NEWS: Google sees big money in tiny cell sites (femtocells)

<http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/20/google_likes_femtocells/>

Search giant Google has joined investors pouring $25m into femtocell
technology company Ubiquisys, endorsing the technology that aims to
put tiny little 3G cell sites into every home.

Last week, Vodafone's request for proposal (basically asking for a
quote) for femtocell hardware became public, a significant indication
that it's serious about deploying the technology in at least some of
its operating territories.

This follows the recent announcement that Netgear would be
incorporating femtocell technology into some of its ADSL routers.

Femtocells are more useful than just delivering cellular coverage.
They have the potential to replace Wi-Fi in most homes, as well as
delivering data content without using cellular infrastructure - if
network operators can understand and exploit their potential.

[MORE]

See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femtocell>

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

<snip>

Sorry- it's not fact until it comes from a reputable source. I see no
citations from NYT, WP, WSJ, etc.

John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> hath wroth:

><http://www.theregister.com/2007/07/20/google_likes_femtocells/>
>
> Search giant Google has joined investors pouring $25m into femtocell
> technology company Ubiquisys, endorsing the technology that aims to
> put tiny little 3G cell sites into every home.

At this time, femtocells require an FCC license. The governmint wants
to treat them a extension of the cellular provider and are therefore
required to provide interception (wire tap) services. The providers
seem to think that the femtocell will also provide access for their
other customers as they pass by. That's fine, but since the backhaul
will be via the internet, the home owners broadband might become
seriously constipated if overused. There are also topology problems
as the current cellular architecture is not going to scale to huge
numbers of home femtocells. Lastly, I'm not sure the average home
owner is going to give up their free cordless phone in favor of a
billable cell phone equivalent. Incidentally, the old AT&T tried this
with LMDS and an ISDN backhaul on the pole many years ago, and gave
up. The issue was not lack of speed. It was customers balking at
paying for in the home phone calls.

Also see Airwalk, IP Access, and RadioFrame.
<http://www.airwalkcom.com/html/content.php?content_id=38>
<http://www.ipaccess.com/products/femto3G.htm>
<http://www.radioframe.com/americas/products/sseries/sseries.htm>

So, what comes after femto? Well, there's atto, zepto, and yocto (in
that order). I guess the AttoCell will be a wearable cell site and
ZeptoCell will be where the cell site is implanted in your head.
<http://www.knowledgedoor.com/1/Unit_Conversion/Power_Prefixes.htm>
--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Scott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> <snip>
>
> Sorry- it's not fact until it comes from a reputable source. I see no
> citations from NYT, WP, WSJ, etc.

I see no reply from navas yet to Verizon turning down the iphone deal that
was reported by the register.

I wonder why that is ?

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> the home owners broadband might become
> seriously constipated if overused.

No need for nasty talk. no.
--
skype:mranep
cell:813-610-2978; work:813-386-4500; work2:813-915-1663
Motto: Why face the world myself when my wife's skirt, it is so dark and
comfy under it?
Proclamation: "A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on.
However, he
should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the
meat to the people in Nepal; Ok I did so beat me with a Yeti dick.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Lastly, I'm not sure the average home
> owner is going to give up their free cordless phone in favor of a
> billable cell phone equivalent.

What ever happened to the Freedom Link phone that Bell (or at least
Southwestern Bell) offered that was a cordless phone in your house, but a
cellular handset out of range of your house.

DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Lastly, I'm not sure the average home
>> owner is going to give up their free cordless phone in favor of a
>> billable cell phone equivalent.
>
>What ever happened to the Freedom Link phone that Bell (or at least
>Southwestern Bell) offered that was a cordless phone in your house, but a
>cellular handset out of range of your house.

I have no idea. As I recall, that was about 10 years ago. Googling:
<http://www.fastcompany.com/online/02/cell.html>
Yep. 1996. $800 to $1800 per user (with no per minute charges) seems
a bit pricy, even for 10 years ago.

The Freedomlink trademark (service mark?) has mutated into at&t Wi-Fi
hotspot service:
<http://www.sbc.com/freedomlink/>
<http://youratt.com/wifi/air/>

In my never humble opinion, the original LMDS plan made considerable
sense. LMDS access points was to be installed on the phone poles
using coax or fiber backhauls. The various cable and telco vendors
would share the connection, backhaul, and termination, selling
integrated services to the customer. The problem was that when it was
first proposed, all Ma Bell could think of offering was ISDN at
128Kbits/sec. There were also some large aerospace companies involved
in the system design, but I forgot which one. I'm not sure why it
died, but herding cats comes to mind.

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

At 22 Jul 2007 05:06:24 +0000 DTC wrote:

> What ever happened to the Freedom Link phone that Bell (or at least
> Southwestern Bell) offered that was a cordless phone in your house,
> but a cellular handset out of range of your house.

No one bought them and they got dumped on the closeout market for pennies
on the dollar without the base stations.

Way back in the late 90s when I was a SBMS (eventually Cingular) dealer I
used to buy them cheap and resell them as prepaid phones. The older
folks loved them- they looked and acted like cordless phones- they even
generated a fake dial tone (you pushed "talk" then dialed, rather than
the other way around like a typical cell. This will probably be hard for
the kids to understand, but that once was the biggest "support" issue I
had as a wireless dealer- teaching people how to dial them!




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> DTC <no_spam@move_along_folks.foob> hath wroth:
>> What ever happened to the Freedom Link phone that Bell (or at least
>> Southwestern Bell) offered that was a cordless phone in your house, but a
>> cellular handset out of range of your house.
> I have no idea. As I recall, that was about 10 years ago. Googling:
> <http://www.fastcompany.com/online/02/cell.html>
> Yep. 1996. $800 to $1800 per user (with no per minute charges) seems
> a bit pricy, even for 10 years ago.

Last time I tried looking for it was ummm...golly 2001 or so.

I installed half a dozen of them in businesses back around '94 through '96.
I don't recall the base price, but I seem to recall the cellular pricing
was twice that of a regular account. Back in the days when daytime minute
plans were like 200 to 400 minutes a month.

In article <346324481020070722144349elecconnec@AmericaOnLine. com>,
Todd Allcock <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Way back in the late 90s when I was a SBMS (eventually Cingular) dealer I
> used to buy them cheap and resell them as prepaid phones. The older
> folks loved them- they looked and acted like cordless phones- they even
> generated a fake dial tone (you pushed "talk" then dialed, rather than
> the other way around like a typical cell. This will probably be hard for
> the kids to understand, but that once was the biggest "support" issue I
> had as a wireless dealer- teaching people how to dial them!

How things have changed. The number where I worked at one time all
started with 630 as the exchange. This is also an area code. So every
once in a while we would get calls for people that weren't there. After
the first couple we always asked for the number they were calling. It
was invariably a person calling from a regular phone to the 630 area
code and forgetting that they needed to dial 1 first. Cell habits die
hard.