Details on AT&T's 3G MicroCell: everything but the date and price
by Chris Ziegler 
posted Jan 25th 2009 at 10:31PM
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
What is an AT&T 3G MicroCell™?
AT&T 3G MicroCell acts like a mini cellular tower in your home or small business environment. It connects to AT&T's network via your existing broadband internet service (such as DSL or cable) and is designed to support up to 10 3G capable wireless phones in a home or small business setting. With AT&T 3G MicroCell, you receive improved cellular signal performance for both voice calls and cellular data applications, like picture messaging and surfing the web for up to 4 simultaneous users.
Device Features:
* Enhanced coverage indoors - supports both voice and data up to 5000 square feet.
* Available unlimited minute plans - Individual or Family Plan.
* 3G handset compatible - works with any AT&T 3G Phone.
* Up to 4 simultaneous voice or data users supported.
* Device is secure - cannot be accessed by unauthorized users, easy and secure online management of device settings
* Seamless call hand-over - start calls on your 3G MicroCell and continue uninterrupted even if you leave the building.
Device Requirements:
* 3G wireless phone/device
* Broadband service over DSL or cable
* Computer with internet access for online registration
Additional Information:
* Installing your device near a window is strongly recommended to ensure access to Global Positioning System (GPS). A GPS link is needed to verify the device location during the initial startup.
* The 3G MicroCell device is portable. The device may be moved, provided the new location is within the AT&T authorized service area and properly registered online.
Filed under: Cellphones
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
michas_pi @ Jan 25th 2009 10:37PM
With all of these femtocells coming out, my DynaTAC sure feels lonely.
a ham sandwich @ Jan 25th 2009 10:38PM
"3G MicroCell service plan"
::sigh:: again......
RyanTV @ Jan 25th 2009 11:01PM
big time sigh - they want us to pay for their hardware, use OUR broadband connection *AND* pay them a monthly service charge? That equation just doesn't add up somehow.
I would totally buy one of these, but not at the cost of additional monthly service charges.
SimbaDogg @ Jan 26th 2009 1:08AM
seriously...wtf. you do something for yourself, which improves your service, but also makes it easier on your cell phone service provider by 1) not having to erect more towers 2) easing the use of bandwidth on their network. Something thats costs them, arguably NOTHING on their end from a day to day, month to month basis...annnnnd they charge you for it. Americans are dumb, but we're not that dumb.
suicycle.com @ Jan 26th 2009 1:38AM
I just left Verizon Wireless and thought they were the worst at nickel-and-diming customers. I can understand paying for the hardware, but having to pay for an additional plan is ridiculous -- especially since it is only required in my area because AT&T misrepresents their 3G coverage. I would rather just use my own plan minutes and have a much better indoor connection.
Victor @ Jan 26th 2009 2:26AM
Yeah, but it seems like you get unlimited minutes on the femtocell; vs. vzw where you still have to use your plan minutes.
Paul @ Jan 26th 2009 11:42AM
I wonder why they have no thought about expanding its potential and offering a discount on your service, if you allow other customers nearby to connect to it. That is, it would allow your registered phones to have priority access but could also accepts other cell calls nearby. We would still buy the hardware but AT&T could provide the owner a discount on their bill for it, $5 or $10 a month.
Ken @ Jan 26th 2009 1:44PM
@ Paul
Thinking like that requires:
1. A Heart
2. A Soul
3. A Brain
AT&T let these go due to cut-backs
ducttape38 @ Jan 25th 2009 10:42PM
Really? 3g phones only? With AT&T moving all of us GSM users to the 1900mhz band, it seems like we need the added indoor coverage more than the 3g phones do.
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction, but it would be nice to see compatibility for those of us who watch our signal strengths fluctuate from 3-2-1 to no bars while on the first floor of our houses.
Cash @ Jan 26th 2009 1:31AM
What about AT&T customers that live in non-3G coverage areas? I keep the 3G on my iPhone turned off to save battery power, so even if I decide to pony up for one of these things, that means I'll have to tab through three menus just to turn it back on when I get home?
Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if Apple would just give me an icon that sits on the main screen that jumps straight to connectivity options (turn on/off and manage wifi, 3G, and Bluetooth... two of which I do all the time as I don't need wifi when I'm not near an access point, nor bluetooth when I'm not in my car) but I guess ease of use is only important to Apple when it comes to things they feel should be easy to use.
*Sigh* Great... now I'm feeling like I'm being DP'd here by Apple and AT&T.
aus @ Jan 26th 2009 11:48AM
Exact reason why I am switching to Verizon. I have used various 3.5G WCDMA networks overseas and AT&Ts would have to be the worst performing and least consistent of themall. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad but definitely not worth the premium pricing they charge. In the United States at this point, CDMA is still king.
jbuers @ Jan 26th 2009 2:47PM
@Cash
Seriously? Three menus? The horror! Dear God, the horror! That sounds like it would take all of 15 seconds to navigate! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!
Christopher Price @ Jan 25th 2009 10:42PM
This article is incorrect in regards to the competition. Sprint and Verizon ubicells offer 3G coverage. They offer 3G voice and CDMA2000 (3G, according to Qualcomm) 1xRTT data.
Plus, they will be upgraded to EV-DO via firmware update in the near future.
- Christopher Price
PhoneNews.com
Chris Ziegler @ Jan 25th 2009 10:56PM
Not sure what you're getting at. What do you mean by "offer 3G coverage"? There's no such thing as EV-DO voice, and neither version of the Ubicell currently supports 3G data. Where's the factual inaccuracy?
Christopher Price @ Jan 25th 2009 10:59PM
On Sprint and Verizon, all CDMA2000 devices are 3G phones... 1xRTT or EV-DO, doesn't matter. They all work with Airave and Ubicell, dating back to 2002. You don't need to get a new phone to use CDMA carrier femtocell solutions... unlike AT&T.
The Sprint Airave and Verizon Network Extender will both be updated to handle EV-DO data via a firmware update.
So, it is completely incorrect that the CDMA femtocells "are only 2G". They handle 3G voice and data, and will both be upgraded to handle faster EV-DO data without any additional purchase. Ask the CDG, Sprint, or Verizon if you doubt me on this... I've verified it with all three since CTIA last year.
Chris Ziegler @ Jan 25th 2009 11:00PM
Ah, so you're arguing that CDMA2000 is 3G. Fail.
RyanTV @ Jan 25th 2009 11:03PM
Ziegler: watch out man, he is from phonenews.com. he MUST know what he's talking about!
:/
Christopher Price @ Jan 25th 2009 11:04PM
(Repost from below, Blogsmith botched the reply).
No, I'm saying that compatibility-wise, it is 3G-ready. The firmware update will add EV-DO if you want to beat around the bush on that one.
The point is, all Sprint and Verizon phones since 2002 work with their femtocells. They aren't "only 2G" or "only 3G". They're both. AT&T's isn't... and that's where your article is incorrect.
Chris Ziegler @ Jan 25th 2009 11:10PM
Nowhere in the article do I say that you can't run 1xRTT on a Ubicell using an EV-DO phone on Sprint or Verizon. You can, no disagreement there -- it's common knowledge that American 3G handsets are backward compatible with 2G networks, whether they be towers or femtocells. And hey, the day that new firmware rolls out, we'll be happy to call the Ubicell a 3G femtocell -- but until then, it's 2G, and this is 3G. Simple as that.
Christopher Price @ Jan 25th 2009 11:22PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sprint, and Verizon both say that they work as 3G voice femtocells, and I'm agreeing with them on that one. Saying it's 2G confuses people about what devices work with their femtocells... especially since the AT&T version does indeed block 2G devices.
And, yeah, that's why Sprint and Verizon call it 3G-ready until they're updated.
El Taco @ Jan 25th 2009 11:33PM
I'd like to motion a vote. All in favor of Chris say "Aye" and all in favor of Christopher get your butts off this site please.
TacoEater @ Jan 26th 2009 1:10AM
Motion denied. Sit your punk rear end down and try making a cogent argument next time.
Dorv @ Jan 26th 2009 2:33AM
Wow... The maturity of the staff Engadget writer to go all "fail" to a commenter. Got to love the professionalism around here these days.
Jordan @ Jan 26th 2009 9:54AM
He said "fail" to a commenter who is shamelessly promoting his own site by linking to it in his argument about a silly detail. Gotta agree with Ziegler here, Qualcomm can call CDMA2000 3G all they want, but it is not. Until the Ubicells actually work with 3G data then the article is correct. And even then it's still mostly correct as 3G voice does not exist on Verizon or Sprint and never will because they are going straight to LTE.
Christopher Price @ Jan 26th 2009 3:47PM
First, it is undisputed that CDMA2000 has 3G voice. I don't think Mr. Ziegler will argue that.
If you want to challenge CDMA2000's 3G voice status, you can take that up with the ITU. The ITU is admittedly biased to GSM, and even they ratified all CDMA2000 standards as being 3G voice.
Like I said, I'm not going to beat around the bush on 1xRTT and 3G. I believe 1xRTT Rel A is 3G, Mr. Ziegler obviously doesn't. It would have been nice to make that distinction in the article.
P.S. Like many in the media, I sign my posts as I have had others attempt to post information as me. Grow up.
Chris Ziegler @ Jan 26th 2009 7:22PM
In a 1xRTT implementation, CDMA2000 is considered 2.5G -- even by the ITU -- but I digress.
Let's be real: in practical terms, what does "3G voice" mean? Admittedly, CDMA and WCDMA use different (better) vocoders than 2G GSM, but that's a really minor distinction to anyone outside the telecom industry. In general, people use "3G" to refer to data rate, and I'd submit that "3G voice" generally refers to the capability to transmit voice and data simultaneously (granted, Class A EDGE devices can do this on supported networks, but we can't really count those).
Bottom line is that calling the Ubicell a "3G femtocell" in either Sprint or Verizon versions right now would be doing readers and buyers a disservice, because they're not. Will they be someday? Hopefully... but today, they're not.
Christopher Price @ Jan 26th 2009 9:10PM
Actually, Chris, the ITU settled all of that years ago.
ITU ruling IMT-2000 makes clear... CDMA2000 is indeed 3G for voice.
The ITU had a disputed decision on 1xRTT Rel 0 and A, and because of that, could not certify it for 3G. This was caused by pressure from the GSMA to prevent 1xRTT from being certified (which would have made GPRS look very bad). Does that mean it too, isn't 3G?
Like I said, I'm not going to beat around the bush on that argument. It's moot, considering EV-DO devices will use EV-DO from towers until the femtocell is updated to EV-DO itself. If the EV-DO coverage is weak on CDMA, their femtocells fall back to the 1xRTT Rel A signal automatically. But, the signal they're outputting today is 3G voice, and not even GSMA argues that.
I've already seen people say that that Engadget is reporting the voice quality from femtocells on Sprint and Verizon is worse, because it's only 2G. That's why I started this string of comments, it's what I was afraid of.
The ITU ruled CDMA2000 as 3G. That ended the debate long ago, and I'm surprised really that Sprint and Verizon haven't contacted you to remind you of this. Go read IMT-2000 and see for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMT-2000
B3astofthe3ast @ Jan 25th 2009 10:43PM
Ugh, why is it that we consumers have to pay to fix a carriers shitty service. They should be spending the money they get from there overpriced service plans to put up more antennas....not raping us while we help their coverage.
wunch @ Jan 25th 2009 10:55PM
This doesn't just help people with no coverage in their area. It also helps people in buildings that block the signal, which is hardly the carrier's fault. Outside my building, I get a perfect signal; inside, I get almost nothing.
Sachin @ Jan 25th 2009 11:02PM
haven't you heard? it's the latest marketing ploy. someone reasoned that if they made their networks horrible enough, people would be willing to pay to extend their coverage for them (and in doing so, provide that extension to people within about a 40 foot radius in doing so.
which is genius, if you think about it for a few seconds, but REALLY evil.
Nick Catalano @ Jan 26th 2009 12:19AM
I don't think the idea is that you will use this to replace a carrier's existing service, but to simply agument in areas where there are otherwise problems where a signal from outside the location is unable to reach devices inside the location.
Maikel @ Jan 25th 2009 10:45PM
+1 for AT&T on this one.
At least 3G is covered with theirs.
Dean @ Jan 25th 2009 10:46PM
my question is why do i have to pay money to use my cell phone on my internet? I pay for cell usage and for dsl, why should i pay to let my cell use up more dsl bandwith? would be nice to see it as a free addon for at&t dsl subscribers
wj @ Jan 25th 2009 10:53PM
Agreed.
Data should be free.
eye eye @ Jan 25th 2009 10:50PM
Well, this is what happens when people decide NOT to buy an iPhone, they need this contraption to get a signal.
Just gen an iPhone, Apple has included a special chip that attracts, sucks in and captures teh voice signals... very technical, just trust me on it.
Jacob @ Jan 25th 2009 10:59PM
*sigh*
Do you really want to be low ranked?
El Taco @ Jan 25th 2009 11:34PM
typical iPhone fanboy
aus @ Jan 26th 2009 11:53AM
While it does everything else, the Iphone has pretty crappy call quality.
Squid7085 @ Jan 26th 2009 12:08PM
Are you kidding me? I love my iPhone and could even venture to call myself a fanboy, but I am not stupid. The iPhones signal quality is probably by far the WORST of the 3G phones. The people that need this device the most probably IS iPhone 3G owners. Thanks for making all iPhone owners look like pricks.
eye eye @ Jan 25th 2009 10:53PM
Hey AT&T you piece of SHITE!
instead of just having your drones sell phones, why not just give them guns and tell them to go around town robbing people of wallets and what not?
you service coverage is SHITE, we hve to endure sub par 3G, and now you want us to install this thing in our house to get reception?
WTF is the 850 band for then?
Christopher Price @ Jan 25th 2009 11:03PM
No, I'm saying that compatibility-wise, it is 3G-ready. The firmware update will add EV-DO if you want to beat around the bush on that one.
The point is, all Sprint and Verizon phones since 2002 work with their femtocells. They aren't "only 2G" or "only 3G". They're both. AT&T's isn't... and that's where your article is incorrect.
mattdogg02 @ Jan 25th 2009 11:05PM
What if the charge is for something like unlimited calls using the Femtocell device (during daytime hours?)... would that make a difference having to pay for it?
RyanTV @ Jan 26th 2009 12:17AM
no. many of us work during the day. that wouldn't be attractive at all. I'd love to put this in my house but I'm not going to give AT&T any more money each month.
Jace @ Jan 25th 2009 11:05PM
these new femtocells seem ridiculous, they should be paying us, for extending their service, why should we all buy our own mini cell towers, the phone companies should just build more towers
Eh? @ Jan 26th 2009 4:23AM
"...the phone companies should just build more towers"
I love it when people think carriers can just snap their fingers and POOF! there's a new tower.
1900MHZ, which a LOT of 3G services are on, have been proven not to have much building penetration. Unfortunately, the logistics involved in erecting a new tower are very very big. you have leasing or purchase of the land, then a way to get power to the tower, the local and ordinances and FCC regulations to deal with, then figuring out a way to hide said tower because people see them as an eye-sore....Plus, add in the fact that a lot of time a carrier starts actually ADDING a tower people automatically switch over to the NIMBY syndrome. They want new towers, but don't want to actually SEE those new towers, people start screaming about how ugly they are and how much they lowers one's property value, etc.
Tell you what. You that wonderful signal you have outside inside as well? Rip out that Faraday Cage called "home wiring" out of your walls, then you'll get your signal penetration, and for free too.
While i agree that a monthly service charge for this device may be a bit much, you really don't know what the cost of management, support, not to mention any possible interferences these devices may cause in someone's home could be.
The money for all that is coming from where? oh yeah, that "it's too high" monthly charge you are paying the companies for the service. Cell carriers are really in a lose-lose situation here. People don't want to pay for a service but still expect the company to provide the service, plus provide support, plus improve on that service. Add to that the carriers are still a business that needs to produce SOME kind of profit for their investors and shareholders.
The carriers would dearly LOVE to add lots of new towers to improve coverage, but people don't want those towers to mess up their pretty view so carriers are forced to be extra careful about what goes where, but then those same people scream at the carriers because they don't think carriers are doing anything.
heh.....
Tyson @ Jan 26th 2009 6:15AM
Re Eh "..have been proven not to have much building penetration...." etc, Obviously you have never been out of this country. i lived in Singapore for 6 months and my GSM blackberry worked on their M1 service anywhere in the country, under ground in the subway, way out on the beach, off on islands, way up in building, in the middle of dense building in parking lots, everywhere. I took my phone with me to Shanghai, same thing, in manilla same thing, in cebu, in freaking Cambodia everywhere so don't give me that shit. How the fuck ( i'm sorry but that makes me mad) can you tell me that in the middle of Africa on Mt. Kilimanjaro my cell works but it drops calls in NYC. Is this not supposed to be the most advanced country in the world? Isn't it supposed to be the best at everything? Well some how 3rd world countries have found a way to make their systems better than our and its people like you who justify the situation with stuff like oh but America is so much bigger or of but our walls are thicker but ___. No fuck that, these companies have a oligopoly and they have been allowed to manipulate prices, increase prices more like it, charge people to receive texts, then increase the charge for texts, then start charging more fore voice service then requiring you to pay for internet service, lock down phones and after all this give shitty service and actually now charge you to buy devices to expand their network. Its people like you who make it possible for them to get away with it. At least Tmobile and this Att ( don't know about Sprint) give you unlimited minutes when using the service. Still you are paying them to use your bandwidth to expand their network. If I'm paying $100 a month for an iphone with 900 minutes then ATT needs to figure a way to make it happen and put some towers up because for about $25(if that much) a month I got service in in Singapore that made it happen.
Eh? @ Feb 1st 2009 2:55PM
@Tyson
I never pretended to know everything about everywhere in the world, and if you're under the impression that America is the most technically advanced country....
If you want really technically advanced, look to places like Japan, quite a bit of Europe, Singapore, etc. While I can't speak for how Singapore operates it's wireless regulations and what the power of it's towers are (though I can make a fairly good educated guess and say a lot of those buildings have internal cell repeaters, but hey, it's really just a guess), I can tell you that even those places very likely DO have coverage issues in various spots.
I'm really happy for you that you've had such great experiences everywhere you've been (the US the obvious exception). Please understand that not everyone has had the same experiences as you have. As for how come your phone works wonders on Mt. Kilimanjaro while having problems in New york, I CAN explain that one. Really big towers that have a high power output....like a LOT of power. The higher a frequency goes, the more output power required to have the same penetration and reach. (and it's even possible that the signal you experienced was likely something closer to the 850-900MHz range rather than 1800MHz)
Now here's the thing in the US. Carriers run up into local ordinances and federal regulations over just how big and how powerful a tower can be in an urban setting. (In a rural setting, regulations and the like are much MUCH more relaxed and so carriers can have bigger and more powerful towers that give coverage) As I said before, carriers would LOVE to snap their fingers and have lots (or just more powerful) towers sprout up immediately to give that ever-so-elusive perfect coverage to everyone, everywhere, for very little overhead.
Unfortunately, people are fickle and while they love to have perfect coverage, they don't want to actually SEE the infrastructure. There is a problem there too. There is a finite amount of power you can cram into a camouflaged space before you start running into problems. Would you like to know what one of the most common problems a higher-powered tower experiences is? Wildlife. Cooked wildlife to be exact, I kid you not. In addition, foliage does, to some degree, affect a signal, which is why you will tend to have better coverage in the cooler months as opposed to the warmer months (winter snow storms and sub-freezing temps excluded). All those swishing, fluttering leaves act as little tiny deflectors. If that sounds silly to you, how do you think the military can make "stealth" aircraft? They diffuse and deflect the radar signal with a combination of absorbing materials and uneven, varying-faceted surfaces. Why is it that people think a cell signal, which is still a radio signal, is any different?
Should these devices be given away for free? oh you betcha. Should the carriers pay you for the usage of said device? To be frankly honest, no. They are already paying for the support of the device should anything arise and they had already invested in the vetting process to ensure their phones will work on it, plus, they STILL are working on improving their coverage wherever they can (the 700MHz licenses, also, will help a LOT of places when they finally go live).
I'm sorry, but I just can't get on the bandwagon everyone else seems to be jumping on and do a blanket, "The carriers suck! It's their fault nothing works right!" The reality is that it's much, much more complicated than that.
Eh? @ Feb 1st 2009 4:14PM
@Tyson
"Re Eh "..have been proven not to have much building penetration...." etc, Obviously you have never been out of this country. i lived in Singapore for 6 months and my GSM blackberry worked on their M1 service anywhere in the country, under ground in the subway, way out on the beach, off on islands, way up in building, in the middle of dense building in parking lots, everywhere. I took my phone with me to Shanghai, same thing, in manilla same thing, in cebu, in freaking Cambodia everywhere so don't give me that shit."
The fact that you didn't like what you heard is beside the point.
GSM carrier frequencies for the locations you listed:
Tanzania(GSM 900/1800/400)
Cambodia, Kingdom of(GSM 900)
Singapore(GSM 900/1800)
China, Peoples Republic of(GSM 900)
Philippines(GSM 900/1800)
900MHz ranges much, MUCH farther at the same power than 1800MHz does. For Mt. Kilimanjaro, I'm willing to bet you there were some pretty hefty towers with a large power output to cover the large distances with little obstructions. For Singapore, I really couldn't say what frequency your cell carrier was on or how their networks are laid out. It's entirely possible, pretty likely in fact, that there are cell repeaters and micro-cells in a lot of the buildings and undergrounds there.
"How the fuck ( i'm sorry but that makes me mad) can you tell me that in the middle of Africa on Mt. Kilimanjaro my cell works but it drops calls in NYC. "
Are you seriously comparing a place that has almost zero obstructions to radio signals to a place that is pretty much a series of concrete and steel canyons? It would have been better to compare NYC to Singapore. In fact, let's do that. See my above comment about the likely use of cell repeaters and micro-cells. Why can't they do that in NYC? I don't know, talk to the people who make the local ordinances and who enforce regulations, provide radio and building permits, etc. Goodness knows the carriers would LOVE to plaster a possible revenue-goldmine with perfect coverage-generating cells on every corner. (too bad people would scream at the unsightliness, maybe they could learn a lesson from Singapore, your paragon on "how to do it right," on how to hide towers more effectively or con every building owner to install cell-repeaters every few floors)
"Is this not supposed to be the most advanced country in the world? Isn't it supposed to be the best at everything?"
You make it sound like America has some kind of manifest destiny....history shows how well that turned out....No, America is not the most advanced, though it used to be. America is not the best at everything, it's not even the best at most things. It's just reality, the way the world is right now; America has a big challenge ahead of it.
"Well some how 3rd world countries have found a way to make their systems better than our..."
Wow....way to make a point by turning around and insulting those places you just praised a short while ago.
"...and its people like you who justify the situation with stuff like oh but America is so much bigger or of but our walls are thicker but ___. No fuck that, these companies have a oligopoly and they have been allowed to manipulate prices, increase prices more like it, charge people to receive texts, then increase the charge for texts, then start charging more fore voice service then requiring you to pay for internet service, lock down phones and after all this give shitty service and actually now charge you to buy devices to expand their network. Its people like you who make it possible for them to get away with it."
Hmmm...and now we're back to the age-old argument of "it's too expensive, I don't want to pay for it, but I still want it, plus more and with better service than before too."
"At least Tmobile and this Att ( don't know about Sprint) give you unlimited minutes when using the service. Still you are paying them to use your bandwidth to expand their network. If I'm paying $100 a month for an iphone with 900 minutes then ATT needs to figure a way to make it happen and put some towers up because for about $25(if that much) a month I got service in in Singapore that made it happen."
Should these devices be free? Oh you betcha. Should they pay you to use them? Nope. They are optional, plus the carriers are already paying for the tech support when people plug them in and expect them to work instantly and perfectly but then realize there is some sort of setup process involved. Not to mention the vetting process to ensure they at least function with the devices they are meant to be used with, any possible future updates if that ability exists, and still continuing to improve the network when and where they can.
I'm sorry if what I said earlier erked you in some way. Unfortunately I just can't blindly jump on the badwagon of "the carriers SUCK! give me more towers (but don't put them where I can possibly chance upon seeing them)," when reality is much, MUCH more complicated than that.
Eh? @ Feb 1st 2009 4:16PM
gotta love Engadget comment system.....you post something, you don't see it appear, so you post another....then you see both....
Oh well.
m3nphls @ Jan 25th 2009 11:10PM
instead of paying for these craps, they should put one on each home once you sign or renew a 2yr contract.....fack them if they want us to pay and buy hardware for more coverage.