I know this is off the topic of AT&T's MicroCell plans - but it's an Apple forum so I'll say it anyway.
Of all the things Apple could do for the iPhone, I'd like to see an option to make & receive cell calls via Wifi. Forget a special MicroCell or whatever - just a wifi router with QoS. It wouldn't work for everyone, and Wifi QoS isn't quite up to spec yet (is it?), but it could make a real positive difference for some people. Even without QoS, our SMSes or visual voicemail could be forwarded via wifi.
At a $0 hardware cost, if call cost was the same rate then you'd only enable it if your reception was bad or you wanted less radiation while talking. Still a good thing. If it gave a better call deal it'd be brilliant (and take pressure off the 3G network, which would be good for other AT&T users).
That would be nice, but it's not up to them. This is a contractual issue with the carriers.
I'm curious, does any other carrier allow this with the iPhone, or any other? If so, do they have some charge for that (other than for making up for a poor network as T-Mobile has to do).
I just had a thought...if this thing works by setting up an AT&T microcell and connecting to AT&T's network via the Internet...
...and you plug it into a network connection overseas...
...do you suddenly have a AT&T US microcell in a foreign country?
If this was the case, and you travel a lot, there's a HELLUVALOTTA incentive to get one of these.
You missed the lines about GPS, if it's true, then you'll have to fool the GPS chips somehow. It supposedly has to get a valid location reading to allow it to work.
Man, you are so full of it. The TMO UMA solution for me has been abso-frickin'-lutely amazing.
I've had their Hotspot@Home service since it became available and here in Washington, it's been near FLAWLESS. I can count the number of dropped calls on one hand in almost a year, and we're not talking many fingers here.
Add to that, I've got a Family plan with all 5 lines filled on a 700 minute plan that rarely goes over 500 minutes a month. On UMA though, WELL over two thousand. Wife and boys can talk ALL DAY on UMA and I could care less. I work out of my house developing software and I talk to people all over the country on my cell, no minutes get burned. Voice quality is as good as it gets - most people can't believe I'm talking on my cell phone. (Blackberry) BTW, I have a FAT pipe to the Internet, so all five can be talking simultaneously and it doesn't make a hiccup.
To say that TMO sucks when you personally have apparently never used it is sadly lacking on your part. I had to signup just to say this, as it was such a blatantly BullS**t comment.
BTW, I could care less what service people use and quite frankly don't understand why TMO gets such a bad rap as I've been with them for 8 years both in So.Cal and here in WA. Have had tremendously good service and such. So, whatever floats your boat, but for me TMO has been awesome. Has saved me a ton of money over the years to boot and this Hotspot@Home is the greatest little secret that really works. BTW, I can also scan for open networks and use ANY open Wi-Fi (or closed if I have the key) and I'm not burning minutes on any of those calls either. I usually setup my Berry to save networks at client sites and then I'm good. Can't do that with a MicroCell either.
To make my network crisp and tasty, I bought the TMO router and added it, so I don't mix my data with my voice wireless. Apparently the TMO router (Linksys) has an additional chip to help sort out some of the nasties, so I actually have two wireless drops in my house hanging off my cable modem. Note that I move a TON of medical imaging data, so even with large file transfers my call quality is pristine. (I also use Throttle on my Mac to save a portion of my pipe for voice calls - this is almost mandatory otherwise FTP will take all bandwidth it can grab.)
Hey, I want an iPhone to develop for, but I don't wish to pay ATT their exorbitant fees and lousy service as a thank you. I'll just get an iTouch instead. Plus a MicroCell? No thanks.
Anyway - shouldn't DISS TMO if you personally haven't played on their field. Me, I'd recommend to anybody without hesitation.
That' good for you, we have at least one other report here from a user who says it stinks. Did you read that? That cancels your post out. I know of two people who think it's bad.
You shouldn't comment on AT&T either then, as you're not using it. Your post seems to so much BS too, then.
OK, maybe it's been too many years since I've done my junior high math -
But isn't a 5,000 sq ft hot spot a circle with a radius of just 40 ft? (Smaller than even a 802.11g Wi-Fi hotspot) Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I guess it's worth it if you just want to bring reception to your apartment or small business, and can position the cell in a central location...Hopefully there is no monthly charge
Regarding the other post - yeah, I read that and I'm sorry for the guy. But to state that it 'cancels out' my post is more of your moronic bulls**t. All I was trying to point out is that for some folks in this great big wide world, TMO works just fine and they don't need to pay up the nose for subpar service by going with ATT. (plus this hack MicroCell solution that is getting alot of bad press in this thread)
As far as whether I've used ATT - all you have to do is read the boards here or BGR or a host of other sites and read the tremendous negative reports on dropped calls, back & forthing between 3G & Edge, yada yada yada. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to make an INFORMED decision that many would call CONSENSUS. All I was trying to do was present another side and that some may wish to investigate to save money and have better service, but I guess you couldn't see that for what it was and had to take it to another level.
Cheers.
Edited out several attacks and inappropriate language.
This article makes a femtocell sound like a Wifi repeater, where a weak spot can be covered by a small box, and the signal 'repeated' or extended to the next aerial. But it actually uses the public internet as its backhaul to reach AT&T's network, so you are:
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.
I think you've summed it up better than any post here, (and clearer than the language in the article as well).
This is a colossally bad idea for any individual consumer. It's also really a dodge by AT&T to provide better service by getting the customers to pay for the infrastructure as noted.
Perhaps a part of the reasoning behind it is that it's also a "foot in the door" in the consumers home for AT&T's netowrk as opposed to the cable guys and the land line guys. I think that it could also be aimed more at commercial locations than anything else. If I was a restaurant owner for instance, or a business of any kind, it might be worth the monthly to ensure that my entire establishment had an excellent 3G signal. For the average consumer though it seems like a total scam.
I think you've summed it up better than any post here, (and clearer than the language in the article as well).
This is a colossally bad idea for any individual consumer. It's also really a dodge by AT&T to provide better service by getting the customers to pay for the infrastructure as noted.
Perhaps a part of the reasoning behind it is that it's also a "foot in the door" in the consumers home for AT&T's netowrk as opposed to the cable guys and the land line guys. I think that it could also be aimed more at commercial locations than anything else. If I was a restaurant owner for instance, or a business of any kind, it might be worth the monthly to ensure that my entire establishment had an excellent 3G signal. For the average consumer though it seems like a total scam.
The stated range really doesn't help much in helping create a guerrilla mesh.
You can just get a WiFi access point and it would serve any device with such an adapter. There also exist cellular repeaters that don't mooch off of the local internet service and yet give credit to a carrier that isn't really providing the service. I don't know if any of the repeaters support 3G, but at least you have the WiFi for anything that needs a lot of network bandwidth.
This doesn't sound like AT&T's fault at all, you have a corrupt politician preventing them from building towers in your town. Unless you blame AT&T for not paying off your corrupt politician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KllrDave
As with most press releases, AT&T's latest regarding their MicroCell product just doesn't match reality.
I have terrible reception on my iPhone 3G on AT&T's network. I'm not just talking about dropping from 3G to Edge. I mean I drop approximately 20-40% of my calls; the majority of drops coming in my home. Now, before anyone chimes in that maybe I should move out of the sticks, I live in NJ along the Hudson River. I walk out my door and there's the NYC skyline (approx 105th St.)
Now, this isn't all their fault. They've been trying to get zoning permission to build a cell tower for over two years. Apparently, one of the town's board members works for a rival mobile phone company and has been blocking their attempts (typical corrupt NJ local politics at work.) Thankfully, they finally received zoning permission and should have a tower up by the spring.
Crazy right? The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, so they'd rather give me over nine months of craptastic free service, rather than something that could actually improve my signal.
So they make you pay to rent a device that shifts the load of your calls onto a broadband connection you pay for.... and then still count the minutes you use out of your voice plan?
Wow, if this idea/thing takes off, whoever came up with it is getting a fat bonus.
Exactly! This is outrageous! If their cell network sucks in your area, they want to CHARGE YOU to OFFLOAD your calls FROM their network and onto YOUR broadband internet connection via a VOIP adapter YOU have to buy.. And then having the nerve to charge an additional monthly fee for this "service"??? It is just unbelievable..
What is really aggravating is that idiots all over the country will pony up and think they are getting a good deal!
This doesn't sound like AT&T's fault at all, you have a corrupt politician preventing them from building towers in your town. Unless you blame AT&T for not paying off your corrupt politician.
No, it's not AT&T's fault that they haven't been able to build a cell tower in my town. However, it is AT&T's fault that they KNOW about the holes in their network, but advertise differently.
It is also AT&T's fault that nobody at any level of customer service knows what I'm talking about when I say "femtocell".
I'm not sure the purpose of singling out AT&T when all of the carriers are doing this exact same thing, AT&T is the last US carrier to adopt this method.
I was saying this exact same thing when the other carriers announced this technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
Exactly! This is outrageous! If their cell network sucks in your area, they want to CHARGE YOU to OFFLOAD your calls FROM their network and onto YOUR broadband internet connection via a VOIP adapter YOU have to buy.. And then having the nerve to charge an additional monthly fee for this "service"??? It is just unbelievable..
What is really aggravating is that idiots all over the country will pony up and think they are getting a good deal!
It is also AT&T's fault that nobody at any level of customer service knows what I'm talking about when I say "femtocell".
AT&T is only beginning to offer this service, their was no reason they should know what femtocell was.
Quote:
However, it is AT&T's fault that they KNOW about the holes in their network, but advertise differently.
Those coverage maps cover a broad area. None of the carriers go into any detail about small areas within a broad coverage area that may have weak support.
AT&T is only beginning to offer this service, their was no reason they should know what femtocell was.
I was dealing with the Office of the President. I sent them links to articles about this stuff. Is it really too much to expect that someone in the Office of the President can get any info on this stuff?
Quote:
Those coverage maps cover a broad area. None of the carriers go into any detail about small areas within a broad coverage area that may have weak support.
Their coverage map is plenty detailed. My development juts out onto a pier. Their coverage map clearly shows the outlines of my development, let alone my town (actually, it looks a lot like Google Maps.) If they can show that level of detail in regard to the area of the map, then they can be equally as diligent in regard to the coverage area of their cell towers.
I agree with the Japan comment. I have an iPhone 3G, using SoftBank, and no matter where I go in Japan (except my lead-in-the-walls military house, and even then stepping outside gets me a full signal) I always have a signal. Even high up in the mountains (camping trip) I was streaming YouTube for my friends. AT&T must suck balls if they can't have a signal everywhere in the USA, which doesn't have many mountains or skyscrapers that block signals, like Japan does.
Um, the US is 26x the land area of Japan. Not exactly a fair comparison.
I didn't know AT&T had an office of the president. What makes you think they read your email? Even if they did you expect them to spread the information from you to all of their customer service representatives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KllrDave
I was dealing with the Office of the President. I sent them links to articles about this stuff. Is it really too much to expect that someone in the Office of the President can get any info on this stuff?
The United States has 38 mountain ranges throughout the country. Several of which are larger than the entire Island of Japan.
Most major US cities have skyscrapers in their downtowns. New York and Chicago are number two and number four respectively as having the largest skylines in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougelo7
I agree with the Japan comment. I have an iPhone 3G, using SoftBank, and no matter where I go in Japan (except my lead-in-the-walls military house, and even then stepping outside gets me a full signal) I always have a signal. Even high up in the mountains (camping trip) I was streaming YouTube for my friends. AT&T must suck balls if they can't have a signal everywhere in the USA, which doesn't have many mountains or skyscrapers that block signals, like Japan does.
I didn't know AT&T had an office of the president. What makes you think they read your email? Even if they did you expect them to spread the information from you to all of their customer service representatives?
I am quite skilled at the art of crafting the Executive Email Carpet Bomb. I have notches on my laptop from taking down the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sony, Time Warner Cable and more. It's kind of sad, but it takes some work to be a good consumer and not be taken advantage of by these corporate behemoths.
You'd be surprised at how quickly a well-written email to the president of a company gets a response. Often I am contacted by the company in the same day...sometimes within an hour or two of clicking the send button.
While their are times when companies take unfair advantage of their customers. At the same time the customer does have to take some personal responsibility for their choices. The best way to be a good consumer is to not give money to a company you feel does treat its customers right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KllrDave
I am quite skilled at the art of crafting the Executive Email Carpet Bomb. I have notches on my laptop from taking down the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sony, Time Warner Cable and more. It's kind of sad, but it takes some work to be a good consumer and not be taken advantage of by these corporate behemoths.
You'd be surprised at how quickly a well-written email to the president of a company gets a response. Often I am contacted by the company in the same day...sometimes within an hour or two of clicking the send button.
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).
Take it from someone who works in the telecommunications industry and knows something about such things, you're RIGHT! I get so tired of these half researched articles that throw out wild acquisitions about technologies the author barely knows anything about. Regardless of where a call originates, the call must be streamed to a server on the carriers backbone. WiFi connections to the internet don't just magically carry and route phone calls. There must always be a piece of network equipment that will link the call into a carrier network. In this case, that'd be AT&T if they were to allow UMA/GAN calls on their network like T-Mobile.
If you think a little more about it, it doesn't make sense that the carrier would have no knowledge of the call because if they didn't then they couldn't hand off the call from a WiFi network to the 3G/GSM network. For this handoff to occur, the phone must coordinate the handoff between the nearest carrier GAN Controller they're connected to via WiFi and the macrocell of the carrier network they're being handed off to.
The article is a little misleading on T-Mobile's UMA. You can use Wi-Fi UMA on T-Mobile to extend your coverage for free if you use your plan minutes. You don't need to sign up for anything, you just get a UMA capable phone. If you want UNLIMITED UMA minutes, THEN you can pay $10/month.
T-Mobile's unlimited plan pricing is more suggestive of what it costs to provide gateway service. UMA is nice because it works anywhere there is a WiFi network, including overseas. VERY beneficial to soldiers, foreign exchange students, and even regular travelers wanting to avoid roaming costs.
Personally, I think UMA and femtocell minutes should only count as half a minute at most against your plan since you're covering half the connection to their network.
PS - The arguing and misinformation on the forums here are sad. I would recommend WirelessAdvisor or even HowardForums over relying on the posts here for technically sound information. Thanks FMC Fun and Adamr81 for some good info though.
Comments
I know this is off the topic of AT&T's MicroCell plans - but it's an Apple forum so I'll say it anyway.
Of all the things Apple could do for the iPhone, I'd like to see an option to make & receive cell calls via Wifi. Forget a special MicroCell or whatever - just a wifi router with QoS. It wouldn't work for everyone, and Wifi QoS isn't quite up to spec yet (is it?), but it could make a real positive difference for some people. Even without QoS, our SMSes or visual voicemail could be forwarded via wifi.
At a $0 hardware cost, if call cost was the same rate then you'd only enable it if your reception was bad or you wanted less radiation while talking. Still a good thing. If it gave a better call deal it'd be brilliant (and take pressure off the 3G network, which would be good for other AT&T users).
That would be nice, but it's not up to them. This is a contractual issue with the carriers.
I'm curious, does any other carrier allow this with the iPhone, or any other? If so, do they have some charge for that (other than for making up for a poor network as T-Mobile has to do).
I just had a thought...if this thing works by setting up an AT&T microcell and connecting to AT&T's network via the Internet...
...and you plug it into a network connection overseas...
...do you suddenly have a AT&T US microcell in a foreign country?
If this was the case, and you travel a lot, there's a HELLUVALOTTA incentive to get one of these.
You missed the lines about GPS, if it's true, then you'll have to fool the GPS chips somehow. It supposedly has to get a valid location reading to allow it to work.
Man, you are so full of it. The TMO UMA solution for me has been abso-frickin'-lutely amazing.
I've had their Hotspot@Home service since it became available and here in Washington, it's been near FLAWLESS. I can count the number of dropped calls on one hand in almost a year, and we're not talking many fingers here.
Add to that, I've got a Family plan with all 5 lines filled on a 700 minute plan that rarely goes over 500 minutes a month. On UMA though, WELL over two thousand. Wife and boys can talk ALL DAY on UMA and I could care less. I work out of my house developing software and I talk to people all over the country on my cell, no minutes get burned. Voice quality is as good as it gets - most people can't believe I'm talking on my cell phone. (Blackberry) BTW, I have a FAT pipe to the Internet, so all five can be talking simultaneously and it doesn't make a hiccup.
To say that TMO sucks when you personally have apparently never used it is sadly lacking on your part. I had to signup just to say this, as it was such a blatantly BullS**t comment.
BTW, I could care less what service people use and quite frankly don't understand why TMO gets such a bad rap as I've been with them for 8 years both in So.Cal and here in WA. Have had tremendously good service and such. So, whatever floats your boat, but for me TMO has been awesome. Has saved me a ton of money over the years to boot and this Hotspot@Home is the greatest little secret that really works. BTW, I can also scan for open networks and use ANY open Wi-Fi (or closed if I have the key) and I'm not burning minutes on any of those calls either. I usually setup my Berry to save networks at client sites and then I'm good. Can't do that with a MicroCell either.
To make my network crisp and tasty, I bought the TMO router and added it, so I don't mix my data with my voice wireless. Apparently the TMO router (Linksys) has an additional chip to help sort out some of the nasties, so I actually have two wireless drops in my house hanging off my cable modem. Note that I move a TON of medical imaging data, so even with large file transfers my call quality is pristine. (I also use Throttle on my Mac to save a portion of my pipe for voice calls - this is almost mandatory otherwise FTP will take all bandwidth it can grab.)
Hey, I want an iPhone to develop for, but I don't wish to pay ATT their exorbitant fees and lousy service as a thank you. I'll just get an iTouch instead. Plus a MicroCell? No thanks.
Anyway - shouldn't DISS TMO if you personally haven't played on their field. Me, I'd recommend to anybody without hesitation.
That' good for you, we have at least one other report here from a user who says it stinks. Did you read that? That cancels your post out. I know of two people who think it's bad.
You shouldn't comment on AT&T either then, as you're not using it. Your post seems to so much BS too, then.
OK, maybe it's been too many years since I've done my junior high math -
But isn't a 5,000 sq ft hot spot a circle with a radius of just 40 ft? (Smaller than even a 802.11g Wi-Fi hotspot) Please correct me if I'm wrong...
I guess it's worth it if you just want to bring reception to your apartment or small business, and can position the cell in a central location...Hopefully there is no monthly charge
I believe you are correct!
Regarding the other post - yeah, I read that and I'm sorry for the guy. But to state that it 'cancels out' my post is more of your moronic bulls**t. All I was trying to point out is that for some folks in this great big wide world, TMO works just fine and they don't need to pay up the nose for subpar service by going with ATT. (plus this hack MicroCell solution that is getting alot of bad press in this thread)
As far as whether I've used ATT - all you have to do is read the boards here or BGR or a host of other sites and read the tremendous negative reports on dropped calls, back & forthing between 3G & Edge, yada yada yada. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to make an INFORMED decision that many would call CONSENSUS. All I was trying to do was present another side and that some may wish to investigate to save money and have better service, but I guess you couldn't see that for what it was and had to take it to another level.
Cheers.
Edited out several attacks and inappropriate language.
This article makes a femtocell sound like a Wifi repeater, where a weak spot can be covered by a small box, and the signal 'repeated' or extended to the next aerial. But it actually uses the public internet as its backhaul to reach AT&T's network, so you are:
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.
I think you've summed it up better than any post here, (and clearer than the language in the article as well).
This is a colossally bad idea for any individual consumer. It's also really a dodge by AT&T to provide better service by getting the customers to pay for the infrastructure as noted.
Perhaps a part of the reasoning behind it is that it's also a "foot in the door" in the consumers home for AT&T's netowrk as opposed to the cable guys and the land line guys. I think that it could also be aimed more at commercial locations than anything else. If I was a restaurant owner for instance, or a business of any kind, it might be worth the monthly to ensure that my entire establishment had an excellent 3G signal. For the average consumer though it seems like a total scam.
I think you've summed it up better than any post here, (and clearer than the language in the article as well).
This is a colossally bad idea for any individual consumer. It's also really a dodge by AT&T to provide better service by getting the customers to pay for the infrastructure as noted.
Perhaps a part of the reasoning behind it is that it's also a "foot in the door" in the consumers home for AT&T's netowrk as opposed to the cable guys and the land line guys. I think that it could also be aimed more at commercial locations than anything else. If I was a restaurant owner for instance, or a business of any kind, it might be worth the monthly to ensure that my entire establishment had an excellent 3G signal. For the average consumer though it seems like a total scam.
The stated range really doesn't help much in helping create a guerrilla mesh.
You can just get a WiFi access point and it would serve any device with such an adapter. There also exist cellular repeaters that don't mooch off of the local internet service and yet give credit to a carrier that isn't really providing the service. I don't know if any of the repeaters support 3G, but at least you have the WiFi for anything that needs a lot of network bandwidth.
As with most press releases, AT&T's latest regarding their MicroCell product just doesn't match reality.
I have terrible reception on my iPhone 3G on AT&T's network. I'm not just talking about dropping from 3G to Edge. I mean I drop approximately 20-40% of my calls; the majority of drops coming in my home. Now, before anyone chimes in that maybe I should move out of the sticks, I live in NJ along the Hudson River. I walk out my door and there's the NYC skyline (approx 105th St.)
Now, this isn't all their fault. They've been trying to get zoning permission to build a cell tower for over two years. Apparently, one of the town's board members works for a rival mobile phone company and has been blocking their attempts (typical corrupt NJ local politics at work.) Thankfully, they finally received zoning permission and should have a tower up by the spring.
Crazy right? The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, so they'd rather give me over nine months of craptastic free service, rather than something that could actually improve my signal.
So they make you pay to rent a device that shifts the load of your calls onto a broadband connection you pay for.... and then still count the minutes you use out of your voice plan?
Wow, if this idea/thing takes off, whoever came up with it is getting a fat bonus.
Exactly! This is outrageous! If their cell network sucks in your area, they want to CHARGE YOU to OFFLOAD your calls FROM their network and onto YOUR broadband internet connection via a VOIP adapter YOU have to buy.. And then having the nerve to charge an additional monthly fee for this "service"??? It is just unbelievable..
What is really aggravating is that idiots all over the country will pony up and think they are getting a good deal!
This doesn't sound like AT&T's fault at all, you have a corrupt politician preventing them from building towers in your town. Unless you blame AT&T for not paying off your corrupt politician.
No, it's not AT&T's fault that they haven't been able to build a cell tower in my town. However, it is AT&T's fault that they KNOW about the holes in their network, but advertise differently.
It is also AT&T's fault that nobody at any level of customer service knows what I'm talking about when I say "femtocell".
I was saying this exact same thing when the other carriers announced this technology.
Exactly! This is outrageous! If their cell network sucks in your area, they want to CHARGE YOU to OFFLOAD your calls FROM their network and onto YOUR broadband internet connection via a VOIP adapter YOU have to buy.. And then having the nerve to charge an additional monthly fee for this "service"??? It is just unbelievable..
What is really aggravating is that idiots all over the country will pony up and think they are getting a good deal!
It is also AT&T's fault that nobody at any level of customer service knows what I'm talking about when I say "femtocell".
AT&T is only beginning to offer this service, their was no reason they should know what femtocell was.
However, it is AT&T's fault that they KNOW about the holes in their network, but advertise differently.
Those coverage maps cover a broad area. None of the carriers go into any detail about small areas within a broad coverage area that may have weak support.
AT&T is only beginning to offer this service, their was no reason they should know what femtocell was.
I was dealing with the Office of the President. I sent them links to articles about this stuff. Is it really too much to expect that someone in the Office of the President can get any info on this stuff?
Those coverage maps cover a broad area. None of the carriers go into any detail about small areas within a broad coverage area that may have weak support.
Their coverage map is plenty detailed. My development juts out onto a pier. Their coverage map clearly shows the outlines of my development, let alone my town (actually, it looks a lot like Google Maps.) If they can show that level of detail in regard to the area of the map, then they can be equally as diligent in regard to the coverage area of their cell towers.
I agree with the Japan comment. I have an iPhone 3G, using SoftBank, and no matter where I go in Japan (except my lead-in-the-walls military house, and even then stepping outside gets me a full signal) I always have a signal. Even high up in the mountains (camping trip) I was streaming YouTube for my friends. AT&T must suck balls if they can't have a signal everywhere in the USA, which doesn't have many mountains or skyscrapers that block signals, like Japan does.
Um, the US is 26x the land area of Japan. Not exactly a fair comparison.
I was dealing with the Office of the President. I sent them links to articles about this stuff. Is it really too much to expect that someone in the Office of the President can get any info on this stuff?
Most major US cities have skyscrapers in their downtowns. New York and Chicago are number two and number four respectively as having the largest skylines in the world.
I agree with the Japan comment. I have an iPhone 3G, using SoftBank, and no matter where I go in Japan (except my lead-in-the-walls military house, and even then stepping outside gets me a full signal) I always have a signal. Even high up in the mountains (camping trip) I was streaming YouTube for my friends. AT&T must suck balls if they can't have a signal everywhere in the USA, which doesn't have many mountains or skyscrapers that block signals, like Japan does.
I didn't know AT&T had an office of the president. What makes you think they read your email? Even if they did you expect them to spread the information from you to all of their customer service representatives?
I am quite skilled at the art of crafting the Executive Email Carpet Bomb. I have notches on my laptop from taking down the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sony, Time Warner Cable and more. It's kind of sad, but it takes some work to be a good consumer and not be taken advantage of by these corporate behemoths.
You'd be surprised at how quickly a well-written email to the president of a company gets a response. Often I am contacted by the company in the same day...sometimes within an hour or two of clicking the send button.
I am quite skilled at the art of crafting the Executive Email Carpet Bomb. I have notches on my laptop from taking down the likes of AT&T, Verizon, Sony, Time Warner Cable and more. It's kind of sad, but it takes some work to be a good consumer and not be taken advantage of by these corporate behemoths.
You'd be surprised at how quickly a well-written email to the president of a company gets a response. Often I am contacted by the company in the same day...sometimes within an hour or two of clicking the send button.
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).
Take it from someone who works in the telecommunications industry and knows something about such things, you're RIGHT! I get so tired of these half researched articles that throw out wild acquisitions about technologies the author barely knows anything about. Regardless of where a call originates, the call must be streamed to a server on the carriers backbone. WiFi connections to the internet don't just magically carry and route phone calls. There must always be a piece of network equipment that will link the call into a carrier network. In this case, that'd be AT&T if they were to allow UMA/GAN calls on their network like T-Mobile.
If you think a little more about it, it doesn't make sense that the carrier would have no knowledge of the call because if they didn't then they couldn't hand off the call from a WiFi network to the 3G/GSM network. For this handoff to occur, the phone must coordinate the handoff between the nearest carrier GAN Controller they're connected to via WiFi and the macrocell of the carrier network they're being handed off to.
T-Mobile's unlimited plan pricing is more suggestive of what it costs to provide gateway service. UMA is nice because it works anywhere there is a WiFi network, including overseas. VERY beneficial to soldiers, foreign exchange students, and even regular travelers wanting to avoid roaming costs.
Personally, I think UMA and femtocell minutes should only count as half a minute at most against your plan since you're covering half the connection to their network.
PS - The arguing and misinformation on the forums here are sad. I would recommend WirelessAdvisor or even HowardForums over relying on the posts here for technically sound information. Thanks FMC Fun and Adamr81 for some good info though.