ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs: | reply to RockyBB
Re: [Femtocell] The Beginning of the End of Residential VOIP
Front page just posted AT&T are testing them also. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to B
said by B  :Can we expand on that a little? Aside from it being clearly against the cell providers' terms of service, does this technically require a home PBX to do the DISA, or are there ATAs that allow it? (I'm guessing the former.) Why would it be against the cell provider's ToS? They have programs that allow unlimited calling between your cell and the number(s) of your choice for personal use. I have Sprint, and use Sprint to Home to call my house for personal use. There are some ATAs that allow for this, in particular the SPA3102 will take calls in on a POTS line and let you dial out via the VoIP service if you enter a passcode. I'm doing the Direct Inward System Access on my Asterisk PBX at home. If an incoming call matches the CID of my cell phone the call is presented with a passcode prompt, and then from there a dialtone that will match numbers dialed against my dialplan.
said by B :Can the DISA feature be made transparent, or would it always involve, at minimum, waiting for the home line to answer and then pressing a # or quick key to transmit a passcode? It's just like using a calling card. In fact, I use a calling card app on my Sprint Mogul phone that takes some numbers I dial and automatically calls home, enters the pin, and dials the number for me.
said by B :Secondly, I gather that the cell provider would have no idea the calls were being forwarded, but are there no limits (call duration, number of calls) for the various "faves" plans? I've never had or used such a plan. Cell providers have all kinds of unlimited buckets. My Sprint SERO plan has: Unlimited nights & weekends (7pm-7am), Unlimited calls to other Sprint PCS phones (any time of day), and Sprint to Home which for $5 lets me make unlimited calls to or from my home phone. I know folks who sign up for the My Faves plan and run up literally thousands of minutes talking to a significant other. I figure if the carriers aren't concerned about them, they're not going to be concerned with the couple hundred minutes of calls I route through home.
said by B :Edit: However, the VoIP provider would know the calls were being forwarded, and might frown on it too, no? I use different inbound and outbound providers, so there's no way for the VoIP providers to know or care. To my outbound provider it just looks like another placed call, to my inbound provider it's just another inbound call. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Thanks for the very complete answers! Clever setup.
I still bet there are some clear ToS violations involved (I recall reading, I think, about one for T-Mobile), but I am far too lazy to check. 
Okay... just one...
*Your five numbers must be US domestic numbers and must not include 411, voicemail, toll-free, 900, calling card, and customers' own numbers; and single numbers allowing access to 500 or more persons. So the idea is already a violation for T-Mobile, at least.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| said by B :Okay... just one... *Your five numbers must be US domestic numbers and must not include 411, voicemail, toll-free, 900, calling card, and customers' own numbers; and single numbers allowing access to 500 or more persons. So the idea is already a violation for T-Mobile, at least. -- B Actually the non-compliance is here. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
1 edit | I guess, but I thought that could be read either way... at first I thought it meant that more than 500 people could access the number, when only you intend to, though that does sound wrong.... but even reading that it means dial-in, dial out service, if you know you won't use it to access more than 500 different "persons" (which is likely over the course of, say, 2 years, for most people) then it still might fit the letter of the contract.
Heck I don't know -- the way it's worded you can't make your school or workplace a "fave" if more than 500 people work there!
Also, for what it's worth, I did not see any of that wording anywhere in the ToS I saw at T-Mobile, only on the info/order page I quoted.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| I think the gist of it is that they don't want you to do a DISA or calling card type thing, which totally makes sense.
I seriously doubt they're going to know or care if you do your own DISA and make a few hundred minutes of calls a month. TOS like a lot of other legal contracts is there not because they want you to see it upfront - but to give them the power to boot you off should you abuse it. 500 minutes of DISA there's no way they'll even look at your account. 5000 minutes and they'll boot you off quicker than you can say "Vonage".
I say this with first-hand experience, you know.. as a VSP we don't look nor care if someone makes moderate business use on their line. But if you're going to run a call center off of a residential account... we make full use of our TOS. I suspect the same goes for T-Mo/Alltel/etc. - as long as they're making money on your account I doubt they really care.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Fair enough; it's just that there's a big gap between the two extremes (500 and 5,000 minutes)... If one were determined to use it for all "non-fave" calls, it could add up pretty quickly even only for personal use. Many people use their cell phones A LOT.
Personally I'd probably find it too inconvenient to make calls this way anyhow...
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| These days there actually are SIM card addons (fit over your existing SIM card) that will route your phone via a selected access number without you having to actually dial it.
I haven't tried them however, so no idea how well they work.
--
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to B
said by B :Personally I'd probably find it too inconvenient to make calls this way anyhow... With a calling card app on a smartphone the process is entirely transparent. You select a normal entry from your phone book or dial a regular phone number as you normally would and the app intercepts the standard dialing process and does all of the workaround dialing for you. The only thing you notice is the extra time it takes before your called number starts ringing.
I'm on a 500 minute plan with Sprint. I end up using about 300 minutes of that mostly in inbound calls to my cell phone. I typically use anywhere from 350-500 minutes of outbound "free" calls to my "home number," and maybe another 400-500 in night & weekend minutes. |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Hmmm.... you make a good case. 
On the one hand I really like simplicity and fewer points of failure; on the other hand the idea of equipping an entire household with cell phones and essentially unlimited service using only the lowest tier "family plan" has merit...
First sketch requirements:
DISA enabled device or Asterisk/FreePBX PC. I'm guessing only a PC (or actual PBX) makes sense, to avoid interfering with normal household use of the VoIP line.
Smart phone per user. (Any low cost handsets with such "calling card apps"?)
Cellular Family Plan / Faves / etc.
One or more VoIP lines with tolerant providers....
Still sounds like work.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to RockyBB
new trade article on femtocells: »www.networkworld.com/news/2008/1···r-a.html
It's rather long so I won't post the text, but nicely done. The author does not speculate on the impact to landlines or residential VOIP, but does a good job in explaining the technology. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| another trade article on femtocells: »www.vpico.com/articlemanager/pri···e=216036
It uses a phrase I hadn't heard before, "wireless substitution." Meaning substituting wireless for landlines. This could also apply to substituting wireless for residential VOIP.
IMO, once femtocells are deployed by the cell providers, they need to do only a few things to ensure the demise of the residential landline & VOIP businesses. 1. develop an online control portal, 2. develop voice mail to email capability, 3. permit additional phone numbers (to support the "main" home phone number), in addition to a number for each user, 4. then market the crap out of the new converged service. |
|
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| reply to RockyBB
I've only gotten a little educated on Femtocell; but I have to honestly say that I don't understand it's use. Not the use of bringing phone indoors to improve coverage. But why team up and use a technology that uses dsl, cable, etc...
Cellular providers have the best technology already available to them. WIRELESS!!! It's the cheapest to install and maintain. I am already using plenty of devices like "Telular" to take cell service and bring it to places where normal dialup and DSL/Cable isn't available. I can use these telulars to tie into the building inside wiring and run traditional phones for voice, dialup, fax, telemetry, etc... And I can add external cell data modems such as Airlink (Similar to PCMCIA or USB data modems) residential users have now. And with EVDO and LTE, bandwidths exceeding DSL/Cable are going to be seen soon. Current EVDO-A is already equal to or better than a lot of DSL.
So why in the world would cellular want to get into bed with a technology that they compete with? Cellular has the capability to totally put pots, voip, dsl, cable, satellite, and wireless totally out of business. A truly cellular system with unlimited voice and data "THAT IS TOTALLY PORTABLE" is the ultimate. No one needs voip or pots if their cell system didn't cost so much. No one would need DSL or cable if cellular data didn't cost so much.
Not saying Femtocell doesn't have so possible uses; just saying if I was Verizon, ATT, T-mobile, etc... I would be looking at making my cellular voice and data a system that would REPLACE ALL THE OTHER voice and data services. I wouldn't be trying to build a technology that relies on someone else's technology. later... mike.... |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| said by christcorp :So why in the world would cellular want to get into bed with a technology that they compete with? read the last three paragraphs of today's citation. Because it's cheaper! The cell providers get to piggyback for free on the broadband infrastructure that the customer pays for. Same thing as VOIP -- Vonage, Packet 8, VOIPO, none of them pay commissions or royalties to users' home broadband connections. Equally, cell providers don't have to bulk up their wireless networks when the customers provide that path for free. I don't know how things are in Wyoming, but in the rest of the country investment capital is tough to find! "We can increase our call handling capacity for nothing" is a pretty compelling argument in the boardroom. Read through some of the testy comments in my femtocell threads -- "I wouldn't pay for a femtocell when I'm paying for my own broadband -- they should pay me." Exactly! Increase the quality of service inside the home at the customer's expense! If the cell carriers price it right, the value equation will work out in the customer's favor.
Here's a photo of Verizon's version of their femtocell: »www.slashgear.com/verizon-femtoc···0521503/ |
|
DogFace05
join:2005-12-09
Cary, NC
| reply to christcorp
The bottom line is capacity, and by extension, cost. Cellular operators paid exhorbitant licensing fees, in government run auctions, to buy spectrum rights for cellular use. This cost has to be viewed in relation to its allocation per subscriber, which depends on the technology's capacity and utilization. Any technology that can increase the achievable service capacity for a given spectrum bandwidth, directly translates to a corresponding decrease in cost.
You say that cellular providers have the best technology available. Well, Mike, there's no such thing as 'the best technology'. Each technology serves a given purpose, and today's cellular certainly does well for its intended purpose, which is to provide MOBILE service. In other words, cellular is designed to operate at power levels appropriate for mobile application, and therefore service coverage per base station that spans radii in the order of miles. But, for stationary or near stationary use, ie for service coverage limited to the confines of a home or business, it's extremely inefficient and wasteful.
For any given spectrum bandwidth, any wireless technology is going to be constrained to a certain capacity. The higher the operating power of the technology, the wider the coverage area, and thus the lesser the achievable capacity density will be. For every reduction in the operating power such that the coverage area is reduced in half, the capacity density quadruples and thus also the number of subscribers that can be served in the same area, if the number of base stations are also increased to provide full coverage over the same area.
This is what femtocell, and other technologies like DECT are, in essence--nothing more than low power cellular, designed to lower the area of coverage per base station, and thus dramatically increase the capacity density, and therefore the number of subscribers that can be served. This translates to more subscribers, and more bandwidth available to each subscriber.
Coupled with advances in technoloqy and manufacturing that now permit producing such equipment at very low cost, plus that these technologies are designed to be operable in the free unlicensed spectra, and not the least, that the equipment (femtocell, etc, basestations) are generally owned by the end user and not subject to the regulatory service quality requirements (battery backing, minimum network access availabilty, etc) imposed on operators, all translate to savings galore for them. |
|
oddgeezer
join:2005-03-22
Leawood, KS
| reply to ke4pym
To user ke4pym
I have configured my Packet8 account to ring my home phone and cell phone at the same time when someone dials my home phone number.
Does anything "bad" happen if the cell phone happens to be out-of-range, or turned off when there is an incoming call?
I don't know anything about voip and cell phones, is why I ask. Your arrangement sounds great to me. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| said by oddgeezer :Does anything "bad" happen if the cell phone happens to be out-of-range, or turned off when there is an incoming call? Those are two different circumstances. If the phone is off, then the voice mail on the cell will take the call, and the other phones in the simul-ring will stop ringing...this effect is neutralized if the receipient is required to press a button (typically 1) to take the call. If the phone is out of range, then there is no impact to the other phones. |
|
christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
·Bresnan Online
·VOIPo
| reply to RockyBB
I agree Rocky that the cell providers using existing broadband infrastructure to expand their services is definitely cheaper than expanding their own hardware. As pointed out; similar to Voip replacing phone service.
I guess my perception however is this. Of all the broadband services, DSL and Cable seem to be the only viable options. Of the two, DSL is really the only option. Let me explain. Yes, the service will work on T1 and every other type of service. However, that is a small minority. Next; cable broadband "NORMALLY" only exists within populated city limit type areas. As such; there is usually very decent cell coverage in those areas, so the cell providers wouldn't really have a need for that technology. Satellite has way too much latency for good quality voice packets. And wireless is pretty much side to side with cell service. Chances are, if there's wireless available, cellular has a good signal also.
Not to say that this always the truth. Yes there will be those large office building where cell coverage is terrible. Yes there will be the rural customer who can't get a cell signal but gets DSL. Yes to a few other scenarios. I guess my point is; I see FEMTOCELL via a person's existing broadband connection as a NICHE market. Not for the common customers. In my house, I get great cell service. Why would I pay ADDITIONALLY to have my cell service come over my broadband connection and retransmitted in my house??? Seems like a major waste of money. Sort of like living across the street from a Free WIFI hotspot. Why would you buy DSL or cable? Guess I just don't see it; other than a niche market. later...mike..... |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by christcorp :Why would I pay ADDITIONALLY to have my cell service come over my broadband connection and retransmitted in my house??? The fees are minimal, and usually calls made through the femtocell don't count against your plan minutes. Being able to trim down to a single phone number, single voicemail, and having "unlimited" talk time at home is a pretty compelling feature. |
|
RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Longmont, CO
| reply to christcorp
said by christcorp :I guess my point is; I see FEMTOCELL via a person's existing broadband connection as a NICHE market. Not for the common customers. In my house, I get great cell service. Why would I pay ADDITIONALLY to have my cell service come over my broadband connection and retransmitted in my house??? Seems like a major waste of money. There are several residential markets.
For the single person living alone, the femtocell allows them to have a single phone number and voice mail, without having to worry about going over their minute allowance when calling from home during evening hours. If the monthly cost of the femtocell is less than the monthly cost of the landline/VOIP then the "wireless substitution" is compelling.
For newly merged family with no kids yet, the femtocell allows two individuals to combine into a family plan with unlimited minutes from home at all hours. This would reduce the need for a home landline/VOIP phone. Once the cell carriers allow port-in of POTS numbers unanchored to individual phones, then folks can keep their long established phone numbers.
For the family with kids, where everyone has their own cell phone number and voice mail, the femtocell allows everyone to make calls simultaneously from home, with personal VM, without having to adjust the cellular minute allowance. Once the cell carriers allow port-in of the family phone number with a call director feature (dial one for Dad, two for Mom, three for Junior), then there would be no need for the family phone -- with the added benefit of everyone can use their own phone at the same time, without a shared VM box. So long as the monthly cost of the femtocell family plan is less than the monthly cost of the landline/VOIP then the "wireless substitution" is compelling.
Certainly there are other markets, and there will be other niche needs (call blocking, caller ID, anonymity, international rates, etc) many of which can be addressed with sophisticated portals and marketing decisions.
I'm just pointing out the gold mine, I'm not handing out any shovels. |
|
