swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME |  Sprint beat you to it!
Sprints had this since summer and it is great! Went from very little signal in my home to full bars.
--
Block Accounts | UseNet Now |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| Yup.
"Hopefully the calls being routed over AT&T customers' broadband connections don't count toward the caps and overage fees AT&T is testing in two markets"
That was my first thought too. . .
Then again, from AT&T's perspective it would be great because they could bill you for using your phone, using your internet connection, and then bill you when you go over on your minutes on the phone and bill you when you go over your data allocation caused either by internet use or the phone. Wow, great idea.
And hey, if that works they can also charge you for IPTV related overages too. Think of all the extra income! 
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
bnceo
join:2007-10-11
West Orange, NJ
| Where's Verizon?
I'm pondering a move to Verizon (mostly because everyone in my family and girlfriend's family has it). I would love Femtocells on Verizon. But as of now, I got Sprint (which I love and would love to try their Airave). So yeah, Verizon, come out with this please. Thanks |
|
rbrugman
join:2002-09-22
Marquette, MI
| My logic...
I don't quite understand how the customer will actually benefit from this service, other than with slightly better coverage in their home/office:
Customer pays $100 for the device
Customer pays additional fees to use the device
Customer pays for the internet connection that it is routed over
Customer pays for cell service that already includes access to cell towers
AT&T sits there and collects all of this money and then passes the network load off to ISPs.
Unless it's free, no Femtocell for me! |
|
datwell1
join:2002-01-08
Falls Church, VA | AT&T Shareholders
Yes! Billed extra for each and every little thing!
Nickel & Dime you to death!
AT&T shareholders will be SO pleased!!
Thank goodness I have Verizon!
--Doug |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
|  So they are......
going to charge us to get a device that benefits them by
A.) Providing better coverage
B.) Off loads traffic on their towers
C.) Saves them money on improvements by using B to accomplish A
That just doesnt seem to make much sense to me. And I think the second poster has it right..... they will use this to charge us for minutes (whether included in package or overage) and then charge us for bandwidth (whether included in package or overage).
Seriously. Take a step back and realize just how screwed up this is and yet we are allowing them to abuse our blind ignorance like this. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | reply to fireflier
Re: Yup.
Caps? come on. Cell calls are what 64kbps?? That is 29MB per hour. So you'd have to talk for 35 hours to use 1GB. At that point you'll have more to worry about with overage fees on the cell bill than your broadband connection. |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Fuss
What's all the fuss about? IF you don't like it, don't buy it. They are not forcing anyone to buy one, no? |
|
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
Lutherville Timonium, MD | reply to bnceo
Re: Where's Verizon?
There was talk over the summer of Verizon testing femtocells with a release sometime in 2009. |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| What for this?
Not knowing anything about this, why would I want to pay AT&T $100 so I can route my iPhone calls over my VZ DSL connection?
If it's to alleviate tower congestion, shouldn't they pay me? Or at least give me the hardware for free? Perhaps I'll grok this after coffee.
Sounds dumb on first waking  Off to coffee-time.
Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. |
|
flashcore
join:2007-01-23
Lutherville Timonium, MD
| reply to rbrugman
Re: My logic...
I'm with you there. The fees are stupid especially when you have to buy the device as well pay for each phone to access it.
There are devices out there now that cost ~ 200-300 that do basically the same thing only they do not require an internet connection, any of the fees and they work with multiple providers. All they just boost the signal from an antenna you place in your attic or on your roof to a box that looks similar to a wireless access point that is inside of your house. They work quite well if you can get a decent signal outside your house like me but can not get reception inside. |
|
jznomoney
join:2002-08-21
Moscow, PA | reply to beaups
Re: Fuss
does this support 3g? |
|
TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Brooklyn NYC | reply to swintec
Re: Sprint beat you to it!
More bars for your neighbors too? |
|
DarkLogix
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
 ·Comcast Workplace
·Comcast
| reply to flashcore
Re: My logic...
If they're going to nickel and dime us then whats the point
but if they did it this way
pay $100 and you own the device and can have it work for any carrier you want
and no fee just to use it
so it would be a one time cost then it would be ok |
|
swintec
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
 ·RapidVPS
·surpasshosting
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·VoicePulse
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to TamaraB
Re: Sprint beat you to it!
said by TamaraB  :More bars for your neighbors too? Theoretically yes, but no one around me has Sprint. I can restrict access to just my cell phone through my online account center but its no big deal to me right now. Lets hope AT&T gives the same feature.
--
Block Accounts | UseNet Now |
|
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TamaraB
Re: What for this?
More than likely it would be somesort of unlimited/free calls while ur calling through it.
This is aimed at rual areas more, for the customers they have that get signal outdoors, but as soon as u walk away from the road or go inside, it drops. These people are paying an extra price for being out in the country, from having to buy satellite internet, or only getting basic dsl, and alot of times no cable tv, so they have to get dish or direct. |
|
weaver0
join:2004-05-05
Macungie, PA | Handoffs?
for the sprint users of femtocells:
Do they handoff to the cell network okay? |
|
Rob23
@windstream.net
| reply to TamaraB
Re: What for this?
If you have a cellphone and internet connection,Just look at this as a new landline service from at&t for unlimited calling from your home for 15 dollars a month. Good-bye pots & cable voip. At&t and vz can pick the call at the 1st hop for QOS. This is a GOOD thing. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
1 edit | reply to beaups
Re: Yup.
Your reasoning assumes voice calls are the only thing going on. The reality is (while not a high probability) that voice calls could contribute to putting one over caps.
Your point is well taken however. |
|
pbxtx
join:2006-05-24
Plano, TX
| Femtomania
As one in the industry and asked to weigh in on this in the past, I'd like to bring a bit of perspective.
For example, if I have a mobile or two and favor WiFi, the extra (device) cost of 1-2 mobiles that do VoWiFi/UMA is certainly less than a femtocell, and one gets the benefit of using the device anywhere there is wifi access. An excellent example of this is T-Mobile USA's HotSpot@home service, and there are others that are independent of the mobile operator, such as Fring on the iphone, or numerous other examples on high end RIM, Nokia, and other handsets that use SIP clients on the phone. Note TMO hotspot@home is really no different than a femtocell, it has somewhat lower lock in (due to no incremental investment in a custom AP), but things like Fring don't support the model of lock-in.
Operators in the US subsidize handsets and will certainly subsidize femtocells, and they will have to recover their substantial femtocell hardware and licensing costs through monthly fees, contracts, and other innovative ways of separating you from your $.
If I have more handsets, such as a family plan and more than 2 mobiles, a femtocell might make sense, if my only objective is coverage in my home. The wifi capability and of course necessary licensing of technology aren't free.
A lot of this issue has to do with cellular operator religion, walled gardens, lock in, and so on. Femtocells lock one into the operator infrastructure, wifi does not, and as such a lot of the traditional US operators will favor femtos over wifi.
The fundamental *user* challenge is a need for good home coverage and/or reasonable cost. A dirty not so secret secret in 3 and 4g is that the in-building coverage is worse at higher frequencies, and that one is going to have to get broadband backhaul to all those cell towers ... folks are going to have to pepper a tower every 1-2 miles or less.
Another observation has to do with network neutrality. The wireless divisions of these companies are going to have to argue for net neutrality on terrestrial connections, otherwise what happens when you deploy a VZ femtocell and the customer has AT&T uverse? The wireline sides of these companies of course are going to argue differently, and argue for something other than network netrality for their own or their partner's packets (welcome to the world of differentiated service and pay for QoS). As we all know, operators treat packets equally, but some packets are more equal than others (to paraphrase Orwell in Animal Farm).
What is optimal for me is wifi support on the handset, but I also won't rule out that femtos might be a good and smart choice for others.
I agree with the posts so far folks... wake up, recognize that a femto locks you in, limits your choice, ... but if it makes sense for you, then I'm not one to object in the end of what may be a rational decision for you. Just be aware of the choice and to ask to be paid if you let other mobiles use your femto.
The problem tho I do see tho is that operators are not pursuing WiFi seriously on the handsets nor is there any interest in the US to make the handset or femtocell open. If one said I could pick from handsets equally and services equally, that would be the case, but it is not. If 3G had been ready, does anyone really think AT&T would have included WiFi on the iphone? And what about all those novel applications that use wifi on the iphone, e.g., Remote which uses the wifi link in your home to message an apple TV (yes I have one of these too). Or would you have to subscribe to a monthly "remote" fee to use the remote application on the femto, and would it be nearly as good, etc. |
|
