The Year For FemtoCells is 2010 Although businesses are starting to release femtocell-based products There has been announcements recently from companies including Sprint and Comcast that femtocell-based systems are about to hit the market. However analysts predict that 2008 will remain a fairly quiet year in terms of femtocell shipping. They say that a turning point will come at the end of 2009 and that 2010 is the year to expect femtocell technology to make it big. At that point the technology will not only be more advanced but it will also be more affordable.
|
 |  | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | 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. | |
| | | | 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! | |
| | |  NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| 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." | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers 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! | |
| | | | | NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 Reviews:
·AT&T CallVantage
| 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  | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers 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? | |
| | | | | | |  PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers said by mike12806: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? You haven't studied T-mo's UMA service very well. T-mo's UMA phones CAN use any wi-fi network. You don't HAVE to use their special router, they only provide it for convenience. I've had T-mo's UMA service for a year and a half, and it works fine on my Linksys running DD-WRT. Works great at my friends' houses too. If the wi-fi is secure, I just get the key from the friend and type it into the phone. | |
|
| | | | 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... | |
|
| | | 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. | |
| | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers I know it's not the solution you want to hear, but the city is free to put up it's own tower, and interface with the telephone companies. You'd make money off roaming charges.
Eventually one company or the other gets tired of it, and buys the tower and keeps the service going. | |
| | | | PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers said by NOCMan:I know it's not the solution you want to hear, but the city is free to put up it's own tower, and interface with the telephone companies. You'd make money off roaming charges. Actually, that sounds to me like the perfect solution. It may not provide great prices or competition, but expensive service is better than no service at all (HughesNet, anyone?). | |
| | | | | | Well, it's a town not a city so they don't have flexibility in their budget, especially since they're in a county that's located in the middle of a national forest and the largest landowner, Uncle Sam, doesn't pay any property tax by virtue of sovereign immunity. ( Private land owners in their county only make up 8-10 percent of land holdings, but must pay all the costs for county services.) Furthermore, the spectrum is already owned by one of the major carriers, so they'd have to work out an agreement, and to date, the carrier who owns the spectrum has shown no interest in talking to the town about anything. (The spectrum auctions haven't been that well thought out, since the issue of providing actual service within certain density zones or less densely-populated regions near our southern or norther borders hasn't been addressed.) Thank goodness when the original infrastructure for POTS was built the government actually regulated industry and demanded the infrastructure be built out to serve many communities. (Yes, they gave concessions, namely monopoly status, but it was a compromise that worked to everyone's benefit.) | |
|
| | NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3 Reviews:
·AT&T CallVantage
| said by voipdabbler: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. 2 comments:
1. That's why I choose to live with the crammed mass of humanity on my 2 acre postage stamp of piece of property;
2. So the femtocell will allow you to have cell service in your home Just don't go out with the tumblin tumbleweeds.
--
"I chose and my world was shaken, So what?
The choice may have been mistaken-The choosing was not,
You have to move on." | |
|
|  tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | said by NY Tel: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..... Now would be a good time to buy stock in APC or other UPS makers.. Because if people do what you say, there will be MANY idiots who will do this and at the first power outage, go crying to Sprint, TM, VZW and others because of the "down" time. They will be marketed just like cell phones have for years and give people a FALSE sense of security, till the lights go out..  | |
| | | | | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers Haven't we already gone through this debacle with VOIP and the busy or no-answer 911 calls?? I think there is legislation in place that regulates this. | |
| | | | tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI | Re: Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers said by mike12806:Haven't we already gone through this debacle with VOIP and the busy or no-answer 911 calls?? I think there is legislation in place that regulates this. Like what? I know for fact that cell service IS NOT regulated. They have already tried to FORCE wireless providers to install gensets at cells sites. Not just a few, but ALL. There are GOLDEN sites where they have power backup other then batteries. But as we experienced in Michigan a few years ago, after about 4-8 hrs, most cells go dead. Generators are deployed to recharge but they can't be everywhere at once. So, due to the cost, congress backed off. SO, like I said, put your trust in the reliability of your cell phone and service and maybe people deserve to suffer a tragic event to teach them just what cell phones REALLY are. CO's have backup power and fuel for days of no power. Something people need to REALLY think about. Joe Public, who is single and has a cell, could care less. But a person like me, who has 3 kids at home and went through not only having VoIP which failed the wife test and safety test (always down.. sunrocket and voice eclipse), I went back to pots. Yes, I have 5 cell phones in my household I also have a pots line and comcast phone service. The ONLY service I can say I trust is the AT&T pots line. I don't trust my cell phone as far as I can throw it. nuff said.  | |
|
| | | said by NY Tel:Perhaps I am stating the obvious but it is a Saturday and it is slow..... was slow at work too | |
|
 netwirePremium
join:2001-04-27
Shelby, NC
kudos:1
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| 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 | |
| | | | Re: Erm... All I need is a quick and easy way to call forward to my home landline , office , and office switchboard without using plan minutes.(IT,S not a real switchboard). The call quality is so much better on a real phone or speakerphone and you don't need internet access,just give me three locations for free. | |
|
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. | |
| | slckusrPremium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
kudos:1 | Re: FemtoCell = winner ^^ im looking forward to being able to pick one up, my sprint coverage is great elsewhere but in my house its the pits. | |
| | | | said by Cogdis: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. I have ATT and I get 1 bar in my 1st flr apartment, when I step outside I have 5...go figure... | |
| |  DarkStarPDXAll Your Base Are Belong To Us
join:2000-10-01
Hillsboro, OR | I should be getting mine in the mail from Sprint tomorrow. I look forward to finally be able to make and receive calls in my home  | |
|
emptywigHuh? 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. | |
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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. | |
| | | | Re: More affordable...? 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 | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | 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. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: More affordable...? Do you understand something called "economics of scale"? You attempt to make the point that carriers are faced with massive infrastructure costs and network upgrades, when in reality their subscriber base has jumped over 100% year over year. I understand that carriers are faced with large capex costs relative to other industries, but what you don't see the femtocell as an "opportunity" for a carrier to make their product more attractive, you say the customer should be grateful that Carrier X offers them the opportunity to improve coverage at the subscribers expense.
Maybe you need a business class or two, but the customer is always going to expect more. It's fufilling the customers expectations that leads a business to hold onto customers (have you seen Sprint's churn rates?) for the long term. | |
| | | | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: More affordable...? said by mike12806:Maybe you need a business class or two, but the customer is always going to expect more. It's fufilling the customers expectations that leads a business to hold onto customers (have you seen Sprint's churn rates?) for the long term. Lets take it a step further here. EVERYONES phone works out on the highway, and in major urban areas. Thats no longer a distinguishing feature, so carriers need to do more to attract customers. Look at it from the perspective of a new customer, or an existing customer who is moving. I can tell you right now that if Carrier A and Carrier B both provide service on the highway, but only Carrier B can provide service at my home its going to be a very easy decision to make. I am sure as hell not going to pay more money per month just so my phone works at home, so any carrier that can guarantee that is going to get my business. Apparently, there has been such a huge uproar about this outrageous pricing scheme that Sprint has already started fixing it. If you believe what people are saying all over the internet, Sprint is now giving these devices out for free and waiving the monthly fee for people who call in to complain. I guess if you tell them you cant get service at home and will change carriers you get the gear for no charge.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: More affordable...? It's NOT just about using your phone at home, only.. you're also getting something for it.. you're getting unlimited use as well. You guys are not getting it... people want to be able to use a cell phone as a home phone.. this gives you that way.. but, why should it be free?
There IS greed, but this time it's PURELY on the part of the customer.. or at least, those with your views. | |
| | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: More affordable...? said by fiberguy:It's NOT just about using your phone at home, only.. you're also getting something for it.. you're getting unlimited use as well. You guys are not getting it... people want to be able to use a cell phone as a home phone.. this gives you that way.. but, why should it be free? Your point of view is clearly the minority here. The simple fact remains that if two companies are offering wireless, and one actually works at your home, then the choice is very obvious (from the customer perspective). As I mentioned, and also Digiblur mentioned, Sprint basically gives the devices out for free (with no monthly charge) to anyone who asks. This is a basic principle that they understand (but you are grappling with); the customer will go with the company that gives them the best service. Nobody is arguing that those customers who want unlimited service while at home should pay the $15 extra for that feature. Where I think the disconnect with you is, that everyone else is telling you that the end user shouldnt have to pay extra just to use their allocated minutes while at home. I dont think anyone would argue that people looking for the unlimited plan should pay extra money. Having one of these devices in a users house is actually a benefit to Sprint, as that increases the "stickiness" (a business term) of that end user.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
| |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: More affordable...? Oh, but I AM getting it.. I never said that if Service A can get in your home over Service B then it will help influence the consumer..I'm aware of that. However, I also know that radio signals have limitations and that the provider will never get their service in every home either.
I am aware that Sprint will (let me correct you) give the device away to people that bitch, moan, scream, and jump up and down threatening to cancel their service. From a business stand point (and you can NOT disagree with me) it is a BAD BAD BAD BAD idea! .. and I will tell you why.
Do you have kids? (Do I need to go on still?) What happens when you have a kid that wants something and throws a fit.. do you be firm and reasonable with them? or did you give them what they are stomping their feet for? I think you stay firm otherwise you wind up, in this case, with a customer base that learns that all they need to do is piss and moan... BAD for both business and the consumer - well, the market at whole. People have picked up some REALLY bad habits in the past 20 years... and in order to accommodate this entitlement way of thinking, service has gone down hill. I remember the day where I could call a company and get helped without this whole "supervisor" routine that many people use.. or these retention departments which I call the bluff departments.
I hear you on the argument of not having to pay for their bucket of minutes at home.. I still disagree. If cellular companies had that much control over time, space, and frequency (radio waves) then I doubt they'd need to fight so hard to make money today. I'd like my phone to work in every building.. I'd like it to work no matter where I go.. it's not reasonable to think it and to simply say "it's my home it should work" is NOT reasonable. If your home is the reason the signals are not getting in, is that the providers fault My phone works fine in my house.. my neighbor has issues in his.. both the same provider. Think that the handset may have a hand in the lack of service too? (Sure enough does!) I bet that it's the providers problem as well.
You are trying to equate that since it's your home that it should work.. what YOU are not getting is that this is a mobile phone. You are trying to marry the mobile phone to home phone - I'm sorry.. but it's just that.. a mobile phone meaning that it has no "base" other than the home network area... that's it. The fem2cell gives you the best of both world. But, if that's not good enough for you, then make sure you have a home phone line and the problem is solved.
I really could care less if I am in the minority here..so what? I know that the majority of the user base feels in many cases and I largely disagree. People always think about themselves in a selfish way and not how their desires affect others at large. The whole movement to get caps defined.. look what it got everyone for their hard work.. EVERYONE gets caps! (Thanks guys)
But.. back to signals in dwellings. Businesses have been buying repeaters to have cell service improved inside their buildings all the time. I suppose since it's a non-business user that the devices should be free? Service has NEVER been guaranteed to work in every dwelling in every area.. that's never been a secret and its the nature of radio waves. I just don't see how this is the providers problem more so than it is the end user's.. I'd like KSTP1500 AM to come in on the radios in my house, but it won't. I should call the radio station and demand they give me a device that will cure that. I'd like to have 7 outlets in the home for cable TV but need an amplifier to achieve that request... I suppose the cable company should supply the $60 amp for free too even though they make a rental on the boxes in my home? Cellular is no different.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. | |
| | | | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: More affordable...? said by fiberguy:We'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes we will. | |
|
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | I don't agree with you one single bit.
Do I need a business lesson? HAH! I own an operate 3 VERY successful businesses, thank you. Do I pay attention to the customer? .. do I pay attention to competition? Does the customer base continue to grow for me? All yes. I'm set..
You, like so many others, think it's all pure money.. and that its "oh, just spend a little money.. " It's not just about placing more towers.. it's not about "improving service" puleeze! It is YOU who needs a reality check AND a lesson.. you need to brush up on how radio signals work. Radio signals won't travel just anywhere if you turn up the juice.. terrain and structures are the demise of signals. You will NEVER get service into EVERYONE's house no matter what you do.. and, if there are a pocket of just a few homes where the signal is a bit weak, how much should a carrier spend to cover that area in an competitive market wear people will leave you sooner or later anyway for the few dollar savings? It's MUCH larger than "just spend the money"... you'd never last in business even in all your good will of trying to satisfy a customer. Anyone that says "you need to satisfy all customers" is clearly inexperienced - YOU CAN'T!
The customer can always expect more all they want.. but, as I believe it was moonpuppy said, we're living in the era of the 1980's ME generation.. This "If you don't give me what I want I'm going to go elsewhere" attitude is fine and dandy, but they're going to go elsewhere and find themselves with another problem of a different nature and wanting to leave again.. sooner or later, people find enough walls that it turns into "Government.. give it to me".. sooner or later people have to learn to be reasonable in their expectation and stop believing they can simply "demand" it all.. THEY CAN'T!
Fulfilling "customer expectation" doesn't mean giving it to them.. it DOES mean you must be able to make it available to them.. BIG difference.
You also quote sprint churn rate.. um, hello? KNOCK KNOCK!! Much of that loss are people leaving the Nextel network which is soon to be mostly gone anyway..
Do yourself a favor and leave out the parts where I need an education in business.. you will never win with that line, sorry, because I don't. (It's easy to arm-chair quarterback, I'm sure) | |
|
| |  digiblurGot Sipura?Premium
join:2002-06-03
Louisiana | said by Broken Back: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. I got the Airave from Sprint for free with no montly charge. They even shipped it for free.
--
Make your Sipura/PAP2 speak. »www.voipurize.com
SouthWest Louisiana PC Users Group »www.swlapcug.com | |
|
|
1 edit | 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. | |
| | | | said by fiberguy:... 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. $100 is 8 hours of pay or 4 hours of OT for me. | |
| | Reviews:
·Armstrong Zoom ..
| I switched to Sprint because it worked throughout my home and Verizon did not. A few years later, no extra fees, I am still happy.
Why should I pay extra to have my cell service work?
Nope.
I have Vonage, cheap phone calls, much cheaper than a cell phone. So the mixture to me makes sense.
I agree. People say "$100" is nuts while typing it on there $1800 laptop and watching there $1,000 big screen TV.
I guess, make up you mind, pay for what you have to, and get what you want. If you cannot afford it then you will not get it. Easy, I think? | |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| 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 | |
| | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | 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. | |
| | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| 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 | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| Agreed. $100 + $5 per month is a bit much (the original $50 + $0 for coverage, $15/$30 for unlimited talk is more like it) but the ability to use ANY phone on that particular carrier with the femtocell is a whole lot better than having to chose between three or four UMA-capable phones if you ask me. | |
|
| | DarkStarPDXAll Your Base Are Belong To Us
join:2000-10-01
Hillsboro, OR | Re: Wireless Carriers need to provide Two Options. I had a problem receiving Sprint coverage in my home since I moved in about a year ago. Last week I tried calling my wife on my way home and when I got her voicemail (and later found out her phone never rang) I decided that was it and called them to find out what they could do or I was going to cancel and go elsewhere.
The customer retention agent then offered me a Airave for free and when they mentioned that they wanted me on an unlimited calling plan for $20 per month I told them I only used about 100 minutes a month anyhow on my plan. The agent then came back and said they would waive the requirement for the unlimited plan and the $4.95 monthly Airave fee.
If the Airave works for my purposes, I would have been more than happy to pay the extra $4.95 per month (even though I feel I shouldn't have to).
We'll find out when I get the box in the mail tomorrow! | |
|
| | Not Just In Our Own Homes Being in peoples home working I see where many have dropped their land lines. So we loose signal in not our own homes but in our friends and workers.
--
Over The Hill | |
| | | Without land lines there's no 911 (just look at VOIP). Without land lines there's no 911 (just look at VOIP).
The shear amount of information that the internet alone must shuffle along is what will keep ISP/Govt/Mil/Edu/Servers and Police/Firefighters connected by land lines.
Internet speeds for Wireless are a joke.
Just look at the dropped packet rates for the average WiFi system.
At our remote work site they have no option but to use the Wireless, and it is often faster for them to call us at the main office and have us lookup the emails and fax or tell them. Bell has a brand new receiving antenna just 500 feet away. Its a Bell Business Wifi package and it's slower than dialup, it is a joke.
You go wireless if you want, I ain't paying for that junk cause I'm not wealthy and fulla beans like you mindless lemmings. | |
|  HarleyYacYacoPremium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Not sure what to think... Hi,
I have Sprint AiRave today. Basically I have it so I get a better "Signal" in the house.
It uses the net instead of the Cell tower. 5 bars .
We shall see.
Lee
--
"I Don't feel Tardy"
"When Clinton Lied, All that was left was a stained dress.
When Bush lied, all that was left was 4000 less US Soldiers.. | |
|
| |
|
|
Good for everyone - Except Landline Providers
·
Wireless Carriers need to provide Two Options.