Survey suggests AT&T still hard at work on femtocell offering

[Thanks, Andrew J.]


Portion of "satisfied" Palm Pre owners
Of 40 Palm Pre users polled in August, 2009, 87 percent termed themselves "satisfied," with 45 percent saying they were "very satisfied."
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This has been AT&T's plan for a long time now. There is nothing wrong with Femtocells, in comparison to nothing, but there is a simple -- and in my view, better -- alternative: dual-mode cellular/WiFi, such as the UMA standard deployed by T-Mobile USA, Rogers and Orange, among others. The key thing to understand is that there is nothing mutually exclusive between deploying dual-mode WiFi/cellular, and Femtocells. In other words, AT&T could at any point simply copy T-Mobile USA's approach, and then also do Femtocells at any time. Given that dual-mode WiFi/cellular using the UMA standard have been available for well over two years now, it is field-proven with millions of subscribers, and that Femtocells are not yet mass-deployed, one would think that AT&T ought to deploy dual-mode cellular/WiFi UMA as soon as possible (ideally starting over two years ago already).
The path you suggest would limit the “take rate” of such a product/service. Remember, not all devices (cell phones) are WiFi enabled (last estimate was somewhere around 18%). So why spend resources on such a limited approach? A mini BSC (FEMTOCELL) is absolutely the right approach since it will be most likely compatible with 100% of their (AT&T’s) 3G devices. The only thing left to do is “GET’ER DONE”!
I beg to disagree. While it is true, as you say, that only 18% of cell phones now have WiFi, this percentage could easily be increased to 100% at very little cost in new handsets sold. A WiFi chip can cost less than $2, which compares to approximately $200 for a Femtocell, a 100x difference. Perhaps even more importantly, however, is that many households are multi-carrier, requiring multiple Femtocells. Perhaps the household which has phones from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and others don't want to have yet another box with antennas, let alone 2 or 3. The same may be true about businesses. In the case of WiFi, it utilizes what you've already got. In the meantime, phones churn on average once a year, so after 1 year, one could expect (100%-18%/2 = 59%) of phones to be WiFi capable. Lastly, some studies appear to suggest that old phones, while theoretically able to talk to a Femtocell, may not do so well. For this reason, the industry started talking about "Femto-optimized" phones, which pulls the rug from under most of the Femtocell argument to begin with. One more thing: Carrier-specific femtocells will hurt the consumer because they won't work abroad, where I am now saving $100+ day when traveling, thanks to UMA/WiFi.
I would love to see AT&T copy T-Mobile's WiFi calling, but I don't think it's going to happen.
"One more thing: Carrier-specific femtocells will hurt the consumer because they won't work abroad, where I am now saving $100+ day when traveling, thanks to UMA/WiFi."
Exactly, you save $100 a day, AT&T loses $100 a day, since you don't have to buy their international roaming/data/whatever plan.
If AT&T does this, I'll finally buy an iphone... i have a hard time buying a phone service if it doesn't work in my own house.... Do you have to pay for the minutes used while on your own internet service?