So does this only give me better coverage in my home? I have an iPhone 3G now, but when I had a BB Curve on T-Mobile, I had their H@H service and w/ the $10 monthly charge, I was able to make all the calls I wanted to over WiFi and they don't count towards my minutes (and I still get the coverage enhancement since I have WiFi all over my house). Would AT&T's offering be something similar?
Similar concept in that they both allow you to make calls over your existing internet connection, but different implementation. Your T-Mo product sounds like it was using a VoIP client on your phone to route the call through your WiFi.
This product (called a femtocell) on the other hand, is a hardware appliance running a VoIP client on your LAN, and serves up a small GSM network to extend AT&T's network in your house. Your phone calls still go through your phone's GSM antenna instead of its WiFi antenna, but then get converted to VoIP at the appliance.
RG: Just to correct a possible misconception: T-Mobile's implementation is technically VoIP in the sense that your voice is being transmitted over IP packets, but that's not really a fair description of how UMA works. UMA is, essentially, GSM over IP. So, yes, unlike AT&T, it's using a Wifi radio for local access, but the phone is essentially treating "The Internet" as yet another tower, which means that the implementation is essentially transparent from an end-user standpoint.
UMA has advantages and disadvantages over femtocell implementations like the AT&T one. The major advantage is that it works anywhere. If you're in a coffee shop with Wifi in Amsterdam, you can tell your cellphone to use that connection, and then start making calls without incurring huge roaming charges (indeed, if you pay T-Mobiles H@H subscription, your calls to the US are free at that point.) It's also carrier independent, meaning that if someone has a Wifi hotspot in their building, anyone with a UMA-enabled phone and an operator that supports UMA access can use it.
The major disadvantage is that it only works with a limited range of phones right now. I'm fairly disappointed T-Mobile hasn't used its muscle to force manufacturers to ship Wifi built into all their phones, but, oh well.
What I'd like to see is a proliferation of both femtocells and UMA, but that's not going to happen at the moment as it appears most people see these as competing technologies.
“We're grateful that RIM has finally decided to pay some attention to the sizable number of non-PC users that have been stuck with poor alternatives for way too long.”
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.
So does this only give me better coverage in my home? I have an iPhone 3G now, but when I had a BB Curve on T-Mobile, I had their H@H service and w/ the $10 monthly charge, I was able to make all the calls I wanted to over WiFi and they don't count towards my minutes (and I still get the coverage enhancement since I have WiFi all over my house). Would AT&T's offering be something similar?
Similar concept in that they both allow you to make calls over your existing internet connection, but different implementation. Your T-Mo product sounds like it was using a VoIP client on your phone to route the call through your WiFi.
This product (called a femtocell) on the other hand, is a hardware appliance running a VoIP client on your LAN, and serves up a small GSM network to extend AT&T's network in your house. Your phone calls still go through your phone's GSM antenna instead of its WiFi antenna, but then get converted to VoIP at the appliance.
RG: Just to correct a possible misconception: T-Mobile's implementation is technically VoIP in the sense that your voice is being transmitted over IP packets, but that's not really a fair description of how UMA works. UMA is, essentially, GSM over IP. So, yes, unlike AT&T, it's using a Wifi radio for local access, but the phone is essentially treating "The Internet" as yet another tower, which means that the implementation is essentially transparent from an end-user standpoint.
UMA has advantages and disadvantages over femtocell implementations like the AT&T one. The major advantage is that it works anywhere. If you're in a coffee shop with Wifi in Amsterdam, you can tell your cellphone to use that connection, and then start making calls without incurring huge roaming charges (indeed, if you pay T-Mobiles H@H subscription, your calls to the US are free at that point.) It's also carrier independent, meaning that if someone has a Wifi hotspot in their building, anyone with a UMA-enabled phone and an operator that supports UMA access can use it.
The major disadvantage is that it only works with a limited range of phones right now. I'm fairly disappointed T-Mobile hasn't used its muscle to force manufacturers to ship Wifi built into all their phones, but, oh well.
What I'd like to see is a proliferation of both femtocells and UMA, but that's not going to happen at the moment as it appears most people see these as competing technologies.