AT&T breaks out its new 3G Microcell
AT&T has finally unleashed its new femtocell in a public market trial in Charlotte, N.C. Dubbed the 3G MicroCell, the AT&T femtocell is designed to boost both the voice and data signal in your home by using your home broadband network. This is similar to how Verizon's and Sprint's femtocells work, though neither of them handles 3G/EV-DO. (Instead of femtocells, T-Mobile has gone the UMA route with T-Mobile HotSpot @ Home, which requires UMA-enabled phones that can use Wi-Fi to make calls).
Gearlog reports that AT&T stores are charging $150 for the actual 3G MicroCell hardware, while the service is free. If you want unlimited calling as well, there's a $20-per-month charge, unless you already have an AT&T landline or DSL service. To help take the sting off that monthly charge, AT&T is offering a $100 rebate if you sign up for the unlimited plan.
Compare this with Verizon Wireless's Network Extender that costs $250 up front and has no monthly fee but lacks an unlimited call option, and Sprint's Airave that is $100 for the hardware, a $5 monthly fee, with an optional $10 a month for unlimited calls. T-Mobile's HotSpot @ Home plan doesn't require hardware beyond your own wireless router, and the service is $10 a month, but it only works with certain phones that have UMA support.
No word on when AT&T will roll this out to the rest of the nation, of course, but if we have any folks in Charlotte, N.C. who have tried this, definitely let us know how it is and if it improves things at all. We should also note that the Sprint Airave has been out of stock for awhile now, and there are rumors that it might be replaced with a 3G Airave some time soon.
(Via Engadget Mobile)
Nicole Lee is an associate editor for CNET, covering cell phones, Bluetooth headsets, and all things mobile. She's also pretty geeky--she likes World of Warcraft, comic books, and shiny gadgets. E-mail Nicole.
Bonnie Cha reviews the
latest smart phones, PDAs, and GPS devices, helping CNET readers get
their hands on the latest mobile electronics. 
Kent German is CNET's
cell phone editor and has been following the wireless industry for
seven years. He's embarrassed to admit he can name almost any cell
phone he sees on the street. 
Nicole Lee reviews cell
phones and their accessories for CNET, thus satisfying her love for all
things small, shiny, and digital.
It is not just AT&T. In my area I cannot receive anything less than 1 or 2 bars outdoors with T-Mobile, and as soon as anyone steps inside my home with Verizon the signal becomes unusable.
Femtocells are not a problem looking for a solution. They are a solution to a problem... just very very costly.
In fact if they could ramp up the strength (from a 50 foot radius or whatever to say 150-250), they could just pick people at random in areas where coverage isn't the best, ask them to use them, and augment their networks that way.
Brian,
I'd love to agree with you, but with the amount of bandwidth and the amount of people that are using all networks, I actually applaud at&t not charging a mint for this. If it helps and everyone else does it, then I don't see the negative. Do I want to pay more? No, but if it is just an antenna that makes it better for some of the people that have bad/not so good service from any of the cell phone companies, than all the better. You did read that Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint are doing this as well and the two GSM companies, T-Mobile and AT&T are the only two that don't appear to be thieving your wallet...sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one.
So the mobile provider will allow me to give them $150 for this dongle that will provide me with the service that I am supposed to be getting when I shell out $100 a month for their service. I know that they all do it, but let's stick with AT&T for a moment, since they are the only provider for the iPhone. That phone has been on the market now for almost 2-1/2 years, and the 3G version for 12 months less. When the original came out, and they saw the enormous data usage, did they say "Hey, we can't keep selling these until we upgrade our network" or perhaps "Gee, Apple, we can't handle the 3G traffic"? No, they did not - they just sold these phones as fast as they could to reap record (for them) profits on the $100/month/phone x 24 months in contract.
So, you think that it's a good thing that instead of AT&T making the investment in their infrastructure now (2-1/2 years after the problem presented itself), we should pay them for the privilege of purchasing this device that takes traffic off of their overburdened system that they should have upgraded years ago? Where is the logic there? They should be GIVING THIS THING AWAY FOR FREE because IT TAKES TRAFFIC OFF THEIR WIRELESS NETWORK. (sorry for the all-caps, but this post does not allow bold, italics, or underline). Why ever would we want to pay money to put a patch on the wirless company's poor business decision planning?
Brian,
I'd love to agree with you, but with the amount of bandwidth and the amount of people that are using all networks, I actually applaud at&t not charging a mint for this. If it helps and everyone else does it, then I don't see the negative. Do I want to pay more? No, but if it is just an antenna that makes it better for some of the people that have bad/not so good service from any of the cell phone companies, than all the better. You did read that Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint are doing this as well and the two GSM companies, T-Mobile and AT&T are the only two that don't appear to be thieving your wallet...sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one.
But if i need to boost the signal near my house because their coverage area isn't great, I have to pay $150 for the equipment and install it myself? In addition, it costs $20 a month to actually use the thing (unlimited calling). And in this scenario I am paying for the broadband internet connection ($50) and the power usage (minimal).
I understand from a business model why AT&T would try to sell this as a boon to consumers, and I would love to have a better signal in my house, but I find it hard to believe that anyone is such an AT&T fanboy that they are willing to set up a cell tower in their house and pay the company for the 'privilege.' But I'm sure their neighbors will be happy.
I am at a loss why you mention AT&T so prominently. Verizon and T-Mobil have been offering this for quite some time now. Are you saying it is O.K. for those other guys to do it, but because you have AT&T it is an outrage?
Perhaps it was my use of the term fanboy that you are responding to. I am willing to retract that phrase.
I'm not sure that I agree with your metaphor about designer clothing. It seems to me that for your metaphor to compare, designer companies would already be selling you their clothes, but if you wanted to wear them in your house you would have to pay a monthly fee.
I'm not being flip. I really do see this as different.
Thinkatoriums
I had previously tried a cellular repeater and I had even gone to the trouble of installing a directional antenna on the outside of my home in an attempt to improve my cellular signal. The repeater didn't work very well for me, but this MicroCell is very promising so far.
I tried one as well when I was with both Verizon and T-Mobile. Never got any additional signal strength with T-Mo, and while the signal strength did improve with Verizon, like turning up the gain on an old cheap stereo when one boost the signal they also boost all the signal noise and hiss. Call quality was actually worse.
2) you don't own a business. That isn't a question, it is a statement. If I am not available then one of my competitors will be.
3) figure out why you are so bitter. Life is short. Lighten up. Get that anxiety disorder treated.
I'll say it again. If AT&T wants to use MY pipes to plug the holes in THEIR spotty service, they need to pony-up some cash or cut my bill in half.
For example, when you buy wireless service from AT&T, how are you supposed to know whether your home is covered until you bring home your new phone? After signing umpteen pieces of paper and a credit check, you're locked into a service with the threat of an early cancelation fee hanging over your head. You paid good money for a good signal EVERYWHERE within their coverage zone. Now you find out your house is a DEAD ZONE. What does AT&T do? They ask YOU to PAY for the privelage of covering an area they are already supposed to have covered. On top of that, other AT&T customers who DID NOT pay for your femtocell get to piggyback off your signal.
Of course, they're not talking about that in the marketing material, because then consumers would realize they're the ones providing a service to AT&T. Not the other way around.
Only problem, checked the site and "unavailable." Trust me, people in rural areas will gobble these up like chiclets.
Thanks for the review, sgirard.
Only American consumers would actually give a company even MORE money when that company provides a shoddy product!!
Best coverage not so good? You said your coverage was good and I have no signal? No problem!! I'll just pay to expand your infrastructure for you!!
Gotta love americans!
So, this is how capitalism works, folks. Don't want it, don't buy it. You aren't required to. Nor are you required to pay an extra $20/month for the service. You can buy the microcell without paying the extra monthly fee.
For me, the upfront $150 is the way I would go. I don't need unlimited calling on my iPhone, so I wouldn't pay the extra $20/month. This is my choice; your mileage and experience may vary.
Here is what I would do:
1) Get the Microcell and get the $100 mail in rebate. Activate with unlimited $20 plan
2) Activate a second line and get whatever free phone is available
3) Put both lines on a family share plan (one with less minutes for same cost but shared)
4) Keep extra line at home and use as a home phone! $20 extra for a home phone! That is cheaper than unlimited with cable or vonage
5) Use the unlimited with primary line and say goodbye to those minutes used at home just before the 9pm (or 7pm if you pay extra) nights and weekends deadline.
Can be a good thing if you use it right. Plus you can split the $20 with a neighboor in an Apt complex if you are next door to each other and they have ATT too!
Just my two cents
BP
I can understand people griping about coverage and signal strength. I still think their network sucks, but I don't see FEM-TO-CELL as a negative, even if I have to pay for the router. It will help bridge the gap, though it is not a replacement for AT&T to continue to upgrade their tower coverage to offer better coverage in general.
-
by Posada21
September 22, 2009 9:17 PM PDT
- As I understand from reading all this, this whole situation comes down to the iPhone. I work for T-Mobile. From what I hear at work and around, people really put up with AT&T because they want to have the iPhone. This reminds me of an article i read about how congress was looking into cell phones being exclusive to certain carriers and how they wanted to ban that. If several carriers had the iPhone and other exclusive phones this wouldn't happen. Apple has to respect the contract they made with AT&T. So, there's not much they could do in the mean time. If several companies had it, it would created pressure for the carriers to step their game up and provide better service and competitive pricing.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by Forked_Tongue
September 23, 2009 6:23 AM PDT
- Agreed, as a tmo employee myself I always thought exclusivity dealers only hurt the consumers. I bet all these carriers would repair and improve their networks in a heartbeat if cell contracts were banned and phones were not only unlocked but actually directly from the manufacturers, thus getting all of your phone features limited by the service provided by the technology gsm/cdma and what the network provider will allow. I don't what is worse, the crappy networks of all the providers, their solution to try to sell to people to use their home Internet network to route calls with the audacity to charge them extra to make it unlimited, and locking out features on the phones that may mitigate these situations (like not enabling wifi or not allowing wifi calling).
-
Like this
-
-
by NervClaX
September 24, 2009 8:47 AM PDT
- I wouldn't be enough just to break the carriers' hold on exclusive phones. We need the new Net Neutrality FCC rules to apply to wireless so the carriers can't block the cool apps and features available on unlocked phones.
-
Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (45 Comments)Unfortunately, GSM phones won't work on CDMA networks so that divides the industry in two already. Phones will cost more across the board because if they're not locked to a carrier, there is less incentive to subsidize the hardware.