French operator to deploy GSM femtocells
While the initial concept for femtocells was to provide, or improve, 3G inbuilding coverage, operators appear to be finding the 2G versions more attractive. The French operator, Bouygues Telecom, has requested Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) to design and build Pico GSM base stations (femtocells) so it can gain additional call revenues by deploying them within large offices and shopping malls.
The NSN femtocells, which start deployment by Bouygues Telecom this month, are designed to be a plug-and-play solution for the customers, requiring an Internet connection to interoperate with the operator's network.
Ericsson, the largest infrastructure provider, has also recently stated that there is growing operator interest in 2G femtocells and against 3G femtocells which were perceived as enabling mobile broadband into the home. However, with fixed broadband reaching saturation point, the potential for 3G femtocells is now being re-evaluated.
For more on this story:
- read Cellular News and Mobile Europe
Comments (3) | Post a comment
Comments
Posted by Anonymous | November 29, 2007 - 7:35am
I thought it would be worth pointing out that 3G femtocells are not perceived as a substitute for fixed broadband - in fact they need a fixed broadband connection in the home for backhaul, so a high broadband penetration is good for femtocell prospects.
You might ask why anyone would need 3G in the home when they already have fast access to the Internet on a PC. A few thoughts on this:
(1) Does it make sense to download podcasts & music to your PC and then sync to the phone, or is it more sensible to download direct to the phone, where you're going to listen to it? Operators could make this highly cost-effective on a femtocell at home. And it wouldn't even run down your phone battery like it does on the macro network.
(2) Does it make sense to sync photos & videos to the PC before uploading them to Flickr / YouTube, or is it more convenient to send them directly from the phone? Again, a femtozone tariff could make this very cheap at home.
(3) Why is 35% of mobile TV watched at home? It seems that there's room for entertainment and information services to be accessed on a phone at home, as well as on the more traditional devices (PC & TV). If you wanted to quickly check your Facebook page for news of tonight's party, would you prefer to get up off the sofa and find the PC (assuming nobody else got there first), or would you rather just pop your phone out of your top pocket and do it there?
Andy Tiller, ip.access
Posted by paul rasmussen | November 29, 2007 - 12:28pm
Hi Andy.
I don’t disagree with you. However, when the base station developers were first talking about something much smaller – Pico or Femto etc, it was more focused around 3G, not 2G. This seems to have changed over the last 12 months with the focus switching towards 2G femtocells – this was certainly Ericsson viewpoint a few months ago.
I’m also sure that some mobile operators will attempt to use 3G femtocells, when they become available at the right price, to consider using them to provide mobile broadband services in offices, mall and the home – if they can get the tariffing correct.
Best rgds
Paul
Editor
Posted by Anonymous | November 29, 2007 - 3:41pm
Hi Paul
Thanks for your reply. At ip.access we're still seeing plenty of demand for our 2G picocells (largely for enterprise use), but the femtocell activity (consumer market) is mainly in 3G. I know of a small number of operators that are interested in 2G femtocells, but the big femto projects seem to be in WCDMA.
I'd suggest one reason for this is because femtocells solve key challenges for 3G, including the ability to get a signal of sufficient quality for high speed data into the home, and to resolve the 'Power Problem', whereby indoor users adversely affect QoS for all phones in a macro cell.
2G (GSM) doesn't support high speed data, and doesn't give rise to the Power Problem, so there's perhaps less motivation for operators to deploy 2G femtocells.
For 2G femtocells the business case must be based on coverage (for homes that don't have a signal), and efficient homezone voice tariffs. I tend to agree with Analysys' recent observation that "a business case based on cheap voice service in the home would stimulate fixed-mobile substitution but could also lead to disaster since the revenue benefits are unproven. A business plan based on a variety of multimedia service propositions would create a better business case for femtocells as it has the potential to increase revenue" (see http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/analysys-many-femtocell-business-cases-flawed/2007-11-26)
