Comments on: AT&T Jumps on the Femtocell Bandwagon

By: 4 Ways Carriers Are Fighting Wireless Data Demand: Tech News «

4 Ways Carriers Are Fighting Wireless Data Demand: Tech News « — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:47:58 +0000

[...] activity is then routed over a home broadband connection, which reduces wireless network demand. AT&T began offering a femtocell last year, and both U.S. CDMA carriers, Verizon and Sprint, do as well. The biggest challenge for consumer [...]

By: With AT&T Femtocell, Your Coverage Troubles Could Be Over | ComputerDumb.com

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:10:15 +0000

[...] up a GPS signal). The one-time pricing is good news, because when AT&T in September 2009 began consumer trials of the MicroCell in North Carolina, the trial version was being offered only in combination with a $20 monthly plan. [...]

By: Pocerif

Pocerif — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:12:32 +0000

This is not a hard problem to fix. Just encourage everyone you know and post online not to pay for it. The free market does work, we all need to make our voices heard. Don’t play their game and don’t buy their crap. I expect decent cell service for what I pay each month anyway. I should not have to pay extra to get a decent signal. These devices save the cell companies money by reducing the load to their cell towers and reducing the need for more of them. They should not be charging a monthly fee for this. No WAY!

By: mrktmind

mrktmind — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:45:34 +0000

Sprint and Verizon units appear to be the same Samsung box. Why can’t we have independent femtocell products that can be configured to use which ever carrier you wish?

By: mrktmind

mrktmind — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:40:41 +0000

AT&T’s pricing structure appears to be the worst of the three. They over charge you for the device – the device really isn’t a whole lot different (cost to build wise) than a $39.95 wireless router. Then they want to charge you an extra monthly charge while they get to offload a ton of traffic from their cell networks onto your broadband carrier’s network.

I have been looking hard at the Verizon version as my cell signal where I live in the country doesn’t work most of the time. But $250.00 is just too much. Especially if you end up switching carriers or moving to an area with better coverage.

By: powel

powel — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:42:03 +0000

why bother when better alternative already exists .. wifi and voip.

By: TimB

TimB — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:51:38 +0000

Two things:
1) Unless the original pricing has changed — all of the other carriers are cheaper for femtocell use.
2) I guess this is a viable option if you are desperate to fill a coverage gap – but if the carriers can get you to pay for the hardware, *plus* additional monthly fees to offload the network you are already paying them for – then they are marketing geniuses.

By: SD

SD — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:47:48 +0000

AT&T should be using this as an opportunity to steal business from VoIP customers using Vonage, Comcast and TWC’s offerings as well as appeasing their customers who were let down by their terrible 3G coverage.

Adding a $20 premium to their existing wireless plans for unlimited calling is absurd when other VoIP offerings go for much less. Its even more absurd that a customer has to shell out more money to fix signal issues which AT&T should be fixing from their existing cellular plan revenue!

AT&T doesn’t get it. I wish the realities of a free market economy would kick in and let At&T burn based on their overwhelming incompetence at providing products/services that people want.