Jump to content

Talk:Femtocell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007-08 comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I have precised down to three paras.

Rupert baines (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

 ... 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)[reply]


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)[reply]



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)[reply]


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)[reply]


It's good to know that the issues are being resolved - thanks for the 3GPP update. --Bigglescat (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can't see any information for two vendors linked here on their websites. Infineon and Axiomwireless (the second one's website seems to be out of action). Since there is no verifiable announcement or information about their femtocell products, I'd suggest removing these two links. Any objections? - MobileSense —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 11:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Femtocell is a term that has been expanded to include a range of technologies and methods used in next generation networks. This is convenient but is misleading because the use of 'advanced wireless architectures' while partly a unique set of methods used in wireless is also part of an ongoing trend to smart distributed networking that converges across wire, fiber optic and wireless interfaces. Femtocell was the first, convenient device development that can describe how networks are being made highly granular but it incorrectly focuses on the device rather than the architecture that will be the compelling advancement in NG-4G converged networks.

Some points:

  • NG-4G is not just an evolution of wireless networks but is integral to unified networking. You can't say that wireless standards or commercial interests will determine femtocell or SDWN, Smart Distributed Wireless BB Networks. The IT/networking participants will have a growing influence on standards and products implementations. NG-4G is not merely an evolution of 3G wireless networks and will not be dominated to nearly the same degree as 3G (group of suppliers)
  • IPR is converging between IT/networking, multiple streams of wireless, cable, and fiber optic. Other fields such as graphics, Internet, and consumer electronics also have impact.
  • The standards are increasingly defining virtual functionality that can be distributed among devices in a number of ways. This is paralleled in IT/networking developments and extends to virtualization of networks, applications and data storage/retrieval. In the wireless realm, smart antenna technologies co-magnify the benefits of distributed architectures: Co-MIMO, V-MIMO, MU-MIMO, femtocell (sic) aggregation and other techniques are amplified by use of distributed network device topologies.
  • The shift to OFDMA and adaptive modulation methods are the foundation technologies needed to support SDWN architectural advances because these allow more efficient and adaptive use of spectrum on non-interfering, selective basis.

I would love to see the industry use a term besides femtocells to describe what encompasses a much broader set of technologies and device descriptions. This is like calling everything that drives on the road 'cars' because that was the first thing to be commonly adopted.

Robert Syputa (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This article shows the confusion and conflicts inherent in approaching a system level design with a device level solution. Both WiMAXm/802.16m/j and LTE-Advanced are taking a systematic approach to providing a framework scheme for advanced wireless architectures that is also integrated to wired/FMC network developments.

The femtocell wiki article looks like this:

1) Femtocell is what we used to call access point stuff 2) But it has problems in WCDMA because of single band allocation interference issues, not to mention ability to selectively reuse spectrum on a dynamic basis or form 'self configuring, self-healing networks' or other advanced managed but still organic network features. 3) Then there is some mention that use of LTE or WiMAX can avoid these issues but little explanation of why that is the case is given. There are many reasons why the shift to OFDMA is precipitated by the need to move to higher bandwidth, more adaptive broadband architectures, SDWN, that goes unexplained.

This is a pig in a poke topic: femtocell is inadequate to describe the advances that are now abundantly apparent. Either femtocell is expanded to embrace the shift to frequency domain developments or it is going to become a stop-gap definition that is inevitably surpassed in NG environments. This is open for discussion but is not fundamentally able to be questioned imo.

67.183.16.29 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the short/medium term, I'd argue that femtocells are still relevant term for commercially available products such as Sprint Airave and Verizon's Wireless Network Extender. As technology evolves, no doubt Wikipedia will revise this article to match.

But also some suggested improvements: - No mention of the enterprise "super femtos" that have been in the news recently, specifically 16-channel products - Tidy up of the external references, specifically removing dead links and some fairly out of date press releases - Revision of early history - femtocell concept was around before Motorola prototyped it

Any comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilesense (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interference, for example

[edit]

The Interference section has a marvelously long and dreadfully disorganised second paragraph, with many "for examples" tangled amongst themselves, and a "primarily the only way to . . ." thrown in for syntactical diversion. Would someone like to decode and translate at least the paragraph, if not the whole section? Jim.henderson (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Term

[edit]

The definition of Femtocell is very confusing here. I found this definition to be clearer: http://searchtelecom.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid103_gci1284717,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmicdreams (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this entire article is about a rare, special kind of femtocell, when 802.11 (“Wi-Fi”) is ubiquitous and is, almost exclusively, by definition, a femtocell technology. Every single Wi‑Fi access point ever is a femtocell site. 802.11 is a cellular technology, by definition, and the sizes of its cells are in the femto- range. Can we either move this article to a title appropriate to its content or add content based on a reasonable definition of femtocell? Stephan Leeds (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of alternative femtocell system architectures now out of date

[edit]

With the standardisation of femtocell system architecture published by 3GPP in April 2009, the different architectures described in this article are now irrelevant and out of date. They just add confusion to the (first time reader) and so I think should be removed. In its place, I'd expect to see a short summary of the 3GPP Iuh interface and SIP/IMS defined for 3G CDMA femtocells.

Mobilesense (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I have had a try to update this. As both MOBILSENSE and Jim.Henderson have said two importnant sectioons are outdated and confusing. A quick cut to update and clarify those, but I think more is needed.

I'll come back and have another attempt and add more on 'greater femto' etc Rupert baines (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of updates in the last couple of days to address the points I mentioned above, building on the changes by Rupert baines. Also reviewed and updated the references, especially where linked to subscription only or now invalid pages. I've not updated the External Links section which remains outstanding, not really tackled the emerging Metro-Femto/Greater Femto topic.

Mobilesense (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interference section seems to be too long

[edit]

It seems to me the section on Interference is far too long and unbalanced with the rest of the article - surely references to the various studies/papers from a shortened section would be more appropriate instead.

Mobilesense (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC) DaveBurstein (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Incorporating AT&T President Ralph de la Vega's comment that AT&T had discovered significant issues with femtocell interference. Did not remove prior comments from AT&T that said there was no problem. Changed comments that implied interference was solved. The evidence on both side of this deserves a more detailed report, which I am working on. Don't shoot the messenger; the President of AT&T is a highly credible source. db[reply]

Vulnerabilities

[edit]

Reuters just reported a vulnerability in Verizon's femtocells: Researchers hack Verizon device, turn it into mobile spy station -- ScratchMonkey (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do end-users obtain this hardware?

[edit]

As an IT person who works for K-12 public schools in rural areas of the USA with fringe coverage, for a long time I have been trying to find options for how to improve cellular coverage inside the buildings.

How do end-users like me obtain access to this equipment to install in the building? Is it something that I would be legally permitted to buy and install myself, hanging it off our existing Internet service, or does it instead need to be owned by a cell carrier in order to be properly licensed, checked against interference, and tied into the cellular call routing network?

Would I necessarily even need to pay for the equipment? Since it enables cell carriers to bill customers using equipment we are requesting be installed in our facilities, it appears we would be enabling their access to customer revenue otherwise unavailable to them, and as such we might manage to get paid for having the hardware installed to enable their revenue stream, or maybe just "a femtocell provider will install it and maintain it, but no cost to us".

I am aware of #NOTFORUM but these are all questions that probably should be discussed directly in the article anyway.

-- DMahalko (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple as that. Asked your carrier. Case closed. MrCellular (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is insufficiently concise. Who's "our" carrier? -- DMahalko (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of question is that?! Good luck in getting better response... MrCellular (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links content to be put into article prose?

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Femtocell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femtocell&oldid=1201967949"