EvDO High-Speed Wireless vs. 802.11 104
willll writes "The Washington Post is running a story about EvDO (Evolution Data Only), a high-speed wireless technology. It can work anywhere that a mobile phone can work, one of its main advantages over WiFi. Companies such as Verizon and Lucent are looking into the technology." From the article, I'm not sure that EvDO can be directly compared to WiFi connections (and the article does not mention current long-range 802.11 ISPs), but it's still interesting.
Reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to wonder about the reliability of an internet connection that works over cell phone networks. Yes, many of the disconnections you experience with cell phones are due to moving, I've experienced plenty of disconnects without any movement, and that's just the few times I've used someone elses cell phone (since I don't own one).
Re:Reliability (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
As far as transitioning between towers with CDMA, I've never had a problem doing that with my voice calls except where towers were far apart, and I don't anticipate having a problem with my data either. I'm sure I'll find out soon enouch.
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
Just for example, if you use a cellular on the car (with antenna) you get a perfect reception almost always.
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
Re:Reliability (Score:2, Informative)
And even if some data is lost, that's ok, because it's only IP, and as we all know TCP/IP has been designed for highly lossy networks. All the loss will add to is the latency, and it is not really that important for plain IP traffic.
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
Re:Reliability (Score:1)
So your right, but I doubt the temporary connection loss will be that detromental considering I used to unplug the cable from my network card while playing online games, then plug it back in to watch the people freeze. Yeah...I didn't have a life...
Conserving bandwidth (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
Because mobile phone companies barely have enough room to handle their voice traffic
This is particularly true in Verizon's case. However, they have implemented an innovative load-balancing system: when they think you have been on long enough, your call will be dropped to give someone else a chance.
Re:Conserving bandwidth (Score:1)
Interesting.....so Verizon's EvDO network will disconnect me just before I finish downloading the new demo for UT2003? No thanks, I'll stick with my land-line connections....more secure as well
Re:Just Verizon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I work for AT&T, and I have had this explained to me. I dont remember the exact explanation, but the signal strength meters are totally inacurate, except when showing zero bars. If there is better signal, the strength will automaticallyjump up higher. It is simply a ploy by us to make you think that you are getting better signal than you really are, so you think that we have better service than, say, verizon.
Re:Just Verizon? (Score:2)
Signed,
Your Boss
Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Technology (Score:2)
Re:Technology (Score:1)
1. What protocols it uses to transmit the data
2. How much spectrum is dedicated to this protocol.
Currently, the wireless providers allocate spectrum for voice (which is further split up by offering analog and digital) and data. The protocols in use for data are typically second generation, and in some cases (PCS Vision, VZW Express Network) are 2.5 G. If these carriers were to use EvDO, Lucent and the others backers of this technology are arguing they'd get a twenty fold increase in throughput over the same spectrum.
The software update contains... (Score:2)
Double-plus good in California due to the earthquake protection side-effect.
CDPD... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a lot like CDPD (Cellular Digital Packet Data), which was supposed to work over existing AMPS networks. It had the same basic problems - you had to update the cell site to make it work, and the cell carriers had to set aside some bandwidth for it.
However, unlike when CDPD was first rolled out, there is now a demand for such services....
Re:CDPD... (Score:1)
Lots of cities/counties/states have big investments in CDPD jibber jabber, and it's the slowest most unreliable way of moving data I've ever had the misfortune of working with.
Re:CDPD... (Score:1)
One of the (dis)advantages of being immortal... (Score:1)
Non-registration / Archive Version (Score:3, Informative)
Phone Firms Testing High-Speed Technology Called EvDO
Technicians test a technology known as EvDO that provides wireless data connections 10 times as fast as a regular modem. (Helayne Seidman For The Washington Post)
By Christopher Stern
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 23, 2003; Page E01
WHIPPANY, N.J.
Inside a white van decked out with computer screens on the back of each seat, two Lucent Technologies Inc. technicians eagerly put their company's new wireless data network through its paces.
As the van rolls around a parking lot, one techie taps at a keyboard, and the screens jump from one Web site to another. Even the pages full of connection-clogging photos and graphics pop up at a speed rivaling any desktop computer tethered to the Internet by a cable or a telephone line.
For a grand finale, one of the technicians tunes into CNBC via the Internet. A dial-up connection would produce herky-jerky pictures and tinny sounds, but here the financial news channel comes in loud and clear.
The technology, known as EvDO (Evolution Data Only), provides wireless data connections that are 10 times as fast as a regular modem. Proponents say EvDO offers huge advantages over WiFi, another wireless data technology that is popping up around the country in hotel lobbies and coffee shops, and that it may even be the long sought path around local telephone and cable companies' lock on the high-speed Internet market in most residential areas.
But after learning some hard lessons in the last few years, the U.S. wireless industry is skittish about investing heavily in anything that does not have immediate promise of improving its bottom line.
EvDO would require wireless companies to spend billions of dollars to buy additional spectrum and update every cell tower in their networks with new software. But the industry is still smarting from the failure of other once promising wireless technologies: In Europe, "3G" (third generation) technologies were supposed to transform the economy, turning cell phones into mini-entertainment centers, but reality failed to live up to the hype.
Despite the expense and concerns about market demand for EvDO, it is already gaining a toehold in other countries and even in some small U.S. cities. It has been widely rolled out in South Korea, and Monet Mobile Networks Inc., a company based in Kirkland, Wash., launched EvDO networks last October in seven midwestern markets, including Sioux City, Iowa, and Grand Forks, N.D.
In addition to being far faster than WiFi, EvDO can work over existing cell phone networks and deliver a connection anywhere there is a mobile phone signal. In contrast, WiFi users must be within 300 feet or so of a base station or "hot spot."
Verizon Wireless executives say they were impressed by EvDO in market tests using Lucent's technology in the Washington area. Nortel Networks Ltd. equipment is also being tested in San Diego.
Bill Stone, Verizon Wireless executive director of network planning, said EvDO may prove to be a breakthrough for the entire wireless industry. He likens EvDO's potential to energize the mobile communications business to the introduction of the cell phone in the 1980s and its subsequent surge in popularity in the 1990s, when mobile phones moved from analog to digital technology.
"This could jump-start the industry all over again," Stone said.
A takeoff of EvDO would not only provide Verizon with a new high-speed Internet service to market, but it would probably help struggling equipment suppliers such as Lucent and Nortel, which have already developed the software and hardware to get the network up and running. Nokia Corp., Motorola Inc. and other cell phone makers would benefit from the introduction of new products capable of high-speed Internet access.
A U.S. launch of EvDO would also be a boon to San Diego-based Qualcomm Inc., which controls many of the patents underlying the technology. The growing interest in EvDO adds to the momentum of Qualcomm's CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) standard that is now used by some of the largest wireless companies, including Verizon and Sprint Corp. Other companies are likely to migrate to CMDA in part because it uses spectrum more efficiently than rival wireless standards and opens the door to high-speed data technologies such as EvDO, according to Coleman Bazelon, a vice president at AnalysisGroup/Economics, a Boston-based research firm.
One of the biggest barriers to EvDO is that it requires wireless companies to set aside a slice of their valuable airwaves just to transmit data. Because mobile phone companies barely have enough room to handle their voice traffic, EvDO is likely to remain on the back burner until the firms can acquire more spectrum.
Some wireless industry analysts say that, notwithstanding the excitement about the technology, the scarcity of airwaves and ongoing tumult in the telecommunications industry makes the rollout of EvDO far from a sure thing. Jane Zweig, chief executive of Shosteck Group, a wireless industry consulting company, said there is no assurance that EvDO technology will ever be widely deployed in the United States. "To assume they will do all this" with EvDO "is a leap of faith," Zweig said.
Denny Strigl , chief executive of Verizon Wireless Inc., has cautioned that the company will go slow on the new technology. Still, company spokesman Andrea Linskey said EvDO is a natural extension of its current data offering, which provides access to the Internet at speeds comparable to a dial-up modem. Verizon agreed last month to buy a large slice of airwaves in 50 markets for $750 million, in part to make room for future services such as EvDO, Linskey said.
While EvDO would require huge investments by cash-strapped telecommunications companies, WiFi's popularity stems largely from the fact that it is an inexpensive and relatively simple technology to get into operation. For about $200, anyone can buy a WiFi network's basic components and, with some computer savvy and a lot of luck, have it running in less than an hour.
A consortium of telecommunications and technology companies that includes Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp. and AT&T Corp. is backing a WiFi company named Cometa Networks Inc., which plans to string together more than 20,000 WiFi "hot spots" into a nationwide wireless network.
Even with thousands of hot spots around the country, Cometa executives acknowledge that the company will not be able to offer blanket coverage. Instead, the goal is to provide a hot spot within a five-minute walk of any office in an urban area or five-minute drive in a suburban area, according to Steve Harris, vice president for corporate affairs at Cometa Networks. Boingo Wireless Inc., another firm putting together a national WiFi network, plans to have 5,000 hot spots running by the end of the year.
Critics and rivals say that creating a national network from tens of thousands of hot spots is more difficult and expensive than Cometa and others expect. And to create a truly national network that would have the reach of a cell-phone system would require more than 100,000 hot spots.
"To put together a national WiFi network is going to be extremely complicated and take a long time," said George M. Tronsrue III, chief executive of Monet.
Unlike Verizon Wireless, which probably would launch EvDO over its existing wireless network, Monet built a stand-alone wireless system in the seven markets where it operates. Monet's system bypasses the local phone network, commonly known as the local loop, offering high-speed connections in some places where wired high-speed service is unavailable. Competition in the high-speed Internet business has been stymied largely by the huge expense of building a wired connection to every house and building in a market.
"This technology allows you to have a broadband connection that unlocks the local loop," said Tronsrue, Monet's chief executive.
Monet launched in October and so far has about 1,000 customers, according to the company. Most of its subscribers are business customers that use the high-speed connection to download inventory lists and spreadsheets that would bog down when moving on a slower connection, although, like a cable broadband network, EvDO's access speeds do slow as more people sign on. That fits in with Lucent's prediction that EvDO will be popular with business travelers who often are now limited to the dial-up Internet service in hotel rooms or the pokey wireless networks currently offered by Verizon and Sprint.
Like Cometa, Tronsrue has big-name investors, including billionaire George Soros and Intel, and he is excited about the EvDO technology. But he has also learned that there are no sure things in technology. "Right now our main target is that at the end of 2003, we are still operating."
how fast is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
But then later in the article they state it is much faster than wifi so I am a bit confused. I'd classify a regular modem as a 56k dialup modem. Does anyone know any actual speed measurements for EvDO?
Re:how fast is it? (Score:5, Informative)
The 1xEV-DO forward link rate ranges from 38.4kb/s to about 2.4 Mb/s. The reverse link ranges from 9.6kb/s to 153.6 kb/s. Both rates change dynamically according to what the link can support. The overall capacity is greater than IS-95 because stronger error correction coding is used.
The Qualcomm website has quite a bit of detailed technical info. See http://www.qualcomm.com/cdma/1xEV/ [qualcomm.com].
Re:how fast is it? (Score:1)
Re:how fast is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how fast is it? (Score:2)
Magnus.
If you want faster xfers, just use spray (Score:5, Funny)
WiFi Speed Spray(TM) to the rescue!
This revolutionary product is guaranteed to enhance the transfer of computer data through the air. You'll be amazed!
Do you live in a polluted environment such as Los Angeles? If so, you've probably experienced the heartbreak of data transfer slow-down. WiFi Speed Spray(TM) can overcome the effects of pollution, increase fidelity, and provide you with the fastest wireless data transfer possible. Approved by the FCC, and 802.11b compliant! Compatible with Windows and most versions of Linux.
It's a scientific fact. Radio waves become sluggish under a variety of common environmental conditions. Besides air pollution, radio wave slow down in noisy environments, at night, and in "high emission" areas such as computer rooms, offices that use fluorescent lighting, and even in the kitchen (those pesky microwave ovens are to blame!).
WiFi Speed Spray(TM) is designed to eliminate these harsh conditions selectively. Only the radio wave path is affected. There are no side-effects*.
How it works
The patented formula in WiFi Speed Spray(TM) is the result of years of scientific research and testing. Simply spray the area around your computer. Usually five or six sprays is all it takes. As your computer sends data, each bit also carries hundreds of invisible WiFi Speed Spray(TM) "scrubbing" molecules. It works at the speed of light. and even penetrates lead walls (not even Superman can do that!). Within
Wifi Speed Spray(TM) lasts up to one hour under normal conditions. When you notice that things are slowing down, just grab your handy WiFi Speed Spray(TM) and reapply. It's easy!
Our Customers Love It!
"I really didn't think it would work, but now I'm a believer. I just ordered another case of WiFi Speed Spray(TM) and I recommend it to all of my friends." - Ted Smith, New York
"A perfect holiday gift for everyone on your list." - Todd Smith, Los Angeles
"It's an amazing product, and I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who has a computer or would like to have a computer." -Tina Smith, Chicago
"Esto es muy malo. No trabaja. Me engañan!" -Toraidio Smith, Tijuana
"I can't believe it. Now my FM radio even sounds better!" -Theresa Smith, Miami
"A few sprays, and we're talking 18 Mps each way! Whoah!" -Tim Smith, Seattle
Money-Back Guarantee!
WiFi Speed Spray(TM) is guaranteed to improve your productivity. If you're not 100% satisfied, return the unopened bottle in the original packaging within eight hours, along with the original receipt, a color copy of your drivers license, and a check for $12.95 to cover handling, restocking, and legal fees. You'll receive a complete refund within 10-12 weeks.
We stand by our products, and we service what we sell!
WiFi Speed Spray(TM) is available for the low introductory price of only $19.95 for a 24 ounce bottle. Add $6.95 shipping and handling for each bottle ordered. Buy it by the case, and save 50 per bottle!
Not available in stores!
Call 1-800-WIFISPZ now. Operators are standing by! Ask for Murray.
*Disclaimers
WiFi Speed Spray(TM) is safe and effective when used as directed. However, the product is known to the State of California to cause cancer; developmental toxicity; and/or male pattern baldness. For outdoor use only. Do not use near electrical appliances. WiFi Speed Spray(TM) should not be used in the presence of pregnant women, women who have been pregnant, or women who may some day become pregnant. Keep away from children and household pets (especially birds). Do not take internally. If a persistent cough or partial paralysis develops, consult a physician,
Made in Malaysia, by Malaysians. Not intended for use by Malaysians.
©Copyright 2002
NoMojo Marketing Corporation
"Using free trade zones since 1998."
OK. The joke's over.
Nothing left to see here.
Go home.
(from http://www.j-walk.com/blog/docs/wifispray.htm)
Re:If you want faster xfers, just use spray (Score:2)
Re:If you want faster xfers, just use spray (Score:2)
What about my infidelities? Call me when you get a spray that can increase that.
Re:If you want faster xfers, just use spray (Score:1)
"Esto es muy malo. No trabaja. Me engañan!" -Toraidio Smith, Tijuana
Translation: This is very bad. It doesn't work. They fool me.
Nice touch
Re:If you want faster xfers, just use spray (Score:1)
Is it just me (Score:2, Funny)
Let's see some articles about wires! [belkin.com]
Cat3, Cat5e, Coax, Fiber, Copper strands, it makes no difference!
Wires are where it's at. Less NET, more WORK.
Re:Is it just me (Score:1)
Can you say 10.9 Tera-Bits via DWDM
theoretical limit of 150 Tera-Bits ???
That is some speed now
http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2001/08/p20.asp
Ex-MislTech
Tech Support
Guantanamo Bay Cuba for 18 more days !!!!
How does this compare to the vapourware "3G" ? (Score:2)
I would love to just be able to roam around with my C-phone and a palm or laptop...
ttyl
Farrell
Re:How does this compare to the vapourware "3G" ? (Score:2)
EvDO is already rolled out in Korea I think, and plain 1x is already available in many countries, including the US, Korea and Japan. W-CDMA is rolled out in Japan but is not at all successful at present due to lack of coverage, no seamless roaming to 2G cells, first-gen phones, etc.
A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:5, Informative)
Its difficult to say that '3G' or UMTS [3gpp.org] to be exact has failed in Europe, as most have not yet launched due to the financial strife in the telecoms sector limiting investment into the new infrastructure. In fact Hutchinson's Three [three.co.uk] (UK's first UMTS network) will be going live soon
Granted this pressure has resulted in GPRS '2.5G' becoming more widely adopted, and this can provide many of the benefits of UMTS as far as the user is concerned such as reasonable speed mobile data access, whilst being a step upgrade to the GSM netwrok so cheaper to role out and not needing thousands of new masts (UMTS needs masts in different physical locations as it uses a different radio system - see later)
In this respect Europe is in a more fortunate than the US as GSM digital cellular networks have become the standard, so the upgrade to GPRS is a logical one.
The growing interest in EvDO adds to the momentum of Qualcomm's CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) standard that is now used by some of the largest wireless companies, including Verizon and Sprint Corp
This is a strange tack to take, given the dismisal of '3G' as a failure a few lines before.
In Europe the new standard chosen to replace GSM was UMTS, which is based on a CDMA radio sub system. This is a spread spectrum method which brings many benefits, but means you need new masts as the radio coverage is different.
In the US you have Qualcomm's CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA [3gpp.org] standard
In practical aspect these are equivalent systems, at least as far as the radio engineering goes - the differences mainly being in how the networks are run and how data is transfered, the underlying carrier technology is very similar, and infact most of the equipment is the same, differing only in the management systems.
So in Europe the delayed roll out of UMTS can be seen really as a factor of the depressed state of the telecoms market, and the fact that the cheaper to roll out GSM based GPRS system gives you high speed data access.
In the US there is no easy upgrade from an existing network as GSM didn't make much of an inroad and the better range in fringe areas of analogue systems like TACS is more suitable to the larger country.
Realistically the only way for the major equipment providers to realise the return on investment of thier CDMA technology is to go after the one thing the alternatives don't do well, the domain of large scale wireless data access.
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:5, Informative)
CDMA2000 is already a UMTS standard, along side W-CDMA. CDMA2000 will not "evolve into" W-CDMA because CDMA2000 is designed to be backward compatible with all the past CDMA standards as well as future ones (IS/95;CDMAOne,1xRTT, and EV-DV), where as W-CDMA is a migration path for GSM. CDMA2000 uses 1.25MHz spectrum block per carrier, CDMA2000-3x uses 3.75MHZ per carrier. W-CDMA uses 5MHz carrier, which is not backward compatible with any of the existing standards.
It is easier for GSM providers to break away from existing standards, because migration to W-CDMA from GSM is a "clean slate" situation for them. For the current CDMA providers however, it would be more advantageous for them to maintain backward compatibility (read: existing user handsets) while providing 3G high-bandwidth services--which makes CDMA2000 variants as their only viable option. They will definately not "evolve into" W-CDMA.
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:2)
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:1, Informative)
- cdma2000 wil NEVER evolve to W-CDMA. CDMA2000 is a 3G standard just like W-CDMA
- the US is fortunate to have carriers who didn't go with GSM. Sprint spent 900 million to upgrade to release 0 of 1x. the telecoms in Euroland have each spent 2-3 billion to get W-CDMA working in countries 1/100th the size of US and still can't get it working. DoCoMo spent 9 billion for a W-CDMA system that works improperly and is available just in Tokyo!
- There is nothing LOGICAL about evolving from GSM to W-CDMA. completely different radio system. completely different network behaviour.
- there are 3-4 ways to go 3G. The European way , W-CDMA has failed spectacularly and is a catastrophe and is unfairly giving all of 3G a bad name. During world cup soccer in South Korea, journalists got to watch video on telephones because they used cdma (CDMA2000) which wasn't a euro-bastardized version. the euro's want to control 3G just like they control 2G (GSM, a prettified faceplate version of TDMA)
- there is ABSOLUTELY nothing original in W-CDMA air interface. if nokia/ericcson spent more time doing research and less time churning out innovations like faceplates, maybe they could get some respect. these socialist monoplies spent 8 years engaging tiny qualcomm in lawsuits and bad mouthing CDMA. now they claim to have invented CDMA.
Don't confuse European 3g with American 3g (Score:2)
All the articles you see that claim 3G to be a failure are talking about European 3G. Ill-informed journalists fail to make the distinction clear.
EVDO is part of American 3G.
Magnus.
Re:Don't confuse European 3g with American 3g (Score:2)
In Europe it was recognised that there were huge benefits from all countries using the same standard for GSM, and so there was considerable momentum to do the same for 3G - my understanding is that roaming between states in the US is fairly troublesome and costly. In Europe when we went to GSM the roaming became pretty much a simple thing - sadly cost is still there!
The spectrum is available over in Europe - its already been reserved. It was unfortunate that the licenses for operators to use that spectrum were sold at the height of the dot com boom when silly prices were paid for things.
Certainly at the time the belief was that any operator who didn't get a license would be stuck with only a 'legacy' GSM network and would be out of buisness in 10 years, maybe sooner as investment and customers would switch away from them - understandably there was some fierce bidding for the licenses.
Since then the market has collapsed, and the big NE manufacturers are having problems delivering the equipment. This is a combination of it turning out to be more of a challenge to get working than originally thought, and the significant reduction in money available.
As an offshoot of that the operators are paying huge interest charges on the money they paid for licenses, and the time that they can see the network actually coming on line and some return being generated on that outlay is getting longer. Consequently a number of operators have decided to pay penalties and return the licenses to save money.
Again the availabilty of GPRS (and maybe soon EDGE) can give most of the user benefits of a UMTS system without requiring so much investment, retraining of operators, replanning of the radio network and also the handsets are much cheaper. This means the orginal assumption that 3G would rapidly take over from GSM is no longer true, so most investment is going into these '2.5G' services.
The main problem for all 3G operators is I have yet to see a convincing service that needs this capabilty that is mass market enough for consumers. Thats why I expect to see a lot of mid speed mobile data services being used to launch these networks.
If anyone can think of a great application that needs high speed mobile data access I suggest you get to the patent office!
Okay,some details. (was Re:Don't confuse European (Score:1)
Indeed. When the IMT-2000 standards process was being developed to define "3G", the Americans and Europeans couldn't agree, so we ended up with a "standard" that consisted of serveral incompatible technologies.
The Europeans came up with W-CDMA (which technically a subset of UMTS, but the two terms are often used interchangeably) which uses CDMA based technology based on wide (3.84 MHz) chunks of spectrum.
Qualcomm in the US proposed a two stage process to 3G: firstly a jump to what they call CDMA2000 1X, which uses spectrum chunks the same size (1.23MHz) as existing CDMA networks. (This provides faster data rates than 2G, but does not quite satisfy the full requirements of 3G). The second stage is a jump to what they call CDMA2000 3X, which uses spectrum chunks precisely three times the size (3.69MHz) of existing CDMA networks.
However, Qualcomm's engineers, who have had some years head start on the Europeans on CDMA technology, managed to develop a system capable of delivering the full 3G data speed requirements using the existing 1.23MHz chunks of spectrum. (They did this mainly be changing the modulation scheme and abandoning some of the overhead needed for voice - this is a data technology only ). This technology was initially called HDR, and has now been renamed 1xEV-DO. (DO for "Data Only"). The advantages of this over 3X are that it is more spectrum efficient, and it can sit alongside existing CDMA in the same spectrum band). This technology is new a key part of Qualcomm's CDMA2000 3G offering. In fact, 3X seems to have been largely abandoned, as 1xEV-DO can go everything it can do but more cheaply and more efficiently).
Qualcomm is also talking about another technology, 1xEV-DV (Data and Voice, rather that Data Only), which allows voice calls and uses the same modulation scheme as 1xEV-DO. I am not sure if they have this one working yet, however.
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:1)
"In this respect Europe is in a more fortunate than the US as GSM digital cellular networks have become the standard, so the upgrade to GPRS is a logical one."
this is pretty much wrong, because qualcomm's evolutionary path for cdma2000 was mapped out well quite a long time ago (cdma2000, cdma2000-1x, -1x-ev, -1x-evdo, etc
"CDMA 2000 system which will evolve into the W-CDMA"
no, w-cdma (a.k.a. "wideband" cdma) was coined by the anti-qualcomm coalition of umts that wanted to stuff their new standard with the IP (intellectual property) of nokia, ericsson etc
"In practical aspect these are equivalent systems, at least as far as the radio engineering goes"
considering that the whole fight for years and years has been about IP, this is probably not entirely true, except in the sense that much of both systems are based on qualcomm's IP.
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:2)
First off do not mistake my comments as an attack on Qualcomm - which you seem to have done.
I'm sorry I disagree. In Europe every single operator is on GSM, in the US there are a number of competing standards.
I agree totally that the migration path for CDMA based networks based on Qualcomms equipment is well mapped, but that was not my point.
GPRS involves a software upgrade to the network hardware and the provision of a data infrastructure. The air interface does not change so absolutley no new basestations are needed.
So every operator in Europe can upgrade to GPRS with no outlay in new basestations, they only have to upgrade thier existing ones. Because we all use the same standard any GPRS customer will eventually be able to roam anywhere in Europe, whereas in the US you will only be able to roam between operators using Qualcomms equipment.
no, w-cdma (a.k.a. "wideband" cdma) was coined by the anti-qualcomm coalition of umts that wanted to stuff their new standard with the IP (intellectual property) of nokia, ericsson etc
I made an error in the orginal post in not qualifying that statement, and if you check the posts you'll see I was corrected by someone who knew their standards, and I acknowledged that.
The reason the European NE manufacturers wanted to ensure they had input into the standard was that for GSM the sharing of IP had eventually been benefical for all the manufacturers, and they wanted the same to happen for UMTS. Qualcomm wanted to force thier IP into the standard with no sharing agreements expecting a rich stream of license fees for revenue.
I don't really want to get into that fight - its well documented in the industry - and in the end if it stops the services reaching the consumer every one loses.
I really don't understand your comments about IP - I was talking about the practical aspects of enginerring the air interface, building the networks and deploying services. The physics of the radio engineering is the same regardless of who is stiffing who because they got to the patent office first.
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:2)
Unfortunatly your message quit a bit of misinformation too. I guess that a very few people have experience of both european and american mobile networks.
>2.5g in europe requires planting new basestations all over the place
GPRS (2.5g) doesn't need any new basestations.
--cut long rant of anti-qualcomm--
There is always too sides needed for a fight. It is very true, that qualcomm did some spectacular work when researching cdma. However, qualcomm got greedy, and wanted simply "too much". Instead of creating a common 3G together with other players in the market, qualcomm kept pushing their own version. Other mobile phone makers didn't want to be reduced to qualcomm tech licensees the similar way pc makers are these days just wintel licencees.
Think about it - Is it better have multiple vendors create a standard and then compete with each others creating products based on the standard, or have a single vendor creating their own products others can use as a base for their own products?
If qualcomm would have been more open to co-operation (other mobile market players did want qualcomm to join wcdma development), we would not have this silly situation of two standards in UMTS.
On the other hand, you could say that if all the mobile phone makers would have accepted qualcomm as the microsoft of mobile market, we would have this silly situation...
Re:A couple of useful points/corrections (Score:2)
The real issue for UMTS is that smart phones can access a lot of interesting services using GPRS alone. CDMA2000 in its various flavours seems more debugged at present, but UMTS has the benefit of seamless roaming to GSM (which should have about 1 billion users worldwide by end 2003).
Learning Hard Lessons (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that they've learned the wrong lessons, then. The correct response to "We got burned investing in things which could never generate sufficient revenue to earn a return" is not "Invest only in things that will yield immediate returns".
In fact, I'm almost certain that our current economic woes are due primarily to a management mentality that focuses on this quarter's numbers withou scarcely a thought toward two, five, ten years down the line.
How about trying to invest in things that will secure enough revenue to cover the cost and earn additional income over whatever the life of the technology may be?
I mean, this is, I think, basic economics. Isn't it?
--blob
Re:Learning Hard Lessons (Score:1)
I think you nailed the problem right there. What *is* the life of the technology, and can it be integrated into a national system, in tens of thousands of cell sites, quickly enough to actually generate a profit before the technology is outdated and no longer viable?
A technology roll-out like this for wireless data on a national scale would involve tens of millions of dollars and take a minimum of two years. Would anyone want it in two years? Would it ever even be able to pay back the initial investment costs before it became yesterday's technology?
Re:Learning Hard Lessons (Score:1)
Well, I'll probably be upgrading my 802.11b for 802.11g this year, and then to whatever comes after that in the years to come (hopefully something "OpenSpectrum Compliant" :). Multiply that by millions of other people and there's no investement/maintenance is as distributed as the network.
A nationwide wireless network doesn't need to be some monolithic burden under one company's control. It can be an emergent thing.
--
Ev-DO vs Ev-DV (Score:4, Informative)
What will be interesting will be the DV (Data-Voice) standard, which can carry both data (up to 5Mbps) and voice at the same time in the same spectrum used by current 1xRTT and Ev-DO channel. I believe SprintPCS has already decided to skip over DO and go straight to DV, sometime around 2005 when the base station equipment and handsets will become available. It might even happen sooner, if Qualcomm feels pressure from GSM/EDGE/WCDMA camp.
Let the wireless web wars begin
How is This Different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sprint is rolling out a similiar service too.
Funny thing is that those technologies aren't catching very much. 3G isn't as big as everyone thought. And as much as I'd like to have 144 on my laptop, I'd need a laptop first, or maybe more than 44k at home. So, my question is, what makes this new in different in a way that will make it catch on?
Re:How is This Different? (Score:2)
Re:How is This Different? (Score:2)
Re:How is This Different? (Score:2)
Now, the upstream sucks and I have a dynamic IP. It's obviously not a T1. But it sure acts like one a lot of the time.
Re:How is This Different? (Score:4, Interesting)
Express Network runs on the older CDMA network, and most Express Network "compatible" equipment will downgrade to a 14.4k AMPS connection when the good stuff isn't available.
Somewhat off topic, but... I bought their service hoping it would be a decent replacement for my IDSL line, and would let me work while traveling. I've had it for about 5 days now, but haven't seen anything faster than 56k modem speeds.
Re:How is This Different? (Score:1)
Express/Vision is technically a 2.5G, but they're marketed as "next generation 3G", because of the way GSM/GPRS is being touted as "next generation 3G migration path", even though they only support 64kbps data, too. This is a classic case of the marketing department getting ahead of themselves.
To be a true 3G provider (according to IMT-2000/UMTS) it has to exceed 380kbps in a wide area deployment (ie, miles away from the tower), which is achieved by Ev-DO (2Mbps), and Ev-DV (5Mbps) on the Qualcomm side, and EDGE (380kbps) and W-CDMA (supposedly 8Mbps, but current implementations have been topping out at about 90Kbps, to the disappointment of many) on the GSM side.
Like I said in a separate post, things will really heat up in about 2 years, when companies will try to provide 2Mbps over your cell phone.
Re:How is This Different? (Score:2)
True. It's 2.5G. It's on par with GPRS, a little bit better.
Express Network is 1xRTT data - Just like 1xEV-DO/DV, it's part of the CDMA2000 suite.
It will not drop back down to a 14.4k AMPS connection when CDMA2000 isn't available. There is no such thing as AMPS data (Well, sort of. There IS CDPD, but the fallback modes for 1xRTT phones is not CDPD but circuit-switched CDMA data). It will fall back on 14.4 cdmaOne data. Just like GPRS will fall back to classic GSM data.
"In fact, Verizon isn't touching any of the 3G/GSM stuff for quite a while."
a) You have no idea what plans Verizon has. They tend not to preannounce things (a la Apple).
b) But I can tell you they will not be touching GSM or any of its brethren. CDMA2000 1xEV-DO/DV is a much cheaper upgrade for them, since a CDMA2000 phone will work with a cdmaOne network and vice versa. The same is not true for W-CDMA phones unless the phone is essentially two phones in one. (W-CDMA uses a different modulation scheme AND a different frequency band than W-CDMA. Not only do you need different baseband processors, but you need different RF frontends. GSM phones already need to do two bands in many areas, UMTS ups that to three.)
Keep in mind... (Score:2)
Imagine running SETI on idle cellphones....
speed (Score:1)
"far faster than wifi"
Something doesn't add up here.
Interesting? HOW ABOUT AWESOME?? (Score:2)
Sprint Broadband DIrect going this way? (Score:2)
Does anyone know if Sprint going in this direction, and if not... just where are they going?
Big Factor: Price (Score:2, Interesting)
With WiFi, I can just find open networks and use their internet on my Pocket PC. The price? $50 for a WiFi card, and $200 for a Dell Axim. Now, I don't get national coverage, but honestly, it's not a big deal to me, and if these services want to get to the average Joe, then they're going to figure out how to do it cheaper or do some serious price lowering.
Slashdot Editor 1.1 (Score:1)
Slashdot is proud to bring you Slashdot Editor 1.1!
This exciting new model not only reads the article, but reminds you incessantly of its new improvements over the 1.0 model!
Speed? (Score:1)
Only 2.4 Mbps? Compared to Wi-fi's 11 Mbps?
Link: here [infoworld.com]
[quote] At the recent Telecom Asia exhibition in Hong Kong, Samsung showed for the first time its M400 handset. Based on Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition, the device runs on CDMA 2000 1x EvDO (Evolution Data Only) networks, which are in commercial service in South Korea and offer data transmission at speeds of up to 2.4M bps. Features of the phone, which is based on an Intel Corp. XScale processor running at 400MHz, include a display capable of showing 65,000 colors, voice recognition and a text-to-speech engine, a TV tuner and GPS (Global Positioning System). [/quote]
Verizon vs. the Ants (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need 1xEV-DO at work, because work is crawling with Ethernet cables. I don't need 1xEV-DO at home, because it's cheaper to buy WiFi equipment directly instead of paying for wireless by the packet. The only reasons I need wireless data in my car are for driving directions when I'm lost, which - being male - I wouldn't use anyway, and for streaming audio, for which I have a hi-tech device called a "radio" (or, more likely, a "six-disc CD changer").
By the time 1xEV-DV gets to market, McDonald's will have WiFi and you'll get free bandwidth with your Happy Meal. (They'll sell your data to advertisers and interrupt with McDonald's ads, but, hey, free bandwidth.) WiFi destroys the business case for cellular data, just as the unregulated Internet destroys the business case for pop music, and in the long-term WiFi even threatens the core cellular business of providing wireless voice.
Perhaps the real question is whether the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) will someday find itself where the RIAA is today - fighting its customers in a desperate effort to squeeze the last dollar from a dying business model. Time for the Free Spectrum Foundation?
Re:Verizon vs. the Ants (Score:1)
Two different things entirely. (Score:2)
WiFi and EVDO are two entirely different things, for two entirely different markets. Sure, EVDO is not going to be able to compete with WiFi as a LAN solution. Probably not as a hotspot solution either. It is also true that EVDO cannot compete with WiFi as far as airspeed is concerned.
However, WiFi is severly limited by its limited range, and the fact that there is no model for billing/roaming. So when you leave McDonalds and go to Starbucks, you have to go through the disconnect/connect mechanism once again.
An EVDO tower can service about a 2-mile radius in a heavily populated neighborhood, and a 6-10 mile radius in a rural neighborhood. The provider has to pay for just once backhaul connection to the base station servicing the tower. In a dense WiFi deployment, the provider has to pay essentially for 1 backhaul to each access point. You would need hundreds to just provide the same basic coverage as the EVDO tower. These costs can mount very rapidly indeed.
Furthermore, EVDO supports full mobility. WiFi does not. Mobility is a necessary component of ubiquity. Once such a service exists, there will be apps that take advantage of it.
The people who develop EVDO/WiFi equipment seem to recognize that these technologies are complementary. For e.g., handoff between and EVDO network and a WiFi network has been recently demonstrated. [airvananet.com]
Granted, there is not much chance that EVDO will be deployed in the US, but it seems to be doing well abroad (e.g., Korea). There also appears to be interest from Latin America for use as a DSL replacement.
Magnus.Re:Two different things entirely. (Score:1)
Agreed within context, but the market for people who need data, especially high-speed data, to travel with them as they go from McDonald's to Starbucks is relatively small. The rest of the market (that is, the people who want high-speed data while they're sitting at McDonald's or Starbuck's, but don't need it while moving between them) will be consumed by WiFi - and, without that revenue, the business case for EV-DO goes under water. Sprint and Verizon can't justify the expense, especially with the current state of the telecom business.
If I want to go outside the box, though, I'll argue that connect/disconnect and billing/roaming mechanisms only make sense for a centrally owned network, and that I can have a decentralized, peer-to-peer WiFi network for a lot less than your costs to build, operate and maintain EV-DV. In my network, a million people each spend $100 to buy a WiFi card and base station, and we're done; in your network, you build, operate and maintain a complete EV-DV network, and then have to recover your costs and make a substantial profit for your investors.
In my peer-to-peer WiFi network, I can just route packets back to my home DSL if they need to get onto the wired network; everyone on the network has 802.11g bandwidth and near-zero maintenance costs, so wireless backhaul to my house is free. I was already paying for the DSL, so my total investment is $100.
You, meanwhile, are paying monthly real estate costs for each cell site, equipment upgrade costs, power, backhaul, a network operations center, customer care hotline, billing center, a team of people to drive around and fix hardware problems, a team to drive around and fix RF problems, subsidies to the handset retailers, advertising, investor relations, corporate finance, human resources, and an options package for your CEO that would make Ken Lay blanch.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that by 2008 WiFi (or something like it) will be standard equipment on GM cars, available in any decent shop or restaurant, etc. It'll emerge as quickly as the web itself did in 1993-6, and then we'll forget what life was like before it. I think that scenario is more likely than the one where we're all using EV-DV by then.
Um... faster than WiFi... I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
I helped test this.. (Score:1)
Comparisons with 802.11 (Score:2)
Best comparisons for EV-DO/DV are GPRS,1xRTT, and W-CDMA.
GPRS and 1xRTT are its slower speed predecessors. Both are in wide usage now. These are essentially 2.5G technologies. (Interim leading up to 3G)
W-CDMA and 1xEV-DO/DV are 3G. So far, 1xEV-DO/DV has been far more successful than W-CDMA. All W-CDMA has behind it is a legal mandate to use it, but in terms of actual service rollouts, 1xEV-DO/DV is far ahead. It's already in use in Korea and Japan, whereas W-CDMA was tried in Japan and turned DoCoMo's name into mud. (Mainly due to the fact that W-CDMA handsets are having the same battery life problems that the mainstream CDMA manufacturers solved many years ago.) 1xEV-DO/DV is also much easier for a carrier to roll out - cdmaOne phones will happily talk with 1xEV-DV towers, and in the case of DO towers, the same base station can handle voice traffic on a different carrier in the same frequency band. In modern base station designs, these carriers can go through the same RF path from baseband upwards. (As opposed to requiring a new frequency band and RF paths/antennas for UMTS W-CDMA at 2.11-2.17 GHz)
EvDO vs Wifi and CDPD (Score:1)
EvDO.. gotta be a compression of Evil DO
Hands-on Review (Score:1)