dslreports logo
New U-Verse Box May Include Femtocell
Insiders claim it's in the works at AT&T
An AT&T employee dishes to Gizmodo that the telco is working on a new U-Verse set top box that will include a femtocell. Femtocells allow users to make wireless phone calls over their broadband connection, and are popular with carriers because they let them ease strain on local towers. Early details of AT&T's first femtocell, the "3G Microcell," emerged last week after AT&T prematurely unveiled a website highlighting the device. AT&T's first femtocell offering should drop sometime during the first half of this year, and will extend both 3G and wireless range -- while offering users unlimited calling for an additional monthly fee.
view:
topics flat nest 

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

This may actually make Uverse a deal for me

Since AT&T has been too lazy to deploy Uverse VoIP in Los Angeles, and attempting to milk POTS (filled with FEES/UNFEES and TAXES!), I had been hoping that Uverse could bundle with femtocell service.

This would make my POTS or standard VoIP obsolete for me.

Current:
$90 (+10 in fees/taxes) for TWC all the best:
TV/Phone/Internet
$60 (after taxes) for 2 Wireless AT&T lines (550 + rollover, no data)

Future?
Uverse Bundle (femtocell, TV, Internet) ($100?)
$60 (after taxes) for 2 Wireless AT&T lines (550 + rollover, no data)

Benefit ? I would have 2 unlimited lines at home vs. 1
Data on the phone should be included off the femtocell... I would expect AT&T to force a data plan though.
Pair Gain
join:2002-12-23
Washington

1 recommendation

Pair Gain

Member

Re: This may actually make Uverse a deal for me

»www.att.com/gen/press-ro ··· id=26509

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: This may actually make Uverse a deal for me

I wonder what the hold up has been ?
Uverse was available here since April/May 2007.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx to Pair Gain

Premium Member

to Pair Gain
It's about f***ing time!

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: This may actually make Uverse a deal for me

Yup.. pricing is still a bit on the high side... but inline with the 'standard' TWC rates for all the best

Monthly Charges
AT&T U-verse TV U100: $49.00
Receiver Fee: $0.00
TV Sub-total: $49.00
High Speed Internet Option 4 - 3.0 Mbps Pro: $30.00
Internet Sub-total: $30.00
AT&T U-verse Voice Unlimited Primary Phone Line: $30.00
Voice Sub-total: $30.00
  
One Time Charges
High Speed Internet Option 4 - 3.0 Mbps Pro: $95.00
AT&T U-verse Voice Unlimited Primary Phone Line: $95.00
Installation: -$190.00
  
 
Monthly Total:   109.00 (a)
One Time Total:   0.00 (a)
 

I currently have TWC 'All the best' package for $89/month (10/1, VoIP unlimited, Digital TV + broadcast on 2 other sets).

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Not A Bad Idea

Provided there is a service credit for allowing AT&T to use your residence as a small cell tower of course.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Not A Bad Idea

never. you pay ATT to use the service via a monthly fee.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Not A Bad Idea

said by hottboiinnc4:

never. you pay ATT to use the service via a monthly fee.
Lucky for me, AT&T has great coverage where I live and use my phones the most. If they didn't, and they were not willing to pay me for letting them use my home as a small cell tower, then I would have to switch to a carrier that either would do this, or has actually put up towers and provides me with the coverage that I need.
SpookyET
join:2001-04-30
Lawrenceville, GA

SpookyET

Member

T-Mobile

Will this work with T-Mobile?

/sarcasm

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

baineschile

Premium Member

Very Significant

This article wont have a ton of comments about it, since its not about Broadband Caps or Network Neutrality...But this article, to me, is very important. Its the first step of a streamlined video/internet/wireless, which, we all know eventually will be just one entity...
Vtr_Racing
join:2006-09-04
Pflugerville, TX

Vtr_Racing

Member

Watching

Will be keeping any eye on this. Sounds cool to me.

StarFish267
join:2005-11-25
Keller, TX

StarFish267

Member

bull

Union won't let it work, prem tech's already doing 1,000% more than getting paid for.

wear a horse
@swbell.net

wear a horse

Anon

Re: bull

said by StarFish267:

Union won't let it work, prem tech's already doing 1,000% more than getting paid for.
don't worry, the union will be getting paid even less when they are out on strike....

otty
join:2008-10-24
Revelstoke, BC

otty

Member

why not UMA?

Why not just introduce UMA service like Tmobile and Rogers in Canada?

No need for expensive femtocell equipment and none of the problems with opening up your broadband connection to the public.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: why not UMA?

More revenue possibilities and control.
Personally... I'd prefer UMA.
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo to otty

Member

to otty
said by otty:

Why not just introduce UMA service like Tmobile and Rogers in Canada?

No need for expensive femtocell equipment and none of the problems with opening up your broadband connection to the public.
Because UMA requires a phone with WiFi. Any UMTS phone can make use of the femtocell. (and it uses less juice than WiFi)
hwobu
join:2009-02-08
Columbus, OH

hwobu

Member

Re: why not UMA?

Because UMA requires a phone with WiFi. Any UMTS phone can make use of the femtocell.



I'd say that this is the point, since it is WiFi it can be locked down to only be accessible to those you want to permit, as opposed to the UMTS femtocell approach which will allow every one in range to use the connection, including when these other user(s) use the femtocell's full capacity (meaning there's no capacity left for the person paying the bill).
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Miami, FL

wierdo

Member

Re: why not UMA?

said by hwobu:

I'd say that this is the point, since it is WiFi it can be locked down to only be accessible to those you want to permit, as opposed to the UMTS femtocell approach which will allow every one in range to use the connection, including when these other user(s) use the femtocell's full capacity (meaning there's no capacity left for the person paying the bill).
Except that it's completely possible to allow only certain mobiles use of the femtocell, presuming at&t desires that it work that way.

They could even force a handover of other users from the femtocell to a macrocell if the femtocell was at capacity and the owner attempted to make a call.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

How does this affect their coming usage caps?

And will this phone traffic be exempt from AT&T's new usage caps (which they will eventually impose nation-wide)? If not, they can take their femtocells and shove them. There's no way in hell I'd ever waste some of my monthly usage cap on providing cell phone bandwidth.