Which cell network (if any)?

[Pat McCotter]

The technology is known as femto cellular.

[Mike Barskey]

Wham! That's precisely what I was thinking of. That might even be the same article I read - I vaguely remember the term "femto cellular." Thanks for finding and posting that, Pat.

I hope the technology comes to market!

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Wow. Okay, that's neat in concept.

But realistically, why do you need cell coverage if you're internet connected?

[Mike Barskey]

Need? Maybe there is not a need. But desire? My desire is very specific: if I lived where there was no cell signal, I'd still want to use my iPhone as my sole phone.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

The iPhone doesn't let you install a VOIP client? WTF.

To me, phone coverage is like... the most basic form of "communication". You can make voice calls over the internet. I guess I can understand that you'd like your gadgets, but practically speaking buying an iPhone when you don't get coverage where you go is dumb. I mean, if you go there frequently enough to need a box to give you coverage, shouldn't you just buy a phone that can get online when you've got an internet connection.

[error]

Apple doesn't want you doing jack or shit with the iPhone that they haven't pre-approved. And if you try to do so, they kill your iPhone remotely. This is why I won't buy one.

[Mike Barskey]

Well, you got some of that - at least as it applies to me. I do like my gadgets.

Apple (and, I presume more strongly, AT&T) don't want iPhone users to use VOIP because then AT&T loses money. I'm guessing Apple only prohibits VOIP clients because of AT&T. I jailbroke my previous iPhone and installed some VOIP clients, and iPhone's 2.0 software has now been jailbroken (although not unlocked) so VOIP clients are surely on the way there, too.

One thing you got wrong, though, is that I'm dumb for buying an iPhone while I live where there is no signal. I'm dumb for other reasons, but not this one. I've had an iPhone for a year (although I just got the 3G a week ago) and have had great reception where I live. I'm considering moving to an area without a signal, hence I'm asking about the pemto stuff.

[Mike Barskey]

Apple doesn't want you doing jack or shit with the iPhone that they haven't pre-approved. And if you try to do so, they kill your iPhone remotely. This is why I won't buy one.

How do they kill your iPhone remotely? You mean by distributing a malicious firmware update? I hacked my previous iPhone for maybe half a year and installed tons of apps - Apple never knew, let alone did anything about it. I even installed Apple's firmware upgrades during that period.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Well, you got some of that - at least as it applies to me. I do like my gadgets.

Firstly, I'm sorta kinda teasing you. I'm a geek at heart and I love my gadgets too.

Here's a link from Engadget Mobile linking to my blog with exclusive screenshots of a pre-release Linux based phone that's designed from the ground up to be user controllable and customizable and open for use on any network. http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/06/11/openmoko-freerunner-gets-reviewed-early/

Now, that's just to "show off" but I want to highlight that 1.) I'm mostly attacking Mac Fanboi-ism and 2.) I really truly don't see why the iPhone, with all the effort required to take control of it like every other basic piece of property, is appealing to people.

I've had an iPhone for a year (although I just got the 3G a week ago) and have had great reception where I live. I'm considering moving to an area without a signal, hence I'm asking about the pemto stuff.

What... You signed up for a contract? That sounds stupid to me. Why didn't you just buy the phone without a contract... Oh, wait... My bad...

No, I get it, I think. Free Software was actually the thing that got me thinking about freedom in a more broad perspective - property rights and law and force used to prevent people from innovating and producing wealth. That said, I'm still really REALLY peeved by the frequency at which the force of law (copyright, patents, DMCA, et cetera) is used to prevent people from being in control of their property and Apple is one of the single biggest offenders of that in the digital realm, even worse even that Microsoft and as a Linux user, that says something.

[Mike Barskey]

Firstly, I'm sorta kinda teasing you. I'm a geek at heart and I love my gadgets too.

Yeah, I got that you were teasing. I was trying to tease back. I should have thrown in more emoticons      

Here's a link from Engadget Mobile linking to my blog with exclusive screenshots of a pre-release Linux based phone that's designed from the ground up to be user controllable and customizable and open for use on any network. http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2008/06/11/openmoko-freerunner-gets-reviewed-early/

Now, that's just to "show off" but I want to highlight that 1.) I'm mostly attacking Mac Fanboi-ism and 2.) I really truly don't see why the iPhone, with all the effort required to take control of it like every other basic piece of property, is appealing to people.

The "open phone" you describe sounds pretty cool. As much control as you can have over your computer, you can have over your phone. Nice.

I think I have some Mac Fanboyism in me, but not as much as I used to, and I think I can back up what I like about Apple with reason - it's not just blind faith or cult-like following. That said, though, some of the traits I like about Apple and Apple products have declined in quality in the past 2-3 years.

What... You signed up for a contract? That sounds stupid to me. Why didn't you just buy the phone without a contract... Oh, wait... My bad...

Doh! The tie to AT&T specifically and the 2-year contract with any carrier really ruffled a lot of Apple Fanboy feathers.

No, I get it, I think. Free Software was actually the thing that got me thinking about freedom in a more broad perspective - property rights and law and force used to prevent people from innovating and producing wealth. That said, I'm still really REALLY peeved by the frequency at which the force of law (copyright, patents, DMCA, et cetera) is used to prevent people from being in control of their property and Apple is one of the single biggest offenders of that in the digital realm, even worse even that Microsoft and as a Linux user, that says something.

I don't want to argue whether Apple is the biggest offender of using govt. force to prevent people from being in control of their property (because I may lose that argument ), but they definitely do it. I don't have a problem with a company - in a free market - selling their product only with a contract that says "you can only use the product This Way." If people really didn't want to use the product This Way, they could choose not to buy it, or if they bought it and used it Their Own Way then the company could bring them to arbitration for breach of contract or whatever. And the popularity of the company and the product would be affected by such decisions. I don't see how this would be different than a Deed Restriction on real estate or other such agreement.

And, of course, whether intellectual property exists at all or should be regulated by government (in this society) or by some voluntary means (in a free market) might affect this discussion. The phone is property, but is the OS? Are the software applications?

[error]

Apple doesn't want you doing jack or shit with the iPhone that they haven't pre-approved. And if you try to do so, they kill your iPhone remotely. This is why I won't buy one.

How do they kill your iPhone remotely? You mean by distributing a malicious firmware update? I hacked my previous iPhone for maybe half a year and installed tons of apps - Apple never knew, let alone did anything about it. I even installed Apple's firmware upgrades during that period.

The firmware update killed unlocked iPhones, which is about the most useful thing you can do to any GSM phone sold in the United States. Not only does it let you use the device on other providers, it dramatically increases the resale value, not just of the iPhone, but of any phone.

[Mike Barskey]

Apple doesn't want you doing jack or shit with the iPhone that they haven't pre-approved. And if you try to do so, they kill your iPhone remotely. This is why I won't buy one.

How do they kill your iPhone remotely? You mean by distributing a malicious firmware update? I hacked my previous iPhone for maybe half a year and installed tons of apps - Apple never knew, let alone did anything about it. I even installed Apple's firmware upgrades during that period.

The firmware update killed unlocked iPhones, which is about the most useful thing you can do to any GSM phone sold in the United States. Not only does it let you use the device on other providers, it dramatically increases the resale value, not just of the iPhone, but of any phone.

Well, I know that unlocked phone are more valuable. I sold my original iPhone - unlocked - for more than I paid for my new G3.

There were definitely "bricked" iPhones, but I'm not sure it was Apple's intent. I think it's more likely that Apple simply didn't care that it was bricking iPhone that people were using outside the boundaries of Apple's and AT&T's contract. I think this because not all iPhone were bricked by firmware upgrades. I think it depended on some combination of whether the phone was unlocked, had certain third party software installed, etc. But like I said, mine was jailbroken (which is against the contract, but likely not as serious to Apple or AT&T as unlocked phones) and it was never harmed by firmware upgrades or software resets.

I realize that it seems like I've been all about "protecting" Apple in this thread. And I do like a lot of Apple products and its history of innovation (yes, I realize Apple "stole" the mouse idea from Xerox). But really I just think that anti-Apple-dom is perhaps as mistaken as Apple Fanboyism.

[Pat McCotter]

Sprint begins nationwide femtocell rollout
Jul 30, 2008 2:44 PM, By Kevin Fitchard

Samsung femtos go on sale at Sprint stores Aug 17; rollout focuses on coverage first, cheap minutes second

Sprint is taking its Airave femtocell pilot commercial, announcing today it will begin selling the home base station technology on Aug. 17 to its customers across the country. Sprint, however, seems to be defying industry expectations for the service, charging customers both for the femtocell and the service, effectively asking subscribers to subsidize the cost of expanding network coverage.

Sprint first launched the pilot program last September in Kansas City and Denver, selling a Samsung-designed femtocell, which routes CDMA calls over a home broadband connection to the Sprint network, effectively giving individual customers private base stations at their homes or offices. While femtos have become a hot topic worldwide, they have so far only been used in trials as operators await the global standards bodies to set technology and protocol specifications that would ensure interoperability between networks and drive down production costs. Sprint--as it is often inclined to do to gain first-mover advantage—bucked that trend today, announcing a full nationwide rollout and becoming the first operator to offer the technology commercially.

Sprint is also questioning other preconceived notions about femtocells. Industry experts from the Femto Forum to analysts have projected femtocells would be deployed in two possible scenarios: as a means to expand coverage or as a means to offer discounted voice plans. In the first scenario the carrier has the most gain, allowing it to expand network coverage and capacity without investing in expensive macro-cells. The second scenario implies the customer stands to gain the most, allowing it to gain discounted or unlimited calling plans by supplying the infrastructure and back-end connection to the network. The first case implies the carrier subsidize the cost of the femtocell and service, while the second implies the customer pays.

Sprint, however, is charging for the femtocell ($100) and the basic femto connectivity itself ($5 a month), and then layering calling plans on top ($10 or $20 a month for unlimited individual or family voice calling plans). Sprint is essentially asking customers to subsidize the cost of its own network expansion, said Peter Jarich, wireless infrastructure analyst for Current Analysis. "It's $5 a month just to have it in my home," Jarich said. "It's a hybrid of two models."

Femtocells are a way for operators to fill in dead zones in the network in low-traffic areas as well as add additional capacity to an already built-out network, Jarich said. What's more they require little capex investment and add only incremental opex costs since the customer is supplying the connection back to the network core, Jarich said. By charging a monthly fee just to have an active femtocell, Sprint is doubly advantaged: it makes money off of the subscription while saving network and operations costs, Jarich said.

"The value proposition is weighted much more heavily toward the operator that it's weighted toward the customer," Jarich said.

Capex savings may be exactly what Sprint is after with the femto rollout. On Tuesday, Alcatel-Lucent recorded a huge loss primarily due to a fall-off in North American CDMA revenues, which Alcatel-Lucent attributed a single customer. While Alcatel-Lucent did not name that customer, analysts indicated the most likely operator was Sprint. Skyline Marketing Group president John Celentano said Sprint is not only facing financial and operational pressures, but it has shifted its capex focus to the upcoming launch of its 4G WiMAX network with joint venture partner Clearwire. That could mean Sprint is looking to scale back its network spend on the CDMA, Celentano said. Femtocells may be one means of achieving that, allowing it to grow the coverage and capacity incrementally without costly macro base station deployments.

[Pat McCotter]

I really like how innovation gets around politics and emotions. People want cell-phone service but they don't want that cell-tower marring their views - introducing femto-cellular.

People want electricity to run all of their toys but they don't want that power plant in their neighborhood - introducing distributed grid technology.

[error]

Sorry, if you want me to put up a femtocell here, you're going to have to pay me.