AT&T Set to Roll Out Nationwide 3G MicroCell Availability Beginning Next Month

[WolfJLupus]

Femtocell?

Anyone know why they chose the name femtocell and what it actually is supposed to mean? I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't call it what it is, a cellular base station/access point.

 

[cmaier]

Anyone know why they chose the name femtocell and what it actually is supposed to mean? I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't call it what it is, a cellular base station/access point.

Because 4 words and a punctuation mark does not a good product type name make.

 

[WolfJLupus]

Because 4 words and a punctuation mark does not a good product type name make.

I'm pretty sure that's not it, not to mention what I was trying to say was either a "cellular base station" or "cellular access point" not a "cellular base station / access point". I mean microcell pretty much covers it pretty well also.

 

[cmaier]

I'm pretty sure that's not it, not to mention what I was trying to say was either a "cellular base station" or "cellular access point" not a "cellular base station / access point". I mean microcell pretty much covers it pretty well also.

AT&T calls it a microcell. Why do you object to femtocell (meaning 1x10^-15) but not microcell (meaning 1x10^-6)? What do you think about nanocell (1x10^-9) or picocell (1x10^-12). They all mean small. Who cares.

 

[WolfJLupus]

AT&T calls it a microcell. Why do you object to femtocell (meaning 1x10^-15) but not microcell (meaning 1x10^-6)? What do you think about nanocell (1x10^-9) or picocell (1x10^-12). They all mean small. Who cares.

I care because it doesn't sound right to me and I'd like to know what it means, thus why I asked. You just answered it partially, now someone else could probably expand on it further as to how that fits exactly.

I could see how it technically could need another word because there are already microcells and they are not exactly the same thing as they are a direct part of the cellular network where as this is a very limited "external" system.

I'd prefer nanocell myself.

 

[cmaier]

I care because it doesn't sound right to me and I'd like to know what it means, thus why I asked. You just answered it partially, now someone else could probably expand on it further as to how that fits exactly.

I could see how it technically could need another word because there are already microcells and they are not exactly the same thing as they are a direct part of the cellular network where as this is a very limited "external" system.

I'd prefer nanocell myself.

Ah, sorry. I assumed everyone knew the SI prefixes.

 

[starboard]

as a physician who has experienced exactly this problem in multiple hospitals, i would welcome the use of MicroCell in said locations...

all this time, I thought hospitals were actually actively blocking cell receptions, since they claim that use of cell phone can interfere with the functioning of equipments.

 

[SeaFox]

Right, because AT&T believes that people never leave their homes and go anywhere where they can't have a femtocell, like a mall or their job.

Note: If one never leaves their home (where the Femtocell is) you don't need AT&T's wireless to start with. You can just use PLAIN OLD WIRED PHONE LINE now.

 

[Xibalba]

all this time, I thought hospitals were actually actively blocking cell receptions, since they claim that use of cell phone can interfere with the functioning of equipments.

interestingly enough, many hospitals have finally started to lift their previous bans on cell phone use after years of studies that showed no impact on hospital equipment - one of the largest studies was reported in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings journal back in 2007. you will still probably find bans in ICUs more due to privacy and logistical concerns rather than equipment interference.

 

[fhall1]

If enough folks buy into this and get rid of their cable provider phone service and go exclusively to this for a land-line replacement (which I see this as a rather attractive alternative - $150 for the device, use my AT&T minutes which I always have the max rollover anyway, eliminate roadrunner phone plan), I can see this as just another excuse (along with more people dropping cable and streaming TV programming instead) for the cable providers to start monthly capping of their internet service data levels.

 

[christian_k]

Every major wireless carrier sells "microcells" to improve their in-building coverage:
Verizon does.
Sprint does.
T-Mobile does.
and now AT&T does.

So using your logic, EVERY carrier is basically admitting that their service is garbage, and if you want good service, then, well, you're just going to have to pay more.

Really? Without problems?

Here in Germany the network operators do not sell such devices to the general public. They say radio waves do not simply "stop" at the walls of your home and they may cause interferences far beyond the area they cover with a useable signal. They say, many of these cells used in a densely populated area would interfere with each other and they would even interfere with "macro" cells affecting network coverage for the general public. They say there is simply not enough spectrum to allocate a part of it to home cells exclusively - or the spectrum is better used for "real" base stations.

There are microcells in use here, for example in shopping centers or office buildings that have many visitors and that are not covered well from outdoor base stations. But these are always installed and operated by the network operator itself and so they are part of their network planing.

Christian

 

[ccuk]

Really? Without problems?

Here in Germany the network operators do not sell such devices to the general public. They say radio waves do not simply "stop" at the walls of your home and they may cause interferences far beyond the area they cover with a useable signal. They say, many of these cells used in a densely populated area would interfere with each other and they would even interfere with "macro" cells affecting network coverage for the general public. They say there is simply not enough spectrum to allocate a part of it to home cells exclusively - or the spectrum is better used for "real" base stations.

There are microcells in use here, for example in shopping centers or office buildings that have many visitors and that are not covered well from outdoor base stations. But these are always installed and operated by the network operator itself and so they are part of their network planing.

Christian

Well if "they" say it, then "they" must be telling the truth right?

Honestly, there is a whole lot of whining in this thread. These microcells fulfill a need. If you don't want one, don't buy one. For those who are in poor reception areas, these are great.

Incidentally Vodafone have recently rolled one of these out in the UK which they are calling Vodafone Sure Signal.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

Let me preface this by saying that from the rumors we have been hearing during the beta, this article is wrong, and that AT&T will not be charging the user's minutes for this phone. However, in case this article is correct:

And AT&T shoots itself in the foot once again.

Why in heaven's name would they charge an extra fee for something that is going to cost them NOTHING, improve their network, and drastically reduce complaints?

I am okay for them requiring users to buy the unit (as long as users are then allowed to use it as they please) at cost, or even a slight profit. But why should it eat into the user's minutes when the call isn't even touching AT&T's network?

you are missing the point, the electronics have a cost, but monthly service and the unlimited plan are what cost money.

you can have a microcell without paying extra monthly, that is only if you want unlimited service via microcell. otherwise, people have the same monthly fee's

 

[IBradMac]

Yeah, don't hate just to hate. Building materials, proximity to tall buildings, and many other factors impede cell reception.

$149 isn't terrible for a guaranteed great connection. And if you can use your standard minutes from your cell plan, all the better!

I guess I kinda feel that way. Previously, we had Verizon landline service at my home cause AT&T is just terrible there! Verizon charged 70/month for basic. So, in reality I would have my money back in two months of owning one of these!

I live right square in the middle of a dead zone. Mile and half each way from my house gets bars.

 

[alent1234]

Really? Without problems?

Here in Germany the network operators do not sell such devices to the general public. They say radio waves do not simply "stop" at the walls of your home and they may cause interferences far beyond the area they cover with a useable signal. They say, many of these cells used in a densely populated area would interfere with each other and they would even interfere with "macro" cells affecting network coverage for the general public. They say there is simply not enough spectrum to allocate a part of it to home cells exclusively - or the spectrum is better used for "real" base stations.

There are microcells in use here, for example in shopping centers or office buildings that have many visitors and that are not covered well from outdoor base stations. But these are always installed and operated by the network operator itself and so they are part of their network planing.

Christian

depends on the power

the AT&T one is locked down via GPS and transmits at a low power

 

[johng2222]

Oh... So, that's how it's supposed to work!

--- Femtocells are an inherently dumb idea if their owner also has to pay for using them.

Yes.... I see....

The owner/customer should be paid for having one since it benefits the company to have him as a customer. Yes... I see.... Companies should hire customers, provide a living wage, benefits, and a retirement package.

Yes... It's all so clear now.

Now, let's talk about "free" equipment that others have proposed the company should provide... No cost to anyone for that either and it's never covered in monthly charges in some way.

I don't know why I didn't understand all this before.

Very illuminating.

 

[pjarvi]

They need to change the iPhone advertising from "There's an App for that" to: "There's a monthly fee for that".

 

[cmaier]

They need to change the iPhone advertising from "There's an App for that" to: "There's a monthly fee for that".

But there is no monthly fee for the microcell. You wasted your joke.

 

[yg17]

They need to change the iPhone advertising from "There's an App for that" to: "There's a monthly fee for that".

Your post might be funny if there was a monthly fee.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Here in Germany the network operators do not sell such devices to the general public.

Germany is slightly smaller than Montana, so I assume the logistics of operating a cell network between the two countries are way different.


While I think the micro tower is a neat idea, I don't like the idea of having a cell base station in my living quarters. I don't need more radiation/energy/mutant wave beams bombarding the tired cells in my body!

 

[Gasu E.]

This is a new option. It seems like a great idea to me. But if you don't like it, don't take it.

As far as ATT adding more towers is concerned; obviously, they "should". But that requires a massive capital expenditure. I know this is difficult for people to grasp, but even companies such as ATT may be throttled by the lack of available capital, causing ATT to build their infrastructure more gradually. Note that this is not a matter of ATT being "too cheap to spend the money" as capital expenditures can be amortized, and the impact to their bottom line would be stretched over many years. But ATT may simply not be able to raise the massive amounts of capital needed to build all at once. Sorry for you inconvenience.

 

[mr_matalino]

I still can't believe that we are paying cell phone service by the minute. It's 2010 and we're still charging for minutes? What is this, 1994 with internet service from AOL??

 

[yg17]

This is a new option. It seems like a great idea to me. But if you don't like it, don't take it.

As far as ATT adding more towers is concerned; obviously, they "should". But that requires a massive capital expenditure. I know this is difficult for people to grasp, but even companies such as ATT may be throttled by the lack of available capital, causing ATT to build their infrastructure more gradually. Note that this is not a matter of ATT being "too cheap to spend the money" as capital expenditures can be amortized, and the impact to their bottom line would be stretched over many years. But ATT may simply not be able to raise the massive amounts of capital needed to build all at once. Sorry for you inconvenience.

Even if AT&T had unlimited amounts of cash, there's still the bureaucratic red tape. AT&T can't just say "We want to put a tower over there" and build it.

 

[MurderFace]

I got one yesterday...

Yeah, don't hate just to hate. Building materials, proximity to tall buildings, and many other factors impede cell reception.

$149 isn't terrible for a guaranteed great connection. And if you can use your standard minutes from your cell plan, all the better!

I agree. I'm in Tucson, AZ, and its already available. It took 5 minutes to install and another 30 for the GPS link to fully configure. Now I have full 3G bars.

YOU CAN just use your wireless plans minutes, YOU DON"T have to pay $20 a month.

Gripe gripe gripe. People, here is a solution for AT&T customers; you want full bars at home, here you go. "Oh wait I have to pay you for this!?!" Well yeah. What if they gave these away for free, then their in the hole big time...THEN HOW ARE THEY GONNA BUILD MORE TOWERS! Think of it this way, your investing in AT&T to better their coverage by giving them a little cash, and in the meantime your giving yourself full 3G coverage at home.

Also, security seems good. You designate phone numbers to use with the unit. I tested it by deleting my number from the "user list", and snap, no bars whatsoever. I added my number back, and boom! 5 Bars again.

Sorry, but I felt the need to rant the other way. All this bitching and no one can speak to how it actually works. Well I can, and it works awesomely.

 

[Earendil]

I completely disagree...

As things change, new ways of doing things, new technology emerges, as other advances are made then too that business has to change, adapt, grow and/or innovate to survive and keep their revenue streams. Even better for said companies is when they lead the way and STAY on top by dominating the industry by continually looking forward ( Apple? ).

You missed my point someplace. I agree with that 100%. However, just like Apple, I don't expect those new technologies to be given to me for free or at a loss for the company. For example, Apple had the Airport Base Station, right? Well that didn't cover my entire house. Later they came out with the Airport Express, which extended coverage to the corners of my house. I didn't demand that Apple give it to me for free because their Base Station was inadaquit to begin with (for my house), or that they should just make their base station better so that AE's aren't needed. This is the EXACT same radio wave technology. I don't think I need to explain this to you.

Yes, we as consumers expect our companies to continue to offer us more and to grow with the future. Otherwise, they are doomed to inevitable failure. I expect my cell phone company, computer company, internet provider, etc to continue to offer me something new not just stagnate and go “it's good enough, why change?”.

And they will do so, only if it's a good business decision. Currently this thing, without rebate, isn't far off from the price of an Apple base station. What if you found out that AT&T was selling these things at a loss?

I'm saying it should be provided ( cheap or free ) to ensure better service ( which doesn't cost more when you compare the cost of upgrading cell sites thus paying for itself and more ) and for more incentive to stay with their current provider.

I see this repeated over and over on here, and I think it's a common misconception. The POINT of the microcell as I see it is to provide service to locations that will never see service. They are meant to cover basements, and other areas where there is no cell reception. This does not mean that AT&T doesn't have a strong interest and incentive to put a tower up to provide cell service to your street.

People are viewing the microcell as a substitute for cell towers, and to me it's clearly not.

I'm hoping over time these devices will be common and their cost greatly reduced because it just simply makes sense.

And if you are in the business as you say, I'm sure you are aware that this is exactly what is happening. In the functional sense, Repeaters and microtowers have been around for a while to provide a cell signal to places like the inside of malls and other locations where a cell tower is just never going to reach. Technology has advanced to the point where for only $150 (instead of thousands upon thousands) you can now do the same thing to your own home. This is exactly the kind of advancement in technology you are asking for. Why you think it's not worth paying for I don't honestly understand. But as with all new tech, if it's not worth it to you now, wait a year or two and the cost will come down.

If you read the comments some people have threatened to leave AT&T due to this, though I wouldn't think that would be a good enough reason, but maybe it was the straw that broke the camels back. I personally would love to use VZ over AT&T because they have better coverage overall in the areas I've been to.

This is an option to take a straw off the camels back, not add one. If these people hadn't read the news, they would see NO difference in their cell phone bill or service. Now a number of people on here have actually seen the value in this, and are excited to get one. Not every new technology is going to be cost effective or beneficial for every person, however just because it doesn't appear as a gift from god to these people doesn't mean that AT&T is evil. It's evil for a lot of reasons, but not this.

The point being is people pay a fairly hefty price for cell coverage and they expect it to work in most situations.

And it does work in "most" places. It certainly works more places than it did 5 years ago, or even last year.

Part of the reason these companies don't progress is actually because we simply put up with it. As consumers it's our job to tell companies what we want, don't want and demand.

Certainly! And you should attempt to reason with your company on a business level to see if you can't create change that is beneficial to both parties. However there are people are here that are complaining to OTHER costumers, demanding free sh*t as if the heavens promised them at birth cheap free and perfect cell service, and somehow through the evil that is telco they have been cheated out of their birth right.