Taking Advantage of Wide-Area Wireless

Cellular providers are in a high-stakes race with wimax and Wi-Fi proponents, each seeking to dominate the transition from today's 3G services to next decade's 4G technologies. This jockeying is nothing new--over the past decade, a heady cycle of reinvention and evolution has propelled about one new wide-area wireless technology down the pike every year. Ardis, Mobitex, CDPD, Ricochet, GPRS, 1xRTT, EDGE, 1xEV-DO, UMTS, HSDPA ... all tried to capture the fancy of mobile users--and the dollars of enterprise IT groups tasked with keeping those mobile users productive.

This time, IT should be in the driver's seat. Rather than taking what your service providers are offering, consider your requirements. We've got the information you need to plan for the next wave of wide-area wireless.

To start with, architecting a comprehensive wireless access strategy goes beyond choosing an operator. You must consider what types of devices to use, whether to employ mobile/wireless middleware, how to manage mobile computers and their configurations in the field, and how to implement security. We help with the device decision in our comparative review of 3G-enabled notebooks (see nwcreports.com). Justification involves a careful examination of the job function being performed and how it might change with mobile access to enterprise data. In addition, supporting mobile systems in the field requires expertise that many organizations are only beginning to acquire.The good news: Wide-area wireless networks are really starting to hum, delivering excellent speeds with good resulting application performance and, by the end of this year, high-speed 3G networks will be available in most U.S. metro areas.

The bad news: The number of wireless technologies you need to assess keeps increasing, with new 3G offerings and alternate technologies, such as WiMAX and metropolitan Wi-Fi, being evaluated or tested by operators for large-scale deployments. If that's not confusing enough, entirely new standards, including IEEE 802.20 mobile broadband, are on the fast track for completion.

A carefully developed and implemented mobile and wireless computing plan will benefit most companies, but creating such a plan is a complex undertaking, which explains the slow adoption rates we've seen so far. We discuss adoption and more in our original in-depth research and analysis report on the mobile broadband market at nwc.com/nwcanalytics, but, for example, only 11 percent of readers polled for this article cited widespread adoption of wide-area wireless data in their organizations.

Still, billions of dollars will be spent this decade on these new networks as operators vie for supremacy. We'll look ahead three years to sort out promise from reality by examining various networks, their capabilities, their availability and their costs. Choosing a network based on coverage or speed is straightforward. It's the other items, such as figuring out return on investment and how to manage devices in the field, that can flatten you if you're not paying attention.

How We Got HereA decade ago, wide-area wireless networks had throughput rates of only about 10 Kbps and were dedicated to data. CDPD, Mobitex, Ardis and Metricom's Ricochet were the big fish, but they ruled a small pond: None netted subscriber numbers greater than the hundreds of thousands.

In the late 1990s, wireless data systems became integrated into cellular networks, which had been deployed first for analog, then digital, voice service. Initial data speeds were relatively slow, still around 10 Kbps, and were based on a circuit-switched (dial-up) model where data essentially consumed a voice channel.

However, speeds quickly increased, and the model switched to packet-based IP. GPRS (General Packet Radio Service) for GSM networks, operated by Cingular Wireless and T-Mobile, had average throughput rates of 30 Kbps to 40 Kbps; throughput improved to around 100 Kbps with EDGE (Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution), and CDMA networks, operated by Sprint Nextel and Verizon, had average rates of around 70 Kbps. Network latency was quite high in early networks, but started to decrease for round-trip times to below 500 milliseconds (msec).

Today, most cellular operators are deploying what are called 3G technologies (1G is analog; 2G, digital). Average downlink throughput rates for 3G networks are quoted by operators as 400 Kbps to 700 Kbps--50 times faster than earlier networks. Moreover, network latency has improved significantly, approaching 100-msec round-trip times in the latest systems. Pricing has also improved: A year ago, unlimited data plans cost $80 per month; these plans are now trending toward $50 per month.But though the industry has made tremendous progress, relatively high service costs, connections that aren't as stable as wireline links and complicated security mean wireless data remains challenging for many organizations. Evidence of this: Wireless operators have worked hard to get data revenues to reach 10 percent of their total revenues. However, adoption is growing rapidly, and is likely to double within three years, according to Yankee Group. Voice continues to dominate as the killer app.

Cellular Wireless Domination

You can't argue with more than 2 billion subscribers worldwide--clearly, cellular operators are providing extremely broad coverage of wireless services. The United States alone has more than 100,000 cell sites, providing service in virtually all areas where people work and live, as well as all major and many minor highways. And now that cellular networks provide both voice and data services, data is available in more locales than ever before. Although hotspots and metro Wi-Fi are available in an increasing number of areas, their total coverage constitutes a fraction compared with cellular coverage. For any truly mobile application, it's hard to beat cellular-based services.

But just how useful are these services for data apps? We summarize the capabilities of today's networks, using speeds derived from operator-stated performance and prior NWC tests in "Cellular Carriers Rule the Market," below left. As you can see, speeds are quite good, and these services are suitable for a wide range of applications. Two important technical issues to consider: the hybrid nature of today's 2G-3G networks and variabilities in network performance.

Operators are deploying EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) and HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) as high-speed overlays to substrate 1xRTT (one carrier, radio transmission technology) and EDGE networks. By year's end, Cingular, Sprint and Verizon plan to have coverage in the Top 100 metropolitan areas, but elsewhere, devices will fall back to slower service. Fortunately, connectivity is relatively seamless, and the networks support handover from one service to the other, even in midsession, albeit with delays that may approach tens of seconds. This means if your users are going to work across large geographic areas, you must ensure that your applications work well with both the current faster and the older, slower data services.The other consideration is variables in network performance. Wireless networks use extremely sophisticated methods to reliably deliver bits in widely varying RF conditions, to widely varying loads of voice and data users across an extremely finite spectrum resource. However, because radio technologies dynamically adjust to radio conditions, throughput and latency can vary, especially in poor signal situations, and you'll need to manage end user expectations. It's not unusual to see the 1-Mbps downlink throughput that 3G services deliver in good conditions fall to several 100 Kbps in poor conditions. Loading from other data or voice users can also affect network performance. For any large-scale deployment, make sure your app can tolerate the full range of speeds users will experience. Today's 3G networks have uplink speeds that are generally slower than downlink speeds, but that will change in next versions of the systems, expected in 2007, where links will be closer to symmetric.

If users are on the move, they may lose the signal entirely. Moreover, when the link picks up again, the new connection could come with a new IP address. This may adversely affect some software, such as VPNs. The bottom line, though, is that you can use off-the-shelf IP-based networking applications over today's wireless networks. There is a "but," however: If apps are going to be used on a continual basis by workers for productivity applications, you must perform rigorous pilots to make sure they work as dependably as you need. Fortunately, nearly all large application vendors, including IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and Sybase, are rewriting their applications so they work well over wireless links. There are also mobile/wireless middleware providers whose mobile VPNs mitigate against connection loss, provide seamless connectivity over different types of networks (such as cellular and Wi-Fi), and offer end-to-end security.

Fast And Cheap

While speeds have gone up, prices for services have dropped significantly. As we mentioned, a year ago major operators were charging $80 per month for unlimited data usage. Now, plans are generally $50 to $60 per month when combined with voice service. T-Mobile has the most aggressive pricing, with data plans at $30 per month. Unlimited-use plans will readily support business applications, but if you're thinking of hosting a Web server or want to start downloading movies, you may get a cease-and-desist letter from your operator.

Smartphone plans are less expensive, typically $40 per month for unlimited use. Still, in our reader poll for this article, slightly more than half of respondents said pricing for cellular-data services is still too high, and 85 percent said they prefer flat-rate plans over usage-based offerings.Looking into the future, networks will just keep getting faster. The next major upgrade to cellular networks for both EV-DO and UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems)--due in 2007--will provide faster uplink speeds, with expected averages of around 400 Kbps. We expect that, by the end of the decade, average throughput rates will be nearly 10 times higher than what we see on today's networks.

The Wi-Fi Disruption Factor

A completely different approach for mobile broadband is metro or municipal Wi-Fi. Here, a new breed of operator is deploying APs throughout city areas, using a mesh architecture, where APs can act as repeaters and only a subset of APs need wireline connections to a core network.

The attraction is obvious, especially for laptop users who have Wi-Fi cards in their computers. Wi-Fi offers better network application performance, thanks to its higher throughput rates and lower latency. Wi-Fi also can deliver higher data throughput densities than 3G networks because the spectrum serves a small number of users in cells much smaller than those of cellular networks. Typical deployment densities are 20 to 40 APs per square mile, with theoretical aggregate throughputs of 20 Mbps to 100 Mbps in that area--more than 10 times higher than what can be achieved with a 3G base station.

Another benefit is the availability of 4.9-GHz licensed spectrum for public safety applications. Motorola and other vendors have multimode APs that can simultaneously support the 4.9-GHz band for government applications, and 2.4 GHz for residential and business users. Operators can provide tiered service, charging for one level of throughput while offering free or discounted service at throttled-down speeds. There's even an IEEE standard in development, IEEE 802.11s, that will standardize mesh architectures and protocols.

That's the good news about metro Wi-Fi. Unfortunately, there are some serious concerns. One is that at affordable deployment densities, the signal can be quite weak by the time it reaches some buildings. In many cases, this will mandate repeaters to relay the outside signal indoors. This problem is being reported in many cities, including EarthLink's recent Anaheim, Calif., deployment. Another issue is that at 2.4 GHz, there are only three nonoverlapping RF channels available, making interference between private and public systems inevitable. The IEEE 802.11 protocols accommodate this to some extent, but only if stations can hear one another. The result will be degraded performance for some, as yet unknown, fraction of coverage areas.

Finally, the IEEE 802.11s standard is not expected to be completed until 2008, meaning that deployments today are based on proprietary vendor solutions.

And let's not forget yesterday's mobile-connectivity poster child: hotspots. Although media attention has waned, providers keep adding locations. According to JiWire, a company that compiles hotspot locations and statistics, as of May 2006, there were 114,150 hotspots in 126 countries, with 38,588 in the United States. Last time we took a large-scale look at hotspots, in May 2003, there were only 20,000, with Gartner estimating 120,000 worldwide by 2007; looks like that may be on target (see "Wireless Hotspots Heat Up").

So will Wi-Fi compete with 3G? It certainly will take some customers away, especially laptop users who need only occasional connectivity in places where they know they can obtain Wi-Fi coverage. However, we see the technologies as generally complementary. Wi-Fi, while offering good performance, is available in only a tiny fraction--less than 1 percent--of the area covered by cellular networks. Many of your users will want Wi-Fi for better performance when available, but will desire the broader coverage of cellular networks the rest of the time.Users will have no problem taking advantage of an ever-increasing number of networks, depending on their circumstances and location. Long term, the addition of Wi-Fi capabilities to mobile phones will blend Wi-Fi and 3G network technologies, allowing their use over corporate and home Wi-Fi networks. This is very much a work in progress, however, requiring additional infrastructure in operator networks as well as new types of service plans.

WiMAX And Other Long-term Disruptions

One potential threat to 3G's hegemony is WiMAX, a broadband wireless technology standardized in IEEE 802.16. Not that carriers are too nervous yet: Any overthrow will take years to happen. The version of WiMAX available now in shipping equipment is Fixed WiMAX (meaning with stationary endpoints), which provides an alternative to DSL, cable modem or T1 services. The most likely deployments are in rural areas or developing countries. The greatest vendor interest, however, is centered on Mobile WiMAX, an enhanced version of WiMAX that allows high-speed movement and hand-offs across base stations. Standards work is complete, but we're still about a year away from certified equipment. Mobile WiMAX could be a high-speed data overlay for future cellular systems, or could exist as a standalone network.

Although Mobile WiMAX promises higher levels of performance than current 3G systems, there are big questions about available spectrum, and which operators are in a position to actually deploy it. In the United States, only Sprint Nextel has spectrum for widescale deployment, using its sizeable holdings in the 2.5-GHz band. On Aug. 8, Sprint Nextel announced its decision to proceed with a Mobile WiMAX deployment, with a network that will reach 100 million people in the U.S. by 2008. The company promises typical throughput rates of 2 Mbps to 4 Mbps, which is a bit optimistic, especially once people start using the network. Nevertheless, this constitutes a strong endorsement for the technology. Meantime, Clearwire, another operator with 2.5-GHz spectrum and broadband wireless coverage that emphasizes secondary markets, recently received $600 million from Intel and $300 million from Motorola to help fund WiMAX deployment.

Beyond Mobile WiMAX and UMTS-TDD, there's also the IEEE 802.20 mobile broadband standard, which has been revitalized with Qualcomm's active participation following its acquisition of Flarion and Flarion's Flash OFDM technology. Work on 802.20 has been suspended due to allegations of improprieties in the standards process, though this is likely a short-term upset. IEEE 802.20 products and infrastructure could be available by 2008, and 802.20 might be a serious contender. There's a proposal within CDMA2000 standards work to harmonize it with a future version of CDMA2000, EV-DO Rev C.What we're now witnessing is nothing short of a global wireless battle to achieve a dominant position as we move from 3G services to 4G. Never mind that 4G is still completely undefined ... this is the opportunity WiMAX proponents are reaching for, but they'll be competing with IEEE 802.20, evolved 3G systems, and the cellular community's own aggressive evolution path to next-generation systems such as 3GPP LTE (Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution).

In reality, it will be the end of the decade before any entirely new wireless technologies could be widely available, and which one will prevail is hard to predict. For now, what IT managers need to know is that CDMA2000 and GSM/UMTS/HSDPA networks dominate in the wide area. For an evolution time line of the major technologies, see "Mobile Data Evolution" at nwcreports.com.

Beyond Speed

Throughput, coverage and costs aren't the only considerations when choosing a wireless network to serve mobile employees; there are quite a few other items that you need to consider; we summarize some of them in "Decision Points: Choosing a Wireless Network".

Given the complexity of developing a strategy, it's no wonder wireless-data adoption has been slow. It's one thing for an individual mobile professional to run an enterprise VPN over a 3G data service to connect from the road. It's another matter to architect a comprehensive mobile computing program that supports both laptops and smartphones, while addressing all the security, reliability, performance and management aspects. Users in the field also need different types of support, such as centrally managed tools that monitor remote device configurations and can update systems accordingly.

This may explain why a limited number of poll respondents indicated widespread cellular-data usage, and a bit higher Wi-Fi usage. Nevertheless, the hardware, software and network options for mobile/wireless are better than ever, so we expect these numbers to grow steadily.

Bottom line, networks are faster and more capable, usage prices are dropping, smartphones are becoming more powerful, more applications run better over wireless, and built-in mobile broadband is now a practical option. We don't quite have ubiquitous, low-cost mobile broadband, but we're closer than ever before. If you work through the issues outlined above, it's highly likely that a sizeable portion of your workers can benefit. n

Peter Rysavy is president of Rysavy Research, a consulting firm specializing in wireless networking.

Smarter Than Your Average Phone

Smartphones continue to make headway as a productivity tool for many workers. We use smartphone to refer to intelligent devices in both a phone form, like the Cingular 2125 or T-Mobile SDA, and those that are more like PDAs, such as the Motorola Q, Nokia 9300, RIM BlackBerry 8700 and Treo 700.What differentiates a smartphone is the use of a general-purpose OS that lets a variety of applications run on the device. The leading platforms are Microsoft Windows Mobile, Palm OS, RIM BlackBerry and Symbian. The latest trend in smartphones is support for 3G services; the Treo 700p and Treo 700w, BlackBerry 8700 and the new Motorola Q all support EV-DO. Your users may not need such speed for background e-mail downloads, but it makes Web browsing and other intensive data downloads much more bearable. Some models, like the UTStarcom 6700, also support Wi-Fi, which increasingly will be supported by both smartphones and other mobile telephones.

Other market developments since our review of smartphones late last year (see "Strong Capabilities, Difficult Decisions," at nwc.com/ showitem. jhtml? docid= 1622f2) include the availability of devices using Windows Mobile 5, and Microsoft's Messaging and Security Feature Pack (MSFP) for Windows Mobile 5 that, in combination with Service Pack 2 for Exchange Server 2003, delivers push e-mail without the need for third-party infrastructure. However, third-party systems provide more comprehensive features, such as management tools.

Although Symbian devices represent the majority of smartphones sold globally and continue to do well in Europe, the OS still has little recognition in the United States. Palm OS has sold well through the Treo line, but the current version is reaching the end of its life. PalmSource (now owned by the Japanese company Access) says it intends to evolve the platform to a Linux base.

RIM's powerful BlackBerry 8700 keeps BlackBerry solidly atop the smartphone game. So far, we see no indication that any of these four primary smartphone platforms is going to go away, which complicates the lives of IT managers who must support multiple platforms. Linux will also be a contender in the near future.

Managers must decide whether to have separate remote-access architectures for smartphones and laptops. Conventional IPsec VPNs do not support smartphone platforms, but mobile VPNs, from NetMotion and others, and SSL VPNs, from companies like Aventail, have increasing support for mobile platforms, which makes a unified remote-access architecture feasible. Your circumstances will dictate which approach makes the most sense.Finally, IT managers may encounter workers who want to use their personal phones for business. Given that phones are highly personal items, accommodating user preferences is an additional complexity. Despite all these challenges, according to ABI Research, smartphone sales will exceed 120 million units this year, and will constitute a 15 percent share of the mobile phone market.

Justify My Wireless Data

What's The ROI For Wireless Data? That's a complicated question, and one we struggled with. Our reader poll showed wireless data providing a significant benefit for personal productivity, increased operational efficiency, satisfying general information needs of mobile employees, providing senior executives access to critical information, more positive customer interaction, as well as faster and better decision making.

Clearly, productivity and efficiency are important variables in the ROI equation, and if access to wireless data helps your business deliver a better product or service, that also must factor in. The challenge is to quantify all these items.

We asked a number of carriers to provide their take and received ROI information from both RIM and Cingular Wireless.

RIM sent us a 2004 study by Ipsos Reid of 210 end users and 490 IT managers. Looking at factors such as recovered downtime (being productive at times when work could not otherwise be performed), work efficiency, value of responding more quickly and costs of ownership, the study concludes a payback period as low as one month. Improved personal productivity by itself yielded a seven-month payback period. Our main concern is the distraction factor of people receiving and reacting to nonurgent e-mails when they should be concentrating on other tasks. Still, due to the relatively low cost of equipment and service, it doesn't take much productivity gain and improved business process to justify a smartphone.

For laptops, devices and service are more expensive than for smartphones. Cingular Wireless, in an interview, said it works closely with larger customers to assess ROI. Recognizing the different productivity gains involved in different market segments, Cingular uses segment-specific ROI models. The carrier gave us a sample output of its ROI model, based on a telecom field-service professional engaged in work-order scheduling and processing, and knowledge-base access; the model showed a nine-month breakeven on wireless investment.

If you're performing an ROI calculation for a wireless investment, make sure you factor in the appropriate deployment and ongoing support costs, as well as expenditures for training both support staff and users. There's no question that wireless technology can significantly improve productivity and business efficiency, but if it's a new area for you, there is a learning curve involved.

NWC Reports: Laptops With Integrated 3G Adapters

IT professionals who've paid attention to the WLAN adapter evolution cycle may notice that the progression of WWAN adapters is following a condensed, yet nearly identical, time line. Just like first-generation WLAN adapters, the first form factor of WWAN adapters arrived as add-on PC Cards designed to work on a variety of platforms. Now, WWAN adapters are beginning their integration into mobile laptop and tablet systems, giving users yet another option to feed their "anywhere, anytime" connectivity desires. But should enterprises in the market for new PCs to outfit mobile workers make the move to an integrated model?

Find our complete Comparative Product Review At NWC Reports. Go to NWC Analytics for our original in-depth research and analysis on the mobile broadband market.

Wireless carriers are deploying 3G wide-area wireless services across the nation at a steady clip; by year end, these high-speed networks will be available to mobile workers in most U.S. metro areas. But to take advantage of these links, your users will need specialized adapters in their notebooks. Not surprisingly, 3G chipset manufacturers, such as Sierra Wireless and Novatel Wireless, and laptop makers, such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo and Toshiba, are collaborating to ensure that mobile professionals are well-served. But should enterprise IT groups buy into their vision?

In our previous evaluation of mobile 3G services (see "Strong Capabilities, Difficult Decisions"), we evaluated WWAN (wireless WAN) PC Card offerings from Cingular, Sprint and Verizon. Although these PCMCIA-form-factor add-on cards still dominate the 3G data services market, the next step in the WWAN hardware evolution is built-in adapters. The key advantages of this integration include improved embedded antenna design, better radio shielding, and the convenience of having one mobile system that can use both WLAN and WWAN connections without external add-ons.

Integrated 3G and WLAN adapters do have inherent differences, some of which give rise to key disadvantages. WLAN adapters are based on an infrastructure-neutral standard, 802.11, for example, whereas 3G refers to third-generation WWAN services based on EV-DO (Evolution-Data Optimized) technology with service by Sprint or Verizon, or HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) with service by Cingular (we discuss battling 3G technologies in more depth in "Time to Decide"). Built-in 3G adapters are far less flexible than WLAN adapters because each module is tied to a specific service provider, so changing providers requires costly module replacement. It's important that the decision between integrated or external PC Card for 3G take into account this loss of flexibility. More on making that decision later.Increasingly Mobile Platforms

To evaluate the latest generation of 3G notebooks, we invited Dell, HP, Lenovo, Sony and Toshiba to send us systems with integrated 3G modules supporting Verizon's BroadbandAccess CDMA2000 1xEVDO-based service or Cingular's Broadband Connect GSM/ UMTS HSDPA service.

HP sent us its Compaq nc6400, a 5-pound, widescreen notebook sporting integrated 3G service by Verizon. Lenovo sent its T60, a 5.5-pound laptop with integrated WWAN service by Verizon. Dell sent us two 5-pound widescreen D620 notebooks, one with service by Verizon and the other supporting Cingular. Each system featured an integrated dual-band 802.11a/b/g adapter, which is increasingly becoming the standard for notebooks.

Toshiba agreed to send its Toshiba Portégé M400 Tablet PC, supporting Verizon, but limited supplies prevented us from receiving a unit before our testing window closed. Sony declined to participate.

We tested the 3G notebooks on production WWAN networks in the metropolitan markets of Syracuse, N.Y. and Washington. We tested at five unique sites in each market, with at least one site providing a "strong" signal (three to four bars) and one "weak" signal (one to two bars).Internal Vs. External

The most obvious question regarding a potential mobile broadband system deployment: Do you use the established add-on PC Card method or opt for notebooks with integrated 3G modules? After discussing this issue with a number of laptop system and WWAN module manufacturers, we believe that integrated WWAN connections offer advantages, but at a cost in lost flexibility. For example, PC Cards can be provisioned and swapped among any number of systems that have the appropriate software and drivers installed. This lets a corporate team share 3G adapters, so long as only a few members are traveling concurrently. Carriers might not like such shared-usage scenarios, but if a card is being used by only one individual at any given time and monthly usage limits are obeyed, the corporation is adhering to the service provider's acceptable-use policy.

In contrast, systems with integrated 3G services are locked into individual service contracts, which can quickly increase total costs if each notebook is provisioned with its own unlimited data plan. Like most cellular devices, each 3G module and PC Card comes tied to one service provider (in our case, Verizon or Cingular) requiring integrated module replacement when switching providers. An example is Dell's D620 notebook, which can initially be provisioned with either Verizon's or Cingular's 3G service. Because the integrated modules are a "customer replaceable" part, the notebook can be upgraded to support a different carrier, for a price.

Flexibility issues aside, integrated 3G modules offer the prospect of improved performance, most notably through optimized embedded antenna design. We evaluated the performance of internal versus external adapters by comparing a Lenovo T43 with an external Novatel Wireless Verizon V620 EVDO PC card against the other integrated EVDO systems at each Syracuse test location. Download speeds averaged 631 Kbps for the PC Card versus 605 Kbps for integrated 3G systems. Upload performance of the PC Card was about 10 percent lower than the integrated systems, 94 Kbps versus 103 Kbps, respectively. The PC Card average latency was 179 ms, similar to the integrated 3G system performance of 166 ms, but the maximum recorded PC Card latency was 825 ms, in contrast to the 560 ms maximum recorded by any integrated system. This highest maximum PC Card latency was measured in our fifth Syracuse testing location, which averaged one or fewer signal bars and proved particularly difficult for sending data in an upstream direction (from device to cellular base station). These low-signal situations bring out the true differentiation between products: Our results show that when the going gets tough, integrated 3G adapters provide a slightly better user experience.

Looking at the entire performance picture, however, differences between PC Card and integrated 3G systems are relatively small. When signals average two bars or more (a majority of our test locations), performance between the two platforms was surprisingly similar--an average user would hardly notice a difference. Therefore, your choice should not be based on performance alone but take into account flexibility requirements and probable usage scenarios.

Art Of The Antenna

The initial generation of integrated WLAN adapters was plagued by inferior antenna designs and internal interference issues that, in some instances, made external PC Cards look like a better connectivity option. Not wanting to repeat history, laptop manufacturers have invested resources in complex antenna designs and expert module placement, intent on squeezing the best possible connection from sometimes intermittent wireless broadband signal coverage.

Although our spread-out test locations and multiple iterations were designed to minimize interference from external factors, we want to issue a disclaimer when it comes to interpreting results: Because our testing took place on production WWAN networks, uncontrollable factors, such as network loading, introduced some variance within our results. In addition, our testing methodology centered around assessing performance through applications, such as FTP and ping, that have distinct traffic-pattern and packet-size differences compared with typical mobile applications, such as e-mail and Web browsing.

These results can be considered a representation of "typical" user performance in a midsize market (Syracuse) and a major market (Washington), but because each market's environment, network utilization and cellular base station deployment is different, effective user performance will be variable as well.

Although typical usage scenarios for 3G connections center on e-mail and Web browsing, our testing methodology employed more repeatable and definitive performance metrics, including throughput and latency tests. Throughput was measured via FTP upload and download tests against servers in Syracuse and San Antonio, respectively. We measured latency using the command line ping utility against a server in Syracuse, Google.com and Yahoo.com. For more information on our testing procedures see "How We Tested."

The notebooks under test exhibited distinct performance differences; the most apparent was download speeds, which varied by as much as 450 Kbps. For Verizon's network, the clear leader was Dell's D620, which averaged 835 Kbps in Syracuse and peaked at 1116 Kbps at one strong signal location. In contrast, Lenovo's T60 exhibited below-par performance across the board. Averaging 382 Kbps and peaking at 523 Kbps, the Lenovo system's best performance was worse than the Dell system's worst showing. The HP nc6400's performance was middle of the road, averaging 597 Kbps and peaking at 688 Kbps.

Explanations for the Verizon Dell's superiority can be attributed to the integrated Novatel Wireless module (both the HP and Lenovo use modules from Sierra Wireless), as well as a more complex antenna design. In comparison to other broadband options, a consumer DSL connection is often rated at line speeds of 768 Kbps or 1500 Kbps; close to our overall Verizon average of 611Kbps, proving that current WWAN networks provide a comparable broadband experience.For Cingular download performance we recorded an average of 782 Kbps in Washington, showing that Dell's D620 performs well regardless of which 3G module it includes. We also evaluated performance of the slower EDGE-based network in Syracuse and received 66 Kbps on average, representative of speed in non-HSDPA markets.

Upstream speeds exhibited much less variation. For Verizon systems, upload performance averaged 102 Kbps for Syracuse and 109 Kbps for Washington; for Cingular, we saw an average of 117 Kbps in Washington (70 kbps on Syracuse's slower EDGE-based network). Not surprisingly, low-signal locations with an average of zero or one signal bars (or less than -100 dBm) proved particularly detrimental to upload performance for both Verizon and Cingular systems. In these situations, the only notebook to successfully complete our upload test was the Verizon-based HP nc6400, which averaged 45 Kbps while other systems recorded numerous and repeatable upload transfer failures.

Dead-zone Dearth

Although performance benchmarks can be representative of a typical user's performance, they provide little value in representing another important detail: a network's coverage area. In our search for testing locations that would provide meaningful information, we found it particularly difficult to encounter weak signal locations, and even more difficult to find dead spots! We're not saying dead spots don't exist in today's 3G networks, but to find a location that wasn't adequately covered by Verizon's EV-DO network in Syracuse required holing up in a basement with no windows in sight--challenging conditions for any radio signal.

The final component of our performance evaluation centered on the latency of each system's integrated 3G connection. When measuring latency it's important to remember that it's a representation of the round trip time it takes a packet to go from source to destination and back to the source, measured in milliseconds, with lower values being more desirable. For Verizon-based systems, we measured an average latency of 167 ms in Syracuse and 164 ms in Washington. The lone Cingular-based system recorded an average latency of 162 ms in Washington. That's a marked improvement over legacy 2.5G networks, such as EDGE and 1x, which average latencies in the 500-ms range.

Although high latency can affect Web browsing and e-mail performance, it's more damaging in real-time applications, such as VoIP and video conferencing. A latency of 50 ms is considered excellent, while 150 ms is considered the maximum allowable for providing usable voice services. In addition to average latency, we also recorded the maximum latency exhibited by each system. We recorded a maximum of 385 ms for Verizon's service in Syracuse and 505 ms in Washington. Cingular's maximum recorded latency was similar, at 550 ms in Washington. With our recorded maximum latencies as high as 500 ms, a VoIP conversation can quickly become out of sync on 3G networks if performance isn't top notch.

Choices, Choices

From a usability standpoint, the integration of WWAN adapters alongside the existing assortment of connectivity options, including Ethernet, WLAN and Bluetooth, can be a mixed blessing. Although the inclusion of a WWAN connection increases a user's potential for mobility, managing yet another configuration utility could become cumbersome. A simpler system would provide wireless network transparency by automatically choosing the best connection and seamlessly roaming when a better choice becomes available. This functionality is possible only on the Dell and Lenovo systems, which bundle multifunction connection managers designed for the job.

In addition to managing multiple connections, users will be forced to make general connectivity decisions--the possibility for multiple network overlap increases as coverage becomes more widespread. A user in a local Starbucks might be using her Verizon 3G connection, for example, completely unaware that faster and cheaper Wi-Fi hotspot coverage is within her reach. Clearly, software configuration and management becomes an important factor when differentiating among systems with integrated 3G services.

The basic level of connection management exists as independent configuration utilities for each type of network adapter. HP took this approach by bundling Verizon's VZAccess Manager 5.6.1, the same utility included with the majority of EVDO-based PC Cards on the market. We found VZAccess Manager's user interface clean and intuitive but powerful enough to keep advanced users happy. We tested the automatic VPN-connection feature, which supports Microsoft's built-in VPN client or an external third-party client--functionality corporate VPN users will find handy. In addition, advanced statistics, such as current and historical upload/download rate, usage logs and signal strength, are easily accessible. The application also features an integrated SMS text messenger useful for sending short messages to other cellular devices.

Dell's utility approach was similar to HP's except 3G connection management was facilitated by Dell's own Mobile Broadband Card Utility on both the Verizon- and Cingular-based systems. By using the same front-end utility for both 3G service providers, Dell can create some synergy--users familiar with one system can easily transition to the other, for example, while administrators need to provide support for only one user interface. In addition to the standard connection log and SMS capabilities, the included self-diagnostics dialog lists specific hardware and software information, and features a few self-tests that will be useful for troubleshooting connection problems.

In addition to the bundled WWAN utility, Dell addresses overall connection management through its Quickset Location Profiler 7.0.8. We found this utility's profile capabilities as powerful and intuitive as anything the competition offers. It encompasses Ethernet, WLAN and WWAN profiles with additional settings for automatic VPN launching, firewall enabling, even configurations for folder sharing. We tested its ability to juggle multiple connections by first setting up two location profiles, one for the 3G connection and the other for our local lab network, including both WLAN and Ethernet adapters. Our test case began with an Ethernet connection, which we then unplugged; the utility subsequently connected to our lab's wireless network, which we had specified earlier. Next, we moved the laptop out of the wireless network's range and, as expected, the 3G connection came to life automatically. We then repeated the entire process in reverse order, resulting in a WWAN-to-WLAN-to-Ethernet connection sequence. In addition, a constant ping of Google.com was active throughout this process and although packets were lost as connections were switched, the overall upkeep of connectivity across three different underlying network types was impressive. One gripe we had was the overall automatic profile switching setup process, which required numerous changes from the default options to orchestrate the previous results. Fortunately, system administrators can export and mass deploy these connection profiles, so the configuration process doesn't have to be repeated on each machine.

Like the Dell notebooks, the Lenovo system also included a multifunction connection management utility, ThinkVantage Access Connections Version 4.12. By using a single connection management utility, Lenovo makes choosing among available wired, WLAN and WWAN connectivity options a more intuitive process. We tested the functionality of this utility in a manner similar to our evaluation of Dell's connection utility and found its performance comparable. For example, while initially connected to the Verizon 3G network, the utility will switch connection profiles automatically after an Ethernet cable is plugged in, which also causes the WWAN radio to be disconnected--a prime case of choosing a faster, better, cheaper connectivity option. From a functionality standpoint, both Dell's and Lenovo's multifunction connection managers are first-rate, but given the choice, we prefer the simpler user interface in Lenovo's software.

In addition to managing connection parameters, many manufacturers include specialized hardware and software switches for quickly enabling or disabling internal wireless adapters. Because wireless radios can negatively impact battery life, it's important to ensure they're enabled only when necessary. In addition, unneeded or unwanted wireless connections pose an oft-overlooked security risk, especially when a notebook opportunistically connects to the strongest WLAN without user intervention. Addressing both power and security concerns, all of the notebooks we received include hardware radio switches, located on the side, front or inside of the system, that control internal WLAN and WWAN modules. Dell's hardware switch featured the unique capability of launching its Wi-Fi Catcher utility, useful for connecting to wireless networks in new locations. HP upped the ante by including its own HP Wireless Assistant software utility, which can individually or simultaneously control the power state of the WWAN, WLAN and Bluetooth adapters.

So, do more connectivity options mean better overall connectivity? In short, yes, if managed correctly. The integration of WWAN services into notebook systems allows mobile professionals to work under an ever-expanding connectivity blanket of WWAN and WLAN hotspots, but choosing the fastest and most cost-effective option isn't always easy.

The bottom line is, external PC Cards offer flexibility that an integrated system can't match. But if you want the performance edge that an integrated 3G adapter can provide, our performance results and hands-on experience point to Dell's integrated 3G technology as being the best. Regardless of the carrier (Verizon or Cingular), Dell's D620 provided a strikingly similar user experience to wired broadband offerings. n

Jameson Blandford is the lab director at the Center for Emerging Network Technologies at Syracuse University. Write to him at [email protected].

How We TestedOur testing of 3G notebooks took place on production WWAN (wireless WAN) networks in Syracuse, N.Y., and Washington, D.C. Our test locations consisted of five unique sites in each market, with at least one "strong" signal location measured as three to four signal bars and one "weak" location measured as one to two signal bars. Our testing timeline revolved around testing each system in sequence and repeating; for example, each would undergo a download, upload and latency test before we tested the next system in a similar fashion. We then repeated the whole testing cycle three times at each location.

To assess the throughput of the WWAN connection, we used upstream FTP file transfers to a server on Syracuse University's campus network, which is connected to the Internet via an OC-3 link (155 Mbps maximum). Downstream tests used a collocated FTP server in San Antonio. The downstream file transfer consisted of a 5-MB file created and compressed using WinRAR; the 1-MB upstream file was created in a similar manner.

Latency of the connections was measured using a custom batch file automating the Microsoft Windows ping utility. Our target servers were cent.syr.edu, www.google.com and www.yahoo.com. We ran each ping once to ensure the radio was powered up, then repeated 10 times, recording the average and maximum latency metrics in milliseconds.

We made every effort to ensure all test systems were operating on a level playing field. Only the system under test had its 3G radio powered on, for example; we kept the other systems shut down. Notebook power settings were also kept constant, with each system configured with the Microsoft Windows power scheme set to "Always On."

All Network Computing product reviews are conducted by current or former IT professionals in our own Real-World Labs®, according to our own test criteria. Vendor involvement is limited to assistance in configuration and troubleshooting. Network Computing schedules reviews based solely on our editorial judgment of reader needs, and we conduct tests and publish results without vendor influence.

I Pass: Simple Connections Over Complex NetworksMobile professionals are being inundated with connectivity options, ranging from Wi-Fi hotspots to 3G WWANs to the ever-present dial-up modem, all aimed at making working outside the office a painless process (at least from a technology perspective). But their inherent complexity can be a major pain point for users and IT administrators alike.

The biggest gripes among users generally center on configuration and usability; most difficulties stem from the need to use separate connection utilities and login credentials for each type of network. IT administrators face a different challenge, as they must ensure that company data never traverses the airwaves unprotected, but have little remote management and corporate policy enforcement authority over the user's laptop.

Enter iPass' iPassConnect, a service aimed at giving users a simple, unified remote access configuration and login application that supports almost any network connection they will likely encounter. Once installed, the iPass software provides a single interface listing all possible wireless and dial-up connection methods available in the user's area. Once the user chooses the desired network, the software authenticates the user's credentials against the iPass RoamServer installed within your company's network, which in turn authorizes or denies the user based on the AAA (authentication, authorization and accounting) server you specify. This lets users employ their existing corporate logins (be they Active Directory, LDAP or RADIUS) while on the road, eliminating the confusion that can arise from multiple user name/password combinations.

The iPass service also keeps IT administrators happy by filling the management void that can occur when users are working thousands of miles outside the protection of the corporate network. In addition to authenticating users, the iPass RoamServer includes a multitude of management and security features to ensure that a user's endpoint strictly follows corporate policy.

One of iPass' most powerful endpoint-management functions includes tying into antivirus services, such as those from McAfee, to make certain the latest antivirus definition files are deployed to remote devices before they connect. Everything from antivirus software, firewall and VPN connection requirements are configurable and enforced through iPass end to end.Although the iPass software is a required piece, the real value of its service aggregation shines through the large number of hotspots (roughly 60,000 locations) and dial-up accounts that make up the iPass access network. Because a variety of connection methods are supported, iPass' pricing structure is accordingly complex. We were quoted .04 to .22 cents a minute for dial-up, .12 to .25 cents a minute for Wi-Fi and $68 a month for unlimited EV-DO access through iPass, including service from Verizon Wireless. Corporations can negotiate discounts for volume and term commitments.

We tested a trial version of iPassConnect 3.41 at our Syracuse University Real-World Labs® and found it did an adequate job at making network connections a less-complicated process. Compared with the conventional method of juggling multiple profiles for each Wi-Fi, WWAN and dial-up connection, iPass provides the distinct advantage of having one easy-to-use interface that most users will find intuitive. For more information visit www.ipass.com.