Comments on: Embarq Files for Universal Femtocell Patent

By: geneonlbk

geneonlbk — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:30:10 +0000

I live in a small community and we need an affordable cell phone network. IP based multi-carrier picocells might be the answer if anyone knows of such equipment.

I do not believe carrier specific femtocells will sell as too many families have different carriers as well as visitors and tourists.

By: WCA Mobile SIG Discussion on Femtocells

WCA Mobile SIG Discussion on Femtocells — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:46:16 +0000

[...] field that is fair? Recently Embarq, a landline phone company, no doubt feeling quite threatened, filed for a patent on ‘Universal Femtocell’, whatever that [...]

By: McGuire’s Law » Blog Archive » Enabling Technology: March 16, 2009

Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:48:56 +0000

[...] Universal femtocell [...]

By: Femtocell market update for week of 9 Mar 2009 « 3G In The Home

Femtocell market update for week of 9 Mar 2009 « 3G In The Home — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:05:26 +0000

[...] The universal femtocell? [...]

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:09:16 +0000

Steve, you aren’t a pest. If something’s wrong I want to make it right. I’m glad you pointed that out.

By: TPile » Blog Archive » Friday Evening Links -

TPile » Blog Archive » Friday Evening Links - — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:43:01 +0000

[...] FCC Has Done ‘Literally Nothing’ to Comply with Court BPL Ruling eham.net Embarq Files for Universal Femtocell Patent gigaom.com Ofcom Broadband Plans ‘Ignore Rural Areas’ money.co.uk Germany puts its [...]

By: Jesse Kopelman

Jesse Kopelman — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:57:31 +0000

First, as you correctly point out Femtocell still requires provisioning within the carrier’s Switch. If the carrier does not want to let the user set this up, there is nothing the backhaul provider can do to help. This device is only useful to a wireline carrier that can cut deals with multiple wireless carriers and even then it is only useful if it is priced in such a fashion that it would make more sense than just stocking various carrier appropriate models of non-universal devices — which seems unlikely.

Second, this patent claim is garbage. Universal base-stations with IP backhaul already exist. The things that might be patentable are the specifics of the proposed method of configuration, but to try and bundle in the entire device is ridiculous. Sadly, the wireless world is full of such unsupportable patents that have actually been granted.

By: Raj

Raj — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:15:10 +0000

This is really interesting. Aren’t femtocells the biggest argument for cutting the cord? How then, does Embarq think will benefit them when it seemingly cannibalizes their own core product?

Does anyone know if Embarq sells DSL without a phone line attachment? Maybe they’re trying to tout their broadband and asking people to stop using their copper for circuit switched phone…

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:10:53 +0000

I didn’t mean to be a pest; as a patent attorney, it’s one of those things that drives me nuts when I read about patents in the non-lawyer media.

By: Stacey Higginbotham

Stacey Higginbotham — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:13:08 +0000

Thanks, Steve. I’ll change.

By: Steve G.

Steve G. — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:23:16 +0000

Stacey,

The patent was not filed yesterday. It was filed August 31, 2007. It was published yesterday, about 18 months from the filing date as per USPTO rules.