Just got my MicroCell, unboxing inside!!

[AbSoluTc]

It's not pointless to have 2 different phone services. There may be times (natual or man-made disaster) where one type of service has failed, but another is ok. A fire in your home may destroy the landline wires, so you call the 911 with the cell; weather may knock out a cell tower, but your landline can still work, etc.

My wife and I thought about going cell-only, but it's not that great a choice if there is an emergency and you can't get service (tower getting hammered or it's faulty for example).

If you have multiple phone numbers, you can use Google Voice once it's fully available or you get an invitation. You'll have a third phone number from Google, but that is the only one you need to give out. Depending on how you have it set up, when someone calls the Google number, all your phones can ring (landline POTS/VOIP/etc AND one or more cell phones, etc) and you simply answer from which device you want.

What's really cool is say you answer on your landline, but need to go out and the call is THAT important that you can't hang-up - you can easily transfer the call from the land line to the cell.

I understand where you are coming from, however I had a Vonage line for 3 years. Barely used it. It was costing me 30 a month for it and it was a waste. Service was crap and I got tired of dealing with "support" from india. Could not understand them and when I went to cancel, they said ok, you are canceled. Yet months later, I kept getting bills in the mail and then finally a collection notice. Exactly what I need from a company like that. No thanks. Never again will I deal with them or any other VOIP company.

I don't have a need for a land line. Emergency or not. If there is a natural disaster to the point where mobile phone towers are jamming up, the land lines will also be screaming busy. I don't need another number.

I have had Google Voice/Grandcentral for years now. It is really nice. I have also used the feature of transferring the call to my mobile from a land line before. Nice. However - a mobile only phone works just fine for me.

 

[nozebleed]

Update

Ok, today I went over to my neighbors house, told him what the deal was. I was standing in his living room getting full service on the microcell. he had his iphone which was showing no bars on 3g. I asked if he had any problems with making/receiving calls and he said no, he actually just got off the phone with the doctor. Not satisfied, I had him call me. He dialed out no problem, I got the call no problem.

So apparently, the "blocks others service" is just a rumor. He was able to use his phone normally.

I added his number to the MicroCell account, rebooted his phone, and he can now take advantage of the unit and was getting full service.

I did have one issue however, and I dont know yet if it is actually how it is, but when me and my girlfriend were talking simultaneously, we both dropped the call, and the MicroCell reset after about 3-5 mins into our phonecalls. I dont know if this was a bandwith issue, multiple lines issue, overloaded, hiccup, etc. I'm only into the 2nd day testing so we'll see. Im not going to lie though, this made me nervous. We are on the phone simultaneously quite a bit so we'll see.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Ok, today I went over to my neighbors house, told him what the deal was. I was standing in his living room getting full service on the microcell. he had his iphone which was showing no bars on 3g. I asked if he had any problems with making/receiving calls and he said no, he actually just got off the phone with the doctor. Not satisfied, I had him call me. He dialed out no problem, I got the call no problem.

So apparently, the "blocks others service" is just a rumor. He was able to use his phone normally.

I added his number to the MicroCell account, rebooted his phone, and he can now take advantage of the unit and was getting full service.

I did have one issue however, and I dont know yet if it is actually how it is, but when me and my girlfriend were talking simultaneously, we both dropped the call, and the MicroCell reset after about 3-5 mins into our phonecalls. I dont know if this was a bandwith issue, multiple lines issue, overloaded, hiccup, etc. I'm only into the 2nd day testing so we'll see. Im not going to lie though, this made me nervous. We are on the phone simultaneously quite a bit so we'll see.

That phrase was probably misinterpreted by someone. The Microcell won't BLOCK any mobile devices from being used outright. It's not designed to block any signals. However, it WILL block them from being used on the Microcell itself unless it is allowed to do so. If the device is not registered and allowed to use the Microcell, the device will go about it's business as usual. Good signal or crappy signal. Nothing changes.

 

[nozebleed]

That phrase was probably misinterpreted by someone. The Microcell won't BLOCK any mobile devices from being used outright. It's not designed to block any signals. However, it WILL block them from being used on the Microcell itself unless it is allowed to do so. If the device is not registered and allowed to use the Microcell, the device will go about it's business as usual. Good signal or crappy signal. Nothing changes.

Right. But what people were saying is that the signal from the MicroCell "blankets" all other signal from the towers, thus giving people not registered to use it no service. Which I couldnt see as being true but not totally unbelievable.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Right. But what people were saying is that the signal from the MicroCell "blankets" all other signal from the towers, thus giving people not registered to use it no service. Which I couldnt see as being true but not totally unbelievable.

Sounds like someone misread the info and passed it along incorrectly.

 

[cameronjpu]

I'm actually going to test this theory hopefully this weekend. My neighbor also has an iphone 3g with at&t. Im going to see if it blocks his reception or if he is still able to use his phone. then im going to see if i get reception in his house off it. if i do, im going to authorize his phone for it since its free to use atm. when the trial is over, unless there is a monthly charge, let him piggyback off it. hes not home much anyways, but im a good neighbor.

Seems to me that if the femtocell requires you to add a number to it so that that number can use it, surely a number that was not on that list wouldn't connect to it (and then fail to work).

Now, I don't understand why ATT would release this kind of device and expect the user to add numbers to it. I mean, it seems like this would be a great tool to add coverage in areas without any. Surely ATT knows how much usage will typically go over one of these devices, and surely that voice usage would amount to a very small amount of data to a typical cable internet (not DSL) connection. WHY in the world would they make you add numbers manually? Why not have the cell automatically accept no more than, say 10 calls at once, and make it seamless? Wouldn't that be better? Why have one unit that helps a family out, and then 10 unhappy families next to them that don't even know there's a good network close by?

 

[nozebleed]

Seems to me that if the femtocell requires you to add a number to it so that that number can use it, surely a number that was not on that list wouldn't connect to it (and then fail to work).

Now, I don't understand why ATT would release this kind of device and expect the user to add numbers to it. I mean, it seems like this would be a great tool to add coverage in areas without any. Surely ATT knows how much usage will typically go over one of these devices, and surely that voice usage would amount to a very small amount of data to a typical cable internet (not DSL) connection. WHY in the world would they make you add numbers manually? Why not have the cell automatically accept no more than, say 10 calls at once, and make it seamless? Wouldn't that be better? Why have one unit that helps a family out, and then 10 unhappy families next to them that don't even know there's a good network close by?

I think you missed the point, its not for everyone who has a phone and comes in the coverage area, just authorized users. I added my neighbor because he is cool and did it as a favor. I wouldnt want everyone connecting to my service and using up my minutes or bandwith. Would you?

 

[cameronjpu]

Right. But what people were saying is that the signal from the MicroCell "blankets" all other signal from the towers, thus giving people not registered to use it no service. Which I couldnt see as being true but not totally unbelievable.

I would qualify that as totally unbelievable. That's like suggesting that a wifi signal could blanket other wifi signals and render them useless. But we all know that's not the case. You connect to the one you have a password to, and not the others. ATT would have to be brain dead to design a device that operated any other way.

I think you missed the point, its not for everyone who has a phone and comes in the coverage area, just authorized users. I added my neighbor because he is cool and did it as a favor. I wouldnt want everyone connecting to my service and using up my minutes or bandwith. Would you?

I didn't miss the point.

I understand that it DOESN'T work for unauthorized users, I just don't understand why that need be the case.

Surely there would be a way for ATT to bill individual phones using the device for minutes, not just the device itself.

And no, I would not have any problem with a neighbor using an iPhone (with no 3G service in the area) connecting to my cable internet service to make phone calls and browse what low bandwidth sites and services the iPhone users.

Of course that assumes that the devices are FREE and ATT does not charge monthly for them. Given that that assumption is in question, all bets are off. But why would ATT charge the user to expand their network? It all makes no sense. People might be pissed at ATT, but it is a company with a lot of very smart people. You don't think that forum posters have a monopoly on common sense, do you?

ATT should give these devices out to anyone with poor service, and allow the devices to connect a handful of phones to 3G connections. The minutes should still be charged to the phone's owner. The device should cost nothing to buy and nothing per month.

The net result is that ATT gets free expansion of its service on the cable company's back. Everyone wins (except the cable company). Charging the user is plain old stupid. In the end, when it all shakes out, that's not how it will be.

 

[ct2k7]

I usually get a couple of bars if I'm upstairs, non-existent downstairs. No data signal. I just want to be able to make and receive calls anywhere at home, without leaning out of the window Sounds like you need to wait for a femtocell service.

I email O2 CS since I can't call them :/, I told them I didn't have 3G... what did the smart tech say? Ensure that 3G is turned on :/

Why couldn't they have given us our femtocells!

 

[nozebleed]

I didn't miss the point.

I understand that it DOESN'T work for unauthorized users, I just don't understand why that need be the case.

Surely there would be a way for ATT to bill individual phones using the device for minutes, not just the device itself.

And no, I would not have any problem with a neighbor using an iPhone (with no 3G service in the area) connecting to my cable internet service to make phone calls and browse what low bandwidth sites and services the iPhone users.

Of course that assumes that the devices are FREE and ATT does not charge monthly for them. Given that that assumption is in question, all bets are off. But why would ATT charge the user to expand their network? It all makes no sense. People might be pissed at ATT, but it is a company with a lot of very smart people. You don't think that forum posters have a monopoly on common sense, do you?

ATT should give these devices out to anyone with poor service, and allow the devices to connect a handful of phones to 3G connections. The minutes should still be charged to the phone's owner. The device should cost nothing to buy and nothing per month.

The net result is that ATT gets free expansion of its service on the cable company's back. Everyone wins (except the cable company). Charging the user is plain old stupid. In the end, when it all shakes out, that's not how it will be.

Actually, I lose out. Why would I pay 50/ mo for high speed internet for it to work, and no one else chips in to pay my bill even if the minutes were free? your logic is flawed

 

[cameronjpu]

Actually, I lose out. Why would I pay 50/ mo for high speed internet for it to work, and no one else chips in to pay my bill even if the minutes were free? your logic is flawed

Because the usage sapping your internet connection would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Voice data is tiny, and the internet usage of an iPhone compared to a typical connection is also tiny. No one is downloading torrents on their iPhone.

So yes, if your math is (the benefit I get from gaining cell phone service at home) - (the cost to me of sharing less than 10% of my internet connection) < 0, then you lose.

But something tells me that a large benefit for you (cell service that works the 8 hours per day that you are at home) is larger than the insignificant cost of sharing your cable connection with users who hardly use any day.

 

[jmpage2]

Now, I don't understand why ATT would release this kind of device and expect the user to add numbers to it. I mean, it seems like this would be a great tool to add coverage in areas without any. Surely ATT knows how much usage will typically go over one of these devices, and surely that voice usage would amount to a very small amount of data to a typical cable internet (not DSL) connection. WHY in the world would they make you add numbers manually? Why not have the cell automatically accept no more than, say 10 calls at once, and make it seamless? Wouldn't that be better? Why have one unit that helps a family out, and then 10 unhappy families next to them that don't even know there's a good network close by?

Are those unhappy families going to pitch in to pay my $60 a month internet bill? Are they going to compensate me for the aggravation of chewing up my internet bandwidth?

When encapsulated for transmission over the internet a phone call uses up about 100kbps of bandwidth. 3G browsing uses significantly more. The only way your plan would make sense is if AT&T paid me to allow up to 10-20 phones to use my access point so they got better coverage.

If you really want a VOIP solution at home, check out ooma. You have to pay for the equipment, but after that the service is "free". I've had it for about 4 months now and it works beautifully.

I absolutely 2nd this. Ooma kicks serious ass. It's very inexpensive, the quality is outstanding, US based (english speaking) tech support, can't say enough good things about them.

 

[AbSoluTc]

Because the usage sapping your internet connection would be so small as to be unmeasurable. Voice data is tiny, and the internet usage of an iPhone compared to a typical connection is also tiny. No one is downloading torrents on their iPhone.

So yes, if your math is (the benefit I get from gaining cell phone service at home) - (the cost to me of sharing less than 10% of my internet connection) < 0, then you lose.

But something tells me that a large benefit for you (cell service that works the 8 hours per day that you are at home) is larger than the insignificant cost of sharing your cable connection with users who hardly use any day.

Why on earth would I, let alone anyone else - share a service that you are paying for with someone else? Granted if you have a neighbor like nozebleed does and he is nice enough - yeah, no problem. However just to open your stuff up and let anyone and everyone connect, don't think so. Not only is it using your bandwith, it's a security problem, not to mention again - why would I share my hard earned connection with anyone else? I am a nice guy and all and will do anything for ya, but sorry - go get your own internet connection.

You must be a bit coo coo to suggest something like that.

 

[cameronjpu]

Are those unhappy families going to pitch in to pay my $60 a month internet bill? Are they going to compensate me for the aggravation of chewing up my internet bandwidth?

When encapsulated for transmission over the internet a phone call uses up about 100kbps of bandwidth. 3G browsing uses significantly more. The only way your plan would make sense is if AT&T paid me to allow up to 10-20 phones to use my access point so they got better coverage.

100 kbps? Kilobits? You mean 12 Kbps (Kilobytes)? And your total internet connection upload speed is probably 500 Kbps at the very least?

I guess I'm crazy. Here I thought that letting a neighbor use your internet connection in a way that didn't interfere with yours in the least (using about 1% of your bandwidth at the most) would be considered just doing something good for your neighbor. Would it be better if that neighbor gave you the two cents per day that he is using? Multiple that by the 10 users (I didn't suggest 20, not sure why you threw that in) and you can have your 20 cents per day.

All to provide 10 neighbors with a cell phone that works.

Sound better?

Man, now I know how Sally Strothers feels trying to get people to send 10 cents a day to Africa...

Why on earth would I, let alone anyone else - share a service that you are paying for with someone else? Granted if you have a neighbor like nozebleed does and he is nice enough - yeah, no problem. However just to open your stuff up and let anyone and everyone connect, don't think so. Not only is it using your bandwith, it's a security problem, not to mention again - why would I share my hard earned connection with anyone else? I am a nice guy and all and will do anything for ya, but sorry - go get your own internet connection.

You must be a bit coo coo to suggest something like that.

Christ people.... what's the security risk? This is not sharing your wifi, this is sharing a 3G connection. There's no reason the connection would be any more insecure that connecting to any other of ATT's shared 3G connections. And the impact on you would be nil! There's no reason it would be open to "anyone and everyone" - it would be open to whatever small number of people that it could be open to without having a noticeable impact on your own speed. And it's VOLUNTARY. So if you must have your 3000 KBps up instead of 2500 KBps up, you don't do it. But 99% of the world allows 99% of their internet connection to sit unused 99% of the time!

You're getting a GREAT benefit out of it (phone service that works now, where it didn't before) and the cost is so small!

Of course, this all assumes that ATT doesn't charge you monthly for it, which I'm positive they won't (because it's self defeating for ATT to do so).

I'll console myself with the knowledge that the reticence I see here is not what the average person would say.

 

[nozebleed]

100 kbps? Kilo<B>bits</B>? You mean 12 Kbps (Kilo<B>bytes</B>)? And your total internet connection upload speed is probably 500 Kbps at the very least?

I guess I'm crazy. Here I thought that letting a neighbor use your internet connection in a way that didn't interfere with yours in the least (using about 1% of your bandwidth at the most) would be considered just doing something good for your neighbor. Would it be better if that neighbor gave you the two cents per day that he is using? Multiple that by the 10 users (I didn't suggest 20, not sure why you threw that in) and you can have your 20 cents per day.

All to provide 10 neighbors with a cell phone that works.

Sound better?

Man, now I know how Sally Strothers feels trying to get people to send 10 cents a day to Africa...

so, if this is the case, are you the only one on the block that has internet, and wifi, and an open network for everyone to use? Did you buy a lawn mower to mow your lawn, and let anyone use it as long as they put gas back? get an iphone, for everyone in the office to use whenever?

Im proud of you, not because of the honest, caring, honorable citizen you claim to be but because of the numbers you made up out of thin air just to troll me for 4 posts. Congratulations.

You want something free, i found it here

 

[cameronjpu]

so, if this is the case, are you the only one on the block that has internet, and wifi, and an open network for everyone to use? etc etc etc and another bat metaphor

No, the device is limited, it only gives access to a small number of people. It doesn't impact you when they use it. It costs you nothing. You benefit from it and it costs you nothing.

How many more times do I have to say it?

I get that you don't want to let anyone have anything for free. I get that. But thankfully, most people if confronted with the situation above (It doesn't impact you when they use it. It costs you nothing. You benefit from it and it costs you nothing) would do it.

 

[jmpage2]

100 kbps? Kilobits? You mean 12 Kbps (Kilobytes)? And your total internet connection upload speed is probably 500 Kbps at the very least?

I guess I'm crazy. Here I thought that letting a neighbor use your internet connection in a way that didn't interfere with yours in the least (using about 1% of your bandwidth at the most) would be considered just doing something good for your neighbor. Would it be better if that neighbor gave you the two cents per day that he is using? Multiple that by the 10 users (I didn't suggest 20, not sure why you threw that in) and you can have your 20 cents per day.

All to provide 10 neighbors with a cell phone that works.

Sound better?

Man, now I know how Sally Strothers feels trying to get people to send 10 cents a day to Africa...

I'm afraid you are mistaken. At least in the world of terrestrial communications, the G7.11 codec, which is 64 kbps unencapsulated actually takes up about 100 kilo BITS per second on an ethernet connection. I'm not sure what codec AT&T has chosen to use for their calls but I would expect at the minimum they are using something along the lines of G.726, which with encapsulation overhead uses up at least 40kbps.

I don't know where you are getting 12kbps, because no widely used audio codec uses up such a small amount of bandwidth when actually encapsulated for transmission,.

 

[AbSoluTc]

I thought appleguy123 was bad. This guy takes the cake. Yeah, I will share everything I have with you. You can keep leeching, no problem. Don't worry about me paying for it - it's FREE! Keep sucking down my bandwith. It's FREE!

Yeah, no. No moochers.

 

[Eso]

Here I thought that letting a neighbor use your internet connection in a way that didn't interfere with yours in the least (using about 1% of your bandwidth at the most) would be considered just doing something good for your neighbor.

Do you give your neighbors 1% of your paycheck each week too?

Christ people.... what's the security risk? This is not sharing your wifi, this is sharing a 3G connection. There's no reason the connection would be any more insecure that connecting to any other of ATT's shared 3G connections.

...except that it's going through your router, modem, and internet connection. And what about when strangers start tethering their laptops to your 3G connection? Uploading torrents of copyrighted material? Downloading child pornography? You think your ISP is going to be forwarding cease and desist letters to them? You think the authorities will go knocking on their door?

 

[AbSoluTc]

Do you give your neighbors 1% of your paycheck each week too?



...except that it's going through your router, modem, and internet connection. And what about when strangers start tethering their laptops to your 3G connection? Uploading torrents of copyrighted material? Downloading child pornography? You think your ISP is going to be forwarding cease and desist letters to them? You think the authorities will go knocking on their door?

People like him don't think that far ahead

 

[cameronjpu]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. At least in the world of terrestrial communications, the G7.11 codec, which is 64 kbps unencapsulated actually takes up about 100 kilo BITS per second on an ethernet connection. I'm not sure what codec AT&T has chosen to use for their calls but I would expect at the minimum they are using something along the lines of G.726, which with encapsulation overhead uses up at least 40kbps.

I don't know where you are getting 12kbps, because no widely used audio codec uses up such a small amount of bandwidth when actually encapsulated for transmission,.

I took another poster's (one who agrees with you that this is so terrible) assumption that voice communications takes 100 kilobits, and converted that into kilobytes. That's where 12 came from. So you saying that it doesn't take 100, it really takes 40, only makes it more ridiculous that someone wouldn't trade a free upgrade to their own cell service in exchange for providing some of their bandwidth to the neighborhood.

Do you give your neighbors 1% of your paycheck each week too?

Yeah, because 1% of my $50 cable bill is equivalent to 1% of my total paycheck. Where did you come up with that argument?

You're right though. I would absolutely not accept a free upgrade to my own cell phone service, which was formerly not working at all, for the 50 cents per month in internet degradation it would cost me. What a rip off!

 

[jmpage2]

I took another poster's (one who agrees with you that this is so terrible) assumption that voice communications takes 100 kilobits, and converted that into kilobytes. That's where 12 came from. So you saying that it doesn't take 100, it really takes 40, only makes it more ridiculous that someone wouldn't trade a free upgrade to their own cell service in exchange for providing some of their bandwidth to the neighborhood.

I'm sure you'd be a big hit in China. Maybe the locals would make you some tasty snacks in exchange for giving them a free ride.

Yeah, because 1% of my $50 cable bill is equivalent to 1% of my total paycheck. Where did you come up with that argument?

You're right though. I would absolutely not accept a free upgrade to my own cell phone service, which was formerly not working at all, for the 50 cents per month in internet degradation it would cost me. What a rip off!

Again, you are being disingenuous here. The average home has upspeed bandwidth of about 600kbps. 40kbps for a call is 6.66% of your upspeed bandwidth.

10 calls would be almost 70% of your Internet bandwidth.

This also assumes no actual usage by these users for anything other than phone calls. Browsing, etc, will potentially use more bandwidth than a phone call.

 

[nozebleed]

can we stop feeding the troll now. its not a matter of using bandwith, how much bandwith it actually uses etc etc etc its the matter of fact that its mine and mine and mine. im done with this.

anyways NOW

I noticed today that when on the MicroCell "Find my iPhone" cant locate my iphone. Thought it was kinda strange since there is a GPS lock on the unit itself.

 

[AbSoluTc]

can we stop feeding the troll now. its not a matter of using bandwith, how much bandwith it actually uses etc etc etc its the matter of fact that its mine and mine and mine. im done with this.

anyways NOW

I noticed today that when on the MicroCell "Find my iPhone" cant locate my iphone. Thought it was kinda strange since there is a GPS lock on the unit itself.

Just don't loose it inside the house - Lol. Not sure why find my iphone won't work. Does the iPhone use the 3G for data or the Wifi for data? Curious to know about that.

 

[cameronjpu]

can we stop feeding the troll now.

I'm not sure I understand where disagreeing makes you a troll. I mean, you three clearly feel one way, and I feel another. I know that message boards can become very insular but I'm not new to MR, though I do post much more on AI. Can you have a discussion without name calling?

This is a matter of opinion though, clearly - it's all about whether one would want to share something with his neighbors. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, all I'm suggesting is that if you want to upgrade your cell service, you sacrifice a little of something else (which most people would never notice) to get it.

its not a matter of using bandwith, how much bandwith it actually uses etc etc etc its the matter of fact that its mine and mine and mine.

That sums it up. I'm just a little taken aback - I don't remember a time when that attitude was so praised and the attitude of sharing in a community so slammed.

im done with this.

I doubt it