Talk:Femtocell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey guys. This article uses a heck of a lot of lingo. How about a section that indicates what femtocell means for end users at home? Can the upload software to their existing wifi router to make it a femtocell? Do they have to pay someone to deploy a router this way? Or does a carrier deploy this? Or can they go to a store and buy a special "femtocell router" and then hook it up to their LAN and register it with some sort of service or radio license provider? Would the home user deal with a cellular provider or cable/dsl/broadband provider to deploy a femtocell? Please just indicate, perhaps by scenario, what femtocell means to a home user.
--Jasonnet (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, an end user section would be useful. When we originally designed the femtocell, the idea was to remove the need for a core network and allow a normal mobile phone to connect to something that looked like a WiFi unit, but was actually an entire mobile phone system in a box: a femtocell. Now, for such a 'true femtocell', the reason that uploading code to a WiFi router wouldn't work is that the WiFi router operates in the ~2.4GHz and ~5.6GHz radio bands, whereas mobile phones typically operate on the 850MHz, 900MHz, 1800MHz, 1900MHz and 2100MHz bands, so the radio equipment in a typical WiFi unit is not capable of communicating with a mobile phone. Several companies have developed WiMAX 'Femtocells', but these are really only analogues for WiFi, because there few mobile phones out there for WiMAX (except of course for WiBRO deployments where they are available), it is not clear if mobile phones will be developed for the Xohm network in the US. There are of course dual mode handsets that support both mobile phone standards and WiFi, and it is typical to use a UMA (FMC) architecture to allow the voice call to be coded as IP and carried over the WiFi network to a suitable phone gateway unit somewhere up in the network core; typically no changes are required to a standard WiFi unit to achieve this as all the clever stuff is done in the UMA core equipment. The benefit of using a true Femtocell over a core network based solution such as UMA is that it allows the use of unmodified mobile phones and does not require a centralised call routing system, which therefore makes for better network use (though there are concerns from operators over billing, legal intercept and so on). Using WiFi units requires using the WiFi mode of handsets for connectivity, which even on the best handsets is considerably more power hungry because of the nature of the WiFi protocol. So, for a home user, a Femtocell is simply a way to allow the user to have better (or in some remote cases any) mobile phone coverage at home (with a great long list of provisos on that, as listed in the article; fundamental of these is that unless the macro area operator has two frequencies for 3G - which most don't, or you are completely remote from any wide area cell phone coverage, then it won't work). Basically, the business model revolves around allowing the user to purchase their own infrastructure, reducing the infrastructure cost for operators. However, there are considerable issues with deployment, as are noted in the article, most of which have not yet been overcome.
--Bigglescat (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the first (simpler) para (ie reversed Oli Filth's deletion) as I thought it was a good intro. I have also made a few other edits & tidy up.
Bigglescat: you are probably too pessimistic. There are solutions to a lot of the issues you raise, and many of the trials today are indeed running with femto on the same carrier as macro. I added some comments on this.
I also rewrote some of the stuff on network interface architectures; this could do with a lot more detail but hopeful it is a step forward.
Rupert baines (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article lead is currently a bit too long (see WP:LEAD#Length); it should ideally be around 2-3 paragraphs. Some of the lead material should be moved into the article sections; this would hopefully greatly reduce the jargon-ness of the intro. Oli Filth(talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I have precised down to three paras.
Rupert baines (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
... you are probably too pessimistic. There are solutions to a lot of the issues you raise, and many of the trials today are indeed running with femto on the same carrier as macro. I added some comments on this.
Since this is an encyclopaedic article, it is often difficult to balance reality and hype, and so a little pragmatism, rather than pessimism, seems to me perfectly reasonable. Indeed, there may be technical solutions to the issues, but they are not out there at the moment, and if they are then perhaps should be reflected in the article - it is after all what Wikipedia articles are about. It should be noted that although there are trials of femtocells that are operating on the same carrier as macros reports from these trials show that there are issues with interaction and that currently the only way around this interaction is to deploy on separate frequency. If there are other trials results or information it would be useful to add it to the article.
--Bigglescat (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair point. I agree with your edits. I will track down some of the results; I think ones from 3GPP would be appropriate & public domain.
Rupert baines (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned about the addition 00:42, 16 February 2008 describing Three Way. Whilst clearly they were one of the pioneers, there were others at the same time (Ubiquisys, Ibis, GGG and picoChip that I know of, and I think overly commercial to describe Three Way as uniquely as current text does. I read a piece on this (history of femtocell, who invented the name) - when I find the link to that I propose to rewrite this in a more neutral style and include external references. Any objections? Rupert baines (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the history section to be NPOV, based on a reference to Disruptive Wireless discussion of the history, and bringing in a few other companies (some still alive, others which failed) to the history.
I added the resolution from 3GPP on interference (although having done it I cannot find the actual link/reference - I will add that). Now added reference to 3GPP november meeting.
I added a section on deployment & current trials. Rupert baines (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's good to know that the issues are being resolved - thanks for the 3GPP update. --Bigglescat (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the concerns section on privacy. It appears, as best I can tell, original research. I've never come across that concern in my femtocell research, although it could very well one day BE a concern, I don't think it is now. Realistically, cellular providers can already track you where you are to a couple of dozen feet. Being able to see whether you are home or away from home seems only a minor change in resolution. If people disagree with my deletion, feel free to revert it back: Overall, the concerns section is excellently done.216.7.19.57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
