AT&T 3G MicroCell Site Goes Live, Monthly Fees to Be Up to $19.99?

[davidee]

Your network delivers the call to AT&T's network, which then completes the call.

A call over the MicroCell uses just as many bytes of AT&T's bandwidth as it does yours.

careful there, you are about to walk yourself into the discussion that I will personally not assault anyone for, and that is the coverage.

Charge me $20 to hand you my traffic, since I need better reception, and you can't react fast enough but are telling me that you are "upgrading for MMS" (see tilty head "blogger guy").

yea that argument

 

[aristobrat]

Charge me $20 to hand you my traffic, since I need better reception, and you can't react fast enough but are telling me that you are "upgrading for MMS" (see tilty head "blogger guy").

There is no fee for you handing them your MicroCell traffic for the minutes that your plan normally includes.

The $20 fee is for the ability of you handing them UNLIMITED MicroCell traffic, in addition to your normal plan minutes.

I know you understand that, so I won't bother responding to any of your points trying to twist it around. And yes, to your point, it would be nice if AT&T would give you unlimited everything minutes for $20.

 

[davidee]

You're using their broadband network instead of their cellular network. Perhaps that's why they charge you 50% less for unlimited calls on the MicroCell than they charge for unlimited calls on their cellular network.

You're making it sound like your network is doing the "heavy lifting" when it comes to making a MicroCell call.

Your network only carries your MicroCell calls 50% of the way (if that). At some point, the bandwidth of your call leaves your network and winds up on AT&T's network.

Your MicroCell call still requires an AT&T infrastructure, even though it's not cellular, in order to be made.

My prior response was to the original non-edited post you had.

If you read my prior responses, I said that quite a bit ago. I also know a bit about how telco/wireless providers carry and route their traffic. I am opposed to the $20 monthly fee as it stands, if I am carrying 50% would you monazite the offering/service at $40 and then say we are splitting it in a gracious fashion? $20 per month from even 10% of your subscribers is a pretty good chunk, it would be nice if I didn't need to help you connect those calls...remember I am trying to stay away from the coverage portion of the discussion here as every carrier would have the issue (read: in the interest of being fair).

 

[greenpaz]

every cell carrier charges for their microcells

Yes, then it isn't free, is it? Plus, every cell carrier engages in a variety of nefarious practices, such as the ridiculous practice of double-charging on texts (that is, counting a single text against both sender and receiver). It doesn't mean you need to take it like a sheep and just be drooling at the prospect of paying extra money to companies who have commericals out bragging about how clear their reception is.

Seriously, how does anybody think the cell companies are going to change their ways when you have people out there going: "An extra $150 to make the commercials true? OK!"

 

[davidee]

There is no fee for you handing them your MicroCell traffic for the minutes that your plan normally includes.

The $20 fee is for the ability of you handing them UNLIMITED MicroCell traffic, in addition to your normal plan minutes.

I know you understand that, so I won't bother responding to any of your points trying to twist it around. And yes, to your point, it would be nice if AT&T would give you unlimited everything minutes for $20.

I think we can agree to have differing viewpoints in some respects but both understand each others positions. suffice it to say I think we could both agree for $20 it would be nice if there were something a bit more enticing than femtocell, while offering it in the feature bundle? would that be fair?

 

[davidee]

Yes, then it isn't free, is it? Plus, every cell carrier engages in a variety of nefarious practices, such as the ridiculous practice of double-charging on texts (that is, counting a single text against both sender and receiver). It doesn't mean you need to take it like a sheep and just be drooling at the prospect of paying extra money to companies who have commericals out bragging about how clear their reception is.

Seriously, how does anybody think the cell companies are going to change their ways when you have people out there going: "An extra $150 to make the commercials true? OK!"

the $150 is for the device that makes your life easier, that is like saying you should give us free iphones with no contract just because we pay your monthly fees. I do understand the subsidy portion of the example is different here, but inthe interest of being fair...it is a network device, no different than if you purchased a router or wireless print server.

(trying to stay away from the coverage discussions here)

 

[alphaod]

What a scam.

If they were smart, they might just give out the device for free or heavily discounted, charge may $5 a month extra and then maybe a one to two year agreement. Then if some people don't want the contract, let them pay the $150.

Keep the monthly increase cheap, so people will go for it, make you free money (since it doesn't put a load on your network). Of course they're idiots, so they want to rip people off, and then nobody can afford it, so they'll just their crappy network.

 

[PaulieORF]

Having to plunk down $150 to purchase the device doesn't exactly make the service free. That's like saying, well, I paid $12.50 for the movie, but they didn't charge me anything extra while I was watching it, so it's free!

Actually, this AT&T scam is more like paying $12.50 for the movie, then having to pay an extra $6 to make it so the screen isn't so out of focus. Cue the AT&T apologists on this message board: "Only $6 to make the screen less blurry? Such a deal! Why is anyone complaining!?"

Paulie, when you're finished with grade school, come back and see us...

Dude, are you serious?

First of all, you are completely getting me wrong. I'm not saying that they are giving you the Microcell for free. I'm saying that it costs you one upfront cost, and that there is NO MONHTLY FEE TO USE IT. How hard is that to understand? If someone has an issue with the equipment cost, then that is perfectly fine, because that is up for debate. What IS NOT up for debate are the facts, and the facts that people are having such a hard time grasping here are the monthly costs involved.

If you still don't understand this then you are an idiot.

 

[OriginalFormula]

The idea is definitely nice, but the price is a bit steep when Sprint's can be had for free. Unlimited calling ala T-Mobile UMA is nice though.

 

[SFStateStudent]

I'm holding on to my $19.99, since I already get full bars, full 3G coverage and WiFi with boost....

I feel really sorry for all the others that have to pay to receive what I already have....

 

[jaw04005]

Some initial thoughts:

1. Device should be offered at cost to all AT&T's wireless customers. AT&T should provide some type of subsidy to customers with frequent service complaints to entice them to purchase the device. For example, Sprint offers their MicroCell device for free as part of their customer retention policy.

2. Device should be offered below cost to iPhone customers located within flagged troubled areas including New York and San Francisco.

3. Locking the device to one specific GPS location is ridiculous. If customers want to pack it up and carry it with them to grandmas out in the country or on vacation, so be it. It doesn't cost AT&T any more since service is being provided via VOIP protocols and AT&T-owned cell towers. Not to mention, the percentage of customers that would actually go through the trouble of doing this would likely be extremely small.

[UPDATE: Apparently, it doesn't lock it to one specific location. You just have to update the location via the Web for 911 purposes.]

4. The monthly fee for unlimited MicroCell calling should be dropped to $9.99 like other carriers.

5. AT&T needs to properly inform their store personnel and make an effort to promote this product. This is not a device that's functionality is easy to explain.

 

[JohnDoe98]

For those of you defending this, explain this to me. Why is the devise restricted to my home? If I can buy some hardware that extends my internet service by giving it a 3G signal, why can't I use that hardware anywhere I want, on any ISP of my choosing? Why should it matter where I am using this device? The GPS restrictions seem contrived as there would be seemingly no difference in terms of what happens on the ATT network. Also, what if I have a 3G ATT phone with a voice plan but no data plan. Will this device let me access the internet through the ad hoc created 3G network for free? Why not? Accessing Google or any other web service does not require retransmitting the traffic to the ATT network like a call placed on the device does, so the restriction seems unjustified if it requires a data plan over and above the one provided by the ISP. Similarly, why can't the devise be used with prepaid plans?

 

[ob81]

This could be awesome for businesses with poor / spotty AT&T coverage. Any reason why one couldn't (or wouldn't want to) install a couple of these guys on a floor to improve cell coverage?

This is the only real use that I can see for this thing. In the personal home? AT&T should be paying me.

 

[IBradMac]

This is the only real use that I can see for this thing. In the personal home? AT&T should be paying me.

For 5000 sq ft. of 3G service?

 

[Full of Win]

Some initial thoughts:

1. Device should be offered at cost to all AT&T's wireless customers. AT&T should provide some type of subsidy to customers with frequent service complaints to entice them to purchase the device. For example, Sprint offers their MicroCell device for free as part of their customer retention policy.

2. Device should be offered below cost to iPhone customers located within flagged troubled areas including New York and San Francisco.

3. Locking the device to one specific GPS location is ridiculous. If customers want to pack it up and carry it with them to grandmas out in the country or on vacation, so be it. It doesn't cost AT&T any more since service is being provided via VOIP protocols and AT&T-owned cell towers. Not to mention, the percentage of customers that would actually go through the trouble of doing this would likely be extremely small.

4. The monthly fee for unlimited MicroCell calling should be dropped to $9.99 like other carriers.

5. AT&T needs to properly inform their store personnel and make an effort to promote this product. This is not a device that's functionality is easy to explain.

1. If they did, word would get out and they would be indutatded with complant calls hoping to save a few bucks

2. I'm in a poor reception zone, but on the other side of the school library is good service. Bad service from ATT is such a variable based on location that giving it based on this would not be feasible.

 

[PaulieORF]

For those of you defending this, explain this to me. Why is the devise restricted to my home? If I can buy some hardware that extends my internet service by giving it a 3G signal, why can't I use that hardware anywhere I want, on any ISP of my choosing? Why should it matter where I am using this device? The GPS restrictions seem contrived as there would be seemingly no difference in terms of what happens on the ATT network. Also, what if I have a 3G ATT phone with a voice plan but no data plan. Will this device let me access the internet through the ad hoc created 3G network for free? Why not? Accessing Google or any other web service does not require retransmitting the traffic to the ATT network like a call placed on the device does, so the restriction seems unjustified if it requires a data plan over and above the one provided by the ISP. Similarly, why can't the devise be used with prepaid plans?

It is not restricted to your home:

From AT&T's Microcell website:

Question:
Can I move my AT&T 3G MicroCell™ device and use it in another location?
Answer:
Yes, your device can be moved to another location provided it is within the Wireless from AT&T authorized service area. A device move requires an update to your location address in your AT&T 3G MicroCell account profile for the device to function and for 911 purposes. Please go to www.att.com/3GMicroCell and select "Manage Your AT&T 3G MicroCell".

What this means is that you can move the Microcell anywhere you'd like, as long as its an area that AT&T has license to operate, which is virtually the entire United States, but you'd have to change the service address associated with yoru account online. Why they do this for reasons other than 911? No clue, but if you moved or something like that, it wouldn't be a problem.

As far as your prepaid question goes, this device can be used with pre-paid phones/plans. But of course what you are probably really questioning is why can't a pre-paid user buy and activate one. Apparently that has to do with the way AT&T ties the activation and managing of the Microcell to your att.com account login. I suppose that if you are a pre-paid customer and really wanted to get a Microcell, you could give a family member or friend the $150 to buy the device and activate it, and then just put it in your house.

 

[greenpaz]

the $150 is for the device that makes your life easier, that is like saying you should give us free iphones with no contract just because we pay your monthly fees. I do understand the subsidy portion of the example is different here, but inthe interest of being fair...it is a network device, no different than if you purchased a router or wireless print server.

(trying to stay away from the coverage discussions here)

No, it's not at all like saying AT&T should give us free phones with no contract just because we pay their monthly fees. Terrible analogy. When we signed up for AT&T, we all understood, from the outset, that we were paying for the phone AND making monthly payments.

By the way, it's not like they're aiming this device at rural areas where reception might understandably be poor. They're testing it in a metropolitan area with close to 2,000,000 people. This $150 device is AT&T's way of telling us service won't really improve unless you pony up.

 

[dmenahem]

I have a friend in downtown denver who says the same thing. I can't use my cell at home and I live in downtown Sacramento, CA.

I'm in Downtown Denver (two blocks from Coors Field) and have no reception/little reception in the second floor of my apartment thats facing the street......so its not all great in Denver.

 

[skinnylegs]

I know I am jumping in this thread 'kinda late but I figured I would add my thoughts on the matter.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, my iPhone is both fun *and* a valuable business tool. I knew full well that reception was sketchy at my home when I bought it but I weighed things out and bought it anyway. So, now AT&T is offering a piece of hardware that will improve reception for a one-time fee? I'm all over it.

Honestly, if you didn't check out coverage at your home before subscribing to AT&T then you have nothing to complain about and if you, like me, checked it out and subscribed knowing in advance that reception would be sketchy then you have nothing to complain about.

So, what are you complaining about?

Frankly, I'm tired of this AT&T hate-mongering. Maybe it's because I'm old enough to remember when cell phones didn't even exist. I had Cingular before they went to AT&T and I'm pretty sure there was even another company before them. It's been so many years I can't remember. That said, my cell phones have always worked very well - not in every little nook and cranny of the county - but that's life.

Carry on.

 

[greenpaz]

Dude, are you serious?

First of all, you are completely getting me wrong. I'm not saying that they are giving you the Microcell for free. I'm saying that it costs you one upfront cost, and that there is NO MONHTLY FEE TO USE IT. How hard is that to understand? If someone has an issue with the equipment cost, then that is perfectly fine, because that is up for debate. What IS NOT up for debate are the facts, and the facts that people are having such a hard time grasping here are the monthly costs involved.

If you still don't understand this then you are an idiot.

I'm going to bypass your idiot comment and just note that the service is not "free" if you have to pay $150 in order to use it. People like you are throwing the word "free" around here as if you're AT&T hacks. Ain't gonna fly with the educated. Now back to grade school, you!

 

[Rescuer]

at&t just charged me $10 to read this thread! damn them!

 

[GQB]

Right now, I use my iPhone in my house, with unlimited mobile-to-mobile, more night and weekend minutes than I know what to do with, and more rollover minutes than I can count... and AT&T actually thinks I'm going to pay an upfront fee of $150 plus $20 per month IN ADDITION to what I already pay???

Are they out of their !$#$#%#$#@#$#$#$# MINDS ????????????
.

??
By your own analysis, you won't be paying any extra $20/mo. You'll be using some of your rollover minutes.
As for the $150 box, as others have said, I knew reception in my part of the boonies was sketchy. I bought anyway because I use my iPhone everywhere, not just at home.
I've been looking at amplification solutions that cost 2-3 times that.
I'll gladly pop for the box when it becomes available in Marin County.
Do I wish there were more towers in my area? Sure. There aren't. Move on.

 

[iSee]

After seeing Update 2 this seems reasonable: The $20/mo is optional and is for people that want unlimited minutes at home.

The $150 for the device also seems reasonable (it's not cheap, but the price doesn't seem out-of-line).

 

[IBradMac]

Its not even available yet in my area...Darn..

Maybe late next summer?

 

[corywoolf]

Funny, T-Mobile has had this for years. Good to see it added for AT&T though. But that's a lot of money for the service.