AT&T To Start Testing Femtocell Devices Late This Year

I don't see anything wrong with charging a small fee for the use of these Femtocell's. The carrier's have to incur a lot of costs with these things and I'm pretty certain that the $100 price for the unit is already a discounted/subsidized price. Carrier's are not obligated to provide good coverage to everyone's residence or office and we can choose to switch to the best carrier who can meet our particular needs or pay the small fee for the mini cell. If you think about it $4.99 is not that bad for a nice bonus item.

 

Nobody complains about other costs such as what it costs to use data on the new smart phone devices that have become so popular. A few years ago we were all paying like $10 month to use internet on basic cell phones. Now it costs like $25 to $40 and nobody really seems to care.

 

Same here. There isn't good service (for any carrier) at my new house. I've been looking at repeaters but don't like the price. a device like that would be great, especially if its like $100 with no additional monthly fee.

-Jay

 

I agree. Essentially that means that customers that live in a dead zone have to pay more than those who have good coverage. I shouldn't have to pay more per month because network coverage is not appropriate. That's ridiculous, especially when this equipment would not even be using their network. The only way I could tolerate a monthly fee is if the equipment was rented. But you're paying for the equipment, not renting it!

If you think a monthly fee is ok, then what if you lived in an area with inadequate coverage and suddenly your carrier installed a new tower close to home and then raised your monthly fee because they installed a new tower close to you. Would you like that? Customers have never paid extra for fixing inadequate coverage.

Larry, you are getting an additional service on a smartphone. You can do MORE things. You can use more applications, you can download more data. That's why it is ok to pay more. You pay more, you receive more. However, with a femtocell you are not getting anything extra. You're simply getting coverage that you were supposed to be receiving in the first place. That's the difference. Why should they raise my monthly fee for that?

I only agree with a one-time fee (installation or equipment purchase) without a monthly fee, OR a monthly (rent) fee without any one-time hardware fees, but not both! Carriers obviously want to have their cake and eat it too!

 

Mmmm, Cake.

 

Does anyone here know how to get on a beta list for one of these devices?

-Jay

 

Personally I would rather have better and more reliable coverage than more data applications. I would actually be willing to pay more for a femtocell than I would for a smart phone because call reliablity is still more important to me than anything else. But that's my personal preference.

I disagree with your assessment that the carrier is obligated to provide good service to everyone's homes. That's simply not possible nor will it ever be required. We have gone all these years without these devices and the carrier's didn't have to make them available. I feel this is a luxury item and if we have to pay a small fee than so be it. Of course I would rather not have to pay that fee.

 

I've got a quick comment on this. First off, it's up to the user to select the most appropriate carrier for their needs, some base this off of coverage, some customer service, some simply price and others use a combination of them to choose a carrier. If you buy a phone today and if doesn't work at your home or your place of employment, I highly suggest you look at another carrier unless there is something that is tying you to the one you selected. If you're stuck with a carrier that has poor coverage at your home, to have the option of buying a device that will solve coverage issues is a nice thing to me, even if it costs me some money.

Just like any other business, you're being charged for those new towers in your area, they're just subsidized greatly by the sheer number of users benefiting from the extra coverage. It's not cost effective for carriers to try and cover everywhere, instead they focus on providing the most customers with the best coverage, truely a "bigger bang for your buck" situation.

On the cost of the device, most of these femtocells cost upwards or more of $400 each for the carrier to purchase. Most users that purchase one for $100 will never return that $300 difference to the company. Also, these units do use the carriers network and there is a large amount of hardware required to run these. While yes, the backhaul to them is via your internet connection, the carrier does have to get your call to the actual telephone network. Your call isn't merely going from your femtocell to the person you're calling. It's going back to your carriers network, getting converted a few times and then spit into the regular telephone network and routed as a normal call would be.

Doh, so much for a quick note

 

That's right. The user has a choice to go with a different carrier that will provide the coverage needed instead of paying more to fix inadequate coverage.

Larry, I never said carriers are obligated to provide coverage everywhere. If you purchase new phone service, you expect that it will work everywhere you need it. If it doesn't work that way, go with a different carrier. That's what I meant by "getting coverage that you were supposed to be receiving in the first place". It's about customer expectations, not about carrier obligations. I guess our difference is that I am more pro-consumer than pro-corporate. But I am also reasonable and understand it is impossible for any carrier to provide coverage everywhere. Therefore, in those places where they don't provide coverage, I shouldn't have to pay a premium to receive the service that other carriers can provide without that extra fee. That's my whole point.

And logically, customers expect that for the montly fee they already pay, there shouldn't be a catch 22 saying "we have nationwide coverage, but if you want coverage in your home you need to pay us more". Personally, I rather select a different carrier before paying more to my existing carrier to fix their swiss cheese coverage. That would be the same as providing you with unlimited data and then come around and block some websites and say that you need to pay an extra fee if you want access to those blocked sites.

 

I don't think switching carriers is always the best option. Take my case for example. Most of my family is on AT&T, without M2M I'd pay twice as much for service. There is poor coverage at my new place, but no phones work well there. Switching carriers will not improve my coverage. A Femtocell looks like a good option for me.

-Jay