Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon High Speed Wireless

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the oxymoron dept.

The Internet 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.

cancel ×

113 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909495)

FP from the while1 homeboys! xm@while1.org

sp (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909499)


sp

DSL v Wireless (1, Troll)

The Great Wakka (319389) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909500)

Yes! And its uptime will be even better than its DSL, all the way up to 60%! And it'll have more features, like maybe even static IP built in!

Question (2, Funny)

Jucius Maximus (229128) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909927)

I'm confused as to the "from the oxymoron dept." subtitle of this topic.

Is the oxymoron "Verizon + Highspeed" or "Highspeed + Wireless" ?

Re:DSL v Wireless (1)

LinuxInDallas (73952) | more than 12 years ago | (#2911050)

I have Verizon DSL in the Dallas area and I can tell you it's been incredibly reliable. Out of 4 months of service, I have had no down time at all.

Are you sure you want this? (0, Flamebait)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909502)

I stay away from Verizon no matter what?

Truly a company that doesn't care about customer service.

Re:Are you sure you want this? (2, Informative)

DeMorganLaw (543089) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909618)

Verizon cannot change a persons mailing address. They kept sending it to my old address which the post-office was forwarded all my mail to my present address. So I would usually get my bill a week before it was due, I would call them up pay be credit card, then have them change my address. Finally the post office stopped doing address forwarding, my service was 3 days within being cut off because I hadn't paid my bill. So I called up yet again, paid by credit card and had them change my address. I am waiting with not so much expectation for my next billing statement.

Re:Are you sure you want this? (1)

mtnbkr (8981) | more than 12 years ago | (#2911282)

I work for Verizon. I moved and tried to change my home address via our Intranet. I still get stuff sent to the old address and forwarded to my new one. I like the company, but our Intranet sucks horribly.

Chris

Security? (-1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909504)

a wireless data service with a speed of 144 kbps.

Wohoo! Now the script kiddies can intercept your wireless communication even faster.

Who cares about speed if the security is non-existent?

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909513)

Is security so important to you? What are you going to send at 144kbps that you care about? Without security, you won't search google and the like?

Re:Security? (-1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909523)

What are you going to send at 144kbps that you care about?

Passwords, private e-mails and other information that I do not wish anyone else to see?

At least that's what I did already with my 14.4 kbps modem in the 1990s.

Uh.. so.. (1, Troll)

windex (92715) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909507)

I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now.

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.. (1, Redundant)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909534)

"I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now."

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.. (1)

zaffir (546764) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909545)

Its their internet access that sucks. Take a look at www.dslreports.com and see for yourself.

Re:Uh.. so.. (2)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909750)

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.. (1)

Surlyboi (96917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910181)

I beg to differ. My service, for the most part,
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.. (2)

defile (1059) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910014)

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.. (2)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910611)

From what I have heard their wireless unit is the only non-unionized part of the company.

Re:Uh.. so.. (1)

Big Diluth (85300) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910828)

I have Verizon Wireless service and I've rarely had an issue with their mobile service, except for their "Mobile Web" connectivity. It truly sucks!

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.. (2, Funny)

shankark (324928) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909517)

maybe, they should stop calling themselves Wired.

Attention slashdotters! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909518)

Please, read this [geocrawler.com] post carefully:

FROM: Mike Bouma <mike.bouma@talk21.com>
DATE: 01/25/2002 02:33:58
SUBJECT: ports/34262: Can't compile port sysutils/kernel





>Number: 34262
>Category: ports
>Synopsis: Can't compile port
sysutils/kernel
>Confidential: no
>Severity: critical
>Priority: high
>Responsible: freebsd-ports
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Fri Jan 25 02:40:01 PST 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Mike Bouma
>Release: bouma FreeBSD 2.2.8-STABLE
>Organization:
>Environment:
>Description:
This port is broken and doesn't compile.
>How-To-Repeat:
make menuconfig
>Fix:
Install GNU/LNUX
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:

Sincerely, Mike Bouma

Verizon is the devil? (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909521)

Oh come on, with their excellent reputation for high quality, and showing that they care about the customer - who wouldn't be first in line to get their services? Oh wait, M$ fits this description better than verizon. Nevermind.

Re:Verizon is the devil? (1, Funny)

ReluctantBadger (550830) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909699)

Ha ha ha. You used "M$" in a topic completely unrelated with anything to do with Microsoft. You are so funny.

Mod parent to "+5, Slashdot Groupthink" or "-1, Pathetic Asshole"

Re:Verizon is the devil? (1)

cyclist1200 (513080) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910258)

Oh, please. No matter how bad Verizon could be, Ameritech is far worse. Only Ameritech could be sued by almost every state they do business in!

Besides, Verizon Wireless is the one part of that company that doesn't suck. Unlike Sprint...

Fix stuff first (3, Insightful)

Papa Legba (192550) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909522)

"I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now."

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2910008)

You should really get your facts straight here dipshit. Verizon Wireless is a privately owned organization therefore they do not impress their stockholders with new innovative technology. "Why is it that companies insist on rolling out new "services" when they never got their old services working correctly." What is flawed about using CDMA technology? Verizon has the largest and best network throughout the United States and this only adds to their superior network. You also mention that customer service issue w/cox. Have you ever tried calling customer service at Verizon? You get through within seconds! AND their people are friendly. I am an avid wireless supporter and this company will have my business for life. Do some research before putting down a great organization because it makes you look unintelligent. Also at least Verizon can roll out this service. You know what Cingular and AT&T are doing? They're converting their networks from TDMA to GSM because they're shit right now. Those companies are the ones that need to get their act together before they launch new services.

Re:Fix stuff first (2, Informative)

zuvembi (30889) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910084)

Excuse me?

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 (1)

Papa Legba (192550) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910429)

Couple of rebuttal points.

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 (1)

xochipili (160669) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910273)

Cox cable modem in San Diego has been awesome for me, 2500kbps downloads, one day wait for installation, etc.

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 (1)

Sprunkys (237361) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909525)

My flatmate owns a laptop with some 802.11 (?) technology in it with which he can connect wirelessly on the University of Twente Campus (CS building)... he can get 500KB per second and the idea is that this kind of access will become available throughout the whole campus...

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 (3, Informative)

tommck (69750) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909570)

Well, you can bet that you won't need to have a NAP every 1500 yards or so :-)

This is definitely coming off of existing cell phone towers. Those are very far apart (less maintenance costs, etc.)

T

existing cell phone towers? (1)

_avs_007 (459738) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909600)

Aaack.... Cell phone service sucks enough as it is, I don't want any more bandwidth taken from my cell phone. I went thru like 3 different carriers and they all suck. Verizon sucks the worst, because they lost my payment, then I brought a receipt, and they took it for "Research"... Then they claimed I never gave them a receipt. It took a call to BBB and State Attorney General to get them to "find" my payment. Granted, they were Air Touch at the time, but I've stayed away from them ever since... One time with a friend, their so called "reliable" service wouldn't connect my 911 call during when my friend needed help. I tried about ten times, but none of them would go through. And I was in the middle of suburbia, where I normally have excellent coverage. I had to go pounding on doors to dial 911. One guy's wife was on the phone, so we used his cell phone, and it crapped out too... It took me like 5+ minutes just to get a 911 call to go through, which was eventually by a land-line...

I say no-thanks to Verizon Wireless Internet...

Re:existing cell phone towers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2910757)

Umm, tell his wife to get off the phone. Nice neighbors you have there....

Re:What about Bluetooth and 802.11 (3, Informative)

malfunction54 (261656) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909693)

Well, 802.11x and "High-speed wireless" are different technologies with different goals. 802.11x targets users that aren't necessarily moving around that much, and is not that secure (image is of laptop at home, it's nice outside, so you wander out on the porch or backyard)

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? (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909529)

"I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now."

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? (1)

Xwild (308492) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909536)

Same here. I'm in upstate NY, and Verizon has better service than anyone else. I know many people who have switched over to Verizon so that they can actually use their cell outside of their providers office.

Re:Bad cell service? (1)

irksome (106742) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909981)

I'm in Central NY, and Verizon's coverage was pretty good. However, their customer service sucked more than Monica Lewinsky. When I first called to set up my service, they had no idea where Syracuse was, and transferred me to 3 or 4 different call centers before they found someone who knew where I was at. (Most of them apparently don't know that there is more than 1 city in New York State). Later, when I tried to do a market transfer, they started double billing me. It took a few hours of waiting on hold to get that one straightened out.

-

Re:Bad cell service? (1)

GiorgioG (225675) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909566)

I have to say that Verizon has THE worst customer service I have ever seen. I went to NYC twice, and stayed at the Millenium Hilton (around the corner from Verizon's headquarters) and my phone wouldn't work there - and nobody had any idea what was going on. I even made a pre-emptive phone call to them before the 2nd trip to find out what I had to do to get it to work. They made me change a few settings and behold, I get to new york city - and still nothing. Yeah - great service. Nextel may be more a little more expensive, but I can go to Europe and my phone still works without any changes.

Re:Bad cell service? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909903)

I went to NYC twice

You just made your argument worthless. I live here, and Verizon is the best. Sprint, ATT, and the rest of them are all crap compared to VZW.

Re:Bad cell service? (0, Troll)

GiorgioG (225675) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910012)

My arguement is worthless? How do you figure? If I can't take my cell phone from one end of the state (Buffalo) to NYC, what's the point of it being NATION-WIDE cellular service?

Post your comment with your /. ID - or don't bother posting at all if you already know your post has little credibility.

Re:Bad cell service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2910048)

I figure it is worthless because your two bad visits to NYC are nothing compared to the millions of VZW customers in NYC who have fantastic service. Just because you "went to NYC twice" and it sucked doesn't mean it sucks in general. I used to live in Albany and the only place between Albany, NYC, Montauk (East end of Long island) that didn't have fantastic service were some of the dead zones on the NYS Thruway in the middle of nowhere.

And don't tell me what to do. My post has far more credibility than yours, UID or not.

Re:Bad cell service? (1)

Xochil (542406) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910161)

Hmmmm, I don't live in NYC...but I go there often and have stayed at The Millenium quite a few times...as my former employer is HQ'd across the street. Service was always bad with ATTWS both in the Millenium as well as most of Manhattan. Once I started using GTE Wireless (and roaming Bell Atlantic mobile/VZW) service problems in Manhattan became a non-issue. I switched the entire NY office of the magazine I worled for off of ATTWS and onto BA, and service complaints from them stopped. --Mike

Re:Bad cell service? (1)

oznet (217754) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909599)

Same here in Virginia. Verizon is THE best carrier. Every time I'm with someone and they can't get cell service, I ask what carrier they have... Then I try my phone. Mine works every single time while it seems every other carrier has problems in some areas.

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? (1)

seeken (10107) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909803)

I live in Baltimore and WOrk in northern Virginia, and the only place I can't get service is in the parking garage at my office. They're better than AT&T for everywhere but the parking garage. I haven't had much experience with the cust service, though.

100 min/year... (1)

Maller (21311) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909919)

How well could you know their service if you only use 100 minutes a year?

Re:Bad cell service? (2, Interesting)

gh (68417) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909636)

Verizon is known for having excellent wireless service especially the ability to get a signal in more places than the other big wireless players. And this applies to most of the areas they provide service. So, it's not just as NY/NJ or Virginia folks who have had good results with Verizon.

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? (2)

nomadic (141991) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910382)

Those potshots are as natural to a slashdot editor as breathing. Probably didn't even notice he did it.

Re:Bad cell service? (2)

BlueGecko (109058) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909681)

I'll second that. I'm in Indiana. I have a Verizon cell, and a number of my friends have Sprints. While I think Sprint might be a bit cheaper, their coverage is downright lousy compared to Verizon. It's easy to go into roaming with the Spring sometimes just by crossing the street, whereas I've gone into roaming with Verizon exactly once, when I was truly out in the middle of nowhere. I've also never lost a signal, while the Sprint users here seem to lose them reasonably often.

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? (2)

nbvb (32836) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909729)

The part that nobody seems to understand is that, bear with me here,

** 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? (2)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909737)

In the Seattle, WA area Verizon Wireless has by far the best service. I used to be on Sprint PCS, and most of my friends have AT&T (the worst). So if their wireless data service is as good as their cell sevice, I'd be very interested.

Re:Bad cell service? (2, Informative)

Manpage (544064) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909830)

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS AND VERIZON WIRELESS ARE SEPARATE COMPANIES!

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.

Re:Bad cell service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909911)

You know, it just occurred to me that Michael is probably sitting there reading these comments going "great, if I say verizon is good, they call me a poser. Now I say verizon sucks and they tell me I'm dumb! I can't win no matter what snide remark I make!" This is exactly the case.

Michael, stop making your stupid snide comments. They are usually wildly inaccurate and only serve to worsen the general opinion of Slashdot.

This wasn't meant as a troll, but it will probably be considered one, so I'll not disappoint you. What do you all think Michael will do after VA/OSDN files Chapter 7? Cmdrtaco will probably have some control over Slashdot in that event, but I would expect that Michael would be dropped like a ton of bricks. He's obviously not very computer- or tech-savvy, so what do you think he'll do post-Slashdot?

Do they have a rep for bad coverage? (2)

swb (14022) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909971)

I have Verizon (formerly AirTouch) wireless and its generally really good coverage, and digital messaging generally works wherever I am so long as there is digital coverage.

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? (1)

lightPhoenix (28084) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910022)

Verizon's coverage in Ohio is fantastic. I definetly have the best service out of any of my friends (AT&T, Sprint, haven't heard Cingular [expensive] or voicestream [supposed to be poor]).

But thank goodness for Michael's nice and unbiased reporting!

Re:Bad cell service? (1)

Powerdog (106510) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910155)

Verizon Wireless in Massachusetts is excellent. I switched probably 7 years ago and have rarely been disappointed. I keep looking at other providers in the area, but Verizon's great coverage still beats the others hands down.

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? (1)

xtype (41544) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910250)

Verizon wireless service is great. The calls are clear, it stays digital more than you would expect, and they have service plans to fit everyone.

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.

Re:Bad cell service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2910588)

Verizon is at the worst the #2 provider in the bay area. And my coverage was excellent when i went to southern california as well.

so michael, why dont you just post to this thread and tell us where verizon cell coverage sucks?

Re:Bad cell service? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2911607)

Verizon is also the best in Boston.

Definitely Needed .... (2, Insightful)

nraju (528169) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909540)

Verizon's introduction definitely will prop up the economy, I feel and with 3G Wireless in the roads for a long time, itis time we introduce some products and become guinea pigs of the new gadgets and use them and improve them. Its highly unrealistic to have high expectations of a very new technology when things will take tens of years to mature. Take the case of the old telephone. We have telephones for past 125 years and we still introduce new features to them. So the case of the point is there will be bugs and yes there will be flames, but we have to adopt and try out new stuffs fast. I think it will be well received ...

Re:Definitely Needed .... (2)

HydroCarbon10 (40784) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910088)

we have to adopt and try out new stuffs fast

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? (1)

bloop bloops (554216) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909544)

144 kbps isn't that fast, and the service prices would probably be through the roof. If you want wireless in your home you can just buy a wireless router and hook it up to your dsl line. The speed doesn't make it a replacement for dsl, and unless you could somehow replace your cellphone with your computer and some phone software this looks to be pretty expensive each month? On a side note, verizon's dsl for the Philly area was _DOWN_ last weekend! But other than that i would have to call the reliability excellent. We have prob .5 days /month with problems.

Re:Who would use this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909561)

Half of the Chicago area is still stuck at 28.8, not 56k, because we're between DSL areas and cable modems aren't available either. If this was available at something near $50/mo I'm sure Verizon would get business here.

Re:Who would use this? (1)

Ageless Stranger (540738) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910031)

Who would use this? How about the people that can't get dsl or cable? Or people that want wireless access away from their home? I'd love to be able to get to the internet from my local park.

Free Software (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909558)

Valuable information about the FreeSoftware/OpenSource/Linux movements can be and their excellent, superior software can be found here [granroth.org] , here [linuxplanet.com] , here [linuxsucks.com] , here [aol.com] and here [aol.com] .

Examples of the excellent community spirit within that movement that will help us bring down the Microsoft monopoly: here [http] , here [tuxedo.org] , here [oreillynet.com] , here [oreillynet.com] , here [lwn.net] , here [oreillynet.com] .

Let's all work together to improve free software.

info (2, Informative)

mknapp905 (527716) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909593)

1X is the term that Verizon Wireless has been calling this service for the last few months (hmmm no g's????) February 1st is when it will be rolled out to the Washington Metro Area, with first sales being PCMCIA cards. This service is being promoted locally as having a 70kbps average connection. It should definitely help all the truely mobile users getting CDMA speeds of 14.4 to 19.2 kbps!!!

Re:info (5, Informative)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909717)

Although I don't live in that area, it doesn't suprise me that they are using the term "1x" What they are actually referring to is "CDMA 2000-1XEV". The "EV" stands for "Enhanced Voice". It has a maximum data capability of 144kbps.

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 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909731)

``What they are actually referring to is "CDMA 2000-1XEV"''

Actually, it's 1X-RTT. 1X-EV is further off and is a different technology, but very cool :)

Re:info (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910312)

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? (1)

nesneros (214571) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909595)

Right, the most important thing we can bring to a portable wireless device is video. That way, you won't just have to be distracted by talking on your phone while driving, you can be watching it instead of the road.

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? (1)

zaffir (546764) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909852)

That depends on your definition of a good idea. Whatever makes the company money is a good idea.

I was sick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909604)

in her ass!

Verizon Cell Service in Omaha, NE - top notch (1)

puzzled (12525) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909622)


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).

Wrong SPRINT is top notch in omaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909857)

You're right about alltel but I've had good luck with Sprint. I live and work in Papillion and have never had a problem. Before we bought our house we had looked at some homes in very small towns like Murdoch NE (pop 7), and I was able to get a signal there.

First bit of "3G" cellular (5, Informative)

isdnip (49656) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909625)

What VeriZontal Wireless is introducing is the so-called "1XRTT" form of CDMA2000, which is one of the flavors of "third generation" (3G) cellular telephony. While there has been a lot of noise about 3G around the world, and European carriers have shelled out tens of billions of licenses (dotcom-style investment) for new 3G spectrum (putting them deeply into debt), VeriZontal Wireless and Sprint PCS are instead taking the "just do it" approach.

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 (1)

Magnus Pym (237274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909659)

I understand that 1xRTT rollouts will be
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 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909722)

``The "1XRTT" flavor is simply a software change to the way existing CDMAone carriers are allocated among calls''

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 (1)

hfcs (22012) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909745)

Sorry! Moderating this parent to 'troll' was a mistake. Picked by accident! Sorry!!!

-Bill

Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (1)

SiMac (409541) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909778)

Does this mean that the Ericsson 3G phone I won (T60c) that was supposed to be shipping in 3Q 2001 will actually be released soon?

Re:First bit of "3G" cellular (2, Informative)

dieman (4814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910257)

144kbps is not 3g, try again. The Reg has had a few articles on how GSM networks will be beating the crap out of CDMA in this soon enough.

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.

Chicago (2, Insightful)

maverick_and_goose (526330) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909644)

I live in Chicago and I used to live at the far end of the Verizon Digital network just south of Chicago. Verizon is by far one of the best carriers around. Last year in the city the coverage was kinda week but I had an old phoone. I now managed to loose the old phone and get a new that seems to work perfectly. I get the best reception of anyojne I know.
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 (2, Informative)

Sierran (155611) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909670)

I have to (ulp) defend Verizon just a bit. I'm in Boston, MA USA and I have to say that Verizon's network is far and away the best of the players in the area for cell coverage, esp. digital. While it's true their phones are usually 1-2 generations back, and they'e not as cheap as other providers, I kept their service for my work phone after comparing it to (as in using for a month) Voicestream (GSM), Sprint PCS, AT&T (miserable), Cingular and Nextel. I've never had a problem with their cell customer support, either. And no, I don't work for them.

Re:Credit where it's due (1)

bgarland (10594) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909864)

That's funny, because my girlfriend had Verizon service in Boston and every other time I called, her phone didn't ring even though she had 100% signal. It would just throw me straight into her voicemail. Sometimes I would call 30 or 40 times, and her phone wouldn't ring. Yet, I'd leave a voicemail, and immediately her phone would tell her she had a new voicemail, and then she'd call me back (so obviously her phone was working fine). WTF.

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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909689)

I'm guessing michael's line was a dig at Verizon Wireless's service quality. Verizon Wireless is the best provider in the NY Metro area. Nobody else even comes close. Maybe it sucks where michael lives, but in New York and Long Island, it is excellent.

Re:VZ Wireless (1)

Sase (311326) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909907)

This may have been true a year ago.. but only for a short while, before that AT&T was far superior... and now has taken the bull by the horns again.

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. (2)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909710)

I'm sure it will work just as well as Verizon's cell service does now.

Yeah, and when you combine that with the high reliability of their DSL offerings, how can the customer lose?

--saint

Great, but how much? (2)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909775)

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? (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2909899)

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? (2)

zuvembi (30889) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910101)

As I understand it, there is plans for a PC card for laptops. But I couldn't tell you when it's coming out.

Re:Phones? (2)

zuvembi (30889) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910126)

Keep in mind, by this I mean it could be tomorrow. I can't remember when their coming.

OK (3, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910214)

How about two?

Merlin C201 [novatelwireless.com]

AirCard 550/555 [sierrawireless.com]

Re:Phones? (4, Interesting)

ainsoph (2216) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910563)

you said:

"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_digitali nq -1.htm#

etc.. etc..

Re:Phones? (-1)

tealover (187148) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910711)

sounds like you should have stayed in asia, ya idiot. whatsamatter...didn't like the taste of nip jis?

TROLL! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2911638)

Just remember, people. Please don't feed the trolls.

Verizon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2909980)

Verizon is a evil no good monopoly, but so is every other telco. You have to spend two hours on the phone with these people for them to help you. It took 4 months for them to get my DSL to acctually work right! Verizon is expensive, but so is every american telco. 49.99 a month for a DSL line, that is down almost every weekend is just ridiculous (i rarely get more then 250 kbps down) Why are they releasing this wireless service when they haven't gotten DSL right yet? After 9/11 it took well over 2 week for their wireless or even basic service to get back up completely (I still work 5 blocks from the trade centers) I hate Verizon, any moron could run a business better, but since they are a monopoly they really dont have to try!

Cell service is good (1)

Giro d'Italia (124843) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910107)

Their cell service in the Seattle area is excellent. Except of course my house which, although 1.2 km from a cell tower, happens to be about 10 m on the lee side of a hill from it. If 1/2 calls out of my house lasts more than a minute, it's a rare thing.

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? (1)

Stone Rhino (532581) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910300)

Talk about it here [verizoneatspoop.com]

A little more info (3, Informative)

rdfager (72392) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910559)

I work for Lucent and have been deploying this technology for companies such as Verizon and Sprint for the last few months. The technology Verizon is announcing is known as 3G-1XRTT. There is another 3G technology, 3G-1XEV-DO, which will be available soon. 3G-1XRTT supports speeds up to 144kbps. 3G-1XEV increases this to 2.4gig. The way that 1XRTT actually works is that each user gets one 9.6kbps channel when they connect. Then, when the user is transfering data, the cell site or the handset can request to "burst." The speed at which you burst depends on how much data you're transferring and how many resources are available on the cell. This burst speed can be any multiple of 9.6 up to 144kbps. Bursts only last for a few seconds (typically 5 or less). After that the cell/handset have to negotiate another burst. This is because as you might imagine, this can use a lot of resources on the cell/switch. For this reason, if you are not transfering any data for a few seconds, your call will go into a dormancy state. This means that all of the resources on the cell are released and your airlink is dropped. However, the call is still registered on the switch. So, when you go to transfer more data, the call comes back up and you don't have to be authenticated again or reregistered on the switch. It's a very cool system that can use a lot of resources but only when it really needs them.
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 (1)

rvdmeent (389) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910580)

Nice piece of information...

Any idea on the expected time-to-market of 3G-1XEV-DO services?

Re:A little more info (1)

rdfager (72392) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910609)

1XEV is still being tested in our labs. We expect to start selling it to our customers in about 3-4 months and it will probably be at least 6 months after that before end users will have the service available to them. That is if 1XEV takes off like we hope it will.

Speed is not useful-As it will cost too much (1)

bdolan (125199) | more than 12 years ago | (#2910664)

Right now the typical voice cell user is paying $30 / month for a 200 minutes of prime time usage. At around 10,000 bits / second, thats 120 mb of data capacity in the form of voice bits. In another words, 4 megabytes of data on a good plan costs $1! This yields marginal profits on the oligopolies' multi-billion networks and spectrum. That's good pricing--many plans are far more expensive. Other ways to say this is that an MP3 is about a $1 of bandwidth and a 56k bps download (let say actually at 50kbps in actuality) uses $10 worth of bandwith per minute. Therefore, you don't need faster, you need a cheaper network. At least, you want your cell phone to use 802.11b when in range!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>