjoyed some of the sucky ones?
    • Ehh... as a Verizon customer myself (for a cellphone only, mind you), I have to say they seem to be the lesser of the evils that are cellphone providers.

      Oh sure, I've had a lot of customer service screw-ups with them. (Most recently, I tried to request a copy of my packing slip or receipt for a new phone they shipped me, so I could send it in for a mail-in rebate. It took 3 cust. service reps before someone had a clue - and even then, she took 3 days to figure out how to get that sent out to me before calling me back.)

      These days, this kind of thing will happen with any large company though. When it comes down to it, Verizon provides better coverage and reception than most of the competition. Their pricing plan fit my needs more closely than most of the others, too. I've been using them for close to 4 years straight - and still think they're the best choice for my purposes.
  • by lnxslak ( 524709 )
    FINALLY

    still screwed in canada. ;)

  • VZW (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Scoria ( 264473 )
    One would thing they would want to publicize these items.

    Considering that the service has only been in a fraction of Verizon's coverage area, they may be attempting to maintain the option to retract their company from the 3G market in case significant service problems arise.

    Yes, they've most likely executed extensive tests on the technology, but it is logical to wait and ensure that the implemented technology is stable before asking $30-50 a month per individual for the privilege of using it.
  • as cool as it is, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by minus_273 ( 174041 )
    i must also ask, why we need it, i can understand in the case of preofessionals in certain industries and markets who need access to as much info as possible as quick as possible, hassle free.. in which case this is very good, however, for an ordinary user, what is the use? i dont see joe publuc using a 3G network right now. What can you do that you can't currently do? Verizon may be targetting this towards certain markets that it would be profitable in rather than the general public, thus the lack of publicity
  • Silently? I saw this on CNN's ticker not 2 hours ago.

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by SunkingvstheChicken ( 210926 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:17PM (#2915965) Homepage
    Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.
    • Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pmz ( 462998 )
      Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.

      This was modded as "Funny", but this is really a sad reality. Many accidents are caused by irresponsible drivers who don't think about how talking on a cell phone impairs their driving ability. This problem is big enough that some cities have passed or are debating rules about cell phone use in cars.

      I observe daily that some people just don't care whether they put other lives at risk while driving. These people just aren't qualified to drive, yet they all do.
  • by DG ( 989 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:17PM (#2915966) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand the concept of streaming video to a phone.

    For me, the ultimate cellphone would have the following:

    1) A decent phone, with decent battery life, reception, and audio clarity (how many convergence devices overlook the fact that the primary purpose of the damn thing is a telephone?)

    2) Palm Pilot-like functionality, with emphasis on providing space/ability for uploading apps of my own as well as the canned apps.

    3) A GPS, with detailed street maps and wayfinding ability built in.

    4) Integrate this stuff as tightly as possible, and keep as much of the data local as possible.

    I can see, for example, having the complete North American phone directory on the phone, so I can look up numbers without hitting the network. Tie this into the GPS, and now I can do stuff like "get me the phone number for the house I'm standing in front of right now" or "Let me search the yellow pages for [whatever] and now that I've made a selection, give me driving directions to get there"

    Or allow phones to transport GPS data on voice connections, and now I can get a map of where whoever it is I'm talking to is - geographic caller ID.

    Network access is all well and good, but phones are phones first and foremost. Build in apps that support the "phone" part (things like searchable directories) and the "mobile" part (with the GPS) and now you're talking!

    The Kyocera Smartphone (which is a Palm) seems close, and will probably be my next phone, but I'm still looking forward to a well-done phone+GPS combo.

    DG
    • I don't want a unit with that whole set of tightly integrated features. I don't want a phone with everything built in. I want a modular system of digital tools.

      I want a little black box with no particular features that I can drop in a pocket that connects to a 3G network on one end and creates a bluetooth cloud around me on the other. It doesn't have to have any real interface.

      I want a handsfree bluetooth earpiece which interfaces with the black box.

      I want a bluetooth PDA which interfaces with the earpiece and the black box to provide directory and dialing services, and to browse the web and do wireless email.

      I want a bluetooth digital camera which interfaces with the black box to transmit my photos to my mac, so when I get home the photos are already in iPhoto. Perhaps it could cache them in local storage and transmit them when I happened to have the bandwidth available. That would also give me the opportunity to review them and delete any duds, and mark pictures I want printed so the mac could know to send a copy directly to Kodak for me. It would also be nice if the camera would interface with the PDA so I could use the PDA's more comfortable screen and interface to manipulate my photos (delete some, select others for printing) before they get sent to my machine at home.

      I want all of this stuff to be separate so I can choose whatever manufacturers, models, and features I want, but to communicate seamlessly so I can use it pretty effortlessly together.

      I don't expect to ever get what I want. It would be too... consumer focused. Manufactuers want to sell you an all-encompassing, proprietary device to ensure you pay *them* for everything you want. I'm looking for an open, standards-based system of interchangable devices to perform specific tasks well and interoperate smoothly. It'll never happen.
    • I just want my boss to leave me alone. I don't necessarily want to hear him, but I sure as hell don't want to see him.
    • It seems we think alike!
      In fact, I just bought a Kyocera smartphone. Let me tell you, if you get one - you'll be very happy with it!

      First and foremost should always be the fact that these things are telephones. I can't stand when they do things like drawing the keypad on a flat screen (can't dial without looking at it first)!

      But I agree, an integrated GPS would be icing on the cellphone cake. I suspect the only limiting factor is battery life. I've owned several portable GPS devices, and all of them ate through AA batteries in only a few hours of operation.
      If you have to power a phone in standby + some actual talk time, and still run a GPS in the background, today's small batteries just aren't going to last.

      You can't really just power on a GPS "as needed" either. They take as long as 10 minutes to calibrate themselves to satellites on initial power-up. You can cut this time down to maybe 2-3 minutes by giving it a rough idea of your current location, so it knows which satellites to listen for; but that's still pretty inconvenient. If you're in front of a house and want it to fetch the number, it'll suck to key in your city and state from a list, and then wait 3 minutes for the GPS to sync.
  • by bribecka ( 176328 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:18PM (#2915977) Homepage
    http://www.verizonwireless.com/express_network/ind ex.html [verizonwireless.com]

    There is the link from verizon. It seems that right now service is limited only to those that have wireless service with verizon already. Although unlimited at $30/month is not bad.
    • Although unlimited at $30/month is not bad

      ahh... but you need to have a digital voice calling plan of $35 or more per month. I'm out.
    • It's not umlimited. I talked to them this morning about it, I saw it in the Post. It's $30 extra on top of your current cellphone calling plan (which they make you sign up for). It draws off your pool of minutes.

      I guess, it might be unlimited night time minutes though, if you have a plan that has that.
      • Although they do have an unlimited offer in effect:

        Express Network service is available for just $30 per month on most digital voice calling plans.* Express Network data usage is taken from your airtime allowance just like your voice calls, so there's no need to keep track of a separate airtime allowance.

        From now until March 15, 2002, when you sign up for Express Network, you get unlimited Express Network data session minutes! All you pay is the additional monthly $30 Express Network access fee - your Express Network usage will not be deducted from your airtime allowance.
    • You don't get unlimited minutes: time you spend on the data network is taken from your call minutes. Spending two hours reading up on news one day could eat half of your monthly minutes -- if you've gone over, your per-minute Internet access cost could be as much as forty cents, or $48 for a two-hour session. Yikes.
  • They seem to be calling it "1x", so I searched for that. I found a coverage map and some PR prediction.
    It's in PDF, search for "1x" or flip to page 17 for the map. [verizon.com]
  • by joshsisk ( 161347 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:25PM (#2916027)
    I called earlier this morning, as I've been looking for a wireless provider. Verizon makes you sign up for a calling plan (though you dont actually have to have a phone, interestingly enough), the Express Network service uses the plan's minutes and costs an additional $30 a month. The person I spoke with said speeds were around 56k.

    They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does, the person I spoke with said the Internet Express service is currently more limited (though I expect that to change).

    Both have contracts, though there is only a $100 fee for early cancellation. I think I'm gonna get the CDPD service, as it's cheaper and the the constant connection is important to me. If they change the new service to constant connection, I'll just pay the fee and upgrade. Also, both offer a two week grace period where you can cancel with no fee. I'm gonna test my connection out in places i usually go, to make sure I can get a good signal. If not, I'm cancelling.
    • They already offer a CDPD service that is 28.8, but it is unlimited usage for $40 a month. In addition, the CDPD service goes ANYWHERE Verizon does

      I'm a big user of Verizon CDPD. 28.8kbps throughput is a significant overstatement. 14kbps is good for CDPD, 9.6kbps is what you get in general. That said, my wife uses it for her webcam [thesync.com], and it generally gets the job done. I've used CDPD on the Amtrak from DC to NYC. Both Verizon and AT&T (carrier for Palm-based Omnisky) have good coverage along the tracks with a few holes.

      Of course, 144kbps sounds much better, but I can't imagine it being priced reasonably.
  • Not quite silently. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jartan ( 219704 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:25PM (#2916033)
    If you ever watch TechTV Live of the Screensavers regularly they had a whole lot of stuff about this the day they launched it. Supposedly theres no real services for it yet and the cost is going to be based on how much data you download. The only real reason to get it at this point would be a replacement for ricochet to use with your laptop. Also its not the same 3g they're using in Japan it's supposed to be limited to 144kbps whereas its 300+ something over there. One of the tech leads they talked to said Verizon basically released it a little ahead of time to be able to say they did it first. That's why theres no real product other than data to it.

    The pricing will be disgusting no doubt and anything but browsing w/ pictures OFF will probably be unwise except for those with to much money. They were saying how some of the current providers using the already existing technology charged as much as 75 bucks per SESSION online average. That was the extreme but I think thats a good indication it's not the pancea of wireless communication we're hoping for yet.

    Jartan
  • Verizon Announces Relationship with Accenture; Introduces Kyocera 2235 and the
    Sierra Wireless AirCard® 555

    Starting today, Verizon Wireless customers in major East and West Coast
    markets will be able to reap the rewards of a significantly faster,
    more robust wireless experience with the company's commercial launch of
    its 1XRTT network. The 1XRTT network will enhance all levels of
    wireless communications - from a simple voice call, to full Internet
    browsing, streaming video, and email. This high-speed network also
    supports enterprise applications, giving companies with mobile
    employees tools for increased productivity and efficiency.

    The company is the first U.S. wireless carrier to commercially launch a
    sizeable 3G footprint. The 1XRTT network is available now to
    customers in areas of the Northeast U.S., from Norfolk, VA Washington,
    D.C., Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, up to Boston and in Portland,
    Maine; in the technology-savvy Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay
    Area of Northern California; and in Salt Lake City, site of the 2002
    Winter Olympics. 1XRTT network capabilities are already available in
    more than 20 percent of the Verizon Wireless footprint, reaching more
    than 53 million Americans.

    The Express Network is Verizon Wireless' 1XRTT data network, capable of
    data transmission speeds up to 144 kilobits per second (kbps.) Business
    customers and individual consumers in Express Network markets may take
    advantage of high wireless data speeds and robust Internet access by
    using the new Verizon Wireless 2235 handset from Kyocera with a
    compatible Mobile Office kit as a modem for their laptops, or by using
    the AirCard 555 PC card from Sierra Wireless, for their laptops and
    select PDAs. Express Network subscribers on the high-speed data
    network can now have access to their company network or Internet at
    faster speeds.

    The Express Network will give users full Internet access, intranet
    access and traditional email functionality via a laptop at
    unprecedented speeds for wireless access. Users should expect average
    speeds between 40 and 60 kbps, significantly higher than speeds being
    produced by competing technologies and comparable to what PC users get
    when using a dial-up Internet service at home.

    The rollout of our Express Network is a major expression of our
    differentiation in the wireless marketplace: the high quality of our
    wireless network," said Verizon Wireless chief technical officer Dick
    Lynch. "Wireless data is only as good as the network it's on, and the
    premier Verizon Wireless network, already the most advanced in the
    nation, just took another giant step ahead of its competitors." Lynch
    added, "We will continue expansion of the Express Network, and by the
    close of 2002 the majority of the nearly 222 million covered POPs
    should be able to use the Express Network every day."

    "Together with the nation's most expansive network, Express Network
    gives our customers a strategic advantage as they continue to
    increasingly rely on wireless products for their business and personal
    communications needs, " said Lowell McAdam, executive vice president
    and chief operating officer of Verizon Wireless. "Given the very
    positive response from the participants who previewed the 1XRTT network
    this fall, we are confident that our high-speed data network will
    fulfill and exceed our customers' expectations."

    Verizon Wireless and Accenture Join Forces for the Enterprise

    In conjunction with the Express Network launch, Verizon Wireless also
    announced an alliance with Accenture (NYSE: ACN) to market and sell
    mobile enterprise applications offered by the Accenture Mobile Service
    Bureau. Through the alliance, Verizon Wireless and Accenture will be
    able to offer enterprise customers access to a wide variety of
    integrated mobile solutions deployed via Verizon Wireless' Express
    Network as well as Verizon Wireless' existing coast-to-coast digital
    network.

    The Accenture Mobile Services Bureau takes the uncertainty and
    complexity out of deploying enterprise mobile applications by
    pre-integrating core solutions in a hosted environment. This provides
    companies with enterprise-grade security, coordinated logistics and
    provisioning for the distribution of wireless devices, high-caliber
    customer service and wireless network integration with Verizon
    Wireless' premier network. This allows companies to deploy mobile
    applications easily, more quickly and at a reduced cost.

    "By tapping into Accenture's experience in developing mobile solutions
    and platforms, we can provide our business customers with a faster,
    simpler way to achieve the benefits of mobility for their employees,
    customers and suppliers," McAdam said.

    Express Network Pricing

    Customers with a monthly digital voice calling plan of $35 or more can
    sign up for the Express Network, which lets customers use any of their
    airtime allowance minutes for voice or data, for an additional $30 per
    month. Verizon Wireless also anticipates introducing plans based on
    kilobyte usage in the near future for customers and enterprises that
    prefer such pricing.

    Sierra Wireless AirCard 555 is 1XRTT Compatible

    The Sierra Wireless AirCard 555, which retails for $299.99 will enable
    customers to add voice, circuit-switched data and short messaging
    service capabilities to their laptops, select PDAs, and other computing
    devices.

    "Sierra Wireless is pleased to provide Verizon Wireless with the first
    PC Card product for its next generation service," said Jason Cohenour,
    senior vice president of distribution for Sierra Wireless. "We look
    forward to continuing our long-standing partnership with Verizon
    Wireless, providing the award winning AirCard 555 as an important
    element of the fast and reliable wireless connectivity provided by the
    Verizon Wireless Express Network."

    The Tethered Solution From Verizon Wireless

    Beginning today, the Verizon Wireless 2235 by Kyocera, a 1XRTT
    data-compatible wireless handset, will be available through Verizon
    Wireless corporate sales and in those Communications Stores where the
    Express Network is available. The tri-mode wireless handset, which
    retails for $79.99, is a communications system that includes many
    attractive features: voice-activated dialing, a WAP browser, electronic
    games, two-way text messaging, and predictive text-input software for
    rapid text entry. With a subscription to the Express Network and a
    compatible Mobile Office kit, sold separately for $79.99, the 2235
    offers customers the opportunity for faster Internet access. The
    company expects to announce more wireless handset options soon.

    "Kyocera Wireless is pleased to support Verizon Wirleless' launch of
    their Express Network with our new Kyocera 2235 1XRTT wireless
    handset," said Skip Speaks, president and COO of Kyocera Wireless Corp.
    "The wireless industry has eagerly anticipated the launch of 1X, and
    Kyocera Wireless is proud to offer the first 1X phones commercially
    available on Verizon Wireless' Express Network."

    Express Network equipment and service are available through Verizon
    Wireless corporate sales, select Communications Stores, or by calling
    1-800-308-DATA.
  • An article is at At New York.com [atnewyork.com] dated back from August 2, 2001. It says the speed will allow Web surfing at speeds as high as 144Kbps and full 3G service promises to support speeds of 384Kbps and higher. Since the newer article from CNN doesn't say what the speed is, it could still be the same.

    There is also an old article at CNN here. [cnn.com]
  • As a former Ricochet user who greatly got value from the service, I'm always looking for a suitable replacement.

    Can the Verizon 3G be used to fully access the Internet (not just a watered down "wireless web" subset of it like the current 2G phones) What ISPs support this access mode?

    If Verizon does this right, then maybe Ricochet users will finally have a viable substitute.
  • They Ran a commercial for it last night...I was coding, so i can't remember the Channel I was on, but on the of the ones(75+) that charter Basic cable in the Worcester area carries anyway.
  • I wouldn't mind if the extra bandwidth was used to improve the sound quality. Modern cell phones still are not as clear as land line phones and I would rather that than extra features I'll never use.

    Don't be surprised if new and exciting ad placement techniques are used in conjuction with the new connectivity as well.
    • Re:Sound Quality (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sulli ( 195030 )
      Ain't gonna happen. People actually don't care about sound quality as much as they say they do, from what I understand from talking to folks in the industry.

      IIRC TDMA (used by AT&T) allows the carrier to select various levels of sound quality, cramming more calls onto the circuit in exchange for crappier sound; since users always complain about dropped calls and don't usually complain about tinny voices, you can guess which choice they made.

    • My Verizon phone (Syracuse, NY) is crystal clear. Manytimes people I call are impressed, and don't even know until I tell them, that I am talking on a wireless phone. I have to say their network around here is known as the best in the area by far.

      Just because they are owned by a former big bell doesn't mean they are all bad.

      -Pete
  • Very Limited. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by A Commentor ( 459578 ) on Monday January 28, 2002 @04:54PM (#2916240) Homepage
    It is currently only available in the NE, Salt Lake City, San Francisco.

    For pricing, you must have a $35 or above voice plan with them. Then pay an additional $30 for data access, AND pay per minute (minutes come out of voice allowance minutes + charge the same as your voice minutes for any overage).

    Also, billing based on minutes make absolutely no sense, since these data connections do not tie-up a line like a voice call does, it only transmits/receives when there is activity. Many people can share a single channel.

    • Re:Very Limited. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Phil Wherry ( 122138 )
      I must admit that I'm impressed at Verizon's ingenuity here. I really didn't think it was going to be feasible to find a way to do per-minute pricing for a packet service, but I underestimated the company's ability to misunderstand the utility of packet data.

      Whether it's the entertainment industry or the telecom industry, consumer preference is pretty clear: predictable costs drive product acceptance. The cellular industry, however, is justly famous for deliberately making costs hard to understand, let alone predict.

      This pricing scheme is doubly insulting from a CDMA carrier; as those who are familiar with CDMA are aware, it's far and away the most bandwidth-efficient wireless communications system in widespread use. There's at least one carrier [cricketcom...ations.com] that's been quite successful in using CDMA technology to offer a truly flat-rate all-you-can-talk local calling service in a number of areas in the U.S. [Important disclaimer: I work for the aforementioned carrier's parent company, but don't speak for it in this forum; I'm mentioning the service here in order to illustrate a point, not advertise the service. If you live in a coverage area, you've heard about it already, I'm sure...]

      Packet data can be even more bandwidth-efficient than voice traffic since the latency requirements are relaxed considerably, so it seems to me that there's really no excuse for Verizon to be billing for this service in such a boneheaded way.
    • It is currently only available in the NE, Salt Lake City, San Francisco.

      The Wired article [wired.com] claims "...20 percent of Verizon's infrastructure in Philadelphia can accommodate the services. Verizon has also been testing the network in Philadelphia for at least a year..."
  • Since the 3G service uses minutes from your plan, does that mean it's circuit-switched? I think I'll stick with GPRS.

    (Also, can someone mod up the comment about how this service is not targeted to phones but to the AirCard that goes in your laptop?)
  • I work in the cellphone chip business, and we and many others really need some carriers that can make a 2.5G phone that people will really want. In order for them to want it, it has to be easy to use and truly deliver on the bandwidth. So far we have seen none of that, and its reflected in the poor earnings reports for Nokia, Motorola, and Ericsson, which has rippled down to everyone else in the supplier business
  • I was surprised to see Utah in the same list as Silicon Valley and the Northeast for this coverage-- Maybe it has to do with the Olympics, which are fewer than 300 hours away. Still, according to SLOC [saltlake2002.com], two of Verizon's competitors, AT&T and Qwest, are the official sponsors, not VZ itself. Maybe it's planning to upstage them while the world is watching the Beehive State? As long as the rates stay relatively low (HA!-- not likely) it may be that the Olympics got something for Utah, aside from a few billion in highway money--
  • It has been asked, so I will answer.

    The reason you enable streaming video on a cellphone is so you can have a video phone. You are correct that nobody is interested in watching a Britney Spears video on their cellphone; but once our phones are powerful enough to do video encoding, you'd be able to do a video call as easily as a regular voice call.

  • On the Verizon Express Network Terms and Conditions [verizonwireless.com] page, it states:

    Charges for each Express Network data session that connects begin when you press or click the "SEND" or "Connect" button and have selected the "Express Network (1XRTT)" option at the user interface. Charges end when you press or click the "END" or "Disconnect" button.

    OK, now imagine you are using the Sierra Aircard 550 [sierrawireless.com] PCMCIA card. Does just turning on the laptop start the session (and billing)?

    I wonder if the PC card or interface software can be smart enough to recognize that it only needs to be connected to the network when you are sending or receiving data. The actual data utilization of most Web browsing at 114 kbps is probably only 10-20% of actual time spent by the surfer.

    Of course, it you are watching video pr0n, your results may be higher.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...