NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
 ·VOIPo
4 edits |  Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
This will accelerate the demise of facilities based landlines which is going to happen anyway.
Now users can get "5 bars" in their homes and use their cell phones as their primary line. If they couple this with some formula for discounted or free access for not using the cell towers, you'll have a winning combination.
I know not all carriers are going to see it this way but it just makes sense. They save on having to put up towers in rural areas or suburban areas where reception is spotty and they attract and retain others by offering this service option to their current and future subscribers.
Perhaps I am stating the obvious but it is a Saturday and it is slow..... |
|
netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Millenicom
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Vonage
| Erm...
Rrual areas that may have spotty cell coverage almost always have the same when it comes to broadband. I have very good EVDO coverage from the same carrier as my cell service so if I was to get this then I'd most likely have to use the same towers anyhow.
--
Visit my homepage »thinkequality.net |
|
Cogdis
join:2007-03-26
Floral Park, NY | FemtoCell = winner
I've been using the airave for the past week and it's been excellent. Not a single missed call and perfect voice quality. While Sprint never had good service in my home, it's fine everywhere else. For me, the femtocell is a homerun. |
|
emptywig
Huh? What?
Premium
join:2002-08-05
Pasadena, TX
1 edit | Nothing to see here....
Yet another story about how femtocells or Wimax or BPL will be the shizznit in just a little while now - honest - we mean it this time!
PLEASE - no more stories about how X technology is going to be big any day now.
wig
Edit - Back in April, 2009 was going to be the big year for Femtocells.
»Femtocells: It's 'When' not 'If'
--
Please keep your f---ing religion to yourself. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| More affordable...?
... what's not affordable about a $100 box and a $4.99 monthly service charge? .. or even a $10 service charge especially in the absence of the land line?
I've already been yelled at by others here telling me I'm way out of touch that $100 is too much for people to afford. Yet, I'd bet if I did my research, those people have either an Xbox or PS3, an iPod or iPhone or even an MP3 player, a computer costing over $800, a digital camera costing about $200 or more, or and LCD/Plasma HDTV or sound system of any sort... or items similar.
Anyone with any of the above items has no room to say this isn't affordable. Around here, "affordable" seems to equate "cheep".. I SERIOUSLY believe that people here have their priorities off.
... cell phones, first of all, are "not affordable" to begin with for the majority of people that have them anyway. It's the most expensive way to make a phone call in the history of personal, non commercial phone service, and yet almost everyone FEELS they NEED one or CAN'T LIVE WITH OUT one.. Anyone that is worried about Fem to Cell being "affordable" shouldn't have a cell phone to begin with. |
|
Broken Back
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Dallas, TX
| What we are talking about is the cell does not work, they do not want to put up towers and they want us to pay for the service instead of supply tower. We pay the cell phone co so service to put towers and whatever it takes in these large cities. Now we pay 100 plus other fees. They should be happy to provide for free. I believe one reason most people jump ship is phone does not work in areas they need. One being me a Service Co, at our office we have been told for 10+ years a tower to be put in. So it little cost to them to keep the customer happy.
--
Over The Hill |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to NY Tel
Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
What you'll probably see is an uptrend in naked DSL costs... or perhaps more emphasis on DSL+Cellphone bundling from those companies who provide both. |
|
mike12806
Premium
join:2007-08-28
Milton, MA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to fiberguy
Re: More affordable...?
I'd like to see some real statistics on the amount of people who feel that they do not get adequate cell coverage in their homes. Even if every person who has sub-par residential cell coverage purchased this device, what kind of numbers are we talking here? 20% of subscribers? I think consumers would rather go for a $99 dollar unlimited plan then a femtocell plan, given they get coverage in their home. This is a NICHE device and I don't think will ever see widespread adoption.
That's my opinion. |
|
mike12806
Premium
join:2007-08-28
Milton, MA | reply to NY Tel
Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
It makes sense from a telco perspective because it gives you service in your home, and they don't ever have to build out their network any further, to offer "real" coverage. It's a cop out! |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| FemtoCells vs WiFi
I don't understand all the hype over FemtoCells.
Seems like a more expensive solution then WiFi. Multimode cellphones are coming to market at very reasonable cost. WiFi enabled phones will support all sorts of interesting features. Granted the hand off between traditional cell network and IP based WiFi is more challenging but it eliminates need for carrier to deploy local hardware.
Anyone point to a good study examining pros and cons of both approaches?
/tom |
|
NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
·VOIPo
| reply to mike12806
Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
said by mike12806  :It makes sense from a telco perspective because it gives you service in your home, and they don't ever have to build out their network any further, to offer "real" coverage. It's a cop out! Well I look at it in a different way - it lets me the user guarantee that I have great reception in my home with the assumption that they provide basic acceptable coverage (outside) in the true sense of cellular technology which is overlapping concentric "circles" of signals.
--
"I chose and my world was shaken, So what?
The choice may have been mistaken-The choosing was not,
You have to move on." |
|
mike12806
Premium
join:2007-08-28
Milton, MA
·Comcast
1 edit | Your perspective hinges on the fact that if there was to be widespread femtocell adoption, carries would still invest in new towers and improved coverage. That is something neither of us can predict. The other thing is what about people who switch carriers? Will Sprint take the box back if you decide to drop them? Are there contracts with this service, or is it contract free like their WiMax service?
For your average telco subscriber who doesn't know what VOIP is, doesn't know the difference between GSM/CDMA/Iden, and can barely configure their home WiFi, are they going to see a value and neccesity in this, or are they going to be wooed by the simplicity of a "triple play" package from Comcast, ATT, or Verizon? Sprint needs to be able to convince people that they need this, or market it as home phone replacement! |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to tschmidt
Re: FemtoCells vs WiFi
Hm, the thing is, for carriers like Sprint and Verizon, are there any phones that exist that can hand-off calls (or even make calls) on both CDMA and Wi-Fi? I know such things exist for GSM, but even then such features are far from common- most phones with WiFi strictly use it for data-only, and my guess is the vast majority of phones out there are still the "free" phones that have little more than calling, but would work fine off of a femtocell. |
|
NY Tel
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
·VOIPo
| reply to mike12806
Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
We won't know until it happens. My guess is that the majority)of the average users will take the "easiest" way out, be it - triple play etc. but the market will decide.
Hey - who knows but femtocells could be the next Betamax  |
|
mike12806
Premium
join:2007-08-28
Milton, MA
·Comcast
| It's too bad something like T-Mobile's UMA, which uses wi-fi, can't be integrated at the phone level, thereby allowing the phone to use any wifi network as it's "backhaul". That would eliminate the need for femtocell hardware or the UMA router that T-Mobile provides. (Most) homes already have wifi, right? |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| reply to mike12806
said by mike12806 :It makes sense from a telco perspective because it gives you service in your home, and they don't ever have to build out their network any further, to offer "real" coverage. It's a cop out! Thank you. Why should I shell out cash to pick up the slack for the cell phone company? Femto service is just a way for providers to offload their costs of dealing with network coverage gaps entirely on to the customer.
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
voipdabbler
join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT
| reply to NY Tel
LOL, there are still great swaths of the US that do not have cellular coverage. I know it's hard for urban dwellers to imagine, but it's true. Having lived in the mid-Atlantic area for decades, I can see how your perspective is shaped by the huge mass of crammed humanity in that region. Head west and get off the interstates and you're going to find something you're not familiar with--no bars whatsoever on your cell phone. Femtocell will not help in these areas. One town in my county, which is close to the Canadian border and has absolutely no cellular signals, has tried everything to get a cellular carrier to use the spectrum they own in the area to build at least one tower. They even tried to get Homeland Security interested since federal agents patrolling that border area are limited to radio communications only. They were unsuccessful. And there are real human consequences with no cellular coverage--the same year everyone focused on the CNET author's tragic plight in Oregon, a mother visiting her son at a boarding school in the town I mentioned got lost, made a wrong turn on a forest service road and got stuck in snow. She and her son died of hypothermia before they could be found. She had her cellphone with her, but there were just no signals.
Before landlines can be dumped, there needs to be a national discussion about the national security implications. Landlines provide the links to areas that profit-driven telcos and cellular companies don't want to touch now. (Yes, when ITT was the big monopoly, they had to put in infrastructure everywhere--they got breaks from the government to compensate them, mainly monopoly status.) You may not live in an under or non-served area, but guess what, in March of this year, the Census Bureau release data showing that rural areas are seeing higher growth rates while many regions of the extremely-dense Northeastern corridor are losing population. (Although, granted it's so over-crowded back east that it may be hard to notice a decline.) There is speculation that immigration patterns are partially responsible for the changing demographic trends. What ever the reason, we must retain connectivity throughout all regions of the country before there's ever talk of dumping landlines totally. That's going to require the government to step up to the plate somehow and dictate coverage, even if it has to become part of the licensing process. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to EPS
Re: FemtoCells vs WiFi
We are talking about a chicken and egg situation here.
If carriers committed to supporting WiFi handoff handset makers would do what was necessary to provide the feature. I agree it is not yet a stable and mature implementation but then neither are FemtoCells. Seems strange with all the interest in network convergence Wireless Carriers are going down this route.
This is really a strategic question. Should carriers invest in integrating cell network to IP network utilizing WiFi where available OR should they invest in FemtoCells. Either way they are leveraging customer's First-Mile access network.
/tom |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
|  Wireless Carriers need to provide Two Options.
If the customer cannot get an adequate signal in their home wireless carriers should give the customer two options:
Option 1: At no extra cost, the wireless carrier will provide the FemtoCell to the customer. There will be no change in the customers subscription fee.
Option 2: If the customer is offered features such as unlimited calling, additional charges will apply and will be added to the cost of the plan.
I dropped Sprint because I could not get a adequate signal in my new home. If Sprint provided a free FemtoCell to supply an adequate signal, I would have not changed wireless carriers. Hi Ho Hi Ho to Verizon I did go. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Broken Back
Re: More affordable...?
I'm still trying to figure out how a "mobile phone" which was designed to get you out of your home, in the first place, has now become something that MUST work at home. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what "home phone service" is for. I would MUCH rather have service enhanced where I need it.. on the freeways, out in places where I REALLY need a mobile phone and in public places. My radio enabled mobile phone has limitations anyway.. I do not want more towers so that cellular signals can pierce past terrain and walls and floors of homes, sorry. If people want to enhance the coverage of their high frequency mobile phones in the home and use it as a home phone line, then I'm all for them spending the $100 for the device.
Sorry, I just don't see it. There is another reality that everyone who cries for the "responsibility" of the carriers to improve coverage and that argument goes back to a financial one. Who is willing to pay the price to improve the coverage and addition of towers to "advance the intended use" of mobility phones in the home in the increase of monthly rates? This is likely the same group that wants to pay less and less money each month. This is most likely the same group that says 400 minutes for about $50 a month is enough phone service for them. (Which tells me they are light users to begin with) If you're buying a 400 a month plan to use as a home phone, then maybe a home phone is what you need and a pay as you go mobile option for away is better.
Everyone always points the fingers to the carrier and forgets realities of limitations. I'll go there.. consumers expect far too much at times. A perfect world costs yet no one or not enough are willing to flip the extra buck to move things forward. |
|
