Comments on: Can Personal Cellular Sites boost cell service? http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:12:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Jack Reacher http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-869312 Jack Reacher Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:35:29 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-869312 <p>What about the ISP? How are they going to feel about all this? If my ISP is AT&T and my cell service with Verizon....is AT&T going to let my VZW calls go through their network?</p> <p>jr</p> What about the ISP? How are they going to feel about all this? If my ISP is AT&T and my cell service with Verizon….is AT&T going to let my VZW calls go through their network?

jr

]]> By: ed http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-832547 ed Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:32:38 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-832547 <p>none</p> none

]]> By: Aravinda Seshadri http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76744 Aravinda Seshadri Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:25:48 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76744 <p>By the way, what release of 3g the femto is planning to take care ?</p> By the way, what release of 3g the femto is planning to take care ?

]]> By: Ali http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76743 Ali Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:44:45 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76743 <p>But how interference will be encountered?? E.g if at some place there is macro layer as well as femto cells, will it not introduce interference?</p> But how interference will be encountered?? E.g if at some place there is macro layer as well as femto cells, will it not introduce interference?

]]> By: Christian von der Ropp http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76742 Christian von der Ropp Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:45:24 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76742 <p>IP.access has already developed a so called "femto cell" - a WiFi-router-sized box (120 mm × 162 mm× 40 mm), that provides 3G/HSDPA coverage within a distance of up to 200 meters. The device operates in the licensed 2,1-GHz-band at 5 mW and allows HSDPA (16QAM) connections with 7,2 MBit/s besides voice telephony. The uplink will be established by any broadband internet connection through an ethernet port. Seamless handovers from and to regular 3G-cells are to work, too. ABI research expects more than 32 million of such or similar devices to be installed by 2011, which will then serve more than 100 million users.</p> IP.access has already developed a so called “femto cell” - a WiFi-router-sized box (120 mm × 162 mm× 40 mm), that provides 3G/HSDPA coverage within a distance of up to 200 meters. The device operates in the licensed 2,1-GHz-band at 5 mW and allows HSDPA (16QAM) connections with 7,2 MBit/s besides voice telephony. The uplink will be established by any broadband internet connection through an ethernet port. Seamless handovers from and to regular 3G-cells are to work, too.
ABI research expects more than 32 million of such or similar devices to be installed by 2011, which will then serve more than 100 million users.

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76741 Jesse Kopelman Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:48:51 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76741 <p>DeadCellZones, a femtocell is neither a WiFi device nor a repeater. It is just a very low power and capacity cell site -- conceptually no different from what's on a tower, just much much smaller. The device would still be provisioned and controlled by the carrier and would need an always-on style connection (but no need for broadband speeds) back to that carrier's switch. I would be very surprised if there is major support for this technology from major US carriers -- it is just too different from their SOP.</p> DeadCellZones, a femtocell is neither a WiFi device nor a repeater. It is just a very low power and capacity cell site — conceptually no different from what’s on a tower, just much much smaller. The device would still be provisioned and controlled by the carrier and would need an always-on style connection (but no need for broadband speeds) back to that carrier’s switch. I would be very surprised if there is major support for this technology from major US carriers — it is just too different from their SOP.

]]> By: DeadCellZones.com http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76740 DeadCellZones.com Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:27:25 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76740 <p>Is the femento service filling the dead zones with wifi or as a repeater on the cellular network? I would like to understand how the service technically works. We could sell thousands of these systems on our web site www.deadcellzones.com which gathers cellular user coverage complaints.</p> Is the femento service filling the dead zones with wifi or as a repeater on the cellular network? I would like to understand how the service technically works. We could sell thousands of these systems on our web site http://www.deadcellzones.com which gathers cellular user coverage complaints.

]]> By: Melikoth http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76739 Melikoth Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:46:32 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76739 <p>Good concept, bad idea.</p> <p>I'm sure a decent proportion of people that live where there isn't a cellphone singnal probably have a dialup provider. The last thing I want is to call someone and have it sound like I'm talking to someone who is both on a cellphone and using Skype over dialup.</p> Good concept, bad idea.

I’m sure a decent proportion of people that live where there isn’t a cellphone singnal probably have a dialup provider. The last thing I want is to call someone and have it sound like I’m talking to someone who is both on a cellphone and using Skype over dialup.

]]> By: Geek News http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76738 Geek News Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:18:39 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76738 <p><strong>GNC-2006-12-12 #224…</strong></p> <p>Talk about Hitachi as a Sponsor for Videocast we produce at CES, looking for a HD Hard Drive Video Recorder,…</p> GNC-2006-12-12 #224…

Talk about Hitachi as a Sponsor for Videocast we produce at CES, looking for a HD Hard Drive Video Recorder,…

]]> By: Jesse Kopelman http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76737 Jesse Kopelman Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:56:58 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76737 <p>This is not a new idea and the technology has been available for years. In theory, you don't even need broadband, as you can avtually fit a couple of voice channels over a good dialup connection. The big issues are these: cost and control. How do you get people unwilling to get anything other than "free" phones to shell out $500 for a femto/picocell? If you aren't selling millions of these things, the price may not even get as low as $500 per and certainly won't get lower anytime soon. As for control . . . well the way most carriers feel about their spectrum is pretty similar to the way Tony Montana felt about his sister. The big thing femto/picocells have against repeaters is reduced impact on the surrounding network when "improperly" installed. Still, the added complexity is huge and with complexity comes price.</p> This is not a new idea and the technology has been available for years. In theory, you don’t even need broadband, as you can avtually fit a couple of voice channels over a good dialup connection. The big issues are these: cost and control. How do you get people unwilling to get anything other than “free” phones to shell out $500 for a femto/picocell? If you aren’t selling millions of these things, the price may not even get as low as $500 per and certainly won’t get lower anytime soon. As for control . . . well the way most carriers feel about their spectrum is pretty similar to the way Tony Montana felt about his sister. The big thing femto/picocells have against repeaters is reduced impact on the surrounding network when “improperly” installed. Still, the added complexity is huge and with complexity comes price.

]]> By: daniel http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76736 daniel Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:23:56 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76736 <p>they better be paying me to host this device. :)</p> they better be paying me to host this device. :)

]]> By: chode http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76735 chode Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:03:38 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76735 <p>GSM codex can compensate for a bit of latency. They can also squeeze allot of calls into a small space. The initial deployments fit all the calls from 3 TRU's (transceiver units) into 3 timeslots on a T1. They are squeezing even more calls into 3 timeslots now. There are 24 timeslots on a T1. Each 64Kb timeslot is handling anywhere from 7 to 14 people.</p> <p>Security of course is also an issue. GSM uses encryption on the RF side but is open to various test equipment (siemens and others). For about $1M, you can buy a device to listen to GSM traffic. </p> <p>On the IP side, I am sure they must encrypt, otherwise people in the US would reverse engineer the traffic in no time. Ill ask.</p> GSM codex can compensate for a bit of latency. They can also squeeze allot of calls into a small space. The initial deployments fit all the calls from 3 TRU’s (transceiver units) into 3 timeslots on a T1. They are squeezing even more calls into 3 timeslots now. There are 24 timeslots on a T1. Each 64Kb timeslot is handling anywhere from 7 to 14 people.

Security of course is also an issue. GSM uses encryption on the RF side but is open to various test equipment (siemens and others). For about $1M, you can buy a device to listen to GSM traffic.

On the IP side, I am sure they must encrypt, otherwise people in the US would reverse engineer the traffic in no time. Ill ask.

]]> By: Ian http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76734 Ian Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:41:46 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76734 <p>Are you kidding me? This would potentially open handsets to huge security exploits. As soon as one guy hacks his picocell box and starts sending OTA data to his cell to reprogram it, it's all over.</p> <p>The providers will never go for it.</p> Are you kidding me? This would potentially open handsets to huge security exploits. As soon as one guy hacks his picocell box and starts sending OTA data to his cell to reprogram it, it’s all over.

The providers will never go for it.

]]> By: Geek News http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76733 Geek News Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:58:25 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76733 <p><strong>Personal Cellular Sites Possible Soon!…</strong></p> <p>Last night I outlined my issue with changing desk and loosing the ability to use my Cellular service…</p> Personal Cellular Sites Possible Soon!…

Last night I outlined my issue with changing desk and loosing the ability to use my Cellular service…

]]> By: Allan Leinwand http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76732 Allan Leinwand Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:14:58 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76732 <p>A few coments…</p> <p>James Hancock: Femto cellular is different from a cellular repeater. Femto is a cell site itself and connects back to the provider's network using Internet bandwidth and an IP tunnel. A cellular repeater simply repeats signal that is present to make it stronger - no Internet involved. You're right that both solutions can solve the problem. Yet, I think the femto model has some merits because you don't need cellular signal present for it to operate.</p> <p>SG: You are right that latency will be an issue. A rule I have been told over the year is that if latency is less than 200ms or so then voice quality should acceptable to the ear. Since you can generally route a IP packet across the country in less than 80ms, then latency may not be an issue. Of course, last mile and backbone congestion, your location in relation to a major Internet hub and packets crossing an ocean may affect your latency dramatically.</p> A few coments…

James Hancock: Femto cellular is different from a cellular repeater. Femto is a cell site itself and connects back to the provider’s network using Internet bandwidth and an IP tunnel. A cellular repeater simply repeats signal that is present to make it stronger - no Internet involved. You’re right that both solutions can solve the problem. Yet, I think the femto model has some merits because you don’t need cellular signal present for it to operate.

SG: You are right that latency will be an issue. A rule I have been told over the year is that if latency is less than 200ms or so then voice quality should acceptable to the ear. Since you can generally route a IP packet across the country in less than 80ms, then latency may not be an issue. Of course, last mile and backbone congestion, your location in relation to a major Internet hub and packets crossing an ocean may affect your latency dramatically.

]]> By: SG http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76731 SG Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:01:50 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/#comment-76731 <p>Perhaps these mesh WiFi vendors had the intelligence to have their devices have RF reception for 800/900/1900 MHz so that along with the 2.4/5 GHz for 802.11 a/b/g it could also receive Mobile phone signals. Then al they have to do is take the digital phone signals and have it routed over the IP network to a central location where it can be converted and emitted out as RF.</p> <p>Would be interesting to see what it does to the latency and the voice quality.</p> <p>Martin, I just you the next Fon device idea. Maybe the Meraki folks could also use this for their next product.</p> <p>AS a matter of fact I would love to try this out myself at home myself. Maybe a new startup.</p> <p>Any feedback, please shoot me responses at my mentioned email address.</p> <p>sganguly@yahoo.com</p> <p>SG</p> Perhaps these mesh WiFi vendors had the intelligence to have their devices have RF reception for 800/900/1900 MHz so that along with the 2.4/5 GHz for 802.11 a/b/g it could also receive Mobile phone signals. Then al they have to do is take the digital phone signals and have it routed over the IP network to a central location where it can be converted and emitted out as RF.

Would be interesting to see what it does to the latency and the voice quality.

Martin, I just you the next Fon device idea. Maybe the Meraki folks could also use this for their next product.

AS a matter of fact I would love to try this out myself at home myself. Maybe a new startup.

Any feedback, please shoot me responses at my mentioned email address.

sganguly@yahoo.com

SG

]]>