Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Qualcomm Demonstrates 153 kbit/s cellular 95

Posted by Hemos from the my-cell-modem-may-yet-matter! dept.
Matt_Bennett writes "EEtimes reports that Qualcomm has demonstrated its new faster CDMA chip set for third generation cellular (3G). They have demonstrated bit rates of up to 153 kbit/s. Sample shipments have already begun. From the article: "Commercial 3G 1x service is expected to be deployed in Korea by the end of this year, and similar service is expected in the United States and Japan sometime in 2001.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qualcomm Demonstrates 153 kbit/s cellular More

Qualcomm Demonstrates 153 kbit/s cellular

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Megabit speeds soon too (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That EDN article is utter horseshit. Take the Shannon-Hartley formula for channel capacity,

    C = B*log2(1+S/N)

    rearrange it to solve for S/N as a function of C/B, and you get:

    S/N= 2**(C/B - 1)

    That's for S/N as a numerical ratio. In dB, it would be 10*log10(2**(C/B - 1))

    Plug in C/B = 90 bps/hz and you get 267.9 dB as the minimum required signal-to-noise ratio.

    Phil Karn, Qualcomm

  • Re:Way too slow! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    HDR, which is one generation beyond the 153k stuff just announced, gets up to 2.4 Mb/s in 1.25 MHz bandwidth in the forward direction (base station to user). However, that's only when you're close enough to a cell to get a C/I (carrier to interference ratio) of 10-15 dB, which is very high. But we're seeing typical sector throughputs of 600-1000 kilobits/sec in testing with multiple users and multiple overlapping cells.

    Phil Karn, Qualcomm

  • uhh, I don't think the standard telephone lines could go beyond theoretically 64Kbps... if that. The FCC is limiting telephones from going 56Kbps, instead making them go like 52Kbps or whatever. So you don't even get 56Kbps speeds to begin with.
  • I dont know about through a cell phone, but Ricochet [ricochet.com] just went live here in Atlanta and claim 128k always on for around $70/mo if I remember correctly. I'm not away from a computer long enough to justify it to myself, so I have not tried it yet.

  • eh? Show me a GPRS terminal that does anything near 144kbit/s.

    UMTS/WCDMA isn't likely to see 2Mb for some time and I am not convinced that any operators will want to offer it anyway.

  • Way to completely fail to answer the question.

    Idiot.
  • <IMHO>The US hasn't had the need for a wireless network that Europe and Asia have had. Our land lines still work quite well. In some parts of Asia they have to worry about people stealing them. It simply isn't as necessary in the US as it is in other places. Hence the defecit.</IMHO>

    jplt [jplt.com]
  • You mean like Windows?

    :P
  • So now, instead of .01 W/cm^3 being absorbed by my skull, it's about 5W/cm^3? I'll take kemo for $500, Alex.

  • Get this running to my laptop or my Palm... Hell yeah.

  • CDMA, TDMA, just give us GSM - I want to get a real world cell phone!

    But, as to your concept of the Iridiums ... wouldn't it be cool if they arranged to have some flame out around Burning Man [burningman.com] - talk about your Y2K effect!

  • UMTS - next June in Tokyo.
  • Heck, I'd even go for a reliable & cheap 9600 wireless modem to get traffic updates and send short emails over.
  • It's CDMA, which means it's connection-oriented and will more than likely use your minutes in order to do Internetting. An example of a carrier which uses this type of system would be Sprint [sprintpcs.com]. AT&T [attws.com], on the other hand, uses TDMA, which can use the GPRS packet-oriented system to provide essentially free Internet access which is always on.

    My advice? Wait for AT&T to come out with 3G services and then go ahead and drop your DSL connection; you won't be needing it anymore.

    Email me.
    Don't trust anyone over 90000.
  • Don't forget the fact that Qualcomm OWNS CDMA. You have to pay them licensing fees to use it. Methinks that might slow its adoption a wee bit.

    There's also the small matter of CDMA having only connection-oriented data capabilities. Or is this new 153kbit deal CDMA's entry into packet data?

    Email me.
    Don't trust anyone over 90000.
  • Not even kidding, dude. I spent a semester in Atha Cliath and Eircom didn't seem to know what I was talking about when I went to the office on St. Stephen's Green and tried to ask about DSL or Cable Modem Internet access. Esat just laughed at me. You'd think SOMEONE would realize that it would be in their best interests to get their broadband act together, especially WRT the whole Celtic Tiger phenomenon (largely powered by IT industries springing up). ::sigh::

    Email me.
    Don't trust anyone over 90000.

  • And ricochet has the advantage of being flat-fee. The reason I don't have a mobile for anything but emergencies is because of the fee structure; I'm not going to use a wireless phone for my primary phone when I can, for relatively low cost, have a flat-fee landline to my house. Couple that with ricochet not being available in my area, and affordable (ie
    --

  • Think of it like the railroad. It may be good, it may better in many situations (I mean america is so full of commuters who don't really want to commute), but its just not profitable to connect a reletivly sparsely populated group.

    Also, about standardization, in switzerland you can buy a train ticket from your local station to vinenna or venice (I think moscow too) and back without encountering much of a problem. London's a bit tricky because of the compeating carriers over the chunnel (or should that be under). America is a lot like that. Sure, there's a train station in worcester (MA) with connections to boston (MA), but if you want to go to Quebec you have to go to connecticut or springfield (MA) first, then you take a train to montreal. You get to figure out how your getting to Quebec on your own after that.

    Hopefully you'll notice how there's some sort of attitude here that implies that the short run must be profitable, that anything that acts as a service for convenience can only be assosiated within the same company and has to show hard links to profit, and that working with your competetors to help all customers is a silly notion. Some places societal good is deemed more important.

    -Daniel

  • From the final episode of seinfeld (George's parents)...

    Estelle: "I wonder if it was something we did. Were we bad parents??"

    Frank: "Maybe it was your fault! It certainly wasn't my fault, I can tell you that."

    Estelle: "What's that supposed to mean??"

    Frank: "You were smothering him! He couldn't get any air. He couldn't breath! He was suff-o-cating!"

    Estelle: "And you were always in Korea with your religious chachki...!"

    Frank "I had to make a Living!!"

    Maybe he was selling fast cellular connectivity..

  • Re:OMFG (Score:1)

    by Lxy ( 80823 )
    Actually, I could. Imagine the bandwidth of multiple phones running at 153Kbs each. If I had 10 clustered together into a switch, I'd have a wireless T1. Pretty sweet!!!

    "You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson

  • Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. In 2001 coverage will be in 3 cities as a test.. deployment of increased bandwidth is so slow it makes me sick... and that's wired as well as wireless...

    .technomancer

  • Just a quick reality check for the moaning americans:
    Ireland Internet Access Options
    1. Regular Telephone Call charges and no ISP fees: IR£0.12 per unit, 6am-6pm = 3mins/unit, 6pm-6am = 15mins/unit
    2. ISP Telephone Call charges and ISP subscription: IR£0.12 per unit, 6am-6pm = 5mins/unit, 6pm-6am = 15mins/unit, ISP IR£10/month
    3. Flat Rate Off-Peak: IR£20/month
    4. Mobile 9600: 6am-6pm = £0.25/min (best price), 6pm-6am = £0.10/min + line rental £10/month+ (with mobiles the trade off is line rental cost V call cost
    None of these (bar the mombile) include the telephone line rental charges of about IR£20/month for a analog line or IR£35/month for an ISDN line.
    Want some thing faster.........hope you have IR£?,000s.
    All in all I have said it before and I'll say it again you Americans like to moan about how slow your country is....well you are beating mine IMHO and I ain't third world. You live in a massive country and should expect where you choose to live to significantly influence the range of options available to you. I live in a small country where the only thing that could change is if I am toooooo remote to have a phoneline or too remote/difficult to get ISDN to. Cable, DSL, ADSL etc. forget it....maybe someday soon one of the many "companies" will actually start to deliver on a promise but there are no signs of it (and I live in the largest and capital city so where is live is not delaying the roll-out to me).
    IR£1=US$1.14=E0.696
  • I disagree. GSM came out in 1991 (or something like that), while CDMA came out didn't come out until 1995. US carriers have picked up CDMA and have distributed it across the country (except AT&T (which does TDMA) and PacBell Cellular (GSM...at least out here on the west coast...I'm sure other providers across the US use GSM, too) Anyway, CDMA is rapidly growing as a technology (currently, there are about 70 million users to GSM's 300 million) At the end of the year 2000, marketing "experts" are predicting 90 million CDMA users to 320 million GSM

    The *entire* world is slowly switching to CDMA...While GSM isn't going anywhere for a long while CDMA provides *so many* clear benefits to the cell phone providers (better use of the bandwidth, better call security, less power required, more simulatanous users, true soft handoff, etc) Ericsson (formerly only a GSM company) has announced plans for both WCDMA [ericsson.com] & CDMA [ericsson.com] Systems. I think that you'll notice that GSM's writing is on the wall.

    The only real downside to CDMA is the US Government. They consider it as a "weapon" (just like encryption), so exporting it is really inconvient. I currently work for a major cell-phone company, and I am familiar with both technologies (more so CDMA than GSM). To learn about CDMA, I had to sign agreements that I wouldn't export the knowledge to any non-authorized people, etc. When I was learning about GSM, I just went to my class and no one cared about spreading the technology. That will be CDMA's biggest obstacle.
  • Let's clarify the difference between a technology and an implementation. Many different systems could be based on the principle of code division multiplexing, but that doesn't mean they'll interoperate. CDMA as in use in the US is no standard at all, if I'm not mistaken there are several CDMA implementations even in the US. I seriously doubt you can take a Qualcomm phone, go to Asia or wherever else CDMA is popular, and start using it

    I think that the biggest obstacle to have CDMA phones (and all phones in general) interoperate around the world is the frequency allocation. Europe and America (maybe Asia & South America, too?) have different frequencies allocated for cell phone use (in the USA (& Canada), we use the 800MHz band (actually close to 840MHz) & 1900MHz, while in Europe, they use a slightly different (and larger frequency range) 800 MHz & 1800MHz range (don't quote me on this, I don't have a spec sheet here in front of me))

    This is hard to explain to Americans that have never experienced GSM in action. It's not that the quality is superior, or the power requirements less, or the data rate higher. But a Brit can take his cell phone with him on holiday to Greece, buy a prepaid $25 card locally, stick it in the phone, and for the next two weeks he can make local calls just like he bought the phone locally. Try doing that in the US.

    This is one huge advantage the GSM has. It could be implemented in the US, but the cell phone companies have been reluctant to implement something like that more infavor of Nationwide roaming.

    I'm confused here now. Are you arguing that US companies are the only ones capable of implementing CDMA technology, and that they have to be able to export it in order to "spread the word"?

    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Some of the fundamental ideas of CDMA (including digital spread spectrum) were originally created by the military to prevent radio jamming. Also, the US government is really sensitive about protecting the technology created in this country (although not exactly the same thing but similiar idea, Apple was able to market the G4 as unexportable)

    US companies aren't the only ones who can implement CDMA, but to export an American CDMA, the companies have to be from a "friendly" country and have to promise not to illegally distribute the technology to other countries (I know about a person, who is working on implementing CDMA in China, and according to that person, the government regualtions are a nightmare.)

    On an off-topic note, I want to say I really apprecate you keeping this discussion civil. Too often on Slashdot discussions often turn into shouting matches
  • Wow MIDI on a cell phone. Incredible. Who the hell cares about MIDI on a cell phone? Do you really want to hear the music on that electronic post card you got from your e-girlfriend?
  • Does anyone have an opinion about how Metricom's Ricochet stacks up with Qualcomm? Especially in terms of coverage schedules for Qualcomm versus Metricom. The latter is supposed to have 100 million of US population covered sometime next year with G3. How about Qualcomm?
  • Wrong. Iceland now tops in both wireless usage, as well as internet usage.
    Fiberoptic landlines have been a reality here for a long time, so thats not the reason behind the US falling behind. The reason is quite simple:

    Competition.

    Whilst being the (academically at least) best way to ensure the survival of the most competent, cooperation somtimes gets you ahead.
    While US network operators were busy deplaying different standards in mobile communication, most (I think all) European countries at the time, met and signed a "Statement of understanding", in which they agreed on basic standards, and to let the competition be on quality basis, instead of lock-in basis.

    The US companies fortunatly saw the light, and is participating fully in ITS200 and the 3G consortiums, to create globally compatible standards.

    The only problem being that the frequency range planned for use in UMTS is at least partially in use in the US, so measures must be taken to free that frequency range to make room for 3G.

    I think it's true what a previous poster said, that 3G wont be "really" available in the US untill ca. 2005, but all indications point towards a much more rapid deployment in Europe and Asia, particularly scandinavia, and Japan. 'nuff said.
  • No, 3G is a roadmap or a shared vision of future mobile system. It's not a "standard" in it's own right, so to speak. Current GSM technology (that is the hard core tech stuff) will die; time division systems (TDMA) will die. Code division systems are coming in. A basis for that is GPRS, i.e. get the communications into a packet format.
    Then there is the migration path of interim solutions towards the final goal (in technologically advanced order: HSCSD, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS)
  • Yeah right, so why is it that I pay 12 pounds a month with a free mobile, 12 pounds being around $19. GSM standardisation means that one mobile company builds a mast, all the other phones are compatible with it and so all the companies share the coverage. You yanks are miles behind us in mobile technology, so don't be upset when we rag you about it. After all, I've been hearing the ludicrous remark 'Europeans are less tech-savvy than Americans' for about 2 years now. Nice to know the old world can still beat the new one at some things. Now scuse me while I go and get a chisel to remove this chip from my shoulder.
  • Yeah we have good land lines here and that is one reason why in some places wireless is so popular, but the real problem as I see it is that we do not have "caller-pays" billing. Why on earth would I use my cut the cord so that I can pay to have a bunch of telemarketers voice-spam me on my own dime?

    There is also the fact that the various wire options are still absurdly priced in comparison to land lines. Sure I expect a premium for mobility, but good grief...

  • UMTS/WCDMA isn't likely to see 2Mb for some time and I am not convinced that any operators will want to offer it anyway.

    FYI: in Germany recently 6 operators bought licenses of umts-frequencies, paying an amount of about 50 bill. $. If they spent such a huge money for the frequencies only you can imagine if they are willing to offer it to the market.

  • I know it will take a while for the tech to trickle down to Nextel service, but I am truly looking forward to a higher speed of suckiness.
  • But in the U.S. we also don't have to any per-minute charges on local phone calls. I don't know anything about Norway, but there are a lot of places in Europe (the UK I think?) where you do have to pay per-minute charges. That means we can access the Internet over a modem and just pay for a monthly ISP charge. And long distance landline costs lots cheaper here than cellular/PCS. For example, it would be between 5 cents/min and 10 cents/min for a long distance call to someone else in the U.S. Prepaid minutes on a PCS phone are like 35 cents/minute. You pay like double or triple the cost for the luxury of using a cellular phone. So it isn't something the average person would be willing to pay for.
  • Hell, there are plenty of places in even Silicon Valley (in San Jose even) where you still can't get either DSL or cable modem. TCI (silicon valley's cable service) did a pathetic job with cable modem. In the first 3 years or so they had next to no expansion out of their testing area in Fremont, and their coverage is still very small. And Pacific Bell has been pathetic about DSL too. There are a lot of people that have remained a mere 300 yards out of range of their central office for a long long time.
  • The reason we're behind in the U.S. is 'cause we have too many darn companies playing this game. There are at least 6 carriers in Seattle (more if you count the re-sellers) and they all suck in terms of coverage and technology. They're all frantically building out their coverage, but since they have to cover every square mile 6 times it's going to take 6 times as long and/or cost 6 times as much. Where's the advantage? So that the prices stay low? The service sucks - the prices better stay low.

    I wish we ran the cell companies the way we run the local phone and cable businesses - like a utility, licensed to serve the public interest. It would be even better if the licenses were handed out on a regional, or even national basis. I frankly can see little value in having 10 significant carriers burning billions of dollars duking it out over incompatible standards. Maybe in 5 or 10 years we'll find the value in this, but right now it sucks.
  • GSM bandwagon. One of the great things about not being "standardized" over here is the competition that non-standardization brings

    I guess next you'll be telling us how Microsoft is brining competition to the software market by introducing secret, standards incompatible protocols? =D

    I wouldn't consider $29.95/month cheap, as I happen to pay less than $5/month myself. Three GSM operators with totally compatible technologies => switching operators is easy => price matters A LOT. If that can't be called competition I don't know what can.

  • Qaulcom is the owner of some major CDMA patents so they naturally want G3 to use CDMA. Qualcom does some heavy duty lobbying of congressmen, FCC officials or whoever they need to. Result, US gov starts pushin for CDMA-G3 to be the standard in US. In Europe, Nokia and Ericson who have invested heavily in TDMA and own major patents start lobbying the European Parliament / Comission / whoever. TDMA-G3 becomes the standar in europe. In Japan... well, you get the picture.
  • The MIDI port is used to connect the device to a local Atari ST network. It is a common trick, used mainly to set up a LAN between the Atari and various musical instruments (pianos, controllers, drums, etc.).

    A less frequent, but just as clever application is adding modems to the Atari. This is wonderful for people who need to run a multi-line BBS on this 8 MHz beast.

    ~

  • If the US is behind, Canada is almost right off the map. I live in Silicon Valley North and our cell networks drop calls 2000m from the places that make the bleedin' phones!

    Somebody (name escapes me) has a law (Shannon perhaps) that describes the range of a cellular system falling off with the escalation of the data rate.

    So these high BW systems require more towers meaning more tower locations meaning more hassles with real estate/environmental concerns/public safety, etc.

    Also, note that in Alberta, three CDPD towers can service a city and a lot of its burbs (Red Deer, not huge but not small) whereas if you had to cover the same areas with the smaller coverage diameter high speed systems you'd need a lot more.

    And from my own pricing of cellular towers, at the time we looked into it, a Bell ARDIS tower (MDC4800 or RDLAP19.2)was somewhere well over a hundred grand Cdn.

    By contrast, Mobitex (Ericsson) has a base-station-in-a-box for filling in coverage gaps, quick setup, demos, etc. that works well and costs about $40-60K. Even that is expensive.

    If you could get the small, high speed cell node costs down to $25K-30K then you'd probably make deployment of networks across Urban centres more feasible.

    Support of the poor buggers in rural areas at high data rates... ha ha ha... good luck people.
    It might happen eventually, but if you live in Innuvik or out in Death Valley I wouldn't be holding your breath.

    Just my 0.02.

  • I don't want to repeat what other posters have said before me, namely that 1) you _can_ get a fast land line in Europe and 2) that there's no such thing as a free local phone call.

    Another thing I have noticed during my time in Europe and the USA is that European mobile phones are so much more advanced. I have a fairly cheap GSM phone, and it does a lot of stuff that none of my American mobile phones ever did, and it's smaller!

    For example, when I turn on my phone it asks me for a passcode in order to use the phone account (a nice security feature that saved me when I lost my last phone). The phone account is encoded on an encrypted smart card that is inserted into the back of the phone. If I want to switch phones, I can drop my number into the back of a new one and go. My little smart chip also stores all the names and addresses in my address book. Those go with me, too.

    GSM is digital, encrypted, and I don't have to pay to receive a call as long as I am in my home country. There's a small charge to receive calls when roaming. I can send text messages for a few cents to any other GSM phone in Europe, and receive them, too. I can even buy pre-paid chips to put into my phone, instead of receiving a bill each month.

    Also factor in that it is cheaper to call a mobile phone _from_ a mobile phone than it is to call a mobile phone from a landline... and these are other compelling reasons why Europe is so hooked on mobile phones.

    Americans are spoiled by free local telephone calls, afraid of per-minute charges, angered by having to pay to receive a call, scared stiff every time they read a story about some phone-stealing ring billing unsuspecting accounts, annoyed that their phone calls can be listened to by anyone with a brain and utterly bewildered by a huge number of non-cooperative "standards" when choosing to buy a phone. It's no wonder they're staying away. They should, until the market offers them something comparable in quality to GSM.

    This feels a lot like the late 80's and early 90's when makers of high-speed modems were all competing to see who could make the standard that everyone else would be forced to support. I guess it was good for business, but it sure was horrible to be that consumer caught with the 14.4 modem that only connected at 14.4 when connecting to another one just like it.

    - chatte

  • Where does the Zappa sig. come from?
  • yeah, kay so that would be cool for my lap top, but still. you know that this will be avaliable on cellphones too. when i bought mine, i opted not to buy the "web enabled" model, reasoning that i'd never ever use it, even when that became avaliable in my area. Qualcomm annouces cellular download speeds of twice a 56K modem, and you know damn well that when we get cell web access here, we'll proably be downloading our tiny text files at that speed. and wow, is evey one excited about it! what's the point?
  • kay, i've never surfed the internet on a cell phone, so could someone please enlighten me as to why this is such a good thing? even if i could, i can't see myself downloading mp3's or midi files on my cell phone. so really why is it such a big deal that you can surf at twice the speed of a 56K modem? cause you really wouldn't want to. when they can sell me a cell phone with a 15' monitor for 30$ (the price of my last cell phone), and not weight more than a typicial phone now, and being able to fit in my pocket, then maybe this would be cool. till then...

    but like i said, i've never surfed on a cell before
  • Do you think they might send me one of those sample shipments??

    That would be a nice...

  • And how long before the Luddites decry this as a new cancer causing agent?

    NecroPuppy
  • to fit on the back of the phone?

    It would have to include Voice-Over-IP. I might want to make a phone call, and won't want to interrupt my feed. I also have to make it battery powered, and account for wireless connections (bluetooth) to PDAs and stuff I might be carrying.

    Damn! I forgot which pocket I put the file server in...

    Rats! I left my ISP in my other backpack...

    Spoken on a mountain top in the middle of nowhere: "Hold up. I've got to change a backup tape..."

  • >>That seems to be about half the advertised speed
    >>of several home DSL services

    >Yeah, but it's hell driving anywhere with that
    >DSL cable spool in the back of the car,
    >especially when a train cuts it, back
    >where you drover over a track.

    And then there was the time last week when I ran
    out of cable after an hour. Jerked my router right out of the back. Haven't seen the thing since. :)

    No, I actually don't think half as slow as DSL as a bad thing. Especially for wireless.

    >>But does anyone have any idea what satellite
    >>bandwidth is?

    >While driving? Uh. Dunno, the CHP took away my
    >Beetle when they caught me driving around with 6 >foot dish on top.

    They would. :)

    I think they actually have smaller satellite receivers these days... at least (by which I mean,
    largest) briefcase sized... and I've _heard_ rumors of near-handhelds. B'sides, what's a GPS
    (some are handheld, right?) but somethign that transmits/receives satellite relayed signals?

    >>2. I think cellular price structures are
    >>complete works of fiction

    >Not unlike Cable TV rates, CD prices, gas prices,
    > the herd logic drives the stock market...

    All true. Which is why I don't have cable. Or a TV. CDs... well, I do the best I can. Gas... I'm stuck. Stock market... well, I'm a hypocrite.
    Sometimes I try to profit from watching herd
    logic....

    But sometimes I wonder: isn't there anything people can DO about things like cellular pricing and airline flight pricing, where the billing plan has pretty much no resemblance to the company's costs?

    > and whatever excuses people come
    >up with for needing to talk, surf, play MIDI,
    >etc. in their cars at 153Kb/S. This'll all look
    >so impressive sitting on a
    >roadside picnic table as cities and states pass
    >laws ban use of these nice toys by drivers.

    Hmmmmm. That's a tough one. Are cell phones
    distracting to drivers? I've nearly got in a few
    cell-wrecks... both through my own use (I _did_
    try a cell phone for a while) and others. Are they
    useful while driving? Yep.

    But the day you're just surfing or watching movies (ack! in car DVD players!)... maybe that's time for legislation.

    Then again, it's not as if there aren't already distractions. One officer in traffic school said he'd caught a lady changing a diaper and driving at the sime time. Save us all.

  • During an FTP data transfer transmission, the QCT 3G 1x system transferred the file in 59 seconds, compared to an estimated 4.8 minutes for a 28.8-kbit/s landline modem (and 2.5 minutes, 2.2 minutes and 65 seconds, respectively, for 56-kbit/s, 64-kbit/s and 128-kbit/s landline modems).


    So 4-5 times the transmission spead of a 28.8 modem.


    That seems to be about half the advertised speed of several home DSL services round my way. Not bad. But does anyone have any idea what satellite bandwidth is? I've often thought about a cellular
    modem, but haven't moved on getting one because:

    1. Cellular coverage really isn't that great. I'd want to be portable so I could run up to the canyons for work, and still be connected.

    2. I think cellular price structures are complete works of fiction

    Perhaps a combined cellular-satellite solution could be the answer to #1... of course, I don't know what the performance of satellite is like, and I'm sure the pricing has the potential to be totally insane...
  • Hey, I'm in South Carolina... we have notoriously bad and confusing cell phone plans.

    Here in the UK we've got Cellnet [btcellnet.co.uk]. 'nuff said....

  • About those figures... 100 Million of the US population covered? Divided by what penetration rate? Divided still further by the fact that a certain percentage of that penetration rate is customers locked into 1-3 year contracts by the current providers.

    It's like the estimate that 60-75% of the population lives within range for DSL. This may be true, but when you look at hard stats, companies are focusing on denser population areas that in all likely hood only cover 20-50% of the population. Add to that that the less dense the population of an area is, the more likely you are to have strange loops that run in a cable all the way acroos town and back, old facilities, bridge taps, slicks, remotes, and what not..

  • Gas stations? Wow... that must be nice. I wouldn't use the bathrooms in half the gas stations I know of, much less buy a cellular phone at one.

    Of course, here in the US, I wouldn't go to most of the places I know of that sell phones for one. I just don't see the need to make it even easier for people to reach me. That is what an answering machine is for. (And I can't screen my calls on a cell phone...)

    Kierthos
  • Hey, I'm in South Carolina... we have notoriously bad and confusing cell phone plans.

    Kierthos
  • Just think, more and better cellulars, and it's still too late for those Iridium satellites. Oh well, just so long as none of them fall on my head....

  • 128kbs, flat rate, available in US NOW! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There is ALREADY a wireless,flat rate, mobile solution that operates at a minumum of 128kbs. It's available NOW in the Atlanta and San Diego metro areas and will be available in the NYC, Seattle, Bay Area, Chicago, DC, Houston, LA, Philidelphia, Dallas, and Phoenix metro areas in about a month.

    Check out http://www.metricom.com for more details.

    I use the 28.8kps version being usurped for 128kps and it simply rocks. I have it on constantly without fear of minutes used (think 3G is going to flat rate? Think again!), it tenaciously holds connections (yeah, like I'm going to use 3G for data when voice calls drop all the time), and I can surf the web without clipped pages or limited WAP pages.
  • As soon as at least 128k/sec wireless bandwidth is combined with flat rates for 2-3 hours/day, there will no longer be so much need for conventional radio, eh? Get ready for the next big paradigm shift.
    --
  • > The *entire* world is slowly switching to CDMA

    Sure, but it won't be overnight. I believe UMTS uses CDMA, basically picking the goodies from all the current technologies. But UMTS is still far off in the future, they're still auctioning frequencies. I doubt it will replace GSM before 2005 or even much later.

    Let's clarify the difference between a technology and an implementation. Many different systems could be based on the principle of code division multiplexing, but that doesn't mean they'll interoperate. CDMA as in use in the US is no standard at all, if I'm not mistaken there are several CDMA implementations even in the US. I seriously doubt you can take a Qualcomm phone, go to Asia or wherever else CDMA is popular, and start using it.

    Anyway, people keep missing the bigger picture when advocating newer and better technology: it's all about standardization and interoperability. It doesn't matter that you have the best technology if not everyone is using it. That simply leads to islands of technology like in the US. It's better to have somewhat inferior technology--but that is still GOOD ENOUGH--which everyone commits to.

    This is hard to explain to Americans that have never experienced GSM in action. It's not that the quality is superior, or the power requirements less, or the data rate higher. But a Brit can take his cell phone with him on holiday to Greece, buy a prepaid $25 card locally, stick it in the phone, and for the next two weeks he can make local calls just like he bought the phone locally. Try doing that in the US.

    > The only real downside to CDMA is the US Government. They consider it as a "weapon"
    > (just like encryption), so exporting it is really inconvient.

    I'm confused here now. Are you arguing that US companies are the only ones capable of implementing CDMA technology, and that they have to be able to export it in order to "spread the word"? GSM was developed at a time when CDMA wasn't a glint in anyone's eye--or maybe it was, but the processing power wasn't available to do it cheaply. GSM and CDMA aren't contemporaries, CDMA is much more recent. As mentioned by others, given time, GSM will eventually subsume the better CDMA technology. That's partly what UMTS is all about.

    Uwe Wolfgang Radu
  • GSM uses 900 and 1800 MHz in Europe. But since GSM uses 1900 MHz in the US, that has led to the availability of tri-band phones in Europe that can do 900, 1800 and 1900 MHz. Still, they only talk GSM, so we're still waiting for multi-mode phones that can do GSM, CDMA, PCS etc. I think that will be a long time, since most US carriers are very adamant about locking you into their phones. I guess that gives them an extra revenue stream, I can't explain it any other way.

    > This is one huge advantage the GSM has. It could be implemented in the US, but the cell
    > phone companies have been reluctant to implement something like that more infavor of
    > Nationwide roaming.

    Of course it could be implemented, but it probably offers no added revenue possibilities. On the other hand, roaming is "long distance on steroids", huge profitability there. I think that's self-explanatory.

    > Some of the fundamental ideas of CDMA (including digital spread spectrum) were
    > originally created by the military to prevent radio jamming. Also, the US government is really
    > sensitive about protecting the technology created in this country

    True, but the spread spectrum technology is quite old now, and even if international pantents ever existed (which I'm not sure they did), they must have long elapsed. Besides, it's one of those things where, once the concept becomes clear, implementations can be arrived at independently quite easily. Same thing with CDMA, while a certain company (Qualcomm?) may hold certain concrete patents regarding a code division technology, it's relatively easy for other companies to say, hmm, code division multiplexing, neat idea, let's see what we can do. And if the implementations were sufficiently different from the original patent holder's, they would probably have a lot of difficulties to enforce their patents, especially internationally. In other words, unless it's a case where a company copied a technology lock, stock and barrel, including serial numbers and all,it's hard to do anything about copycats.

    > On an off-topic note, I want to say I really apprecate you keeping this discussion civil. Too
    > often on Slashdot discussions often turn into shouting matches

    Well, to paraphrase some famous person, name calling is the last resort of the feeble-minded. At worst I would try to put you down in what I would consider an understated way, and then probably leave the thread.

    But GSM/CDMA et al is hardly anything to get too excited about. I really don't care what the technology is, as long as it's universally accepted. Currently I think GSM is the favorite, but who knows, that may change. Personally I think the ideal would be a global packet switched network along the lines of 802.11 or so, a seamless "ether" of connectivity. Run everything on TCP/IP, and forget about emulating old circuit switched technology. But that will be a while.

    Incidentally, on a related note, in Germany several states have tried to initiate digital radio broadcasting for many years now. Several technologies are market ready but have stopped short of being implemented. The major objection to all of them is that they rely on an old paradigm, the broadcast. Many opponents argue that today, in the age of the Internet and on-demand data, that paradigm is simply too antiquated. What we really need is a packet switched "radio system" that essentially streams the audio into your car, and can deliver much more than just radio shows. Rather than pre-defining what the digital channels can carry (80% voice + 20% miscellaneous such as text, data, etc), make it so general purpose that it's up to the user what he uses the bandwidth for.

    That's pretty much also my vision of what the ideal cell phone is all about, rather than extending the old dial-up paradign into the wireless realm. Of course, all this has done in Germany is to muddle things up and take the steam out of the existing initiatives. So now it will be even longer before we see digital radio. Oh well...


    Uwe Wolfgang Radu
  • > the war between CDMA & GSM is almost as ferocious as Gnome vs. KDE

    What war? GSM is the norm, the rest are also-rans. To preempt any inevitable claims to the superiority of CDMA, it's true, it's all true. However, it doesn't matter, as exemplified by the scores of countries with almost complete GSM coverage. It's more important to have a mediocre widely adopted standard than the best--but poorly adopted--technology. But that's old news, so I'll stop.

    Uwe Wolfgang Radu
  • I congratulate the 5% of the US population who will have access to this technology. For their sake I hope they're only occasional travelers, so they won't miss their blessing when on the road.

    Me, I'm waiting for GSM to finally take hold in the US. Which of course will be a very long time, because naturally CDMA is the better technology, so we must push hard to adopt that instead. The sooner the US wireless companies realize that GSM is inevitable, the better off everyone will be. It's inevitable because everyone else uses it, save for a few traditionally isolationist countries such as the USA and Japan. No other technology has the same chance for universal adoption in the US because each technology has some corporate parent with a vested interest in seeing it succeed. This fact alone will prevent the competing companies from adopting each other's technologies. Sure, we'll end up with dual- and tri-band phones eventually, with the ability to mostly roam through the country--but what will have changed then from the analog days?

    The consumer cares less about what technology the phone uses than whether it will work when turned on. Most consumers have no idea what wireless system their local provider uses, neither do most of the employees of those companies--just call them up and ask. But most people sure as heck know the service boundaries of their cells.

    Uwe Wolfgang Radu
  • Heh, in a way. Except that with infrastructure standards are even more important than with OSs. A phone without infrastructure is about as useful as giving Bach a fancy radio, while a limited OS can still be servicable.

    Uwe Wolfgang Radu
  • GPS, Bluetooth, MP3, MIDI, and the kitchen sink, all wrapped up in a cell phone with internet access over twice as fast as 56K modems. None of these are a great innovation in and of themselves, but together that's pretty spiffy. Wonder what that's going to do to battery life?

    It's also interesting to note that, while this thing's using an ARM-based CPU, the signaling is PowerPC compatible. I knew that Motorola was a big player in the cell phone biz, but didn't think they'd be forcing PPC tech here. Anyone with more info on this?
  • I used to have a GSM phone, then my service provider dumped GSM and replaced it with a CDMA phone. GSM is really taking hold :-). I get better coverage with the CDMA phone. If all else fails, the phone falls back to AMPS.

    GSM may be the standard in other countries but that is irrelevant to most Americans. I might care if I frequently travelled to Europe, but I don't.

  • I'm italian, here's my take on our local situation.
    A few months ago, the number of active GSM phones surpassed the number of active "ordinary" phone lines. There are 4 major GSM connectivity providers, the biggest being TIM (controlled by Telecom Italia, former telehone monopolist) with slightly over 20 million subscribers (out of a population of roughly 65 million). Then there' Omnitel (over 13 million subscribers) owned by Vodaphone, Wind (over 3 million I think) which is owned by the former power distribution monopolist and France Telecom, and the newest arrival Blu (less than 0.5 million subscribers, it's only a few months old).
    Most of the country (I'd take more than 90%) is under GSM coverage. Phone tariffs can vary a bit, from 4 LIT/sec (slightly less than 0.2 US cents) (VAT included, no call setup fee, any destination in Italy, be it mobile or land) for some "summer-special-offers" to as high as 1.2 US$/min (plus 0.1 US$ call setup fee, VAT included) for some tariffs. The call receiver only pays if s/he's doing international roaming (they receive their call while being outside Italy).

    Land lines: we're still in the process of coming out of a monopoly (by Telecom Italia). The last mile is still under monopoly, and the connection fee still goes to Telecom Italia (about 20 US$ / month, no calls included). Besides that, there are three players (Telecom Italia, Infostrada (owned by Vodaphone, I believe), and Wind) offering both local and long-distance calls. Besides them, therere are a few more offering only long-distance, plus a host of local phone companies that are now starting up.
    The network is fully digital (has been for a few years), ISDN is a no-problem (besides being more expensive than analog). Set-up times can vary from a couple of days to a couple of weeks, depending on the location. ADSL takes a month or so to set up.
    Tariffs are normally by-the-second. A few flat offerings are appearing, but they're quite expensive (I believe about 30 US$/month for local calls, or 50$/month for local and long-distance, plus another 30 US$/month for Internet connectivity)
  • Disagree. Australia has a first rate Telco, esp. when listening to complaints here about US West, SWBell etc... Don't even begin to start me on how much money I wasted trying to call Phoenix from a payphone at LAX. Nearly $10 for 10 minutes.

    But yet, one in three people here... 6 million of 19 million, has a GSM or CDMA phone.

  • Competition? Try this in Australia (prices in US dollars):

    • All carriers offering Nokia 3210 - $0 on as low as $5 contract a month.
    • Deals for first twenty minutes of call being free
    • Deals where between 7pm and midnight any cell in AU can call any other phone in AU free of charge, for up to the full time.
    • Call rates as low as 2c/minute.
  • I beleive 3G is going to be WCDMA (by NTT DoCoMo) or CDMA2000 (by Europe somebody) which are their own things. In the meantime, each separate protocols have their 2.5G equivalent so the cell towers don't have to be completely redone.

    Why several different standards? I don't know. It's always happened though. GIF/PNG... AIM/ICQ... POP3/IMAP... Serial/Parallel/USB... WAP/Internet.

  • A recent article [ednmag.com] in EDN Access says that a new technology will allow 90bps/Hz of bandwidth. First generation CDMA uses 1.5 Mhz of bandwidth which should provide 135Mbs!

    Second generation CDMA uses 5 Mhz of bandwidth, which could theoretically provide 450Mbs of bandwidth using the new technology.

  • PacketVideo has announced [packetvideo.com] that with their PVPlatform 1.0 product you can view streaming MPEG-4 compliant video on you PocketPC (and soon other OS) handheld.

    They refer to the product as a codec, so it may require some form of Windows Media player to run.

  • I've got this quote the first time out of an old DOS program that I used to run, called murphy.exe - a fortune clone.

    It is probably floating around in a lot of zappa quote databases like this [science.uva.nl] one.


    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

  • Does this mean that they can drop my calls faster than ever before?

  • GoingWare [goingware.com] interrupts our regularly scheduled broadcast to assert that computer program source code is constitutionally protected free speech.

    http://www.goingware.com/decss [goingware.com]

    We now return you to your program.

  • Hey Jage,

    I think that you missed the point with this one. Qualcomm was able to get 153kbit/s with one person in a moving car. That's quite an accomplishment. This is part of their High Data Rate (HDR) portion of CDMA2000. That specification is aiming at providing 1MB/sec to a stationary person & 384 kbit/s to a walking person.

    Although I don't care to start a holy war with the GSM folks (for those who don't know, the war between CDMA & GSM is almost as ferocious as Gnome vs. KDE, Macintosh vs. Windows, Ford vs. Chevy, etc), I will say that GSM will not get 144 kbit/s in the USA, because of the extremely limited bandwith provided by the FCC. Because of the way the FCC split the 800MHz band, Qualcomm was limited to design CDMA into a 1.25 MHz framework. (IMHO, the FCC did do a much better job allocating the 1900MHz (aka PCS) bandwidth, but we are still stuck with the 800MHz regulations) To get 153 kbit/s in 1.25MHz bandwith is pretty amazing, IMHO.

    Maybe when the FCC auctions off the next frequency, they will take back the 800MHz frequencies and limit them to FDMA (frequency division multiple access, aka AMPS). That way, we would be able to take advantage of a wider spectrum for our data transfer.

    If you want to learn more about CDMA, I recommend looking through the CDG (CDMA Development Group) [cdg.org] website. (should I link to that, or is Judge Kaplan going to get mad =-) )

    Dan
  • Here I go out and buy me one of these "megacars (www.megacar.com)," (you know, the ones with the 16 GSM modules?) and they come out with this. What a waste of $300,000.....sheeoot
  • Yeah, Well, You guys go around opening up nuclear subs that other superpowers lose, so how can we use you as an example?

    Sheesh. Next thing you know you'll be telling us your women are tall, blonde, and curvaceous, so other countries with decent land-lines should have them too.

    If only Norwegian women were as easy as Norwegian cell phones.

  • Anyways, why can't we standardize over here too, I can count about half a dozen 'standards' for wireless com, whereas europe has decided almost universally to use GSM.

    Don't be so quick to jump on the GSM bandwagon. One of the great things about not being "standardized" over here is the competition that non-standardization brings. Look at all the players: AT&T, Sprint, Nextel at the national level and the baby bells and a dozen others at the regional level. What this boils down to is better service and better prices for Joe Consumer, who can get a free phone with his contract for just $29.95/month.

    3G networks might take a while to roll out in the States, but when they do they'll be faster (for data) than the GSM networks, which even with GPRS are moving along a slower (read: cheaper) migration path towards 3G. (And some carriers are skipping 3G entirely in favor of 4G, which may be out around 2005/6.)

    Here are some pertinent articles:


    --

  • Lets see, Finland for example. Mobile phone adoption is at 70.1% last time I checked. Land lines were digitalized 10-20 years ago (meaning phoneline modem CONNECTs at 46000-54000bps). ISDN is available everywhere. Italy is another example, their mobile phone penetration is 50-60% nowadays. I don't believe their land line phones are crappy, either.

    On the other hand, in USA, many local phone companies don't care much about landline infrastructure quality because local phone calls are free and only revenue comes from subscription fee and long distance. They've even been cheating by "splitting the line", halving bandwidth leading to dramatically lower quality.

  • Just 153kbit/s, what's the big deal? GPRS (GSM) *already* delivers 144kbit/s (can be more or less depending on bandwidth allocation, over 170kbit/s is possible in GPRS, right?) and UMTS will give 2Mbit/s next year.
  • Actually, Qualcomm wons CDMA, and Europe is run on GSM, not TDMA.
  • I was at a presentation by a Qualcomm rep about a year ago. He showed us a phone that was about 1/2 inch thick and told us that QCOM was going to be getting multi-megabit speeds on that sort of device within 3 years or so. If they're on schedule (and I have reason to infer that they are), we're soon going to have cable modem speeds available to wireless devices. Man, I can't wait.
  • Very nice page. I've thought of doing one of these myself, with my Nikon CoolPix 800 (even this goofy thing takes time to boot up, sheesh!)

    I'm sure I could get the level of detail showing the hand, compact box and whip antenna of people doing the one-hand drive while discussing Meal-Solutions with the spouse.

    Tech around here is a good thing, just used badly by some very stupid and rude people.

    Bluetooth, OTOH, may be a solution to this if I get a little transmitter to mount in my car and zap people with it! >8-)

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000
  • while reading i just remembered the umts-auction here in germany which has finished last week with an outstanding total bidding of about $45.000.000.000 (~ DM 98.000.000.000) for 16 licenses for the umts-frequences of germany!!!

    actually you need at least two licenses to provide a stable connection. so the companies paid as follows for every 2-licenses-package:
    E-Plus Hutchison DM 16.418.200.000
    Group 3G DM 16.446.000.000
    Mannesmann Mobilfunk DM 16.473.800.000
    MobilCom Multimedia DM 16.370.000.000
    T-Mobil DM 16.582.200.000
    VIAG Interkom DM 16.517.000.000

    nervous? - i think so

    the utms-standard provides up to 2MBit/s stable connection also while moving with a speed of up to 10 km/h.
    but is this worth that price? i dont see it. at last the customers have to pay the price for that nevous chairmans who wanted to be one of the billion-dollar-bit.

    when i see Qualcomms news now, which actually is (almost) ready for the market i can not see the "big deal" in umts for that price.
    qualcomms invention is an raise from 9.6 to 153 - which more than simply satisfaction for any of that guys running the street outside (most available private connectivity is about 56 to 112).

    --RelWorp
  • First of all, 1X (150Kbit/s in each direction) is going to be rapidly deployed since the technology simultaneously doubles the number of phone calls (and also increases battery life) and is a cheap upgrade. Korea, Japan, and US will deploy as soon as the technology is ready. The chips will be in prodoction this year, and the infrastructure vendors will probably be ready to ship upgrades in second half of 2001. Second, both Ford (in joint venture w/Qualcomm) and GM are going to be using CDMA for telematics for model year 2002 (fall 2001) cars. This is going to cause their service providers to upgrade old analog service and perhaps increase the quality of coverage. Third, the successor Qualcomm technology HDR which will support 2.4 Mbits/sec peak (600Kb sustained) will have chips available in 2001. Finally, there is talk of a successor to HDR which will be announced in the next year which is several times HDRs performance. BTW, Handspring is a Qualcomm licensee.

  • Don't be so quick to jump on the GSM bandwagon. One of the great things about not being "standardized" over here is the competition that non-standardization brings.

    That's silly. Standardization does'nt mean less competition; on the contrary. Here, in Europe, as everything is standardized on GSM, once you have own a phone you can change carriers in a pinch (though usually you have to subscribe for a whole year to a same provider who financed your phone).

    Also prices are really going down FAST. Lots of competition.

  • Re:US always behind in wireless? (Score:3)

    by Eivind Eklund ( 5161 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @09:01AM (#830186) Journal
    This is not correct. I live in Norway; we have one of the largest wireless adoption rates in the world (last year, there were sold half as many handsets as there are people); getting a landline usually goes plenty fast (a day or two if you insist on getting it quickly.)

    Cellular adoption rates are large because getting cellulars is easy. I can walk into a random gas-station, pay less than $50, and walk out again with a working phone (depending on the gas-station - if they are connected to the 'bad' cellular network, I might have to wait until the next business day for the phone to be activated.)

    Eivind.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:3)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @06:34PM (#830187)
    I'm sorry to say, but your story reinforces what I said. If there weren't endlessly competing systems, providers wouldn't be switching back and forth all the time, and people's investments in phones might actually be worth something. As is stands, GTE recently merged with Verizon, and I hear my Sony phone (barely a year old) might soon be useless. I hear stories like this all the time. In the US it means: change provider, change phone, as simple as that. Even if they might use the same technology, most providers will ensure one way or another that you buy their phone.

    GSM is also far from irrelevant in America for the reasons I listed in the original post. It's nobody's technology so to speak, while CDMA is Qualcomm's or whatever. It's easier to rally around a neutral technology than to give up your own and embrace your competitor's. While your provider might have dumped GSM, I wouldn't look for that trend to continue forever. GSM is the only standard that has consistently grown worldwide. Eventually even the US will follow the trend, sooner or later.

    Uwe Wolfgang Radu

  • Re:US always behind in wireless? (Score:3)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @08:55AM (#830188) Homepage Journal
    The US is behind in wireless for one basic reason: Our land lines are much better than elsewhere. Look at countries with huge wireless adoption rates. Now correlate that with the time (or possibly cost) required to obtain a regular wire phone line. You'll see that there's a strong correlation.

    Wireless is exploding in many countries due to necessity.

    At the present, this seems like a curse for those of us in the USA. On the other hand, it suggests that in the long run we may end up with a system built in the '00s while the rest of the world is living with systems from the '90s. That's probably just sour grapes, though.

  • Canada (Score:3)

    by a.out ( 31606 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @08:49AM (#830189)
    "Expected in the United States and Japan sometime in 2001" ... and in Canada by 2047. Seriously. :)
    From the article
    "It includes position location, Bluetooth capability, MP3, MIDI"
    GPS, very cool, how many times have you been out with your friends, in a new area, and you are trying to find out where everyone is? Having a "Tell someone where you are" (exactly) type technology would be very cool. Bluetooth, very cool but: MIDI ??? God help us all if I'm in a eatery somewhere and someone's mobile device starts playing some crappy MIDI song..... oh wait a sec.... nevermind.

  • US always behind in wireless? (Score:3)

    by linuxonceleron ( 87032 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @08:48AM (#830190) Homepage
    [rant] It seems like the US is falling behind in the wireless business. Europe and Asia both are ahead of us in deployment of towers for communication as well as having more advanced handsets. Where I live, ~6mi outside one of the largest cities on the east coast, we have nonexistant analog coverage and spotty digital connections. Building communication towers here is difficult because some yuppie mom has to complain about not wanting the thing in her backyard so they have to put it in the middle of a forest away from civilization and just expect it to work. Anyways, why can't we standardize over here too, I can count about half a dozen 'standards' for wireless com, whereas europe has decided almost universally to use GSM. [/rant] Well, when I can get my 153kbit CDMA connection for my laptop out in the suburbs, I'll be happy with our infrastructure, of course it won't happen until 2005+ for real and end up costing $100/mo but whatever....

  • Why Three Standards? (Score:3)

    by suwalski ( 176418 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @09:12AM (#830191)
    From what I remember a few years ago, 3G was supposed to bridge the three standards (TDMA, CDMA, GSM) together. Instead, 3G phones are coming out in exactly those three systems. What gives? Can you imagine how much money could be saved and how much better the deigital coverage on each system could be if everyone used the same standard?

  • Re:Some Real-World Numbers... (Score:3)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @09:20AM (#830192) Homepage Journal
    That seems to be about half the advertised speed of several home DSL services

    Yeah, but it's hell driving anywhere with that DSL cable spool in the back of the car, especially when a train cuts it, back where you drover over a track.

    But does anyone have any idea what satellite bandwidth is?
    While driving? Uh. Dunno, the CHP took away my Beetle when they caught me driving around with 6 foot dish on top.

    2. I think cellular price structures are complete works of fiction

    Not unlike Cable TV rates, CD prices, gas prices, the herd logic drives the stock market and whatever excuses people come up with for needing to talk, surf, play MIDI, etc. in their cars at 153Kb/S. This'll all look so impressive sitting on a roadside picnic table as cities and states pass laws ban use of these nice toys by drivers.

    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

  • Tough Test (Score:3)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @09:04AM (#830193) Homepage Journal
    The videoconference demonstration was conducted under the most difficult real-world conditions, Qualcomm said, between a stationary laptop and an in-vehicle laptop while the vehicle was in motion.


    SO! That's who's been making my Highway 17 commute suck so bad! Some twit surfing the web, video conferencing, yakking away and probably picking his nose all that the same time all for the sake of progress.


    Vote [dragonswest.com] Naked 2000

  • Faster (Score:4)

    by interiot ( 50685 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @10:02AM (#830194) Homepage
    On June 23rd, Ericsson demonstrated a speed of 384kbps on an EDGE/GPS network (here [ericsson.com]).

    The fastest mobile wireless speed I've seen announced on more than a test basis was in Turkey at 26kbps (here [corporate-ir.net]).

    Though if you don't mind not being able to surf when in motion, Richochet has 28kbps now, becoming 128kbps soon, in several US cities (here [ricochet.com]). Ricochet claims they can go 70mph, but some people on Epinions.com disagree.

  • Caller should always pay (Score:4)

    by mjpk ( 86198 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @11:03AM (#830195)
    One of the main reasons cellular is slow to catch up in the states is the policy of cell phone owner paying for the call when he answers the phone.

    So people are reluctant to use the cellular which lowers the revenue providers get and forces them to have obviously inpenetrable call plans and ultimately high prices. Another reason for the confusion and high prices is the bundling of phones and actual telephony services. Competition gets seriously impaired.

    Here in Finland this is forbidden by the law, which is one reason for our penetration rates. Another is low pricing (5 US cents per minute with 3 US dollars monthly fee at the lowest) which partially follows from gov't policy of not charging for the licences to provide these services. Same goes with Sweden, so here you go..

    The average customer has to feel secure about understanding pricing to really use these devices.
    Oh, and I could get ADSL in two weeks max if I wanted..

  • Re:Not the land lines, it's the flat fee (Score:5)

    by morzel ( 62033 ) on Thursday August 24, 2000 @09:34AM (#830196)
    The highest penetration degrees in Europe are in Scandinavia, with Finland on top. I can remember something about being more cellular phones sold over there than there are Finns to use them :-)

    The quality of the landlines down here is pretty good: most of them are connected to digital switches, and ISDN is widely available. The time to obtain a new line is in most countries no longer than a couple of days.

    The big difference is that in the US local calls are flat-fee, which doesn't make it interesting for the telcos. They earn their money with long-distance and subscription. Over here, there is no such thing as a flat fee for local calls, which makes the pricing structure of GSM subscriptions very much like an ordinary phone connection.
    In the States, people rather stick to their flat-fee landline than having to use a cellular, on which local calls aren't included in the subscription fee.

    Over here in Europe, telephone is simply much more expensive than in the US of A, which is a bad thing (less beer), and a good thing (better beers ;-).

    Please do not accept that wireless is exploding due to 'necessity' when you're talking about most of Europe, and countries as Japan. Here in Belgium we have the reputation of being the most densely cabled country of the world, and yet cellular phone adoption rate is over 50%.


    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close