I would hope that this system operates in a way that it controls QoS such that heavy internet use doesn't interfere with the call quality.
This sounds less than ideal. Having to forward ports and set up QoS. I know people with computer engineering degrees that can’t seem to figure out their home router. I wonder if this device would potentially have a built in hub (or come with a special modem) so that any home router would be off the hub and give more direct access to the MicroCell before it gets to your home router. Moving GB of data between home PCs can really bog down a home router. I wonder if they have anything with these ISPs (outside of their own) so that QoS can automatically initiate when you connect the MicroCell.
I wonder if this device would potentially have a built in hub (or come with a special one) so that any home router would be off the hub and give more direct access to the MicroCell before it gets to your home router.
That's something like what I was thinking, but not with a hub, just one eth jack to the cable modem or DSL box, one to the router. If you connect it between the router and the internet connection, and it did its own QoS, you could get around the big download problem.
If, as the article thinks is possible, they don't charge any monthly fee for not using the unlimited plan, that's not expensive. Why would someone think it would be?
Based on oversaturated markets, I'm sure they'll sell a ton of these (NYC & SF).
These are my additional question (on top of price).
1. Can you buy more than one.
2. Can you use more than one cell phone on it at a time?
3. Will businesses (small businesses) be able to add this to their locations?
4. Will this be pretty seamless to transport and setup for multiple locations (within US coverage)?
That said, perhaps if we complain loud enough, and critics pan the price hard, they'll drop the prices a bit.
I would imagine it would be hard to sell to consumers for more than $200, psychologically, and also practically. Any price below that would just help sales explode. To me this is a no-brainer to buy it outright. Dropping one or two price plans would help cover that cost, and increase reliability, even if you were charged monthly. But here's to hoping it can be purchased under $100.
My initial reaction to this story is "so THATS why Google voice got killed..." it makes more sense than any PR ridden explanation issued by AppleT&T
Am I off base ... ?
Well, unless you can point out exactly how this relates to GV, I would say you are off base. I can't see how this affects GV, or that GV would affect this, or the need for it, it any way.
I would look at this as an absolute last resort, where you decide you must use an iPhone despitI would hope that this system operates in a way that it controls QoS such that heavy internet use doesn't interfere with the call quality.
And the reverse as well - can you throttle the number of wireless phone connections or radio signal range to keep your neighbors' phones (at home or at work) from connecting and overwhelming your Internet connection with data? Ideally you should be able to restrict the femtocell to only recognize specific phones to make sure that you get the full use of the service. I sure would hate to pay for this device and find that sometimes I still can't connect with my phone or data transfer slows to a crawl because others' phones are connecting to my device!
Why can't AT&T allow iPhones to operate over wifi with built-in voip? People would be able to use their phones in remote locations where service is unreliable/not available and it would reduce strain on their network considerably.
Because they would make no money off that. It's all about profit. Using their airtime minutes costs you. Wifi is free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo
This service is called UMA, and it is offered by T-Mobile USA. The iPhone doesn't support it nor does AT&T.
UMA allows your phone to access the same core network, over WiFi instead of 3G.
Yet another reason I can't wait until AT&T's exclusivity contract expires.
I have the opportunity to pay an extra $20 per month to cover the fact that AT&T's service sucks in my area. Quite a business plan... maybe soon we can pay extra at a restaurant so the chef doesn't sneeze on our meal. Steve Jobs, are you watching what your business partner is doing with your great product??
This applies to ALL 3G phones that AT&T sell not just the iPhone.
Because they would make no money off that. It's all about profit. Using their airtime minutes costs you. Wifi is free.
Well, if they can route calls to your iPhone number, they can identify your phone and they can charge you for calls, so it wouldn't seem to make any difference to them if you are using 3G, VOIP (or UMA, can someone explain if or how this differs from VOIP other than being a means of switching between WiFi and 3G?).
However, ironically, AT&T is basically offering you VOIP service, potentially, over someone else's network with this. Seems like your minutes used ought to at least count as half minutes if you are providing your own "backhaul".
Unfortunately, the 90046 zip code in Los Angeles (the Hollywood Hills) doesn't qualify for this new device, even though that is the one area of Los Angeles that needs this service badly!
Nothing like paying extra to fill in for poor service where there is supposed to be service.
I would think that providers would give these things out like candy for free. Think of all the money they would save because of the reduction of people calling to complain about poor coverage...
if they gave them out for free you probably wouldn't get the unlimited minutes
Umm, Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the smart thing to do is provide these for free and essentially allow the user base expand the shitty network for them? This would be great in a large city, events, office buildings, etc where traffic is already strained.
1. AT&T provides the hardware free to a user who plugs it into their broadband connection.
2. Resulting 3G signal is accessible to anyone within a small radius. Throttling could allow only a few calls at a time so as to not impact the broadband connection too much.
3. Happy customers = profit.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
Why can't AT&T allow iPhones to operate over wifi with built-in voip? People would be able to use their phones in remote locations where service is unreliable/not available and it would reduce strain on their network considerably.
Because I'd install it on my 2G and get "free" calling from China.
AT&T could still charge for use over wifi (use up minutes) and detect your location to charge extra for international calling. This seems WAY more feasible than selling more hardware when wifi already exists.
I understand the network is weak in certain areas, and this device seems to address that problem. What I don't understand is paying extra for this. Am I missing something here?
1) You pay your internet provider.
2) You pay AT&T your normal monthly service contract.
3) You buy this device.
4) You pay $20 extra on top of your normal monthly service contract.
It's 3 and 4 I don't get. You're basically creating internet traffic, right? I suppose AT&T is still routing phone calls to and from this device, but that should be covered under your monthly service contract. So I pay $20 a month for a strong signal while decreasing the burden on AT&T's network?
How does this work if we lose network neutrality? I am sure Comcast is going to be just fine propping up AT&T's network... when they sell their own VoIP service.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
That the ISP's are hit with traffic that they aren't getting any revenue for. At some point the ISP's aren't going to allow AT&T to continue to dump all their traffic onto the ISP's network.
Umm, Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the smart thing to do is provide these for free and essentially allow the user base expand the shitty network for them? This would be great in a large city, events, office buildings, etc where traffic is already strained.
1. AT&T provides the hardware free to a user who plugs it into their broadband connection.
2. Resulting 3G signal is accessible to anyone within a small radius. Throttling could allow only a few calls at a time so as to not impact the broadband connection too much.
3. Happy customers = profit.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
if they gave them out for free then people who don't need them would still order one just to have it and a lot of the probably wouldn't plug them in
I think you only need to pay if you want the extra "unlimited calling" service. My understanding is that you can buy these things near cost and let you hook them up and use your normal minutes with no monthly fee. AT&T is just trying to make some extra money by offering another service for those who use their cell phones as their home phone and for whom it would be worth it.
Anyway, I know I'm going to be buying one of these things. Perfect cell coverage in the basement and every nook and cranny in my house? Sounds good to me.
If you have a signal outside of your home, but not inside (probably due to construction materials like radiant barriers) you can also install a wireless extender/repeater. These devices are easy to install and can work with other carriers should you leave AT&T.
They are sold on Amazon, eBay, etc. Search for zBoost YX510, which is the most popular example
Comments
Am I off base, or should the investigation be turned over from the FCC to the Justice Dept at this point?
I would hope that this system operates in a way that it controls QoS such that heavy internet use doesn't interfere with the call quality.
This sounds less than ideal. Having to forward ports and set up QoS. I know people with computer engineering degrees that can’t seem to figure out their home router. I wonder if this device would potentially have a built in hub (or come with a special modem) so that any home router would be off the hub and give more direct access to the MicroCell before it gets to your home router. Moving GB of data between home PCs can really bog down a home router. I wonder if they have anything with these ISPs (outside of their own) so that QoS can automatically initiate when you connect the MicroCell.
I wonder if this device would potentially have a built in hub (or come with a special one) so that any home router would be off the hub and give more direct access to the MicroCell before it gets to your home router.
That's something like what I was thinking, but not with a hub, just one eth jack to the cable modem or DSL box, one to the router. If you connect it between the router and the internet connection, and it did its own QoS, you could get around the big download problem.
What does the device itself cost?
If, as the article thinks is possible, they don't charge any monthly fee for not using the unlimited plan, that's not expensive. Why would someone think it would be?
Based on oversaturated markets, I'm sure they'll sell a ton of these (NYC & SF).
These are my additional question (on top of price).
1. Can you buy more than one.
2. Can you use more than one cell phone on it at a time?
3. Will businesses (small businesses) be able to add this to their locations?
4. Will this be pretty seamless to transport and setup for multiple locations (within US coverage)?
That said, perhaps if we complain loud enough, and critics pan the price hard, they'll drop the prices a bit.
I would imagine it would be hard to sell to consumers for more than $200, psychologically, and also practically. Any price below that would just help sales explode. To me this is a no-brainer to buy it outright. Dropping one or two price plans would help cover that cost, and increase reliability, even if you were charged monthly. But here's to hoping it can be purchased under $100.
My initial reaction to this story is "so THATS why Google voice got killed..." it makes more sense than any PR ridden explanation issued by AppleT&T
Am I off base ... ?
Well, unless you can point out exactly how this relates to GV, I would say you are off base. I can't see how this affects GV, or that GV would affect this, or the need for it, it any way.
I would look at this as an absolute last resort, where you decide you must use an iPhone despitI would hope that this system operates in a way that it controls QoS such that heavy internet use doesn't interfere with the call quality.
And the reverse as well - can you throttle the number of wireless phone connections or radio signal range to keep your neighbors' phones (at home or at work) from connecting and overwhelming your Internet connection with data? Ideally you should be able to restrict the femtocell to only recognize specific phones to make sure that you get the full use of the service. I sure would hate to pay for this device and find that sometimes I still can't connect with my phone or data transfer slows to a crawl because others' phones are connecting to my device!
Why can't AT&T allow iPhones to operate over wifi with built-in voip? People would be able to use their phones in remote locations where service is unreliable/not available and it would reduce strain on their network considerably.
Because they would make no money off that. It's all about profit. Using their airtime minutes costs you. Wifi is free.
This service is called UMA, and it is offered by T-Mobile USA. The iPhone doesn't support it nor does AT&T.
UMA allows your phone to access the same core network, over WiFi instead of 3G.
Yet another reason I can't wait until AT&T's exclusivity contract expires.
I have the opportunity to pay an extra $20 per month to cover the fact that AT&T's service sucks in my area. Quite a business plan... maybe soon we can pay extra at a restaurant so the chef doesn't sneeze on our meal. Steve Jobs, are you watching what your business partner is doing with your great product??
This applies to ALL 3G phones that AT&T sell not just the iPhone.
This new service is not for iPhone users only!!
Because they would make no money off that. It's all about profit. Using their airtime minutes costs you. Wifi is free.
Well, if they can route calls to your iPhone number, they can identify your phone and they can charge you for calls, so it wouldn't seem to make any difference to them if you are using 3G, VOIP (or UMA, can someone explain if or how this differs from VOIP other than being a means of switching between WiFi and 3G?).
However, ironically, AT&T is basically offering you VOIP service, potentially, over someone else's network with this. Seems like your minutes used ought to at least count as half minutes if you are providing your own "backhaul".
If I understand the article correctly, If I already have AT&T DSL and a land line, then this is free. Free is good.
Last to the party and the most expensive too...
Nothing like paying extra to fill in for poor service where there is supposed to be service.
I would think that providers would give these things out like candy for free. Think of all the money they would save because of the reduction of people calling to complain about poor coverage...
if they gave them out for free you probably wouldn't get the unlimited minutes
1. AT&T provides the hardware free to a user who plugs it into their broadband connection.
2. Resulting 3G signal is accessible to anyone within a small radius. Throttling could allow only a few calls at a time so as to not impact the broadband connection too much.
3. Happy customers = profit.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
Why can't AT&T allow iPhones to operate over wifi with built-in voip? People would be able to use their phones in remote locations where service is unreliable/not available and it would reduce strain on their network considerably.
Because I'd install it on my 2G and get "free" calling from China.
1) You pay your internet provider.
2) You pay AT&T your normal monthly service contract.
3) You buy this device.
4) You pay $20 extra on top of your normal monthly service contract.
It's 3 and 4 I don't get. You're basically creating internet traffic, right? I suppose AT&T is still routing phone calls to and from this device, but that should be covered under your monthly service contract. So I pay $20 a month for a strong signal while decreasing the burden on AT&T's network?
How does this work if we lose network neutrality? I am sure Comcast is going to be just fine propping up AT&T's network... when they sell their own VoIP service.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
That the ISP's are hit with traffic that they aren't getting any revenue for. At some point the ISP's aren't going to allow AT&T to continue to dump all their traffic onto the ISP's network.
BTW, love the login name.
Umm, Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the smart thing to do is provide these for free and essentially allow the user base expand the shitty network for them? This would be great in a large city, events, office buildings, etc where traffic is already strained.
1. AT&T provides the hardware free to a user who plugs it into their broadband connection.
2. Resulting 3G signal is accessible to anyone within a small radius. Throttling could allow only a few calls at a time so as to not impact the broadband connection too much.
3. Happy customers = profit.
The network is expanded quickly and efficiently, in the areas that need it most, people are happy, AT&T doesn't have to spend million rolling out huge towers, what am I missing?
if they gave them out for free then people who don't need them would still order one just to have it and a lot of the probably wouldn't plug them in
Anyway, I know I'm going to be buying one of these things. Perfect cell coverage in the basement and every nook and cranny in my house? Sounds good to me.
They are sold on Amazon, eBay, etc. Search for zBoost YX510, which is the most popular example