MagicJack femtocell sure to face legal battle royale
By Chris Ziegler 
posted January 12th 2010 1:23PM
posted January 12th 2010 1:23PM
- Are these guys licensing spectrum from the gub'mint, sublicensing it from carriers, or just going rogue? Going rogue. Historically, this usually ends in an FCC-mandated shutdown -- and since both carriers and the CTIA will undoubtedly be throwing a fit that some company is stealing pricey spectrum for its own purposes, we're sure the pressure on the government to act will be quite high.
- Are any carriers in on this, and if so, why? Nope, none. The company says that "if they were smart they would take [it] on as a partner, because all [it] could do is enhance the value they create for their customer," but presently, MagicJack's all alone.
- If carriers aren't involved, why would they establish roaming deals that would allow carrier-branded phones and SIMs to roam on MagicJack's rogue airwaves? As far as we can tell, they aren't on any roaming deals.
- If they're not working on roaming deals, the femtocells will need to spoof a carrier ID. Furthermore, TDMA femtocells are virtually impossible to design and install for technical reasons, which means these would have to be 3G. So MagicJack's going to offer a UMTS femtocell? It appears to be a plain-Jane GSM femtocell, which is technically interesting considering what we've heard in the past about effectively making a TDMA unit that plays nice with the surrounding network. Considering everything else we know, though, it probably doesn't play nice -- and without a roaming deal in place, they'll need to spoof. That's going to rile up both carriers and the GSMA.
- Do you get to keep your phone number when you roam on the MagicFemtocell, and if so, how? For incoming calls, probably not, unless you forward to the MagicJack number.
Questionably legal device that helps out the carriers? Sounds great!
Questionably legal device that helps out the consumers? Shut that f*cker down!
@MarcusMaximus
"we could be gearing up for one of the most entertaining legal battles of the year."
dont you say that about every single legal post? well, at least you'll be right once!
Chris
Being the inventor of magicJack,I want to help your readers understand our invention better.It will complete calls to your cell phone.
As far as licensed spectrum is involved,who gave somebody the right to sell spectrum in my house?You own your own cellphone,you own your own magicjack device and you own the air in your house.The licensed carriers owns the right not to be interfered with.Our device does not interfere.That was a period after interfere.They are very low power and the only one who can use the femtocell,is someone who elects to do so.Some people deem repeaters problematic, and they are legal under the same part 15.Repeaters will take everybody cellphone in their coverage area on what they are amping,and connect it through their antenna.We don't have anything deemed problematic.Both repeaters and femtocells are necessary because many people do not have good cell phone reception in their homes.Without them,many people could not make 911 calls and these devices have been known to save lives.With all the congestion and expense on some companies 3g networks,you would think we would be welcome.After you get over the shock , awe and surprise of what we built,I believe the next reaction is Love.Not only from our customers to us,but from the carriers.It took us over six years to come up with this femtocell,it was designed properly so people could afford to buy it and the ease of use.
You know how to reach me now.
Dan Borislow
@magicjackinventor With MagicJack having a new femtocell product that lets you wirelessly reroute your cell phone calls through the MagicJack.
It could spell a real dispute between network carriers such as AT&T. The question is, Is this a great news for users or what? Me I agree this is great! More details and graph explanation of the new femtocell: http://bit.ly/magic-jack-femto-cells-detail
@magicjackinventor
whether this is accepted by carriers or not, i want it! it's a brilliant idea and only goes to show what can happen when the carriers aren't involved (customer wins!)
@magicjackinventor
How are you going to get around the PRL on the phone itself? This controls the list of systems/towers the device is allowed to connect to. With out the Magic Jack being listed in this file on the phone, the phone will never even know your device exists, let alone try to connect to it. Aside from spoofing a known authorized SID or actually getting the cell carriers to include your SID in their PRL, I don't see how you are planning on pulling this of?
@magicjackinventor
I have to agree with this and this is what I am thinking. I mean right now in my house I am running a router with Wifi. I don't need a license.
I also could build myself a radio transmitter and I have done that as a kid with some of those toys that allow you to build things like that. But it only worked in my house, maybe even just a few feet. Regardless, I don't need a license to do that. Now if I was broadcasting outside my house, even to just down the block, I would need a license.
LOL Nice one Marcus...my thoughts EXACTLY.
I'm only using the frequency within my own home right? If so I should be able to do what ever the f I want.
Indeed - you take your FM-enhanced device and play over your car's sound system.
Standard stuff.
Let's see how this one flies...I don't think the carriers can do anything about it.
Yay!
(of course, the thing has to WORK, too...)
@(Unverified)
Exactly what I was thinking. As long as it's range does not exceed the boundaries of my home there should be no problem with a device that allows you to connect your cellular phone to a land-line / broadband connection when you are paying for both the cellular service and the broadband connection. If the carrier can't put a clear signal into every last home and building then they should not be able to block others from offering a solution.
The alternative is that the cellular companies should have to purchase the spectrum on a geographical block basis and be required to offer 100% coverage of that area with a minimum signal strength.
Why is it that the gas company and other utilities have to secure the rights to use your property but cellular, TV and satellite services can claim every inch of your property and make you pay them for it too?
@dennisheadley
Unless your walls are lined with lead or somehow act like a Faraday's cage there is no way you can assure that the signal will be limited within your four walls. The concerns are pretty legit given that this device is not approved by FCC. Security wise, this device can pick up signal from your neighbors' cell or protected channels. A strong enough signal can create disruptions, interference and noise for others.
While you have the right to your privacy and personal space, your privacy cannot and should not create nuisance for others.
Pass the popcorn.
The idea that someone can own spectrum is pretty ridiculous. Spectra are like colors; it's like saying that you can't use the color fuchsia, because I own it.
In b4 signal interference; it's a low power device that'll barely work within your own walls.
@mullingitover or magenta? ( http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/31/deutsche-telekom-t-mobile-demands-engadget-mobile-discontinue/ )
@mullingitover Although I agree with you theoretically, don't you recall that court case where t-mobile got trademark rights for a shade of pink and Cingular/ATT got their color of orange?
eventually, you won't own your own genes since they will all be patented by some company composed of South Korean geneticists and American sicentists from Arthur Daniel Midlands. magicJack will save your genes from corporate ownership.
@markyb Wow, classy T-mo! What do you call it when a cruise ship full of lawyers goes down with no survivors?
@Dr Yusuf AlKindi It's a little different since it's regulated under trademark and not by the FCC, but yeah I still weep for humanity.
What really gets a bug up my ass is the fees that the telco companies (Ahem, AT&T) charge for using a femtocell -- when in the end you are basically helping THEM out! You're offloading bandwidth from their tower and using your OWN internet connection just to get a service that was promised to you when you signed the contract. You are compensating for their shitty network.
Frankly, MagicJack is right -- more telco companies should offer some kind of service like this -- WITHOUT monthly fees and for less than 50$ for the device (exactly what magicjack is doing). Wouldn't this solve alot more problems than it creates, if it were properly regulated and such?
@(Unverified) AT&T doesn't charge month-to-month for the Microcell unless you use it for unlimited calling.
Sprint, OTOH, does issue a $5 a month charge.
@erwos
I Was comparing it to magicjack's service...AT&T charges 20$ a month if you want none of the femtocell's minutes to take from your wireless plan minutes. That is completely bogus, especially since they're leeching off an internet connection that YOU already pay for!
There has to be a better way than this...maybe if skype could work on more phones and our phones could just switch to VOIP whenever they detect a hotspot or something...
I believe that under a certain amount of transmission power you can use just about any frequency you want. So say for MagicJack to broadcast within the confines of a single room in a house I can't see how the FCC should have any control over it.
@MacBandit that amount of power is uselessly low. It's the same amount of power that any device that isn't intentionally transmitting also can emit. So it's very difficult to rise above the noise.
So what about those who don't get service at their house? wouldn't this be helping carriers keep those customers? Besides, if carriers are still worried about selling minutes, they can join us in 2010.
As long as it doesn't run Mac OS X, they should be OK.
A few technical aspects of what's going on:
1) There is nothing technically infeasible about a 2G GSM femtocell providing service on it's own - the problem comes when you have RF resource management to a major network or want to coordinate timing/handoffs.
In 2G GSM, frequency use by physical location is very carefully planned, and is difficult to manage when small cells pop up at unknown locations within the network. Carefully choosing the frequency is an economic question, trying to make the best out of a scare resource without compromising service to the macro network.
Secondly, GSM relies on a slotted TDMA protocol, requiring very tightly negotiated timings for handoffs - this is difficult to do over lossy/unpredictable internets.
The M.J.F. addresses neither of these problems; hence the ability to use 2G GSM. Besides, the radio parts are cheaper to speak 2G GSM vs. 3G UMTS.
3G femtocells handle these problems with style in two ways:
a) The standards allow for looser specs for home femtocells (this takes care of the timing)
b) The nature of CDMA emphasizes complete ignorance towards frequency planning - every UMTS femto on the street can use the same frequency, and so long as the chipping codes are different (which is easier to detect and manage than frequency use) everyone is golden. That workings of CDMA allow one (or in some cases several) base stations to talk to a given phone at the same time, and almost always for several to listen - making one ready to pick up the link if your primary serving cell does out of link.
2) Carrier branded phones and SIMS: When you have a carrier branded phones, they're SIM locked to carrier branded SIMs - however, neither is locked to any network code (usually). Encryption is optional in GSM, and upstream (phone of network) authentication is simply non-existent, the magic jack does exactly what a roaming network would do: start a chat with a rogue and willing phone.
Here's the kicker: usually, a roaming network would contact your home network to try and authenticate the phone: instead, the magic jack "fakes it" and replies "ok" to every authentication request.
For all intents and purposes, your phone thinks it is connected to a network that has the blessings of the SIM card's home registrar.
...after that, it's a matter of taking the calls and piping them over VoIP.
It's yet to see how they acquire and manage spectrum, but the only cost effective way is to "wing it" and try not to step on anyone's toes.
The MagicJack femotcell doesn't interact with the carriers - it connects your (GSM) cell phone to the internet, from whence it goes to MagicJack's method of phone calling.
The carriers are just left out of the picture completely.
This thing will never see the light of day... in the US.
Prepare to import your rogue-FEMTOCELL from China.
Is anyone using and happy with the current MagicJack product? Is it legit? A colleague is using it and says it's fine beyond a few dropped calls from time to time. I figured it loaded a bunch of junk on your PC?
Thank you!
@cstewart77
I dropped Comcast's Digital Voice Service for it and couldn't be any happier. 30 bucks for the whole year. I have it linked to my GV because i have an easy number AND for cheap international rates. From time to time, however, the thing doesn't work but no big deal. I'm away from home most of the time, so it was a perfect solution.
Few downsides (not for me, but for some): The computer the MagicJack is connected to must ALWAYS remain powered on if you want to always be able to receive and make calls. There is one program you must install, it's not a resource hog or anything, but everytime you make or receive a call, the little window pops up to let you know. I have looked for a way to turn this feature off, but I can't seem to find a place to turn this off. I have two monitors so it always pops up in the one used less frequently, so NBD for me.
@cstewart77
One of my co-workers swears by it, but I personally can't understand why a person wouldn't get Vonage instead. You don't have to install crappy software, and you don't have to have a PC running in order to receive calls or voicemails. Sure it might be more expensive, but to me the added cost is worth avoiding those inconveniences.
@cstewart77 I have been using a magicJack since the device came out. Initially I had some problemns with it. Now, calls to Indian, Iran, Russia and other places where I have some of my many and sundry girlfriends, sound very clear. Their international rates are good also. Sometimes, the connection via magicJack is a little staticky. But, for $19.95 a year, it works quite well. The cons are that you need to have a decent regular wired phone with an RJ-12 to plug in. It needs to be connected to a computer's USB port. I would not leave it connected 24/7 because my laptop shuts off, and I surely would not use it for incoming calls for a business. On the otehr hand, I forward all my incoming calls to a Google Voice number anyway. I have an unlimited calling plan on my cell, so I have an mJ mostly for love of gadgetry. You can regiter a cell number with yoru account, so that when you call a special number, it automatically let's you dial international calls from yoru account. For the $39 inrto cost, it is worth having one of them.
@Teerim
Hey, there is a program that disables that pop-up
Essentially it just makes MagicJack run as a service, so no annoying pop-up, ever.
www.evanvaughan.com/magicjack.aspx
@cstewart77
I sent one to my in-laws in eastern Europe and it works great.
The only problem I had with it is that when I plugged a phone into it, the computer speakers wouldn't work. That could have just been user error though.
@Teerim Get yourself a used thin client on ebay for $75-$85 bucks. Runs winxp embedded 24/7 with unbelievably low power consumption. Been running MJ for 4 months now, haven't rebooted once.
It does not make sense to me why mJ wants to make femtocells. If the femtocell has to be plugged in to a USB port of a working computer, it seems there is no real great advantage over the existing mJ device. It would be nicer if a femtocell by mJ would plug directly in to a router, or if they had a device like the TK6000 ( http://www.tk6000.com )
If the TK6000 had come out before the mJ, I would have bought that instead.
Are these guys licensing spectrum from the gub'mint, sublicensing it from carriers, or just going rogue?
- Spectrum licenses don’t apply in the home; the licenses are required for commercial services. Therefore, there are concerns about the reach of spectrum licenses changing as a result of carrier pressures on regulators if devices like this get popular. The carriers don't care about MagicJack; they care about what Google might do with Gizmo5.
Are any carriers in on this, and if so, why?
-This device is not like a traditional femtocell that switches voice traffic from a carrier’s network to the same carrier’s VoIP network. It switches a carrier’s cellular network to MagicJack’s VoIP “paid” network. Therefore there is no roaming on the carrier’s network and MagicJack has no interest in working with the carriers, since their revenue depends on subscriptions to their VoIP network.
If they're not working on roaming deals, the femtocells will need to spoof a carrier ID. Furthermore, TDMA femtocells are virtually impossible to design and install for technical reasons, which means these would have to be 3G. So MagicJack's going to offer a UMTS femtocell?
- This is not applicable, since it doesn't roam on carrier networks.
@sbscherer : If I'm reading the link above correctly, they're using a PicoChip reference design, the PC8208. The other details fit. So, yes, it's UMTS.
http://www.picochip.com/page/66/PC82xx
My biggest gripe about a GSM femtocell is the constant mosquito buzz it'll generate in nearby equipment. If you get that generated from your phone during a call or data session, imagine what happens when you have both the phone and the femtocell generating the interference.
@cstewart77 magicJack is awful. I can hear people perfectly clear but my voice often becomes intermittent. I can hear it happening when I talk to a friend who has the magicJack too when I call him from another phone. Support from these guys is what makes the magicJack truly awful. I guess if you pick one up and it works for you, fine otherwise, you are screwed.
So this just routes outgoing calls over my internet for $40 per year.
I can pay Skype half the price, $25 per year, and make unlimited calls to the US and Canada from my iPhone over my internet.
Granted not everyone can put Skype on their cell phone.
I'll stick with Skype thanks.
i have the "majic jack" device for my laptop, therefore i do not need to pay a cell phone/home phone company $30.00+++ /month.
if this saves the consumer money, then all the best to MJ company.
what you do in the confines of ur own home is ur business, as ive heard these devices will only have a range of 8-10 feet connection with your cellphone, the cell company will still get ur minutes when u talk when ur out - and - a - bout.
I think the biggest question about this device is how is MJ going to get around the PRL loaded on the phone? Without the MJ SID and CID in the PRL, the phone will never connect to this device to begin with.
If MJ attempts to spoof a SID or CID, then it opens itself up to all sorts of legal issues.
I am not sure. But I think panasonic had a phone that you could use your cell indoors and would route the calls to your landline if you were X feet from the base. How about blackberry VOIP/cellphone devices. The technologies might be different but the concept is the same.
-Ray
@raymoncada
I'm not familar with the Panasonic model and it's use. I do however have a GE CellFusion system in our home that allows for any two bluetooth enabled cellular phones to make/recieve calls on any of the four handsets we have around the house. I would suspect the Panasonic unit operates in a simular fasion.
It's a DECT 6.0 phone system and our cellulars sync up to it via bluetooth the moment we walk into the house and disconnect when we leave. We leave our bluetooth headsets in our cars and it works out pretty well as the house one connects/disconnects near the front walk a few steps from the point the car units do the same. The call quality is excellent and it is much easier to talk on the GE handsets than on a tiny cellular phone for prolonged periods.
It doesn't route your cellular calls to the landline though, it just acts as a bluetooth handset. You can call any number with either your cellular line or the landline though. I also believe you can answer calls on the landline on one handset while using another handset to make a call on the first cellular phone and answering another call on the second callular phone on a third handset, or three conversations on going on one system concurrently. I know I have personally had my cell and the landline going at the same time but can't recall for sure if we had all three going at once. I have never tried to conference calls between landline and cellular so i am not sure if it does that.
I am quite confused why a blog as reputable as Engadget has decided to link this drivel from PC World and is totally missing the probably already FCC certified part 15 transmitter this device is more than likely using! I don't think the carriers will have a case with the FCC what so ever on this as I expect that to be the case. Now I am not lawyer, but my guess is that the better case would leverage DMCA laws and the fact they will probably be avoiding explicit "permission" to let a carrier locked device and it's firmware’s and software’s to operate on the magic jack femtocell. Not even sure there is a case there so much as I know DMCA is seemingly far reaching when it comes to anything digital. BUT, as have said in posts on other sites, the existing carrier distributed femtocells I think are already part 15 and technically can be hooked into internets in regions the carrier distributing that device doesn't technically OWN any spectrum, but they get by through the low power level part 15 transmitter on the femtocell if I am not mistaken. I don't think they probably invite roaming devices onto there femtocells though, but I might be wrong as that might be a good revenue stream when it does accidently happen overseas or something?? Over seas the carrier femtocells might actually be illegal in some parts of the world.
I'm not an RF or network engineer, but looking at the ISM Bands and the frequencies used for GSM the "GSM900" spectrum and the "ISM900" spectrum do overlap, allowing at least a few uplink and downlink channel to exist in legal ISM spectrum. Doesn't this mean the MagicJack Picocell could be used on this spectrum and allow quadband GSM phones with 900mhz to connect to the Picocell and make calls? Yes, I do understand devices on the 900mhz spectrum could interfere with the MagicJack Picocell, but atleast they wouldn't be pissing off AT&Deathstar and the T-Mobsters.
ISM900 - 902–928 MHz
EGSM900 - Upink 880.0–914.8 Downlink 925.0–959.8
Also, don't bring this Picocell to Europe unless you want to get shot for breaking EGSM.
Anyone have any comments?
-Jamie
I think protrex has it figured out. There are FCC rules specifically covering low power FM "itrip-like" devices but nothing that would allow operating in the GSM bands used by the US carriers.
However, every GSM phone ever made can operate in the 900 MHz band (EGSM) which, as protrex points out, overlaps with the US ISM900 band. People can make any kind of device they like in that band (it's "unlicensed"). Magicjack just chose to make a low power GSM base station there.
This way, there's no risk of interfering with AT&T/TMob and no legal issue of operating in "licensed spectrum", no frequency planning, etc. Simple.
Any GSM phone will latch onto it if its a reasonable signal. Worst case scenario, the phone user would have to do a manual network search if they had a strong signal from their carrier in their house but I see no reason why it should work. While I'm no lawyer, I also see no reason why its not legal.
I wish I'd thought of it first!!