In the air: Airvana's HubBub is a femtocell that boosts a wireless signal indoors. Femtocells can improve the quality of voice calls and relieve some of the strain on traditional cell phone towers.
Airvana
Small, low-power access points boost wireless speeds indoors and in busy areas.
To accommodate explosive growth in demand for wireless data, many mobile carriers have begun touting next-generation "4G" networks. But to consistently reach good speeds, especially indoors in densely populated areas, so some carriers are starting to offer small, low-power indoor cellular access points called "femtocells."
The move from analog to digital to 3G networks was largely a matter of upgrading the technology in cell phone towers. But the explosive growth of smart phone use means that carriers need new ways of boosting bandwidth. One way to ensure high speeds, especially inside buildings where interference is common, is to use small cellular base stations (about the size of a Wi-Fi router) that route traffic over the internet.
AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have started selling femtocells that can be used in the home to boost spotty wireless reception. Some carriers are also exploring the use of femtocells as a way to improve the performance of the their networks, since the transmitters that are small enough to be installed almost anywhere, from overhead power lines to street lamps and pay phones.
Woo June Kim, vice president of technology for femtocell manufacturer Airvana, says it may be possible to achieve speeds that are 10 times faster than 3G using existing network infrastructure, but he adds, "if you want to increase significantly beyond that, you really need what's called 'spatial reuse.' " Spatial reuse exploits the proximity of users to a base station--fewer users share each access point, but the capacity of individual access points does not change.
In the past, femtocells have been too expensive for widespread rollout, but femtocell maker Ubiquisys recently developed a $100 unit. AT&T also recently announced that it would offer a $150 femtocell.
Rich Kerr, CEO of Public Wireless, which installs femtocell infrastructure and leases access to it, says that splitting an area of wireless coverage into two smaller units using femtocells increases the wireless capacity by about 85 percent.
Small USB devices that offer service to nearby cell phones provide faster Web access and an alternative to expensive international roaming.
Miniature cell-phone towers can improve patchy coverage and provide super-fast data speeds.
The article discusses femtocells in two separate applications - domestic use at home and public use in outdoor or communal areas (shopping malls etc). The requirements and price point for these are quite distinct.
Initially, femtocells have been sold to solve coverage problems in domestic premises. Sprint are reputed to have sold over 100,000 units already and shipments in excess of 1 million worldwide have been forecast for 2010. These units could cost the operator as little as $100 in volume as you've indicated, but the price to the user may be higher or lower - for example CDMA femtocells are still somewhat more costly.
The term Metro-Femto has been coined for use in public areas. These devices need a slightly different specification from domestic ones, adapted to cope with a harsh outdoor environment.
I'd predict we will see femtocells move on from being a coverage solution today to significantly adding enormous data traffic capacity over the next few years. It won't be long before there are more femtocells that outdoor cell towers.
I've written a good introductory book on the topic (Femtocell Primer - the first to be published) and also written a lot on the topic at ThinkFemtocell.com
David Chambers
I live in an area that, according to AT&T's map of coverage, is bathed in 3G coverage. However, using a Windows Mobile 6 PDA, I was rarely able to get even 50% signal strength unless I stood in a particular 1-square foot area with my head tilted at a 45-degree angle on the first floor of my home, and on the second floor I had to stand by the window. Frustrated, I purchased a $400 cell-signal booster from a company called Wi-Ex, and installed the antenna in the attic, RG6 cable down a wall and out into a receptacle I installed in the second-floor hallway. The resulting improvement compared to the hassle of doing this was less than stellar. So I bought an iPhone that gets better reception, but still has issues in some areas of the house.
This article stated one reason for 20% less coverage from cell towers is the transition to 3G by the carriers. Knowing this, and always touting greatest coverage (as they all do) they should have started beefing up their infrastructure by adding whatever equipment they have to provide same-as service after the transition. Maybe I'll buy an Airwave to supplant the Wi-Ex if they are inexpensive. I just want a good cell signal in my home.... is that too much to ask? Maybe I can sell the Wi-Ex on eBay....
Frustrated in Huntington Beach
I've had the same problem after buying an iPhone. Despite the coverage map, AT&T engineers have admitted the nearest tower is behind a hill and the couple of square miles where I live is not well served. I get about one bar. AT&T refuses to correct its map. I hate to pay an extra $150 for a femtocell once it becomes available here early this summer and have told AT&T that unless they get me a femtocell for a lot less before the iPhone begins working on Verizon, I'm gone as a customer. They could care less.
Re: Did Wi-Ex really suggest this?
Did Wi-Ex really suggest using RG6 to extend their antenna, and use regular F connectors on their antenna? If they did, run away! If they didn't, that was likely your problem.
RG6 and F connectors both have the wrong impedance for most, if not all, cell phone frequencies. The signal power in them will rapidly go to crap and have interference causing inflections. Additionally even the correct cable, and every connector used, attenuates the power of the signal not inconsiderably.
I know that most residential grade electronic equipment isn't rated for the temperatures that can be found in attics. But I have run my WiFi router in my attic through several Texas summers and not had it fail yet. I imagine if you put the whole device, with the antenna directly connected to it, in your attic, you would have better results. Heck, you might have been able to strap it to the ceiling of your highest story to keep it cool and still get better results.
Re: Did Wi-Ex really suggest this?
Hate to jump in on this, but I work for Wilson Electronics. Our free, U.S.-based tech support (1-866-294-1660) could help with using a cell phone signal booster. Good thing about signal boosters as opposed to femtocells is that they work with multiple carriers at a time, there are options available for your car, don't require a broadband connection (so good for rural areas) and don't require a service fee. That said, most femtocells are fantastic when there is broadband connection as they can guarantee a connection. I just hope you don't have friends on different carriers trying to make a call from the dead zones in your home! Hope that helps!
Re: Did Wi-Ex really suggest this?
@colinnwn: Yes, as a matter of fact, not only did Wi-Ex specify RG6 and F-connectors, all of it comes in their kit! As a typical dumb end-user, how was I supposed to know about the issue with signal attenuation? (I love that word, I think I'm going to use it more often). That question is posed to Wi-Ex, not to you....Also, the instructions tell you to locate the unit in a central location in the home where you want coverage, as the so-called "boost" occurs in an umbrella-like manner. Problem is, with walls and wiring and nails I'm sure there is plenty of interference to deal with no matter where you locate it. The recommendation from Wi-Ex is that you use only their supplied 25-foot length of RG6 cable and no more, unless of course you buy it from them at an exorbitant price. That sort of limits unit placement since they also tell you to either mount the supposed high-gain antenna on the roof (by using a Wi-Ex supplied window kit, of course) or as high as possible on a beam in the attic, away from any other metal interference like metal ducting or furnaces. Geez, I followed their instructions to the letter, even using the signal strength indicator on my phone to test various locations. End result is questionable performance from an expensive unit that look nice mounted high up on an interior wall; basically, a conversation piece since everyone asks me what it is.
Paying again for a service you've already paid for
I'm glad that this technology will improve cell service. But it seems unfair and illogical to charge the consumer extra for augmenting a service that he/she is already paying for. AT&T, Verizon and Sprint are charging the customer extra to use this service, even though it saves the cell phone company money by not providing the necessary cell tower and saves them bandwidth because the customer is using their wired Internet connection.
The cell company should give you the fem-cell device and not charge the customer extra for the service, OR, provide the coverage that their hopelessly optimistic coverage maps have promised when you signed up.
Re: Paying again for a service you've already paid for
Sprint recognizes that the femtocell often helps when customers get less than stellar reception in their home. I have heard that if you press the issue with customer service, they will provide the femtocell for free and waive the $5/month access charge. I am very happy with mine...
You'd think this would be somewhat analogous to selling power back to the Electric Company, if you're producing more energy than you use.
If as a result of my installing a femtocell device my carrier suddenly has filled a coverage "gap" impacting a lot of people (say I live along a rural road in hilly terrain with minimal coverage, as a worst case; or simply in a low spot in suburbia with lousy line-of-sight)... shouldn't I qualify as a tangible asset that they might be willing to "support" (free device, etc) instead of charging me for the privilege of helping them fill their gaps??
Granted, it could require the installed device be the "industrial sized" version with a dedicated "pipe" instead of the "home user" model, but what value accrues to my "location, location, location"??
Do you have ANY idea what a cell-phone tower COSTS nowadays? Can you say "recurring expense"?
Another interesting concept comes to mind.
You DO know, I assume, that "traditional" cell-phone towers can do something similar to "load balancing" and "beam steering" by adjusting the phasing of signals into multiple antenna elements, with the net result of boosting YOUR signal's strength in YOUR specific direction? This is part of how a particular cell phone's location can be determined by analyzing "beam alignments" from several adjacent cell towers -- something that Law Enforcement makes use of occasionally, more than you might suspect.
Throwing a multitude of femtocell units out there in an adhoc scatter with no significant "signals intelligence" to be derived from the clutter -- THAT sounds like striking a blow for reduced oversight, a little bit of sand in Big Brother's eye, eh?
On the other hand, since coverage areas WILL overlap, and there HAVE to be built-in mechanisms to "hand-off" transitions into and out of range of any given unit, I'd lay odds someone out there has (or soon WILL have) software to "tame" a wild mesh and allow calculation of relational and positional info based on extracting "travel time delays" from simple "index" pulses between devices...
"See a need, fill a need..." (Thank you, Bigweld)
Re: Another interesting concept comes to mind.
'Beam Steering' made me ponder a cheap cell signal booster. You often see trucks sporting two CB antennae which boost the signal fore-and-aft and weaken the signal laterally by interference. Do the same, at home, by splitting your cell antennae. Place the two antennae perpendicular to your nearest/strongest tower and move them closer or farther apart to get a good outbound. I've not tried this, you'll have to be the guinea pig. If you are captured, I will deny any knowledge (grin).
Shouldn't the cell companies be paying me.
Although i understand the need for such a technology, ( I get to use my cell phone even when there is no/weak coverage), this is just as excuse for bad infrastructure. And if the cell company wants me to improve their cell reception, using the bandwidth that i paid for, shouldn't they be paying me for my service. In turn, i could allow a limited number of provider-specific users onto my femtocell tower.
Re: Shouldn't the cell companies be paying me.
Hey Samirss,
My sentiments exactly!
What are we... stupid? LOL
Canned spam. With a defective can. Hey, Lady, your spam is showing. In this case, spam with saccharin... Oh, and need to adjust your calendar, too -- which states are experiencing winter weather right now??
If owning a Femtocell will reduce the cost of hooking up to the towers, eliminate roaming, and and read signals from say a satellite as opposed to any thing earth bound... THAT would be a cool investment. However, if it is still dependent on conventional towers which we already pay for and in a disaster such as experienced by Haiti, the towers collapsed and cell phones were rendered useless, take it back to the toy makers and start over again.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mfolbe
48 Comments
personal cell-phone tower
I'm not clear how this interfaces with existing technology, but if they are able to do this at the costs of $100-$150 mentioned in the article, I'm ready to buy mine right now.
Reply
mjtucker
1 Comment
Re: personal cell-phone tower
Sprint has had them available for around the $100 mark for at least a year or more I think. Might not be available everywhere but I believe a good part of the country has availability.
http://www.nextel.com/en/services/airave/index.shtml?ECID=vanity:airave
Reply
dashendorf
2 Comments
Re: personal cell-phone tower
I've used the Airave for 1 year. Works perfectly. Sprint doesn't advertise it much and it is somewhat hard to find. My guess is that femtocells are seen as signs of signal weakness by the supplier, which is true, but so what. Verizon would say, "You wouldn't need a femtocell, if you used Verizon instead of Sprint." Yeah, but I get everything for $70/month or less on Sprint.
Airave's are also available on ebay, just turn them on and wait for a few hours -- Setup is automatic, but can take time.
Reply