Free Newsletter
Behold, the not-necessarily-mobile phone
Free newsletter via e-mail
Tools
 
Behold, the not-necessarily-mobile phone
Last year the wireless industry added a new set of words to its lexicon: Femtocell, picocell, ubicell and so on and just this week U.S. mobile users began purchasing these "in-home cell towers." Sprint announced on Monday that its subscribers in Indianapolis, Denver and Nashville (soon) can now purchase a femtocell--which the carrier calls an Airave--and a corresponding service plan. The Airave (photo) is a rebranded version of Samsung's Ubicell, and aims to boost cellular coverage for Sprint subscribers while they are at home.
Sprint's latest offering drew comparisons to T-Mobile's recently launched FMC service, and for good reason: Hotspot@Home makes use of UMA technology to port a user's cellular calls over WiFi while at home. Femtocells and UMA are competing as well as complementary ways to achieve FMC and boost cellular signals. The key difference is that femtocells make use of standard cellular signals, while UMA uses cellular-to-WiFi hand-off. Sprint has clearly decided on the femtocell route, while T-Mobile USA is putting its weight behind UMA.ÂÂ
That's not to say that UMA and femtocells are mutually exclusive, however. Kineto Wireless, the original developer of the UMA standard, has been working with Ubiquisys and Netgear on femtocells that make use of UMA as a backhaul solution. So it seems that at least for now, there's plenty of room for both technologies in the FMC space.
Offering a solution that makes it easier to use one's mobile phone in the home makes sense for T-Mobile USA and Sprint Nextel, since neither depends on landline voice service revenues like rivals AT&T and Verizon. One has to wonder though what comes next for these carriers, if they succeed in gaining traction in the home through a femtocell or UMA-enabled router. Will last year's predictions of IPTV-slinging femtocells prove prescient? Or are femtocells and UMA merely blips on the long road to fixed-mobile convergence?
Let me know if you think these recent FMC offerings are game-changers, now that the mobile phone is no longer just for the road. It works (much more consistently) right from your living room couch. -Brian
Comments
Posted by Anonymous | September 19, 2007 - 5:10pm
Unlimited mobile voice plans are either very expensive or non-existent. If I could get an unlimited voice plan for at home only for a $15 adder per month, this seems like an easy way to drop my landline which cost me >$30 a month.
What if I backhauded my femto with an HSPA modem? Could I drop my fix broadband as well then?
Posted by Anonymous | September 21, 2007 - 8:17am
Sprint needs to use it's customers broadband connection for service because their coverage is so bad this is the only solution they can come up with to give cell coverage.
Posted by Robert Duncan | November 21, 2008 - 11:55pm
I do think that these FMC solutions are excellent vehicles to wean folks of their wireline service. Further, the operators are doing a good job of making it possible to save in the process (@Home is an excellent deal, with all-you-can eat service, features, LD, voice mail, caller ID).
In contrast to FMC, there are wireless-only solutions (Femtocells) that serve a younger crowd who do not need to be weaned from a fixed service.
To assist consumers in evaluating these different in-home options, I've compared these solutions--Sprint AIRAVE Femtocell vs. T-Mobile @Home UMA/Wi-Fi--from a consumer's perspective at imcellular.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/comparing-femto-vs-uma-service-sprint-airave-vs-t-mobile-home/
Posted by Priscilla | May 12, 2009 - 8:13am
I don't need these FMC solutions because I have a Tracfone which has excellent reception so I get good signal at the house. Furthermore I can make long distance and international call to 60 something country's for the same price as a local call which means that I don't really need a land line.
Comments (4) | Post a comment