On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:04:27 +0100, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> I'm guessing that UMA is pretty much the same thing, but with GSM/3G
>> instead of Bluetooth
>
>Close. UMA uses Wifi for the 'last 10 metres', so requires a special
>handset.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_Access_Network
>
>From this armchair general's perspective, picocells make more sense than UMA
>as they don't require a special handset. I'm not sure if UMA also requires a
>special wifi AP, if so it makes even less sense. I'm sure there are
>compelling reasons for UMA over picocells.

Ahh, I know AT&T in the US use some kind of femtocell to create a 3G
network.

<http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/02/04/lousy-iphone-reception-att-tower-house-meet-femtocell/>

I guess there are benefits to using 3G for a femtocell (voice and data
at the same time) but I'd prefer GSM/GPRS/EDGE would be better for
voice/SMS use due to better battery life. And I'm guessing if you've
got a femtocell in your home then you've probably got a WiFi network
for data.
--
-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: nickmooney@spamcop.net
-- Triumph Tiger 955i -- http://www.bgn.me.uk -- Touch -
-- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11