Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

UK to get 100kbps+ over cellular phones in June 109

Posted by Hemos from the time-to-move dept.
evilandi writes "Cellnet, British Telecom's cellular division, has officially announced that GPRS will go live on 30th June 2000 with 99% UK population coverage (including most rural areas). GPRS, General Packet Radio Service, provides always-on packet-switched ISDN-like bandwidth over a mobile telephone. This will be a boon to mobile office workers and rednecks like me who live out in the sticks (as my wife points out), out of range of ISDN, DSL and cable. The price, has yet to be announced. " Wow. I want. And I was even thinking about moving to the UK for a while anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK to get 100kbps+ over cellular phones in June More

UK to get 100kbps+ over cellular phones in June

Comments Filter:

  • The price is certain to be extortionate (Score:3)

    by Yarn ( 75 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @07:02AM (#1343055) Homepage
    This is BT we're talking about. I'd guess the price will be of the order of 5pence a minute+connection.

    (FYI: 100 pence / pound, one pound ~ 1.6 US$)

  • Yay (Score:1)

    by British ( 51765 )
    Finally another kick in the pants to US West for not having DSL available in my area due to distance/red tape limitations.
  • I don't think you pay per minute: it is there is no connection when you are not sending/receiving data. You will probably pay per Mb or something.
  • Now if America could get on with this "best thing for the consumer" thing instead of wasting their time on trying to suck every penny out of 56K dial-up and actually do something _productive_, we could all be walking around completely wireless. We have the technology and the money, we're just too lazy. Palm VII with 100Kbps access. Nice

  • And cellphones were a problem before.. (Score:3)

    by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @07:05AM (#1343059) Homepage
    Now you'll be able to get ultra fast data transfers over them. How many accidents will be caused because the driver was surfing while driving to work?

    "I'm sorry, Officer, but this porn site just popped up, and my eyes left the road.."

    I mean, people already read (while driving) to work..
    ---
  • From what I've heard, an ISP in Perth offers a similar service, and although it's apparently rather expensive compared to modem access, if you need the speed it's worth it. For more info try iinet.general [iinet.general] or their homepage [iinet.net.au]. NB This is Perth, Australia, not Perthm Scotland.
  • > Now if America could get on with this "best
    > thing for the consumer" thing instead of wasting > their time on trying to suck every penny out of > 56K dial-up

    Sorry, this is the same America where people can actually use cable modems, and even when they can't their phone calls aren't metered?

    Compared to the UK with it's metered phone calls (makes for expensive internet) and DSL in "test mode" with roll out constantly being put back.

    When it comes to internet access, America can hardly complain about not getting a good deal.
  • Yarn wrote: This is BT we're talking about. I'd guess the price will be of the order of 5 pence a minute+connection.

    Whilst I agree that BT will probably take every opportunity to shaft me over, the fact is that they can't charge per minute for this service.

    GPRS is always on.

    It's always there, permanently. There is no dialling, no placing a call, no handshaking... it's a permanent connection.

    Now the question is, will they charge by the byte? Initially, I suspect so- and through the nose, no doubt.

    But I live outside the reach of ADSL, cable and ISDN, so frankly I don't care! I'll get a better paid job if that's what it takes to get some bandwidth out here in the Cotswolds!

    --

  • Packeted data transmision technology using current mobile GSM technology; wauw! This will mean an enormous boom for mobile ICT in Europe (other countries in Europe will follow shortly), because the GSM infrastructure is everywhere in Europe. Maybe it is wise to invest in GSM infrastructure in the US now...?
  • At a recent symposium at Twente University, The Netherlands the president and CEO of Ericsson in The Netherlands pointed out that Europe is way ahead of the USA when it comes to wireless services. By his estimate a 2 to 3 years. What he was wondering though was, if Europe would become a dominating force in the mobile services market.

    Now, we have the bandwith, but what will be the appliances, what will be the killer-app?

  • quoting BT announcement:
    Initially GPRS handsets and data cards will be capable of operating at speeds five to ten times faster than on current GSM networks.
    current GSM data rate is 9.6KBs, so 9.6 x 10 = a (maximum) rate of 96KBs, comparable to 1.5 ISDN B channels.
    I also wonder about lags, since the user is "virtually" on, but the actual packets transmissions tackes place only when data is coming to (or going from) the user.
  • If you're talking about http://www.iinet.net.au/products/netw ork.html [iinet.net.au], then the only wireless service they offer is "Wireless links to the QV.1 tower" which I very much suspect is a microwave job.

    Wolverhampton University [wolverhampton.ac.uk] (home of the classic WITCH [wlv.ac.uk] 1948 historic computer) has had a similar microwave Internet connection since the early 1980's.

    --

  • Don't bet on it being cheap (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If BT are willing to charge £90 per month (roughly $160) for ASDL access (when they finally get round to it) I imagine we'll be looking at something similar to current ISDN prices to use the service.

    I bet they haven't sorted out all the bugs either.

    Paul
  • Would that be near Wales, then?

  • I can get 14.4k right now through my cell phone. Still pay airtime though, so I don't consider it a big win. I'm still waiting for reasonably priced high speed access, but belive me, I've considered this more then once.

    While other posters are correct that Eurpoe is ahead of the US in wireless, that is partially because our land lines phones aren't as expensive. When you have to pay 10 cents a minute to call you may as well have the convience of a cell phone. When it doesn't cost you anything (extra) to use the land phone vs 10 cents a minute for the cell, you try to use the land line phone wherever possibal. (Note that 10 cents is a estimate, and not intended to reflect accual prices which vary)

    All in all this is good though. It brings my dream of the floating office closer to reality. I can't wait until the time when I work from the lake.

  • 5 pence a minute per packet then
  • Do you guys get charged per SECOND or per MINUTE for phone use? I have a friend in London who calls me once a month for about an hour..(I'm in NYC), and I ask him if he's paying thru the nose..and he says no...he pays the same even if he's calling down the block! That's insane!
  • In its concept, it's perfect. It makes elegant use of the available bandwidth: it uses the bandwidth of several GSM channels if possible. They will probably charge by the amount of data transmitted, and even though it's expensive, I personally don't mind: you're not going to download the latest kernel with it, nor browse HTML pages with megabytes of images anyway. No, you will be connected virtually all the time, and that's what's great about it.
  • Ahhhhhh finally, high bandless wireless. This should kill WAP, if the WAP patentsquatting [slashdot.org] fiasco doesn't kill it first.
  • This is not a technology breakthrough, but rather a profit decision. Wireless connections are already technically feasible from 100kbps all the way up to really fast. The main problem is that there is a huge investment in 14kbps hardware on the telcos part and they don't want to take losses on that (they still need to recoup their investment). I think we can expect to see a gradual shift (with high cost/scattered service areas) to higher bandwidth, but it will be following a cost/profit graph at the telcos and not be so dependent on tech improvements.
  • The 100kbit per sec figure quoted is the rate if all (8?) channels are used by one device, in practice that wouldn't happen and you would get much less bandwidth than that.
  • Nortel Networks announced a couple of weeks ago the successful completion of a set of end-to-end Wireless Internet calls over a complete GPRS system provided in 1999 for test purposes to French GSM operator Bouygues Telecom. I wonder if the BT folks are going to partner with Bouygues to cover both countries seamlessly.

    Never knock on Death's door:

  • Now, we have the bandwith, but what will be the appliances, what will be the killer-app?
    ebait.com: select the right bait when out there fishing.
    ICaUFO: Seti on the road.
    slashspot.org: Where is the nearest loo?
    everywhere.org: ...
  • > current GSM data rate is 9.6KBs, so 9.6 x 10 = a > (maximum) rate of 96KBs, comparable to 1.5 ISDN > B channels.

    I was under the impression that GSM was 9.6 Kbits/sec. The same as the US CDMA and TDMA digital standards. And I doubt it would be async, so it would be 9.6x8 (Those start and stop bits would be way to valuable in airtime).

    As for lags, it is probally going to be on the same order as CDPD (A standard in the US that coexists with AMPS) I got 600-1000 ms, but that was on a 19.2 kbps link (which performed like a 14.4).

  • The local call charge is about 1p per minute in the evening or at the weekend, dependent on the telco and chosen pricing scheme. With a calling card, calls to the US cost as little as 2p or 3p a minute.

  • Cellnet = British Telecom (Score:3)

    by sufi ( 39527 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @07:48AM (#1343089) Homepage
    British Telecom come out with new and whacky marketing ideas about as regularly as intel do. This sounds remarkably like the DSL/ADSL promises that BT made about 2 years ago, and many other promises besides.

    ADSL via BT was promised at 2MB down 512Kb up, they trialed, it went down to 1MB down 128Kb up, they trialed again, it went to 2MB down, 128Kb up, but shared between you and the rest of the city.

    Now they are about ready to launch, but only if you live in sidcup and you have a bit of string long enough to stretch to the exchange, it doesn't go over a puddle and it doesn't endanger the lifes of any pigeons that may live in your area.

    BT wouldn't know broadband if it jumped up behind them and pumped a rocket into their ass. They are incompetent mi-managed and generally wasteful!

    I won't hold my breath, and I certainly wouldn't move country for it!

    :o)

  • WAP (Score:1)

    by QE2 ( 124729 )
    Wonder what this means for WAP? WAP is, of course, optimised for low bandwidth devices. The first wave are based on GSM.
  • ...the steering wheel at the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions. Driving one-handed is an safety hazard!
  • Problem with this idea is that in the UK at least, the government sells wireless network licences to the highest bidder.

    You'd probably need to have a few hundred million GBP spare if you wanted to play.

  • Re:GPRS not quite that fast... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, in practice you're prolly lucky if you can get 20k.

    And to those saying this will kill WAP.. well, WAP is a PROTOCOL, it starts at the transport layer, GPRS is below that.

  • GPRS over GSM is coming to the US as well. I happen to work with a couple of guys that we liberated from AT&T. They, being architects of the CDPD data network currently in place, are in a position to know about these things. Also, the first whack at GPRS over GSM will be 128k. Next it will ramp up to 256k and so on.. It will take a while for us to catch up with the europeans due to the proponderence of different carrier formats for cellular traffic here in the states..

  • WAP can be used over several types of connections. For example SMS, GSM data OR GPRS. WAP is protocol family, and it really doesn't have anything to do with courier type. Like HTML doesn't care wheter connection is modem, cabel-modem or what ever. You can even use your internet connection to use WAP applications. (if you have WAP browser). Actually GPRS makes WAP better, because it makes it faster...


  • Yes, but the point is that it's optimised for low bandwith connections, isn't it? If I can achieve in excess of 70Kbps on a permenenet connection, all I need is a larger screen to handle the bitmaps and other bandwidth intensive data, so why shouldn't I stick with the HTML/HTTP/WWW/TCP/IP stack in preference to WAP? Why buy into this concept of these parallel websites (WML and HTML)?

    jus a thought

  • Re:Ding, dong the WAP is dead (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sorry, WAP runs over GPRS, it's sort of like TCP over IP.

    The other thing I want to point out is that GPRS is just the beginning, wait for EDGE (300Kbps) and UMTS(>2Mbps) in the next 5 years. Really, the future is wireless. Why do you think Transmeta [transmeta.com] chose to spend 5 years developing a killer-chip for wireless devices, rather just a high performance desktop chip?

  • The /. newsbit has "100kbps+" in the title, but I can't find anything about data transfer rates in the article...
  • Here in the US you can get Ricochet from Metricom [metricom.com] if you live in DC, San Francisco or Seattle. Their press says that they're going to 128kbs, and it's unlimited connection time. Works on a frequency hopping spread spectrum radio system. The coverage sucks outside those three cities, just major airports and a few universities. Linux isn't offically supported but you guys with linux laptops are used to that.
  • Transmeta should stick these GPRS cellphone thingies in Crusoe webpads and sell them in the UK...

  • permenenet connection, all I need is a larger screen to handle the bitmaps and other bandwidth intensive data, so why shouldn't I stick with the HTML/HTTP/WWW/TCP/IP stack in preference to WAP? Why buy into this concept of these parallel websites (WML and HTML)?


    If you are really going to carry that large display (portable computer, web pad etc?) around, you probably won't be interested in WAP. I myself prefer small protable devices like cell phones, which never will have that big screen. Offcourse there are different needs for wireless communication, GPRS is step in good direction for all of them.

    I won't be surfing with my phone. Just buying movie tickets, cheking timetables, paying bills, reading email etc. The good thing about WAP concept is that in few years everybody has allready WAP-enabled phone (in Europe). You don't have to buy any additional gadget. Personal portable computer (or even PDA) coverage is going to be significantly less.

  • Surely if enough grassroots voters got involved the government could be persuaded to set aside one frequency range for public use as opposed to corporate interest.

    After all, CB radio and HAM radios have their frequency ranges. Surely governement could be lobbied to add one more to this list.

  • Re:Yes! (Score:1)

    by uh ( 127786 )
    Local is free. Long distance you pay. Standard service charge is $15 w/amenties (3-way, call-{waiting,id}) its ~ $25

  • BT Monopoly and Competition (Score:3)

    by mattjp ( 78634 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @08:50AM (#1343107)
    BT's doing something cutting edge and interesting? I have my doubts but will check it out later. (looked at Cellnet's website today but didn't notice anything). IF this is true, then it is happening because there is real and murderous competition in the UK cellular market. Prices are really competetive and investment levels really high. 4 companies compete in that market and BT's Cellnet is by no means the largest (2nd and worst rep.) This is in stark contrast to the wired market where BT's monopoly in the local loop means that we can forget about ADSL for the near future (if ever!!) and ISDN is exhorbitantly expensive. Well, either way, I hope it is true though given the state of Cellnet's present network (bloody awful) I have doubts. Bye

  • Re:not so speedy..... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The maximum bandwidth of these things will eventually be 178kbs, and that is per cell not per user, so that bandwidth you actually get is 178/No. of users in cell, a bit like what you folks in the US have with cable modems. The billing scheme is per packet. It is worthy to note that GPRS is only an interim scheme for about 3-4 years, before the deployment of UMTS offering 2Mbps of bandwidth!! I think thats about all I can give, before I am hunted down by the Motorola Secret Police and get shot.

  • Higher Wireless Speeds in the USA (Score:3)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @08:54AM (#1343109) Journal
    Basestations use a ds0 56K frame relay connection. AT&T will have to upgrade all the cell sites with new hardware and more bandwith. At 250K cost per site, usage is a big priority factor. (*Note - Bandwith Bandwith Bandwith)

    When AT&T upgrades the basestations at the end of this year to GSM we will start to see 3G products. Speeds will start at 128K then upto 768K.

    WAP/Hdml will stick around for phones, but people want to view websites with html,java, vscript, shockwave, etc... 1 Bit bitmaps and text doesnt cut it.

    Also if you cant wait for wireless data, check out the new CDPD phone from Mitsubishi. Its the same size a nokia, has Indeglo screen, 10 Lines of display, and a jack to hookup your laptop, 128bit encyrption.
    http://www.mobileaccessphone.com/products/index.ht m [mobileaccessphone.com]

    You can use this phone with AT&T Pocketnet CDPD Service. Its the one I use. (Oh yeah, ask about the Unlimited access)
    Personal @ http://www.attws.com/personal/pocketnet/index.html [attws.com]
    Business @ http://www.attws.com/business/pocketnet/index.html [attws.com]

    Hey, if Slashdot ever has an HDML page, Alot of us mobile junkies would love it. (If I just had time to get the darn html-hdml convertor working..)

  • I think that to use 100 KBPS on GPRS takes the equivalent of 8 voice channels. This service is meant for bursty use, with a lot of people sharing the same data channel per cell, where you download a web page to your little palmtop screen and then you don't touch the net for a while. Sustained use would be very expensive and you'd still have to share the data channel with everybody else in your cell. Don't expect to use this as your regular Internet provider.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Speaking as not only devil's advocate, but as one of his daemons, I feel obliged to point out that the higher prices charged by BT are part of the competition drive by Oftel (The Telecomms fair trade regulator for those not in the UK).

    BT are not allowed to bring their prices down without significant justification, simply because BT have the capacity to drive competitors out of the market. None of BT's current competitors (no, not even CWC) could sustain a price war at the moment, so Oftel hold a restricting barrier against price cuts by BT.

    Hopefully, in the next few years, the UK fixed line Telecomms market will become competitive enough to satisfy Oftel that we can be left to our own devices.
  • I know I know offtopic but......

    I must commend the author on personalizing the original post.

    You should consider putting a house there, that was a really nice view, and whoever the woman in the picture is, she has a very nice smile.

  • Close. Gloucestershire [custodian.com].

    --

  • Now I can run my server out of my backpack and carry it with me anywhere I go!
  • *sigh*
    Read the linked page. It's not a circuit-switched connection model anymore. It's a permanent virtual circuit, probably charged by either usage (in terms of data) or by subscription. That's a first, AFAIK, for any UK phone system, and worth noting in itself.
  • AugstWest asks: Where is the "100kbps+" bit coming from?

    Second paragraph in: http://www.gsmdata.com/paprysavy.htm [gsmdata.com]

    This is just the first phase. GPRS is scalable so you can add more bandwidth. Question is, at what price?

    Then there's IMT [itu.int] which will do 2mbs, alledgedly, but requires significant hardware upgrade at the transmitter sites (unlike GPRS which is just "GSM Plus", slot a new board into the existing basestation box'o'tricks, plug in the fibre and yer done, mate).

    --

  • GPRS sucks (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    because in reality you can get 15-20 kbps at most.. With GSM you can already get 14.4 kbps. The only difference with GPRS is that you don't have to make a call to use some services. Is that a reason to buy a new phone?? I think that my GSM phone will be enough until the UMTS arrives.
  • It's not red tape... it's economics.

    DSL really can't be supported beyond a 5 or 6 mile radius from the nearest "upgraded" switching station, since quality (manifested as speed) decreases with distance. According to U S WEST, the cost of upgrading the stations simply isn't justified in rural/fringe areas. They polled a number of residents some time back and asked whether they would be willing to pay a little more for DSL access in order to equate the costs. An overwhelming majority said no.

    If you live in a densely-populated area, then I'm sure they're on the way.
  • Competitive ? I doubt it.

    Perhaps if companies such as C&W invested in their own local loops and exchanges then we'd see some real competition.

    As it is, I have analogue phone and cable TV from C&W, provided over their own fibre.

    NOw, I wanted ISDN, so I though 'Hell, I'll try C&W'. So I ordered from C&W, and who comes to install it ? A BT engineer. And he installs a standard BT ISDN2e connection via BT cables, abnd I just have a routing box from C&W that I plug in between my TA and the wall socket.

    If Cable & Wireless can't even provide an ISDN service to me when they already have Cable TV and analogue phone lines into my house, what hope is there ?

  • GPRS out loud (Score:3)

    by NightParrot ( 29838 ) on Monday January 24, 2000 @11:54AM (#1343125)
    Please tell me that's pronounced "jeepers".
  • You're missing the point. With high bandwidth, there's no reason wireless web browsing shouldn't be anything other than HTTP over TCP/IP .. just like the wired desktop is today. No one is arguing that wireless is unimportant. Of course it is important and is the future. It just won't be WAP.
  • WAP is parallel with and incompatible to HTTP/TCP/IP. It's only advantage is that it is optimized for 1) low bandwidth and 2) low resolution display devices. High bandwidth wireless connections eliminate the need for 1). The natural growth in power of handhelds over time (Transmeta is the next step in this progression) means 2) can be done in the handheld rather than in the WAP server.
  • The problem with trying to achieve the maximum theoretical speed is essentially the same as with cable modems; the capacity is shared between different users. Because the radio frequencies are limited, for the end user - in the best case - the maximum theoretical speed is around 100 kbs.

    It would possible (in theory, that is) for the telecom company to guarantee that bandwidth, but it would be extremely expensive and nowhere near profitable. It is feasible to get a speed around 30-40 kbs, which is still considerably more than what current GSM data gives.

    So, whenever you hear 100 kbs, repeat the word marketing to yourself.

  • I won't hold my breath, and I certainly wouldn't move country for it!

    And let's not forget the joys of metered internet access! 1.65p a minute + 5p to connect + 6 quid a month for line rental. I just can't wait till they get their act together and give us unmetered access on a normal 56K modem. This LocalHell freak show makes me very tired indeed.

    support CUT [unmetered.org.uk]

  • Canada has decent GSM coverage too (via Fido/Microcell). Poor CDMA USA.

  • Sorry (Score:1)

    by Yarn ( 75 )
    for any inaccuracy. I was drunk.
  • All the new mobiles have the web stuff built in. No need for a Palm V.

  • Okay, so how much would the equipment cost me?rough estimate?
  • What companies (investment opportunities!) are involved in building and operating the GSM/GPRS infrastructure in the US?
  • Which companies do you see as good investment pportunities to take advantage of GSM/GPRS in the states? How do you see GSM/GPRS competing with CDMA/CPCD?
  • Ive been wondering how AT&T will continute to provide CDPD support and also do GPRS. But they are moving in that direction, they have been for the last 2 years.
    AT&T chose the easiest route to upgrade to GSM, while other phone companies chose other technologies. GSM is the future, UK did it right.
    AT&T still needs to support the people who make the investment in CDPD. Very curious indeed...

  • Well there really are two answers: one cost for the folks who want to set up a router and another for the people who only want to talk to a router.

    My guess is the radio unit for end user would have to be able to transmit and receive between 5 to 10 miles, just long enough to get to a nearby router. I bet cell phone technology could already do this pretty well, especially because it could be plugged in all the time, so replace the battery cost with multiplexing to up bandwidth. My guess is this is doable for $500 and if people started doing it noticably, Motorola or somebody would start to market a product for it and the cost would plummit.

    The expensive part would be the wireless routers. Maybe the routers need to go 25 to 50 miles (long enough to get from town to town) and carry 100X the bandwidth. It would probably take special amplifiers to listen to faint signals that far away. Maybe some echo repeaters if you are for from anything. My guess (and it is a wild one) is that this could be done for $10K - $20K.

    I realize this is a lot, but to get started you only need a handful of these heavy duty transmitters. I know people who have spent this on HAM radio. Also people could do it cooperatively. Furthermore, once towns can reach each other a critical mass can be reached pretty easily. Once you shake out an open standard, then maybe a company like CISCO releases their wireless router to compete in this market segment and a few companies and universities start playing and off it goes.

    It may be a stretch, but it's not THAT far fetched.
  • Here in Canada you pay $20 a month and you get unlimited calling in Canada. That means I can spend 50 hours talking to my neighbour or 50 hours talking to somebody 6000 km away. It all shows up as $20.

  • just imagine yourself in the car: your car mp3 player (or laptop, or rio style device) is connected to your cell phone and you're listening to shoutcast & icecast streams. That's cool.
  • AC: Do you have a working TV perched on a non-working TV?

    Sort of. I have an old 1980's Sony RGB computer monitor plugged into my VCR instead of a TV, and I have a barely functional old black and white TV sitting under my dusty Atari ST monitor.

    Does the bed of your truck bed four?

    I'm British. We have smaller cars. I own a Daihatsu Terios 4x4 [demon.co.uk]. It beds two- me and my wife, both 190cm.

    Are you humming a song at this moment about someone doin' someone else wrong?

    Does Nine Inch Nails "Starfuckers" count?

    Are there also Oakies, hillbillies and rubes in the sticks? Are there even sticks?

    I used the word "redneck" 'cos I was writing to an American audience. I would normally have said "yokels" as in "local yokels".

    But oh yes, there are sticks [custodian.com].

    --

  • WAP is optimised for *mobile* devices, as well as low-bandwidth connections. It provides a lot of information back to the server such as the cell you're in, as well as providing reasonable state information, so that the server knows who you are without a cookie hack. It also handles latency better than TCP/IP, so when you disappear into a tunnel while driving you don't lose your connection to the server.

    And HTML & WAP, no; XML to WML, HTML or whatever you please, yes.

  • this is an attempt o liven up the GSM standard for a bit longer. Motorolla (and probably Qualcomm) are working on T1-speed for CDMA. I no fscking clue what to do with all that bandwidth in one tiny phone, or even when hooked to a palm pilot. one thing is for sure, it will be fun to use it on laptops... a Crusoe webpad comes to mind... maybe ones that fold to the size of a palm...

    nahh, that's way to futuristic :-)
  • None of the handset manufacturers has shown a GPRS capable handset, even at trade shows AFAIK.

    Existing handsets cannot do GPRS, and you cannot buy one that does.

    There may be a "commercial" launch in June, but to whom?

    IIRC, HSCSD (High Speed Circuit Switched Data) *can* be used with existing handsets, and will be available on the Orange network in the UK before June. HSCSD is effectively bonding of multiple timeslots.


  • Bandless wireless? I can type that fast sometimes :-)

    I've installed and am testing GPRS for a project. I even got to choose some of the cell sites to upgrade, so naturally the best one just happens to serve my house :-) and the other my office, and since there is no billing on my circuit I can keep a 14kbps channel open from home to work all the time. It just supplements my other wireless project [slashdot.org], and an ISDN circuit.

    We're still using WAP over GPRS, because the business model means that every little bit of use is going to be charged for. All WDP packets are routed into a local WAP gateway machine, and only WAP traffic is allowed to pass from internet to handsets. There is also a pure data pipe application for companies, which BT/cellnet are already testing in the City.

    I'm also trying to implement free (as in open source) versions of WAP/WDP, so that I can plug a linux box into my nokia and have a permanent IP connection. That would be useful for having email delivered instead of dialing up with fetchmail, xntpd could get stable, the works. I'm also hammering on the suits to make a very low cost or flat rate permanent GPRS so many people in remote locations can have a semblance of a permanent net presence. Then they could charge for the bursty traffic that a user would need occasionally. But suits have no vision, even if the figures are good and solid.

    If you are looking to make a lot of money, get into the billing application business. BT, Boygues, and all the other GSM operators are trying to figure out how to charge for every packet crossing the ether, with extremely expensive packages for bandwidth hogs.

    This cellnet offer will first be in the City, all the pico cell sites are in place and wired. But expect the suits to dither around for quite a while trying to figure out how to make the maximum $$$ (should be pound signs) out of early adopters. They are also going to use this offer as a big stick to extract many favors from OfTel before allowing the public to have it. BT is trying hard to make everyone hate them [ntk.net].

    the AC
  • Current GSM net data rate is 9.6 kbit/sec, but this figure includes a hefty overhead for error detection/correction in the channel coder. The GSM full rate end EFR voice codecs are both 13 kbit/sec, while there is a (newish) standardised 14.4 kbit/s data rate which works by choosing a different channel coding scheme. Also, there are 8 timeslots on a GSM carrier, not 10.

    The gross data rate of a GSM carrier is 270.833 kbit/s divided between 8 timeslots of equal length (156.25 bits each). Of these, 148 bits can carry useful data whilst the remaining bits are guard bits etc. to cope with differing delays between mobiles which are at different distances to the base station. Of these 148 bits, in the normal switched GSM data scheme of things, 114 bits carry real data, 2 bits are used for frame 'stealing' indications and 56 bits are used for a channel training sequence. This gives (if I did my maths properly) a raw bit rate before channel coding of 24700 bits/sec on a GSM timeslot. There is a further loss of capacity due to the coding techniques used by the channel coder which leads to the 13 kbit/s available for a voice channel. 14.4k data uses a different channel coder to get around the problem (at the expense of performance in poor signal areas)

    The actual performance which can be delivered by GPRS depends on three main factors: the number of slots on the carrier which are configured to support GPRS traffic (this can be from 1 to 8 in theory, but in rollout it is likely to be between 2 and 4 in most networks (there is the possibility in some networks to vary this according to the relative switched/packet load); the number of slots supported by the mobile - estimates are that the first generation of GPRS mobiles will support only 1 or 2 slot operation; and the number of users of the shared packet channel.

    Thus, and assuming an otherwise unoccupied packet channel, the first generation GPRS mobiles are likely to give data rates in the range of 16 kbit/s (one slot) to 33 kbit/s (two slot). If you had a second generation GPRS mobile capable of doing 8 slot GPRS, the theoretical maximum performance is around 115 kbit/s (NB: not a precise figure - I don't have the GPRS coder details to hand) which ought, in practice, to give performance similar to a 64 kbit/s ISDN line.

    In summary, I wouldn't throw away the trusty analogue modem just yet...
  • Wireless markup language (WML) defines a simple (and easily parsed, because it is XML and well formed) way of describing pages, which is suitable for a device with a very small screen, little memeory, no mouse and a numeric keypad (i.e. a phone).
    Sure, if you are using a device without these restrictions, HTML allows for richer content, but even if you have loads of bandwidth, you are not likely to want to view big pages on the screen of a cellular phone.
  • Just a few things, I know of a Open Source implementation of a WAP gateway, it's at http://www.wapgateway.org, how good it is I don't know. You mentioned billing application is the way to make money, making money I'm interested and I write business software for a living (billing apps for telco included :-). The only problem is I don't have a good WAP gateway to work on (The Nokia one seems to assume that the carrier is CSD not GPRS) I'm sure there is much more interesting data that the telco will be collecting for billing purposes. I need to have the same platform the telco is using to build the billing apps, up till know I haven't found any :-( Any one got any idea??
  • I dunno if that's 'too futuristic'... Did you see the pic of Qualcomm's proposed 3G cellphone? The one that uses the e.Ink LCD that kind of bends up under the keypad when the phone is closed? They're obviously thinking along those lines.

    Asmodean
  • I think it was on /., but I remember reading an article on "VDMA Technology" -- Basically, the Virtual Division Multiple Access allows exactly that scheme, and uses MIR technology (still tied up in court battles, I think) to do low-power routing even while the phones are off.
  • This is British Telecom who are doing this, right? In that case you can be sure the charges will be so massively high that it just won't be worth it unless you are some kind of rich businessman or something. If something freaky happens like e.g. it turns out NOT to be massively expensive I might have to see about getting a mobile phone myself and dump HomeHighway (BT's "home" version of ISDN2).

    Also.. slightly offtopic.. but does anyone actually know of any 0800-number ISPs in the UK who a) have actually launched, b) have not subsequently crashed and burned and c) don't cost £50 a month and still require you to have ad banners on your screen?

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close