AT&T's 3G MicroCell to patch iPhone dead zones
iPhone 3G users stuck in an AT&T dead zone at home or at work will soon be able to plug in a device that provides a strong local signal for up to 10 phones and four simultaneous voice or data connections via a connection to broadband Internet.
Price and availability haven't yet been set for the appliance, which AT&T calls the 3G MicroCell. The CDMA industry usually refers to local area, consumer cellular base stations as a "femtocell," suggesting a smaller version of the "picocell," an industry term for a cellular base station installed to extend the signal of standard "Node B" antennas of cellular networks. Apple has installed commercial GSM picocells with 3G base stations within its retail stores that work in parallel with WiFi base stations to give the locations both WiFi and 3G cellular signals.
Just as with picocells and full scale cellular antennas, a femtocell automatically passes a mobile user's phone connection to the next nearest existing cellular towers as they leave the local signal area provided by the base station. AT&T's "MicroCell" branding suggests a device a thousand times more significant than a femtocell, but it's really the same thing. In the world of UMTS, a femtocell is usually called a Home Node B.
Sprint and Verizon ahead with CDMA Femtocells
In the US, both Sprint and Verizon Wireless have already begun selling femtocells that provide a local extension voice and data service, with Sprint charging $99 for its Samsung-built Airave box (first introduced in limited testing in the third quarter of 2007, and nationwide last October) and then charging a $4.99 monthly fee. Verizon charges $249 for its box, but does not charge any additional monthly fees.
Both Sprint and Verizon are CDMA carriers. Sprint's femtocell is limited to extending relatively slow 2G CDMA2000 data service but not 3G EDVO; AT&T's box will provide full 3G UMTS voice and data service. The company has not yet stated if it will charge a one time fee for the appliance like Verizon, or whether it will bill a monthly fee as Sprint does.
AT's 3G UMTS Femtocell
Installing the new 3G MicroCell box will require both an uplink to the Internet (by plugging into an Internet router via Ethernet) as well as GPS reception. AT&T's website notes that "a GPS link is needed to verify the device location during the initial startup." That would typically require installation near a window, as GPS signals are not usually strong enough to penetrate indoors. The device's location must be registered with AT&T to verify that it lies within the company's authorized service area, so it won't work overseas or in states where AT&T isn't licensed to supply mobile phone service.
Once configured, the device creates a 5,000 square foot hot spot for 3G voice and data service. Use of the signal is identical to AT&T's existing 3G network, with minutes and long distance billed just as if the user were not contributing their private Internet connection to relay AT&T's signal. Still, the appliance will be popular among users who frequently work in an area where a reliable 3G or even GSM is impossible or difficult to receive, such as in a basement office or anywhere else 3G service hasn't yet reached, or can't reach effectively. Walls and windows absorb a large amount of the high energy signals
Last week, the Boy Genius Report published screen shots of AT's 3G MicroCell being listed as an option on both the company's internal service center systems and on its retail point of sale screens. Since then, AT&T itself has published information on setting up the device on its public website (below), but has subsequently removed some of the details on the page under the banner "maintenance in progress."
That brings to mind the on-again, off-again clown antics the company pulled when advertising, then removing, the details of a program to provide iPhone users with free WiFi access at AT&T's hot spot locations at Starbucks, bookstores, and certain airports. It took awhile for that plan to finally become available, and AT&T is similarly not providing any answers as to when users can expect to be able to patch up the company's dead zone holes with the new femtocell appliance, nor how much extra it will cost them.
Last spring, a report by ThinkPanmure stated that AT&T had inked a deal with small UK UMTS femtocell leader ip.access worth $500 million, giving AT&T 7 million femocell devices that it planed to sell to consumers for about $100. AT&T's 3G MicroCell product is built by Cisco however.
Femtocell vs UMA
T-Mobile, the other significant GSM/UMTS service provider in the US, has pursued a different strategy in extending its own UMTS network, which is considerably smaller and more limited than AT&T's. T-Mobile relies upon UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access), a technology which bridges mobile calls over WiFi.
Called "Unlimited HotSpot Calling," the program enables mobile phones to place calls anywhere on T-Mobile's WiFi hotspot network or from home WiFi base stations T-Mobile provides its customers, but also requires UMA support on the phone itself. It also carries an extra $10 monthly fee, and the process of monitoring both WiFi and GSM/UMTS signals for proper handoff strips significant battery life from the phone.
Certain newer BlackBerry and Nokia models support UMA, but T-Mobile's high profile Android G1 currently does not. Supporting UMA "only" requires software on the phone set that knows how to place calls over WiFi. Delivering flawless support for UMA is tricky however, and users frequently complain of dropped calls and compatibility problems between UMA devices and specific models of WiFi routers.
Current models of the iPhone should be capable of supporting UMA, if only AT&T were to allow it. The deal breaker for AT&T is that if it were to allow UMA service over WiFi, it wouldn't be able to bill users per minute or for long distance, as AT&T wouldn't even be carrying the call or aware it was being made. T-Mobile's considerably more limited US cellular network (and its finite options to potentially improve it outside of leveraging its WiFi hot spot network) give that company a stronger impetus to offer UMA.
Apple committed to supporting third party iPhone apps providing VoIP using WiFi, but those apps (which already exist) can't place or receive calls to the users' regular phone number or pass calls to 3G or GSM when it becomes available. They require a separate account with another VoIP service provider. UMA promises to handle both problems.
Apple would have to provide its own native UMA support in the iPhone's firmware in order for it to seamlessly place and receive calls over WiFi. With AT&T's 3G MicroCell on the horizon, the likelihood of that happening anytime soon is very small. The upside is that the new femtocell box from AT&T should provide users with fewer problems due to the technology being more mature and straightforward than the still experimental UMA. It also requires no updates to work with the iPhone 3G or any other 3G AT&T phone, and won't demand more from the phone's battery than 3G already does.
Price and availability haven't yet been set for the appliance, which AT&T calls the 3G MicroCell. The CDMA industry usually refers to local area, consumer cellular base stations as a "femtocell," suggesting a smaller version of the "picocell," an industry term for a cellular base station installed to extend the signal of standard "Node B" antennas of cellular networks. Apple has installed commercial GSM picocells with 3G base stations within its retail stores that work in parallel with WiFi base stations to give the locations both WiFi and 3G cellular signals.
Just as with picocells and full scale cellular antennas, a femtocell automatically passes a mobile user's phone connection to the next nearest existing cellular towers as they leave the local signal area provided by the base station. AT&T's "MicroCell" branding suggests a device a thousand times more significant than a femtocell, but it's really the same thing. In the world of UMTS, a femtocell is usually called a Home Node B.
Sprint and Verizon ahead with CDMA Femtocells
In the US, both Sprint and Verizon Wireless have already begun selling femtocells that provide a local extension voice and data service, with Sprint charging $99 for its Samsung-built Airave box (first introduced in limited testing in the third quarter of 2007, and nationwide last October) and then charging a $4.99 monthly fee. Verizon charges $249 for its box, but does not charge any additional monthly fees.
Both Sprint and Verizon are CDMA carriers. Sprint's femtocell is limited to extending relatively slow 2G CDMA2000 data service but not 3G EDVO; AT&T's box will provide full 3G UMTS voice and data service. The company has not yet stated if it will charge a one time fee for the appliance like Verizon, or whether it will bill a monthly fee as Sprint does.
AT's 3G UMTS Femtocell
Installing the new 3G MicroCell box will require both an uplink to the Internet (by plugging into an Internet router via Ethernet) as well as GPS reception. AT&T's website notes that "a GPS link is needed to verify the device location during the initial startup." That would typically require installation near a window, as GPS signals are not usually strong enough to penetrate indoors. The device's location must be registered with AT&T to verify that it lies within the company's authorized service area, so it won't work overseas or in states where AT&T isn't licensed to supply mobile phone service.
Once configured, the device creates a 5,000 square foot hot spot for 3G voice and data service. Use of the signal is identical to AT&T's existing 3G network, with minutes and long distance billed just as if the user were not contributing their private Internet connection to relay AT&T's signal. Still, the appliance will be popular among users who frequently work in an area where a reliable 3G or even GSM is impossible or difficult to receive, such as in a basement office or anywhere else 3G service hasn't yet reached, or can't reach effectively. Walls and windows absorb a large amount of the high energy signals
Last week, the Boy Genius Report published screen shots of AT's 3G MicroCell being listed as an option on both the company's internal service center systems and on its retail point of sale screens. Since then, AT&T itself has published information on setting up the device on its public website (below), but has subsequently removed some of the details on the page under the banner "maintenance in progress."
That brings to mind the on-again, off-again clown antics the company pulled when advertising, then removing, the details of a program to provide iPhone users with free WiFi access at AT&T's hot spot locations at Starbucks, bookstores, and certain airports. It took awhile for that plan to finally become available, and AT&T is similarly not providing any answers as to when users can expect to be able to patch up the company's dead zone holes with the new femtocell appliance, nor how much extra it will cost them.
Last spring, a report by ThinkPanmure stated that AT&T had inked a deal with small UK UMTS femtocell leader ip.access worth $500 million, giving AT&T 7 million femocell devices that it planed to sell to consumers for about $100. AT&T's 3G MicroCell product is built by Cisco however.
Femtocell vs UMA
T-Mobile, the other significant GSM/UMTS service provider in the US, has pursued a different strategy in extending its own UMTS network, which is considerably smaller and more limited than AT&T's. T-Mobile relies upon UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access), a technology which bridges mobile calls over WiFi.
Called "Unlimited HotSpot Calling," the program enables mobile phones to place calls anywhere on T-Mobile's WiFi hotspot network or from home WiFi base stations T-Mobile provides its customers, but also requires UMA support on the phone itself. It also carries an extra $10 monthly fee, and the process of monitoring both WiFi and GSM/UMTS signals for proper handoff strips significant battery life from the phone.
Certain newer BlackBerry and Nokia models support UMA, but T-Mobile's high profile Android G1 currently does not. Supporting UMA "only" requires software on the phone set that knows how to place calls over WiFi. Delivering flawless support for UMA is tricky however, and users frequently complain of dropped calls and compatibility problems between UMA devices and specific models of WiFi routers.
Current models of the iPhone should be capable of supporting UMA, if only AT&T were to allow it. The deal breaker for AT&T is that if it were to allow UMA service over WiFi, it wouldn't be able to bill users per minute or for long distance, as AT&T wouldn't even be carrying the call or aware it was being made. T-Mobile's considerably more limited US cellular network (and its finite options to potentially improve it outside of leveraging its WiFi hot spot network) give that company a stronger impetus to offer UMA.
Apple committed to supporting third party iPhone apps providing VoIP using WiFi, but those apps (which already exist) can't place or receive calls to the users' regular phone number or pass calls to 3G or GSM when it becomes available. They require a separate account with another VoIP service provider. UMA promises to handle both problems.
Apple would have to provide its own native UMA support in the iPhone's firmware in order for it to seamlessly place and receive calls over WiFi. With AT&T's 3G MicroCell on the horizon, the likelihood of that happening anytime soon is very small. The upside is that the new femtocell box from AT&T should provide users with fewer problems due to the technology being more mature and straightforward than the still experimental UMA. It also requires no updates to work with the iPhone 3G or any other 3G AT&T phone, and won't demand more from the phone's battery than 3G already does.
Comments
If I had walked in to get my phone, and told that I had to pony up a few extra hundred bucks to use my new expensive phone and service at home, my purchase decision would have been different.
Why not provide a box that has a bit more range and sprinkle them around the city to cover holes, asking users to share their internet connection. Also, allow anyone in range to connect.
The registering the device stuff seems like they just want to sell one of these to me, and to my neighbor.
The deal breaker for AT&T is that if it were to allow UMA service over WiFi, it wouldn't be able to bill users per minute or for long distance, as AT&T wouldn't even be carrying the call or aware it was being made.
This doesn't ring true to me. Even with UMA, the WiFi calls have to be carried by SOMEONE... that would still be AT&T (even if several options were available, it could be programmed to only use AT&T as the carrier).
Will using a device like this on your internet connection create a lot of traffic that may bother your ISP?
Wow, if this idea/thing takes off, whoever came up with it is getting a fat bonus.
I am wondering if AT&T will subsidize the 3G MicroCell. It's not my fault of AT&T's inefficiencies and why should I pay the added cost to enjoy the same benefits the people down the street have!
I know... whine, whine, whine...
Hey, maybe Obama will include 3G MicroCell's in that so called pork laden spending, er, stimulus bill. If he does, I might just call my representative to express my support... Maybe.
Given my lack of understanding the technology involved, this may be a stupid question, but here goes:
Will using a device like this on your internet connection create a lot of traffic that may bother your ISP?
It creates some traffic, but phone calls require very little bandwidth. Also, most folks aren't on the phone for that high a percentage of any given hour, so the traffic is bursty. Probably not significant use of bandwidth.
But maybe with more nodes of less power it will be safer, maybe not.
Doesn't the addition of this piece of equipment equate to AT&T's admission of its lack of coverage. Now I don't hold AT&T to having a five bar signal strength on top of the Rocky Mountains or in Death Valley or when trudging the Mojave Desert. However, I don't have a signal unless I go down a few houses and cross the street in the major city I live in?! C'mon!
I am wondering if AT&T will subsidize the 3G MicroCell. It's not my fault of AT&T's inefficiencies and why should I pay the added cost to enjoy the same benefits the people down the street have!
.
You don't get to go down the street, unless your neighbor has registered you on their device (from the screen capture in the article). It does improve your coverage at home if it was marginal. Also, you will be much less likely to be blocked from calling if their is heavy volume on the cell tower that services your home.
That said, I think they should make the calling from the cell free since you would be freeing them from the expense of back hauling your call and building new towers to increase capacity.
Would I pay all this extra to AT&T for just any phone? No. For my iPhone? Yeah, probably. But, I suspect most people would rather just switch to Verizon. They won't get an iPhone, but they'll get better coverage and have access to some pretty cool phones.
What's next: If I didn't have a direct shot at the Direct TV satellites I could hook up my DTV receiver to my cable service and watch TV through Time Warner. For a small fee to DTV.
tell us what other options are available, in this case, the T-Mobile@home hotspot service, and then spend half the article talking about all it's negative points so that people don't think they are getting the shaft from AT&T.
The T-Mobile solution is OBVIOUSLY the better solution, to say that the technology isn't quite there is misleading. This service was launched 18 months ago, not last week... same time as the iPhone. It allows for customers to use their wi-fi connection at home to get FREE calls. No Long Distance, just free calls. And if you are out and about and come home, the phone automatically switches you to the wi-fi network so the remainder of your call is free. Now that is a box and a monthly fee worth paying for. While I'm sure the first few devices had their shard of dropped calls and mistakes, I've heard nothing but good things about the device. It could potentially allow you to drop your land line considering you are only paying 10 bucks a month... even if you don't have t-mobile service at your house, this still works.
AT&T charges you for a box to fix their shoddy network, and that's deemed more acceptable in this article. Let's take the apple blinders off for a second, and look at this rationally.
The fact that people are buying these (from any carrier) simply shows you how much they love their phones. All carriers have dead zones. I agree they are the ones who should fix them. If an engineer comes out and determines they can't adjust their towers, then they should provide you with one of these boxes and apologize that they can't provide coverage any other way and that they would be grateful if you would use your own Internet access to help them provide quality coverage to you. But given that they see people are willing to pay for it, why should they offer it for free?
Would I pay all this extra to AT&T for just any phone? No. For my iPhone? Yeah, probably. But, I suspect most people would rather just switch to Verizon. They won't get an iPhone, but they'll get better coverage and have access to some pretty cool phones.
Absolutely right. Many of us have not purchased an iPhone for the very reasons that you mention. After all the number one priority of any phone you would think would be the connection- rather than the phone itself.
However, I am a proud owner of an iPod Touch.
paying AT&T to provide you 'unlimited' 3G bandwidth, in the case of the iPhone;
PLUS extra money to AT&T for this box;
PLUS an ISP bill for the bandwidth to connect your box to AT&T.
My AT&T 'Unlimited' bill is $170 month.
My ISP is $39.99 a month;
If AT&T follow Sprint's example, the box will cost $99 PLUS $4.99 per month.
A femtocell can allow up to 4 mobile devices to connect simultaneously. Do you think AT&T is going to let you specify which devices can connect beyond your own? No, they are surreptitiously going to let their customers provide open bandwidth to make their 3G network omnipresent, when you are footing the bill of both consumer and provider! If everyone just opened their Wireless Access Points up to the public, we could all place calls almost everywhere, and cut the largest part of our monthly bill out, which is the cellular network provider.
If you live in Germany and have a 3G device tethered to your computer, you practically don't even need a home ISP, never mind a femtocell. US folks are getting hoodwinked more everyday when it comes to bandwidth/connectivity.
I shouldn't have to pay for AT&T and my ISP and my cable TV company to get me the same thing: bandwidth.
... Use of the signal is identical to AT&T's existing 3G network, with minutes and long distance billed just as if the user were not contributing their private Internet connection to relay AT&T's signal.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Are you sure about that? I thought one of the advantages of this was that your time wouldn't be counted towards your minutes. That is why cell carriers were getting away with what they were charging for these things.
-kpluck
Why would I want to pay for a device that gives me a 3G connection when I can use my wireless instead?
You would need this box for the cell connection for voice calls. Or you can use true-phone or other voip iphone app.