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

[z-man]

Maybe it just depends on your situation

So, let me get this straight, we pay for a device which extends AT&T's network at our expense, pay an additional monthly fee, and finally get the service we're paying for in the first place.

It sounds like we will be able to pay for a device to extend cell service into our homes, and use just for ourselves (does not sound like a public access point). There seem to be no additional fees unless you want to add "unlimited" minutes when you are using your home network (*yawn* -- how about unlimited SMS instead?).

I am not a fan of spending 150 dollars. But, if it is just for me and uses internet I am already paying for anyways -- I am not sure I would care much about using my internet connection more to improve my cell service.

 

[jrhone]

Perfect!!!!

Alot of people dont realize that in Orange County there is a BAN on new cell sites. At&T cant add sites no matter what. So there are dead zones. EVERYONE has them, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, everyone. So this gives them an advantage over all the other companies. Its pretty smart actually. I give it 3-6 months before every wireless carrier has something similar. I would imagine that for environmental reasons ALOT of places have a ban on new cell towers.

 

[z-man]

I agree!

Here's what you're forgetting, we shouldn't HAVE to pay additional for a service that we are already paying for.

Agreed. AT&T should offer the device for free.

The 40mpg example is pretty good. However, it is not the car (phone) that is having the problem. It's the highway. This "microcell" sorta sounds like a tollway if we are using that kind of comparison. And, I HATE tollways. They are all around us here in Austin now. So, I completely understand the unfairness of having to "pay more".

This 'microcell' sounds like a one-time investment though, so to me it sounds "maybe doable". I like the sound of the $100 rebate. FREE would be better though! Free is always better.

 

[run-kmc]

I give it 3-6 months before every wireless carrier has something similar.

This would be accurate if it were spoken in 2007, since everyone else pretty much has something similar already.

I bet Google is behind this. Another plot to destroy Apple.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Alot of people dont realize that in Orange County there is a BAN on new cell sites. At&T cant add sites no matter what. So there are dead zones. EVERYONE has them, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, everyone. So this gives them an advantage over all the other companies. Its pretty smart actually. I give it 3-6 months before every wireless carrier has something similar. I would imagine that for environmental reasons ALOT of places have a ban on new cell towers.

tell you the truth AT&T is the last person to enter this game.

T-Mobile was first and used the by far better UMA system. Sprint and Verizon had there Fermacell tech out before AT&T.

AT&T was just playing follow the leader.

 

[GeeYouEye]

So AT&T wants me to use a device that ultimately reduces strain on the overloaded frontend of their cellular network and provides the services to me that I'm already paying for? Great! So how much are they paying me to use my internet connection? Nothing? Well, that's kinda disappointing. But they're at least giving me a free device, right? No? $150?!

If it wasn't so laughable, I'd be offended at this insult to my intelligence.

And I don't want to hear word one about how bad Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are. I. Don't. Care. I don't have service with them.

 

[aristobrat]

Now, why should I have to pay more money for something that I am already paying for??? I don't care if it costs me .99¢ for the device, it uses my internet connection and is an advantage for AT&T. Should I feel bad for AT&T because they have too many new subscribers in my area

Who said you should feel bad for a wireless carrier?!

Every carrier has customers in the same situation as you.

The reality is that you can use a microcell to enhance a carriers lack of coverage (and make use of the service you pay for). Or don't.

No major US carrier is giving microcells away for free. Only ATT and Verizon allow microcells to be used without a recurring monthly cost.

So if you don't believe in using one on the principal, that's fine. Either way, seems like you're wasting money (either by paying for a wireless service that doesn't work well at your house, with no immediate service improvements coming, or by paying $150 to get a device that lets you use your wireless service).

 

[aristobrat]

And I don't want to hear word one about how bad Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are. I. Don't. Care. I don't have service with them.

If ATT isn't providing you with adequate coverage, Perhaps. You. Should?

 

[zap2]

So AT&T wants me to use a device that ultimately reduces strain on the overloaded frontend of their cellular network and provides the services to me that I'm already paying for? Great! So how much are they paying me to use my internet connection? Nothing? Well, that's kinda disappointing. But they're at least giving me a free device, right? No? $150?!

If it wasn't so laughable, I'd be offended at this insult to my intelligence.

And I don't want to hear word one about how bad Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are. I. Don't. Care. I don't have service with them.

Ok, I understand wanting it for a low cost, that makes sense. But honestly, them paying mean seems unfair. this isn't for areas with good services with the goal of taking strain off the network, its for people such as myself whose homes are covered, but weakly, and I'd rather get service all over my house(as I'm planning to drop my landline)

Also ignore what Sprint, T Mobile and Verizon are doing is pretty irrational...as the market is largely made up of those 4 big players. If you want to push AT&T to change stuff, it will likely come from market forces(lots of users going to AT&T), so just ignoring that seems a bit closed minded and counter productive.

 

[Arcady]

I don't get the point of this. The only reason I would want it is because I get no cell reception in my office. No GPS either. So if it requires GPS to operate, wouldn't I have a 3G signal too? Then why would I need this?

 

[davidee]

Holy **** people, read the details!

This costs ABSOLUTELY NOTHING extra per month if you want to use your existing plan minutes.

If you pay 20 dollars a month, you get unlimited minutes as long as you're on the MicroCell. If you use a lot of minutes in your home, you can decrease your monthly rate plan, add this thing on, and possibly end up paying LESS per month than you already are.

Are we clear now? No, I didn't think so. Continue the bitchfest.

It deducts from your plan minutes (anytime, rollover, toothfairy donated whatever...). If it is using my network, it should not deduct from my plan. Period.

I find $20 to be not so reasonable when I am already paying over 300 (nearly four) monthly.

Equipment costs are one thing, but then a bundle price that gives me a feature (unlim talk on AT&T net ... not mine, or unlim text included is a nice gimee that could soften this) would be better received, at this point the consumer thinks that AT&T are money grubbing [insert favorite expletive]


instead they are offering you the privilege of extending their service area (for your phones) since they cannot (reliably) _and_ either removing minutes from your bucket(s) or offering you the stellar offer of paying them extra to utilize/originate calls on your wire marketed as unlimited (when you are providing the end access point to originate the call ... since they cannot). wow....what a deal.

No matter how blind you are here, I hope you realize that there should be a better compromise.

 

[Rescuer]

if there is a $100 rebate for signing up for the $20 plan, then why not sign up for that plan, get the rebate a month later, then change the plan to the free one?

 

[mactastic]

If there is anger to be directed at AT&T for this, it's for their slowness in getting this into people's hands rather than the product offering itself -- which appears to be comparable to other provider's offerings.

Granted, it's not aimed at everyone. If you currently get a strong signal in your house, and you already pay big bucks to have an unlimited minutes/texts plan and you don't even have a landline -- well, why the hell would you bother spending the money on this, right? But for people who either get poor reception at home or could benefit from a cheaper overall cost by ditching a landline and/or reducing a cell phone rate plan, this thing makes a lot of sense.

Now, you want to quibble about the costs? Ok. Sure, it would be nice if this device went for $99 instead of $150. Would be even better if it was free. But ultimately the device cost is negligible. If, as in my case, I can save $25/month by ditching the land line I've kept essentially just for 911 calls and because the AT&T service is spotty here (although superior to Verizon's oddly enough), then I break even on that trade off in 6 months. Would I like to break even a little earlier? Sure, but even at 6 months it's a good deal for me long term.

Or for instance, say you ran a home business where you needed a thousand or more minutes for calls during the day during the week (the kind that eat up your minutes) but most of those calls were made at home. You could lower your rate plan to a minimal plan, then pay $20 for unlimited calling at home. If you use your mobile phone as a landline replacement -- and thus make and receive a lot of calls at home -- it would be quite possible to lower your mobile plan rate by more than $20, and be saving money every month. If you can lower your total overall monthly costs by even $10, you'll be saving money on the cost of the femtocell by the time one full contract cycle on your mobile phone is up.

And for those who get little to no service at their home for whatever ill-fortune of geography or architecture, this device is priceless. $150 is a small price to pay to fix that problem.

Again, fault AT&T for being late to the party (once again), not for making this available. Quibble about the price if you want to, but recognize that for those for whom this saves a few bucks a month, that initial price is rapidly offset. (And for the person who said this $150 femtocell cost was "3/4 of an iPhone", I must sadly shake my head in wonder... Just because you PAY $199 for an iPhone does NOT mean the cost of the iPhone is $199. Seriously. Look it up.)

And if it doesn't make sense for you to own one, don't do it. No one's forcing AT&T customers to buy one of these. And even if you choose to buy one, nobody's forcing you to pay any kind of monthly recurring fee.

 

[hypmatize]

Alot of people dont realize that in Orange County there is a BAN on new cell sites. At&T cant add sites no matter what. So there are dead zones. EVERYONE has them, AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, T-Mobile, everyone. So this gives them an advantage over all the other companies. Its pretty smart actually. I give it 3-6 months before every wireless carrier has something similar. I would imagine that for environmental reasons ALOT of places have a ban on new cell towers.

Is it in all of orange county? I thought it was only irvine (where I live) that had a ban on new cell towers....

hope tmobile comes out with this..... but then again not sure about the unknown effects it could have on everyone.

 

[yg17]

It deducts from your plan minutes (anytime, rollover, toothfairy donated whatever...). If it is using my network, it should not deduct from my plan. Period.

I find $20 to be not so reasonable when I am already paying over 300 (nearly four) monthly.

Equipment costs are one thing, but then a bundle price that gives me a feature (unlim talk on AT&T net ... not mine, or unlim text included is a nice gimee that could soften this) would be better received, at this point the consumer thinks that AT&T are money grubbing [insert favorite expletive]


instead they are offering you the privilege of extending their service area (for your phones) since they cannot (reliably) _and_ either removing minutes from your bucket(s) or offering you the stellar offer of paying them extra to utilize/originate calls on your wire marketed as unlimited (when you are providing the end access point to originate the call ... since they cannot). wow....what a deal.

No matter how blind you are here, I hope you realize that there should be a better compromise.

It's still using AT&T's network. Where do you think the call goes once it hits the internet? It's still routed through AT&T and still using their resources and costing them money.

 

[thestaton]

It's still using AT&T's network. Where do you think the call goes once it hits the internet? It's still routed through AT&T and still using their resources and costing them money.

You should make Keith Oldermans Worst Person of the Weed. Defending AT&T. You do remember they let the government just walk right in?

 

[yg17]

You should make Keith Oldermans Worst Person of the Weed. Defending AT&T. You do remember they let the government just walk right in?

No, not defending anyone, just injecting a bit of common sense into a discussion that is lacking in that department.

 

[sschwar4]

Why bother with the data side???

Most home networks are still much faster than the 3G. Why would you want a device that uses your wireless to step down to 3G?

The voice on the other hand is where AT&T's problems are. They have been unable to keep up with the iPhone boom. Their network updates cannot happen fast enough to keep up with new users.

They should have had this solution a year ago!!

The cost is a wash. I can step back my minute plan, that supported the 100s of dropped calls each week. Maybe even money back in my pocket!

 

[aristobrat]

I don't get the point of this. The only reason I would want it is because I get no cell reception in my office. No GPS either. So if it requires GPS to operate, wouldn't I have a 3G signal too? Then why would I need this?

I don't see where it says the MicroCell provides GPS information to the phones, but I may have missed that.

One of the points of the MicroCell is to provide coverage in areas like your office. You plug this thing into your internet connection, and it acts like a mini cell tower, giving coverage to the specific AT&T 3G phones that you authorize to use it.

AFAIK, the main reason for GPS on this unit is that AT&T isn't allowed to let this operate in areas where they don't have a license to provide service. So they use GPS to verify that you're in an area that's OK to run it. The GPS signal that it requires comes from satellites (unless it uses aGPS, which may initially get some rough coordinates from the cell phone towers, until it locks onto the satellites), not AT&T. So if your office has zero AT&T coverage, as long as you can get a GPS signal (from the satellites), it should work.

 

[yg17]

I don't see where it says the MicroCell provides GPS information to the phones, but I may have missed that.

One of the points of the MicroCell is to provide coverage in areas like your office. You plug this thing into your internet connection, and it acts like a mini cell tower, giving coverage to the specific AT&T 3G phones that you authorize to use it.

AFAIK, the main reason for GPS on this unit is that AT&T isn't allowed to let this operate in areas where they don't have a license to provide service. So they use GPS to verify that you're in an area that's OK to run it. The GPS signal that it requires comes from satellites (unless it uses aGPS, which may initially get some rough coordinates from the cell phone towers, until it locks onto the satellites), not AT&T. So if your office has zero AT&T coverage, as long as you can get a GPS signal (from the satellites), it should work.

You can generally get a GPS signal indoors unless you live in a bunker. It may not be a strong enough signal or enough satellites to pinpoint you accurate enough for turn by turn directions, but for determining if you're somewhere in the US it'll be good enough.

 

[aristobrat]

Why bother with the data side???

Most home networks are still much faster than the 3G. Why would you want a device that uses your wireless to step down to 3G?

My guess is that they want this solution to work with all of their 3G phones, most of which don't support WiFi.

 

[davidee]

It's still using AT&T's network. Where do you think the call goes once it hits the internet? It's still routed through AT&T and still using their resources and costing them money.

- - - begin rebuttal - - -

Right, and I said that in my previous posts (and others have said it too, I do have an understanding of how telco/wireless carriers do their thing), so read back a few if you doubt that...

Now, back to my reply:

It is using their resources to call complete, but it is also using mine. Now if I were to get one of these because I lived in the sticks (as my dad does) and the reception is poor for about any carrier then great, but we are talking buildings, metropolitan areas, windows right next to cell towers, etc ... these people are also having problems and the femtocell is a solution for them (but it is kinda pathetic, seeing where they are).

the sad part is the AT&T network buildout was underspec'd and the subscriber ratio is higher than they had planned/engineered for.

Enter the femtocel: "If you'd like you calls to complete, buy one of these, because we can't promise you signal"

so you can defend all you like, you must realize when you say <quote>"It's still routed through AT&T and still using their resources and costing them money"</quote> that is also costs us money if we have one of those jewels on our wire (and I am not talking about up front costs, I have said that is ok in my prev posts that you have not read). The idea that I need to patch your net, and you deduct minutes from my plan or I have to pay you extra so you don't is extortion, not to mention double dipping (how, you laugh? simple i am already paying for them.).

All carriers do this, AT&T is the worst if you look at pricing. I have already suggested a solution in my prior post too.

- - - end rebuttal - - -

Now a thought regarding the femtocell. If this thing is mobile and can be taken around, I would wonder if businesses such as hotels (there are quite a few where I get poor reception), airport clubs, etc will make service agreement modifications that exempt use of such a device on their wire.

I am also curious as to the quality on one of the above nets, the whole thing of shared bandwidth and voip comes more into the mainstream now as a concern, where as in the past it was only for us techies.

 

[diamond.g]

- - - begin rebuttal - - -

Right, and I said that in my previous posts (and others have said it too, I do have an understanding of how telco/wireless carriers do their thing), so read back a few if you doubt that...

Now, back to my reply:

It is using their resources to call complete, but it is also using mine. Now if I were to get one of these because I lived in the sticks (as my dad does) and the reception is poor for about any carrier then great, but we are talking buildings, metropolitan areas, windows right next to cell towers, etc ... these people are also having problems and the femtocell is a solution for them (but it is kinda pathetic, seeing where they are).

the sad part is the AT&T network buildout was underspec'd and the subscriber ratio is higher than they had planned/engineered for.

Enter the femtocel: "If you'd like you calls to complete, buy one of these, because we can't promise you signal"

so you can defend all you like, you must realize when you say <quote>"It's still routed through AT&T and still using their resources and costing them money"</quote> that is also costs us money if we have one of those jewels on our wire (and I am not talking about up front costs, I have said that is ok in my prev posts that you have not read). The idea that I need to patch your net, and you deduct minutes from my plan or I have to pay you extra so you don't is extortion, not to mention double dipping (how, you laugh? simple i am already paying for them.).

All carriers do this, AT&T is the worst if you look at pricing. I have already suggested a solution in my prior post too.

- - - end rebuttal - - -

Now a thought regarding the femtocell. If this thing is mobile and can be taken around, I would wonder if businesses such as hotels (there are quite a few where I get poor reception), airport clubs, etc will make service agreement modifications that exempt use of such a device on their wire.

I am also curious as to the quality on one of the above nets, the whole thing of shared bandwidth and voip comes more into the mainstream now as a concern, where as in the past it was only for us techies.

The amusing part about it is AT&T is still profiting from this poor planning. From their perspective building out slowly and having to play catchup is better than doing what Sprint did (do all of this buildout and not have anyone to use it/charge for it).

 

[yg17]

It is using their resources to call complete, but it is also using mine. Now if I were to get one of these because I lived in the sticks (as my dad does) and the reception is poor for about any carrier then great, but we are talking buildings, metropolitan areas, windows right next to cell towers, etc ... these people are also having problems and the femtocell is a solution for them (but it is kinda pathetic, seeing where they are).

If you're in a metro area, and you get service outside a building, and lose service when entering a building, it's likely due to the building materials (some block signals more than others) and not the network.

And, other than up front costs, assuming you don't opt for the unlimited minutes plan, is this thing really going to cost you anything more? You already have a broadband connection. Voice traffic uses such little bandwidth that even slower broadband connections, such as 1 megabit, would be enough for you to use the internet on your phone or computer while on a call so it's not like you'll need to upgrade to the uber 10mbps or whatever package to run this. As long as your ISP doesn't cap your bandwidth, there are no ongoing costs.

 

[majortom64]

I can't wait to switch to Verizon, where I can pay $100 more for the exact same service. Stupid AT&T and their lower price.

Actually, you are paying Verizon $100 more ($250) for less service as theirs does not cover their 3G data. Sure with an iPhone I can also use WiFi, but with many other phones (and most of Verizon's in particular), I do not have that option.

I already have unlimited minutes, so I have no need to pay extra.

My two biggest suggestions are to have a mode that needs to be enabled where it can be set to open access. I have 5,000 square foot steel building on my 5 acres in which it is impossible to get service (T-mobile seems to work inside it on occasion, Verizon and Sprint work no where on my property, while AT&T has coverage outside and in my house, but not in the building, all this 10 minutes from Disney). I use this building for hosting large charity events, during which it would be great to open it up to general guests.

Also, in a similar vein, I would like to it to allow handoffs between Micro Cells. I would set up several of them around my 5 acres to ensure flawless coverage.