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 <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:8h02a3dtnctjf09tpuguqrk8gmt1fv6ts1@4ax.com:

<snip>

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

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> 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 jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:fqmdneBTo9ymmDzbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:8h02a3dtnctjf09tpuguqrk8gmt1fv6ts1@4ax.com:
>
> <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 jeffl@cruzio.com
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 <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> 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.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:48:29 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
<kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<hk8oi.27148$2v1.12154@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> :

>
>"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>news:fqmdneBTo9ymmDzbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@adelphia.co m...
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:8h02a3dtnctjf09tpuguqrk8gmt1fv6ts1@4ax.com:
>>
>> <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 ?

1. Too busy to waste time here.
2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.

--
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>

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote in <kf22a3lfdmsm68ihb25dg4fjm1dm1usf9j@4ax.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> 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.

Citation?

>The providers
>seem to think that the femtocell will also provide access for their
>other customers as they pass by.

Not according to what I've seen.

>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.

Many of us are already cutting the cord to our not-free landlines in
favor of cellular wireless.

--
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" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:mls7c3t33qmin23kh2j10sls0m3nllh7u0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:48:29 GMT, "Kevin Weaver"
> <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> <hk8oi.27148$2v1.12154@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>>
>>"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
>>news:fqmdneBTo9ymmDzbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@adelphia.c om...
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>>> news:8h02a3dtnctjf09tpuguqrk8gmt1fv6ts1@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> <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 ?
>
> 1. Too busy to waste time here.
> 2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.

IF your so busy, then why are you back for hours trying to reply ?

>
> --
> 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 <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:

>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>wrote in <kf22a3lfdmsm68ihb25dg4fjm1dm1usf9j@4ax.com>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> 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.
>
>Citation?

<http://housami2.blogspot.com/2007/06/femto-cell-architecture.html>
"The radio is a standard based radio such as UMTS/HSPA which the
operator will likely require a license to operate on."

I'll admit that it's speculation on my part. It's possible that
you're correct and that the FCC has suddenly released its iron grip on
anything belching RF and simply allowed rampant proliferation of
consumer installed cell sites, but I doubt it. However, I haven't
been following the news, so it's possible.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, a cellular operator can deploy as many
cell sites within their designated coverage area as required to
provide adequate service without going to the FCC for additional
licensing. They don't even need to tell the FCC where the sites are
located. In short, the carriers have a single license for a specific
coverage area. That's for the carrier, not for the consumer. I just
don't see femto cells being sold retail in an uncontrolled manner or
without some kind of regulatory involvement.

>>The providers
>>seem to think that the femtocell will also provide access for their
>>other customers as they pass by.
>
>Not according to what I've seen.

One of the proponents (LM Erikson???) had suggested that femto cells
be sold to businesses to offer improved coverage in their stores and
offices. I sorta assumed that this also applied to well positioned
home owners, such as those adjacent to shopping areas. Sorry, but I
can't find the reference.

However, you're generally coorect. For example, Ubiquisys has their
"ZoneGate" technology, which limits access to the femto cell base
station to registered SIM cards.
<http://www.ubiquisys.com/ubiquisys3/faqs.php>
"Can anyone within range of a ZoneGate access point make
mobile calls?
SIM setup and identity mean that only users with the bill
payer's permission can make calls using the ZoneGate device.
In addition, because each device has a unique network identity,
operators can offer customers special low-cost 'home zone' rates."




>>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.
>
>Many of us are already cutting the cord to our not-free landlines in
>favor of cellular wireless.

I don't have a wired telephone in the my palatial office and use the
cell phone exclusively. It works well enough to tolerate the calls
that go directly to voice mail and the random disconnects (Verizon).
Fortunately, most of my phone use is during non-prime time, where such
problems are infrequent.

However, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm referring
to the difference between a $35 cordless phone purchase, with no
per-minute charges, attached to a $20/month POTS phone, versus a
$15/month (2nd phone including handset subsidy and taxes) cellular
account for a handset with per-minute charges and/or monthly quotas.
I can see some additional utility to have one instrument do
everything, but without a corresponding cost benefit, I doubt if the
average consumer would consider it worth the effort. If it were, then
we would see a larger number of cellular "docking stations" attached
to cordless or DECT phones in homes and businesses to allow sharing a
cellular account. These products exist, but are not particularly
popular. Unless the hardware were free or subsidized, doing
essentially the same thing with a femto cell only makes sense if the
home or business owner abandons all POTS service and switches
exclusively to cellular. I don't see that happening.

The push also seems to be toward delivering 3G data to the home.
That's nice because the same operators don't like "tethered access" or
using the cell phone as a data modem. So, fixed data service is
acceptable with a femto cell, but not an individual handset? Weird.

Basically, femto cell is a method of reducing the cost of deploying
additional cell sites to provide adequate 3G data coverage. Building
cell sites is expensive. Chopping the cell site into tiny pieces and
passing it around the neighborhood, is cheaper. Otherwise, they're
the same.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:0a98c35h0k8rt8ojcuijkf4djrrfgk4c46@4ax.com...
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>wrote in <kf22a3lfdmsm68ihb25dg4fjm1dm1usf9j@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> 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.
>>
>>Citation?
>
> <http://housami2.blogspot.com/2007/06/femto-cell-architecture.html>
> "The radio is a standard based radio such as UMTS/HSPA which the
> operator will likely require a license to operate on."
>
> I'll admit that it's speculation on my part. It's possible that
> you're correct and that the FCC has suddenly released its iron grip on
> anything belching RF and simply allowed rampant proliferation of
> consumer installed cell sites, but I doubt it. However, I haven't
> been following the news, so it's possible.
>
> Meanwhile, as I understand it, a cellular operator can deploy as many
> cell sites within their designated coverage area as required to
> provide adequate service without going to the FCC for additional
> licensing. They don't even need to tell the FCC where the sites are
> located.

I sm not to sure about that. When I worked for nextel and latter voicestream
everysite we had had to have a copy of the license in it, and we also had to
report to the fcc the lat and log of every site to the fcc. Yes it was one
license, but it listed all our cell sites, and when we added cell sites we
had to report them to the FCC.



> In short, the carriers have a single license for a specific
> coverage area. That's for the carrier, not for the consumer. I just
> don't see femto cells being sold retail in an uncontrolled manner or
> without some kind of regulatory involvement.

Yet alone the interference they may introduce into the microcells that are
already licensed and operated. The carrier will have todo some frequency
planning for these cells. Of course they are not radiating much power, but
close in they may introduce interference, especially between close
neighbors, if some kind of frequency planning is not being done. Documents I
have seen indicate that femtocells will have frequency planning as part of
the design.
>
>>>The providers
>>>seem to think that the femtocell will also provide access for their
>>>other customers as they pass by.
>>
>>Not according to what I've seen.
>
> One of the proponents (LM Erikson???) had suggested that femto cells
> be sold to businesses to offer improved coverage in their stores and
> offices. I sorta assumed that this also applied to well positioned
> home owners, such as those adjacent to shopping areas. Sorry, but I
> can't find the reference.
>
> However, you're generally coorect. For example, Ubiquisys has their
> "ZoneGate" technology, which limits access to the femto cell base
> station to registered SIM cards.
> <http://www.ubiquisys.com/ubiquisys3/faqs.php>
> "Can anyone within range of a ZoneGate access point make
> mobile calls?
> SIM setup and identity mean that only users with the bill
> payer's permission can make calls using the ZoneGate device.
> In addition, because each device has a unique network identity,
> operators can offer customers special low-cost 'home zone' rates."
>
>
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>Many of us are already cutting the cord to our not-free landlines in
>>favor of cellular wireless.
>
> I don't have a wired telephone in the my palatial office and use the
> cell phone exclusively. It works well enough to tolerate the calls
> that go directly to voice mail and the random disconnects (Verizon).
> Fortunately, most of my phone use is during non-prime time, where such
> problems are infrequent.
>
> However, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm referring
> to the difference between a $35 cordless phone purchase, with no
> per-minute charges, attached to a $20/month POTS phone, versus a
> $15/month (2nd phone including handset subsidy and taxes) cellular
> account for a handset with per-minute charges and/or monthly quotas.
> I can see some additional utility to have one instrument do
> everything, but without a corresponding cost benefit, I doubt if the
> average consumer would consider it worth the effort. If it were, then
> we would see a larger number of cellular "docking stations" attached
> to cordless or DECT phones in homes and businesses to allow sharing a
> cellular account. These products exist, but are not particularly
> popular. Unless the hardware were free or subsidized, doing
> essentially the same thing with a femto cell only makes sense if the
> home or business owner abandons all POTS service and switches
> exclusively to cellular. I don't see that happening.
>
> The push also seems to be toward delivering 3G data to the home.
> That's nice because the same operators don't like "tethered access" or
> using the cell phone as a data modem. So, fixed data service is
> acceptable with a femto cell, but not an individual handset? Weird.
>
> Basically, femto cell is a method of reducing the cost of deploying
> additional cell sites to provide adequate 3G data coverage. Building
> cell sites is expensive. Chopping the cell site into tiny pieces and
> passing it around the neighborhood, is cheaper. Otherwise, they're
> the same.

Yep, good point. The femto cells will bea underlay to existing cell coverage
hopefully allowing seamless handovers.
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> hath wroth:

>I sm not to sure about that. When I worked for nextel and latter voicestream
>everysite we had had to have a copy of the license in it, and we also had to
>report to the fcc the lat and log of every site to the fcc. Yes it was one
>license, but it listed all our cell sites, and when we added cell sites we
>had to report them to the FCC.

Nextel is different. Nextel is not cellular. It's SMR (specialized
mobile radio) and is individually licenced by the site. When
refarming started, I vaguely recall someone from Nextel mumbling
something about having to tweak 30,000 licenses, and that was just for
the left coast.

>Yet alone the interference they may introduce into the microcells that are
>already licensed and operated.

If a carrier introduces interference to its own system, who's at
fault? For that matter, who is going to fix it?

>The carrier will have todo some frequency
>planning for these cells.

Fat chance. Both the customers and the femto cells are going to be
fairly portable. I would assume that the femto cell has a GPS built
in (for timing sync if nothing else), which should give the carrier a
clue as to its location of the moment.

>Of course they are not radiating much power, but
>close in they may introduce interference, especially between close
>neighbors, if some kind of frequency planning is not being done. Documents I
>have seen indicate that femtocells will have frequency planning as part of
>the design.

The power is low, but then so is the signal from the 3G cell site. The
assumption is that one only needs a femto cell (repeater) if the 3G
signal is too low to be useable in the house. So, it's a fair
assumption that the neighbors will have equally lousy reception from
the 3G cell site. Since the femto cell will probably belch more
signal to the neighbors than they can receive from the cell site,
there's a good chance that their marginal 3G coverage may start to
approach zero.

Planning is good. Engineering is better.

>Yep, good point. The femto cells will bea underlay to existing cell coverage
>hopefully allowing seamless handovers.

Maybe, but only if each femto cell allows roaming from the neighbors
and passerbys. The Ubiquisys box can only handle 4 connections max
which could easily be insufficient to handle both the household and
roaming traffic. At this point, it's all speculation, including most
of what I've been guessing. I really don't know what the various
proponents of femto cells are thinking or plotting. However, I'm sure
the grandois schemes and engineering miracles will follow shortly.



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:5eo8c39n69m2cqj9cl302a1h3nudla11lr@4ax.com...
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>>I sm not to sure about that. When I worked for nextel and latter
>>voicestream
>>everysite we had had to have a copy of the license in it, and we also had
>>to
>>report to the fcc the lat and log of every site to the fcc. Yes it was one
>>license, but it listed all our cell sites, and when we added cell sites we
>>had to report them to the FCC.
>
> Nextel is different. Nextel is not cellular. It's SMR (specialized
> mobile radio) and is individually licenced by the site. When
> refarming started, I vaguely recall someone from Nextel mumbling
> something about having to tweak 30,000 licenses, and that was just for
> the left coast.

Yes I see that, but voicestream is a pcs carrier, and up here in rural
Alaska everyone of our cell sites is listed on our license with their lat
and longs.
>
>>Yet alone the interference they may introduce into the microcells that are
>>already licensed and operated.
>
> If a carrier introduces interference to its own system, who's at
> fault? For that matter, who is going to fix it?

Which is why I was saying this, the carriers are not going to place
femtocells out there without some kind of frequency planning
>
>>The carrier will have todo some frequency
>>planning for these cells.
>
> Fat chance. Both the customers and the femto cells are going to be
> fairly portable. I would assume that the femto cell has a GPS built
> in (for timing sync if nothing else), which should give the carrier a
> clue as to its location of the moment.

A block of frequecies may be set aside for these femto cells, where the
carriers will work around them.
>
>>Of course they are not radiating much power, but
>>close in they may introduce interference, especially between close
>>neighbors, if some kind of frequency planning is not being done. Documents
>>I
>>have seen indicate that femtocells will have frequency planning as part of
>>the design.
>
> The power is low, but then so is the signal from the 3G cell site. The
> assumption is that one only needs a femto cell (repeater) if the 3G
> signal is too low to be useable in the house. So, it's a fair
> assumption that the neighbors will have equally lousy reception from
> the 3G cell site. Since the femto cell will probably belch more
> signal to the neighbors than they can receive from the cell site,
> there's a good chance that their marginal 3G coverage may start to
> approach zero.
>
> Planning is good. Engineering is better.
>
>>Yep, good point. The femto cells will bea underlay to existing cell
>>coverage
>>hopefully allowing seamless handovers.
>
> Maybe, but only if each femto cell allows roaming from the neighbors
> and passerbys. The Ubiquisys box can only handle 4 connections max
> which could easily be insufficient to handle both the household and
> roaming traffic. At this point, it's all speculation, including most
> of what I've been guessing. I really don't know what the various
> proponents of femto cells are thinking or plotting. However, I'm sure
> the grandois schemes and engineering miracles will follow shortly.
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:00:15 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote in <0a98c35h0k8rt8ojcuijkf4djrrfgk4c46@4ax.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> hath wroth:

>>Many of us are already cutting the cord to our not-free landlines in
>>favor of cellular wireless.
>
>I don't have a wired telephone in the my palatial office and use the
>cell phone exclusively. It works well enough to tolerate the calls
>that go directly to voice mail and the random disconnects (Verizon).
>Fortunately, most of my phone use is during non-prime time, where such
>problems are infrequent.
>
>However, that's not exactly what I was talking about. I'm referring
>to the difference between a $35 cordless phone purchase, with no
>per-minute charges, attached to a $20/month POTS phone, versus a
>$15/month (2nd phone including handset subsidy and taxes) cellular
>account for a handset with per-minute charges and/or monthly quotas.

MetroPCS offers unlimited cellular calling starting at only $30/month.
My AT&T plan is $40/month for 1000 anytime minutes, which is much more
than I typically need -- I now have several thousand minutes in
Rollover.

>Basically, femto cell is a method of reducing the cost of deploying
>additional cell sites to provide adequate 3G data coverage. Building
>cell sites is expensive. Chopping the cell site into tiny pieces and
>passing it around the neighborhood, is cheaper. Otherwise, they're
>the same.

I think it's more a matter of displacing landlines by making cell phones
work better indoors, which is much easier (albeit more costly) with
femtocells than with conventional cells.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:57:50 -0700, "Kevin Weaver"
<kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<DsTwi.1729$4w7.1389@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> :

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:mls7c3t33qmin23kh2j10sls0m3nllh7u0@4ax.com.. .

>> 1. Too busy to waste time here.
>> 2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.
>
>IF your so busy, then why are you back for hours trying to reply ?

Minutes, not hours.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:7ae4d3pd3200srlpp233ub31651poqotpp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:57:50 -0700, "Kevin Weaver"
> <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> <DsTwi.1729$4w7.1389@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> :
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:mls7c3t33qmin23kh2j10sls0m3nllh7u0@4ax.com. ..
>
>>> 1. Too busy to waste time here.
>>> 2. Same old same old USA Today op-ed piece.
>>
>>IF your so busy, then why are you back for hours trying to reply ?
>
> Minutes, not hours.
Looking at your times your posting, I see you spent about one hour today.
Another lie. Which you always like to do.

Why did we never see any reply from you about the iphone being offered to
verizon first ? Which was shown from the site you like to copy and paste
from ? (The Register)



>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>


If It's min's then your sure on here many of them.