Beginning this summer, as soon as next month, wireless Internet access will arrive in the passenger cabins of some commercial U.S. airliners.

On these Internet-equipped planes, any passenger with a Wi-Fi enabled laptop — or a cellphone with Wi-Fi — will be able to do almost everything he or she could do online at home or at the office. That includes surfing the Web, using email, having instant-messenger text chats, downloading and uploading files, and streaming video and audio.

In fact, I did all these things a few days ago on a test flight using the new system, called Gogo. During the flight from San Francisco to Denver, on a small test jet, I could operate online as if I were sitting at my desk, or in a Starbucks. I used Dell (DELL) and Apple (AAPL) laptops, a BlackBerry (RIMM), a Windows Mobile phone and an iPhone to perform all the most common online tasks, while soaring over majestic mountains and glorious national parks.

I sent and received emails on Microsoft (MSFT) Outlook and Apple Mail, including messages with hefty attachments. I conducted IM chats on AOL (TWX) Instant Messenger and Google (GOOG) Talk. Using all the major Web browsers, I called up dozens of Web sites, and watched video clips on Hulu and YouTube. I downloaded photos, songs, PDF files and Microsoft Office documents. I used all the Internet functions on the iPhone, and on the Wi-Fi-equipped BlackBerry and Windows Mobile phone.

One important caveat: Gogo is a data-only system. It doesn’t allow phone calls and will block all services that allow voice conversations to be made over the Internet.

Gogo will launch on three American Airlines (AMR) routes, likely in July. The first planes to use it will be American’s 15 Boeing 767s flying between New York and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami. Later in the year, Gogo will be available on all of Virgin America’s small number of routes, and possibly additional American routes, if the first deployment works well. It’s supplied to the airlines by a Denver-based company called Aircell, which says it is in negotiations to offer the Gogo service on several other major U.S. airlines by next year.

The Gogo service will cost a flat fee of $12.95 for flights of three hours or longer, and $9.95 for shorter trips. You log into Gogo as you would any commercial Internet service, registering on a special Web page. Aircell plans to allow advance sign-up, so you’d only have to enter an ID and password on the plane. No add-on software, hardware or cables are required.

A few Web functions will be offered free from Gogo, including access to the American Airlines Web site, to Frommer’s online travel guides and to a limited selection of articles from The Wall Street Journal.

Gogo isn’t the first in-plane Internet service. A few years ago, Lufthansa (LHA.MU) offered a satellite-based service from Boeing (BA), mainly on over-ocean flights, but it was canceled.

The service operates at respectable, if not blazing, speeds — similar to what you’d get on a cellular broadband service or a slow home DSL line. On my test flight, download speeds varied from 266 kilobits per second to about 1.4 megabits per second, with the most typical speeds hovering between 500 and 600 kbps. Upload speeds were between 250 and 300 kbps. I found that most of the tasks I tested, except for streaming video, felt smooth and normal.

Speeds could degrade on a large plane with scores of people online simultaneously. But Aircell claims it has the technology to make my experience representative for anyone doing common tasks, such as Web surfing and email. During my test flight, eight laptops and six Wi-Fi-enabled smart phones were using the system simultaneously. All registered decent speeds, except for a couple of minutes when the plane was crossing between the zones controlled by the company’s ground-based towers.

Aircell gets Internet access to the planes through a network of 92 towers scattered across North America. These essentially are cellphone towers, carrying a high-speed cellphone data signal, except that the Aircell antennas point up, into the sky. A receiver on the underside of the aircraft picks up the signal, which is then distributed through the plane via Wi-Fi.

The companies say Gogo is safe and won’t interfere with the plane’s operation. It is government-approved, and pilots can shut the system off should they deem it necessary.

Gogo has some limitations. The service plans to allocate its capacity so that low-bandwidth activities like Web surfing and email take priority over high-bandwidth ones like streaming video. That means you may find video to be slow and halting.

And Gogo is a North American, land-based service only. It won’t work over the oceans and, for now, it won’t work on other continents.

But for U.S. travelers who want to stay connected in the air, Gogo does the job.

• Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

The latest to arrive is the Samsung Instinct, to be introduced by Sprint (S) on June 20. I’ve been testing the Instinct, and while it isn’t a bad phone and has some features the Apple product lacks, it’s no match for the iPhone. The manufacturers haven’t replicated the iPhone’s greatest strength: beautiful, powerful, breakthrough software.

Samsung Instinct

Also, the timing of the Instinct is unfortunate. It was designed to go up against the first iPhone. Sprint even has a Web site (nowisgood.com) comparing the two devices. But the Instinct will go on sale only three weeks before Apple and AT&T (T) start selling the new 3G iPhone, the second-generation model announced earlier this week. This second iPhone model corrects some of the first model’s main weaknesses, wiping out some advantages Sprint hoped the Instinct would have.

Before getting into the details of the Instinct, a few words about the new iPhone, its main competition. I don’t do full reviews of products until I have tested them extensively, but my first impressions of the 3G iPhone are largely positive.

The price of the new iPhone’s base model, which comes with 8 gigabytes of memory, is $199, a 50% price cut from the comparable first-generation model. Yet, it now works on AT&T’s fastest data network, promising anywhere from two to five times the speed of its predecessor. It also has GPS for tracking your location, and fully supports over-the-air synchronization of email, contacts and calendars — through Microsoft (MSFT) Exchange in corporations or via a similar new consumer service from Apple called MobileMe. And you’ll be able to download directly to the phone a whole universe of third-party programs, from productivity software to games.

On the downside, the new iPhone’s camera remains very basic and still can’t capture video. For people who prefer physical keyboards, the iPhone will still fall short. It continues to include only a virtual onscreen keyboard. And the iPhone remains locked to a single carrier in the U.S., AT&T, which will charge $10 more per month for unlimited data consumption on the device.

The iPhone, along with some competitors like the BlackBerry, are really hand-held computers that happen to make voice calls. And they’re getting more powerful and innovative. So far, competitors like the Instinct, while trying to look like iPhones, are still mainly voice devices with so-so computing features tacked on.

For instance, while the Instinct is a touch-screen device, it lacks the iPhone’s “multi-touch” system, which includes features that recognize multiple fingers and gestures, and allows actions like shrinking a photo by “pinching” it. The touch system on the Instinct is more like that on an ancient ATM than a cutting-edge gadget, even though it has a gimmicky feedback mechanism that gives you a tiny vibration-jolt when you press an icon.

Physically, the Instinct looks a lot like the iPhone — a dark slab without a physical keyboard or many buttons dominated by a large screen. It’s a bit longer and thicker than the iPhone, but a tad narrower and lighter. Its screen is smaller than the iPhone’s and has lower resolution.

The Instinct has the same $199 price tag as the new iPhone, after a rebate and with a two-year contract. Service plans are likely to start at around $70, in line with the minimum monthly fee AT&T will charge on the new iPhone. But it comes with just one-quarter of the memory the base iPhone includes.

Like the 3G iPhone, the Instinct runs on a fast cellular network that promises speeds similar to what people get with slow home DSL service. In my tests, it seemed to deliver this promised speed. It also has GPS and navigation. But, unlike the iPhone, the Instinct lacks Wi-Fi wireless networking, which can often be faster than the cellphone networks or available where there is no speedy cellphone coverage.

The Instinct has a removable battery, something the iPhone lacks. And Sprint claims 5.7 hours of talk time on one charge, more than the five hours that Apple claims for its 3G model. Sprint’s new baby has a few other features that even the latest iPhone omits, such as a built-in service for viewing TV shows and a voice-command system.

But I found its email system and Web browser to be less sophisticated than the iPhone’s or the BlackBerry’s. I also thought the phone’s onscreen keyboard was harder to use than Apple’s. It would flip unpredictably from landscape to portrait mode. The Instinct does allow handwriting recognition as an alternative, something the iPhone doesn’t.

If you’re a devoted Sprint customer, or want to avoid AT&T, the Instinct is an OK choice. But it’s no iPhone.

• Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.

There are two models for this legal Internet distribution. Some shows and movies can be purchased or rented from services like Apple’s iTunes or Amazon’s Unbox. You pay a fee for these downloads, which don’t have commercials, and you can keep any videos you buy to watch repeatedly even without an Internet connection.

The other model, common on the Web sites of the TV networks, is free, ad-supported streaming directly within a Web browser. In this approach, you pay nothing, but you have to watch commercials that can’t be skipped. You must be connected to the Internet while watching, and you don’t get to keep the video.

This week, the ad-supported, streaming approach took a big leap forward with the launch of a Hollywood-backed service called Hulu, at hulu.com. Hulu aims to be a legal, one-stop shop for streaming of TV shows and movies from numerous networks and studios. It’s intended as an attractive antidote to pirate sites and to Google’s YouTube service, which has angered the media companies by allowing users to post all or parts of movies and TV shows without permission or payment.

Hulu is a joint effort of two big media conglomerates, NBC Universal and News Corp., each of which operates multiple networks and studios. (News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal and the Web sites where this column is published.) But Hulu contains programming from other companies as well, including Sony and Time Warner. All told, it offers full episodes or clips from about 400 TV series, plus 100 feature films.

I’ve been testing Hulu, and I am very impressed with its design and ease of use, and with the fact that it allows users to edit and re-publish its content on their own sites. Despite some drawbacks, it’s the first Web property I’ve seen from mainstream studios or networks that shows a real understanding of both modern Web design and the Internet’s culture of sharing. In my view, it’s far better than the typical network or studio Web site.

Even though Hulu lacks programming from ABC, CBS and many cable networks, it has a fair selection of popular shows, such as “30 Rock,” “The Office,” “The Simpsons,” “Battlestar Galactica” and “Saturday Night Live.” Its movie catalog includes old favorites like “The Usual Suspects,” “The Big Lebowski” and “Sideways.”

The site is organized in a clean, elegant manner. You can browse shows alphabetically, by genre or by network, or you can use an excellent search system. The search system even brings up links to videos of shows on other sites, such as ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy,” that are missing from Hulu’s own collection.

Watching the material is a pleasure. You can view it in a fixed window or in full-screen view. You can also “pop out” the viewing window so you can place it anywhere on your screen and resize it to your liking. A feature called “lower lights” grays out everything on the computer screen but the video itself.

Even the advertising is relatively painless. TV shows contain just 25% of the commercial time that’s on regular TV. And Hulu allows you, in some cases, to choose the advertisers whose commercials you see, or else to opt to watch a movie trailer at the start of a video in exchange for seeing no further ads during that viewing.

In a break with Hollywood’s past rigidity, Hulu makes it easy to share, even edit, shows and clips. You can repost an entire video, or any portion of it, on your own blog or on social networking sites.

But Hulu also has some major downsides. Most important, Hulu lacks depth. Even with TV series from its owners’ own networks, Hulu typically contains only a small number of full-length episodes, and mainly offers short clips. In some cases, episodes expire after a while. For some shows, such as “Saturday Night Live,” there aren’t any full episodes, only clips. And the wildly popular “American Idol” isn’t in Hulu at all, even though it airs on News Corp.’s Fox network.

This stands in stark contrast to the depth offered on iTunes, where you can find multiple seasons of full episodes of many shows. And it doesn’t begin to compete with pirate sites, where you can find nearly everything.

Also, Hulu requires a decent broadband connection — a speed of at least 1 megabit per second is recommended, and even higher speeds are needed for some content. That means that using Hulu over the slowest DSL lines or cellphone modem cards will likely provide a poor experience.

Another problem is that, unlike iTunes or Amazon Unbox, Hulu can’t be used via a TV set-top box or a portable player. And shows can’t be saved for offline viewing, such as during flights.

Still, Hulu is a good start for Hollywood in finally providing a better experience for Internet streaming of TV and movies. If the service can add a lot more content and make viewing possible in more scenarios, it might strike a real blow against piracy.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online, free, at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

But relatively few Americans have adopted these alternatives, which are called voice over Internet protocol services, or VOIP, for short. Some consumers avoid the move because VOIP services can’t connect to 911 emergency call centers in the traditional manner, and must use workarounds. Others worry that if their Internet service goes out, so does their phone service.

In addition, the stability of the VOIP providers isn’t certain. Vonage itself has been battered by legal problems and another VOIP service, SunRocket, shut down this week.

I’ve been testing a new type of VOIP option that will go on sale in September from a Silicon Valley start-up called Ooma, whose product goes by the same name. It differs radically from Vonage and other current VOIP providers, in two ways.

First, Ooma is a $399 piece of hardware that you pay for only once. There are no monthly bills. You just buy an Ooma Hub, a small device that looks like an answering machine. You plug it into your Internet connection and attach a phone, and you get free, unlimited domestic calls, local or long distance, as long as you keep your Ooma.

Second, with Ooma, you can easily keep your regular phone service as an integrated backup, for 911 calls, and in case the Internet service in your home goes out.

Ooma combines the VOIP and regular phone service. If you keep your standard phone service, Ooma uses your current phone number. And, if you dial 911, it always places that call over the traditional phone network. During an Internet outage, the device seamlessly switches to use the regular phone service, but you still pay no fees to Ooma.

If you do keep your standard service, you can reduce it to a very basic, low-cost plan, just for 911 and backup. International calls are routed through the Internet by Ooma and the company says they will cost roughly what Internet phone services like Skype charge for nonmember calls, which is well below traditional landline rates.

Ooma also delivers some added benefits. It gives you a virtual second line. If a call comes in when you are already on the line, the second call can be answered from another extension. It also has a built-in answering machine, and allows you to check your messages and call logs online.

I’ve been testing Ooma in my home for about a week and, except for a problem on one phone jack, I found it worked as promised. I tested it with both corded and cordless phones, and I also tested a companion $39 device, called an Ooma Scout, which must be plugged into the phone jacks in your house you want to use, beyond the jack to which the Hub is connected. Each scenario worked well.

When I plugged my cordless-phone base station into an Ooma box, all of the remote handsets continued to work normally. The only difference was the dial tone; Ooma gives you a unique musical dial tone to tell you it’s on duty.

Ooma works using the peer-to-peer Internet system popularized by file-sharing sites. Each Ooma box is part of Ooma’s network. The box in your home, for instance, might carry someone else’s phone call, though you can’t hear that call, and this doesn’t interfere with your own ability to make and receive calls whenever you want. In my tests, the Ooma didn’t seem to affect the speed of the Internet connection used by our computers.

To build its network, Ooma will be seeding the country with 1,500 boxes over the summer. These will be provided free of charge. But the only way to get one, if you aren’t on the initial list, is to know somebody who has one. Each recipient gets three tokens — redeemable for a free Ooma — to give to others.

Set-up is relatively straightforward and the manual is clear, assuming you have standard cable modem or DSL Internet service.

I did run into one problem. When I plugged my cordless-phone base station into an Ooma Scout, outgoing calls worked OK, but incoming calls wouldn’t work properly. This problem cleared up when I moved the base station to a different phone jack, but it suggests that, at least on some jacks, Ooma may fail.

The Ooma devices can be constantly updated over the network to fix problems and add capabilities, and the company is planning to add more features and options, some of which may cost money.

Of course, there is no guarantee that Ooma can handle a large number of customers as well as it did my test unit. But Ooma may be a good option for people who want to cut their phone bills, and either aren’t worried about 911 and Internet outages, or are willing to keep a basic, low-price standard phone service to cover those contingencies.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com. Find all my columns and videos online free at the new All Things Digital Web site, http://walt.allthingsd.com.

And the cellular broadband services, such as Verizon Wireless’s BroadbandAccess, can operate at speeds roughly equivalent to, and sometimes well beyond, the speed of basic wired home DSL service. That means you can surf the Web, and get email and large attachments pretty efficiently.

The card for the Verizon network

A small percentage of users hook up to these cellular broadband networks using laptops that have the necessary gear built in. Another small group uses a cellphone as a modem. But most users of these networks use external cellular-modem cards that plug into a standard slot on the side of their laptops. Therein lies a problem.

The computer industry is in the process of dumping that standard slot, called a PC Card slot, for a new, incompatible slot called ExpressCard. So, buyers of many new laptops are finding their cellphone modems are obsolete.

Now, Novatel, a leading maker of these cards, has come out with a couple of new ExpressCard versions for cellular broadband networks. One, which works on Verizon Wireless’s network, is already on the market, sold by Verizon and by Dell. The second, which works on Cingular’s BroadbandConnect high-speed network, will go on sale from Dell and possibly Cingular later this year, likely late November.

I have been testing the Verizon version of the card, called the V640, as well as a pre-release model of the version that works with Cingular, which Novatel calls the Merlin XU870. The tests not only gave me a chance to evaluate the cards themselves, but also to compare the Verizon and Cingular high-speed networks.

My verdict: The cards were easy to set up and use, and worked well. But the two high-speed networks are very different. While Cingular gave me higher speeds than Verizon in a couple of locations, the Verizon Wireless BroadbandAccess network crushed Cingular’s BroadbandConnect in most places I compared them.

This wasn’t a rigorous scientific test. I used two different laptops, an Apple MacBook Pro and a Dell Latitude D820. The Cingular tests were all conducted on the Dell, because the Mac software for the Cingular card won’t be ready until the card goes on sale. The Verizon tests were all conducted on the Mac. On both machines, I used the test service at speakeasy.net, accessed via the Firefox Web browser.

Also, I tested the cards in only Washington and New York City, and on Amtrak’s Acela Express trains in between. That is a heavily populated region; it’s also Verizon’s home territory, and Cingular might have done better in other parts of the country. Verizon has been rolling out its high-speed network since 2003; Cingular is well behind. Verizon offers the service in 185 metro areas; Cingular is in just 75.

Both cellphone carriers charge $60 a month for unlimited data service using the cards, if you have a voice plan with them. The new Verizon card costs $180. The new Cingular-compatible card is likely to cost $50 more.

The cards look nearly identical, and each works on both Windows and Macintosh computers. On Windows, you must connect using special software. On the Mac, you can simply use integrated software from Apple, if you choose. Both cards have small flip-up antennas and indicator lights. Both worked fine.

Verizon’s high-speed service is often called EVDO, for its underlying technology. Cingular’s service uses a technology called HSDPA.

In my tests, which involved about 20 head-to-head comparisons, the Verizon card and network averaged 818 kilobits per second “downstream” (to get Web pages, and to receive email and attachments) and 113 kbps “upstream” (to send email and files).

By contrast, the Cingular-compatible card averaged just 463 kbps downstream and 77 kbps upstream. Plus, during the three-hour train trip, Cingular disconnected me, or simply had no coverage at all, eight times. Verizon did so only once. Verizon has a deal with Amtrak that supplies data service inside the trains, which helped, but this in-train signal doesn’t include the high-speed EVDO service.

Cingular did beat Verizon in two places: my hotel in New York’s financial district and my office in downtown Washington. In the hotel, the Cingular service got a downstream speed of 1753 kbps — its highest in my tests — versus 888 kbps for Verizon and just 747 kbps for the hotel’s expensive wired Internet service. In my office, Cingular got 1133 kbps downstream versus 644 kbps for Verizon.

But the downstream speeds varied wildly. In Trenton, N.J., the Cingular service managed just 16 kbps. The best for Verizon was 1366 kbps in New York’s Penn Station, while its worst was 132 kbps between big cities in New Jersey.

I recommend both new cards. But unless you live, work and travel in very strong Cingular coverage areas, Verizon is the better choice for high-speed wireless data, at least today.

Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

Lots of new technologies claim to be transformative, productivity-enhancing and liberating. But only a few really live up to those claims. One of them is Wi-Fi, the wireless networking technology that has truly revolutionized the way people use the Internet.

With Wi-Fi, you can get online in any room of a home or office — not just the room where your wired Internet connection lives. And you can use the Internet in airports, coffee shops, hotel lobbies and lots of other places where it wasn’t possible before.

But like a lot of technologies, Wi-Fi has been changing so fast that confusion has crept in. A new version of Wi-Fi, generally known as draft-N, promises greater speed, greater range and standardization, but may not deliver any of those things. I’ve been testing some of this latest Wi-Fi gear, with mixed results.

Linksys draft-N router

Also like some other technologies, Wi-Fi adheres to standards set by a private engineering organization called the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), in which representatives of interested companies participate.

The current version of Wi-Fi blessed by the IEEE is called G and has a maximum speed of 54 megabits per second. This G version of Wi-Fi, known to techies as 802.11g, is built into most wireless routers (which transmit and receive Wi-Fi signals) and most laptops.

Now, the IEEE is working on a new, faster standard called N. It promises much greater speeds, measured in the hundreds of megabits per second, and much better range. But certifying this N standard is taking forever, partly because of factionalism within the IEEE.

In the meantime, the marketplace has moved on. Last year, major makers of Wi-Fi routers, like Linksys and Belkin, brought out routers that used a major advance, called MIMO, expected to be in the eventual N standard. This technology uses multiple antennas to send and combine multiple data streams into one faster, longer-range signal.

Last year, I endorsed one of these MIMO products, Belkin’s Pre-N router, which was the only Wi-Fi router I ever tested that covered every corner of my home at decent speeds, even when I used laptops with only the older G technology built in.

Now, the Wi-Fi market has moved again. The major makers have all brought out what they call draft-N routers and cards for laptops that adhere to a draft of the coming N standard that the IEEE has passed. It’s probable, but not certain, that the final N standard likely to emerge next year will comply with this draft. Similar draft-N gear will be built into new laptops later this year.

The makers are claiming that the draft-N routers will have up to 12 times the speed and four times the range of G equipment when used with compatible laptop cards. Even if you are just using a laptop with a G receiver built in, the new routers can also improve speed and range, though more modestly.

Speed is nice, but even current G maximum speeds far exceed the speed of most home DSL or cable modem connections. What’s more important to most consumers is range, or more accurately, decent speed at longer ranges. The biggest Wi-Fi problem people face is dead spots or very slow connections in parts of their homes.

I tested the new Belkin draft-N router, called the Belkin N1, in my house and compared it with the Belkin Pre-N router I bought last year and have used ever since. The new router, which I placed in exactly the same spot as the old one, was easy to set up. It has lovely, large icons on the front that tell you if everything on your network is connected and working.

But the N1 didn’t perform any better, and in some cases did worse, than the old Belkin. This was true whether I was testing it on a Windows laptop or a Mac laptop, and whether I was using the Belkin N1 laptop card or just the built-in G radios in my test laptops. The new model covered my whole house, but so did the old one.

I also tried the Linksys draft-N router, called the WRT300N, which has an antenna array that makes it look like a radar station or a submarine conning tower. The company had to help me set it up, because I use a very fast Internet service called Verizon FIOS, which the router’s program doesn’t recognize. The Linksys proved much slower than the Belkin, though this may be because of a mismatch between its settings and my Verizon service, which is used by only a few hundred thousand homes in the U.S.

My unimpressive draft-N experience is confirmed by several, more extensive tests done by some magazines and Web sites, which showed the draft-N gear to be no big deal.

There are two other problems with the draft-N systems. The manufacturers aren’t promising to upgrade them to the final N standard when it emerges. And buying them will get more complicated in the coming months, because they will be offered in a range of speeds and even in two different frequencies.

I can’t recommend the draft-N equipment over the previous round of MIMO-equipped routers. They will likely be better than your G equipment, but so were last year’s models.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com.

Corrections & Amplifications:

A new, faster standard for Wi-Fi wireless network connections promises speeds measured in the hundreds of megabits per second. This column incorrectly says the new speeds would be in the hundreds of megabytes per second.

For instance, Verizon’s entry-level DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second for downloads and 128 kilobits per second for uploads, is considered high-speed here. But in Japan and Korea, families can buy moderately priced Internet service measured in the tens of megabits per second. They get a race car, while Americans are stuck with a bicycle.

A megabit per second (mbps) connection moves about 1,000 times as much data every second as a kilobit per second (kbps) connection. A service running at 10 megabits per second is more than 13 times as fast as Verizon’s base DSL service. All such services have two modes: downstream, for downloading Web pages, email and files; and upstream, for uploading email or files. Generally, Internet providers offer much faster downstream speeds than upstream speeds.

Even the faster common U.S. broadband offerings, like Comcast’s $42.95 a month basic cable-modem service, which delivers 6 mbps downstream and 384 kbps upstream, are ridiculously slow compared with the Asian offerings.

But now, Verizon is offering Americans in certain parts of the country a new, much faster Internet service for only a little more than Comcast charges for its basic service. This new product, called Fios, offers 15 mbps downstream and 2 mbps upstream for $50 a month, or $45 a month if you use Verizon for your telephone service.

There are also two other Fios plans: 5 mbps downstream and 2 mbps upstream for $40 a month; and 30 mbps downstream and 5 mbps upstream for $200 a month. Both also are discounted if you also use Verizon phone service.

I had Fios installed in my house in July, and I’ve been comparing it with Comcast’s basic cable-modem service. I have been pleased with Fios’s speed and reliability, which are true to Verizon’s claims. On some tasks, it is markedly faster than Comcast. And on my laptops connected via a Wi-Fi wireless network, which tends to degrade Internet speeds, the speed increase has been especially noticeable.

This speed boost, however, isn’t the kind of transforming event that people experience when they first move from dial-up to broadband; there’s a limit to the discernible speed increase you can get when downloading Web pages and email — the two most common Internet activities.

So far, Fios is available to fewer than three million homes and business in selected cities and towns in just 15 states, including the Maryland suburb of Washington where I live. Soon, Fios will have competition. Comcast has been working on its own higher-speed solution, and I expect Comcast to match or exceed the Fios downstream speed in these parts of the country where Fios is available in the next few months.

I chose the middle of three Fios plans Verizon offers — 15 mbps downstream and 2 mbps upstream. It took two visits from Verizon crews to install my Fios service — one to lay a fiber-optic cable to my house, and another to install the indoor electronic gear. The service hasn’t been down for even a minute since it was turned on.

I ran a rigorous series of tests comparing Fios with the Comcast basic cable-modem service, using an Internet speed test site accessed from a hard-wired Windows PC. My Fios service repeatedly was measured at just over 15 mbps downstream and around 1.8 mbps upstream. The Comcast service clocked in at a mere 2.3 mbps downstream and around 360 kbps upstream.

Comcast says I should have gotten nearly 6 mbps downstream in my tests, and that my poor test results are likely due to some problem unique to my house. But even if I had gotten, say, 5.5 mbps downstream with Comcast, Fios would have still won hands down.

On my Windows and Mac laptops connected wirelessly via Wi-Fi in distant parts of my home, test speeds jumped from under 1 mbps with Comcast to around 8 mbps with Fios, a huge improvement.

I also did some real-world comparisons. I downloaded a 65.8 megabyte file with Fios in just 42 seconds, compared with nearly seven minutes with Comcast. An uploading test was even more impressive. I uploaded five digital photos, totaling 10.2 megabytes in size, to an online photo service. Fios did this job in just over eight minutes, while Comcast took one hour and 22 minutes.

Streaming video clips from the Internet were much smoother, and suffered fewer hiccups, with Fios than they did with Comcast, especially on my wireless laptops. But Fios wasn’t markedly faster at fetching Web sites, or downloading email without large attachments.

I consider Fios a good service and a good bargain. If you are a heavy Internet user, and you can get it, I recommend you do so. That is especially true if you use the Internet over a wireless network, and stream a lot of videos, or download and upload lots of files. If you are a light user, just surfing the Web and doing email, a slower service will do fine.

• Email me at mossberg@wsj.com