🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:25:14 +0000 (UTC), Boris <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I live in the hilly SF Bay Area, and when I had analog, it worked fine.  
>When ATT went digital, it turned crappy, really crappy.  I really don't 
>use my cell phone at home anymore, nor do the other members of my home.  
>Haven't for many years.

Maybe you could put a cell tower on your roof, and then charge
everyone around you to use it.

 I don't have your answers, but I think the key is to make sure you can 
return it.  If you have 30 days to evaluate it, give it a shot.  IMHO

I usually do cell company (Verizon) stuff on the internet or over the phone. 
I'd let them ship it to me....

In article <Xns9D82742D7AE09blahblahcom@81.169.183.62>, 
nospam@nospam.com says...
> 1) If I have lousy GPS signals at my house, how will this thing connect 
> for E911 registration/location during setup?  Could be out of luck?
> 
> 2) Once GPS connection is made, I understand I can then move the unit to 
> another room in the house, and GPS is no longer needed.  Yes?
> 
> 
There is some question on the forums as to whether the GPS is even 
*used* for E911 service since your physical service address has to 
entered into the system registration screens and changed anytime you 
move to a new address. The builtin GPS may be just to allow ATT to limit 
the unit to approved areas.

One reviewer I read tried moving the unit after the inital fix and 
wasn't able to do so. If you power it off it's going to need to redo the 
GPS fix at the next power-up initialization. The later fixes may require 
less time due to saving some location info somewhere (most handheld GPS 
devices do that also) but are still required. So every time you loose 
power back to the window. Or use a UPS and move it along with the MC :-)

Ultimate option--there is an MCX GPS antenna port on the microcell. You 
could mount an external GPS antenna and run a coax cable to the device. 
More $$$. AT&T really should include an external antenna if they're 
going to require a GPS fix. GPS signals are very weak. I've got 3 
handheld GPS devices and NONE of them will lock onto a signal away from 
a window in my single floor house.
-- 
Jud 
Dallas TX USA

QN <hidingfromyou@example.com> wrote:
> I usually do cell company (Verizon) stuff on the internet or over the
> phone.  I'd let them ship it to me....

The Microcell is not available via web order, only in company stores, not
even affiliates.

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/why/3gmicrocell/

-- 
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley Lake, CA, USA  GPS: 38.8,-122.5

On Mon, 24 May 2010 17:24:12 -0500, Jud
<I5i5changethistodash5rbo@xemaps.com> wrote in
<MPG.2664b8878b4780e9989683@news.albasani.net>:

>Ultimate option--there is an MCX GPS antenna port on the microcell. You 
>could mount an external GPS antenna and run a coax cable to the device. 
>More $$$. AT&T really should include an external antenna if they're 
>going to require a GPS fix. GPS signals are very weak. I've got 3 
>handheld GPS devices and NONE of them will lock onto a signal away from 
>a window in my single floor house.

Much depends on the receiver, and some of the latest chips are far
better than earlier ones.  My latest GPS (Garmin Foretrex 401) is much
more sensitive indoors than the ones it replaced (Garmin Foretrex
101/201).
-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

AT&T's MicroCell is 3G only (no GSM).  3G, a.k.a. UMTS a.k.a. W-CDMA is a 
CDMA technology.  CDMA technology requires that the cell must know the 
precise time.

GPS provides both the time and the location for operation validation. 
Although it does not "need" to validate location during operation once it 
has done so on power up, it does need to keep its clock synchronized; and 
it does so via GPS.

I do not know about AT&T's MicroCell, but Verizon's network extender has a 
quite sensitive GPS that works with even a limited sky view.  If I recall 
the GPS specification correctly, a fix is needed on just two satellites to 
maintain time.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:Xns9D82742D7AE09blahblahcom@
81.169.183.62:

> I don't know if Verizon would work better for me, or any other 
carrier, 
> but I'm ready to cancel ATT and try anyone else. 
> 
> 

Let's test Verizon for $10 using Pageplus prepaid, which is on Verizon 
nationwide.

Find someone who has a decommissioned Verizon or Alltel CDMA phone that 
still works and charges.  Look under the battery for the Electronic 
Serial Number (MEID it's called).  Write it down.

Boot up the phone on whatever system it accesses and let logon to the 
system.  Dial #737 and it will connect to Pageplus from anywhere.  
Follow the prompts to install it onto Pageplus for $10 off your credit 
card.  It will ask you for the MEID, just key it in.  $10 will get you 
service and 100 minutes, giving you plenty of time to check out Verizon 
on the new number on Pageplus to see if Verizon has good, reliable 
service where you want to use it, like from home.  There IS a whopping 
50c/month service charge that will come off your balance each month.

Whoever gave you the phone will probably tell you to keep it (I have 4) 
as they have a new, more glitzy superphone that takes military quality 
recon photos, 4G internet and Boze stereo so won't want it back.

If you want a Verizon superphone, just let the Pageplus phone use up the 
minutes over the next 4 months and it will stop working....or, if you 
like to save money, just recharge the phone with a discount PIN number 
from Callingmart.com.  $50 Pins are $45-47 for 1000 mins.  $80 Pins are 
now 2000 minutes, or 3.6c/min with no funny business.  No monthly bill 
is kinda fun after you get used to it......or you can just give the 
phone back to your benefactor and become a Verizon Contract Slave to 
hand over your paycheck every month for 2 years so you can play WebTV on 
a Glitzphone 8000 to impress the girls.

Gives you a really cheap, no hassle way to test Verizon's system where 
you live without that resistance of taking back the phone and trying to 
beg them to cancel your contract....which they just don't want to do, of 
course......

Better PP instructions for really cheap Verizon service is on:
http://nordicgroup.us/prepaid/pageplus.html
Where it says 5.3c/min think 3.6c/min
Where it says 1400 mins think 2000 mins.
The webpage numbers need updating but the ideas are quite valid.


-- 
Creationism is to science what storks are to obstetrics.

Larry

In ba.internet Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> 1) If I have lousy GPS signals at my house, how will this thing connect 
> for E911 registration/location during setup?  Could be out of luck?

I've had to keep mine on the window-sill to maintain a signal.  The GPS is
used for timekeeping, and also to validate that it's in an area where AT&T
can use the frequency.

> 2) Once GPS connection is made, I understand I can then move the unit to 
> another room in the house, and GPS is no longer needed.  Yes?

No, apparently not.

> 3)  Registering my family ATT account members authorizes the Microcell to 
> hand incoming calls over to their cell phones, and to hand over any 
> outgoing call signals they make to the Microcell.  Yes?

Yes.

> 4)  I can register other (up to 10) ATTWS users for use when they are in 
> my home?

Yes.

> 5)  I assume that when anyone calls from outside (1 mile away or 2000 
> miles away, and from ANY? carrier), to any registered Microcell user that 
> it senses is within range of the Microcell,  the ATTWS knows to route 
> that incoming call to the internet, so that it can reach the Microcell.  
> Is this correct?

Well, only for AT&T 3G phones that are registered with the device.

-- 
Dane Jasper				Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:dane@sonic.net			http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint =  A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9  CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 

Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> wrote in
news:4bfc0d13$0$1643$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net: 

> In ba.internet Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> 1) If I have lousy GPS signals at my house, how will this thing
>> connect for E911 registration/location during setup?  Could be out of
>> luck? 
> 
> I've had to keep mine on the window-sill to maintain a signal.  The
> GPS is used for timekeeping, and also to validate that it's in an area
> where AT&T can use the frequency.
> 
>> 2) Once GPS connection is made, I understand I can then move the unit
>> to another room in the house, and GPS is no longer needed.  Yes?
> 
> No, apparently not.
> 
>> 3)  Registering my family ATT account members authorizes the
>> Microcell to hand incoming calls over to their cell phones, and to
>> hand over any outgoing call signals they make to the Microcell.  Yes?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 4)  I can register other (up to 10) ATTWS users for use when they are
>> in my home?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> 5)  I assume that when anyone calls from outside (1 mile away or 2000
>> miles away, and from ANY? carrier), to any registered Microcell user
>> that it senses is within range of the Microcell,  the ATTWS knows to
>> route that incoming call to the internet, so that it can reach the
>> Microcell.  Is this correct?
> 
> Well, only for AT&T 3G phones that are registered with the device.
> 

Dane, you're not saying that outside callers have to be authorized 
microcell users?

If a Verison user calls, will the call be routed through the internet to 
the microcell, to an authorized ATTWS (3G phone) microcell user?

If yes, does the Verizon caller have to be 3G, or is the 3G requirement 
only on the authorized users end?

Thanks, Dane

In article <Xns9D82742D7AE09blahblahcom@81.169.183.62>, Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

I've had a Microcell since the day they became available in
the Bay Area.

>1) If I have lousy GPS signals at my house, how will this thing connect 
>for E911 registration/location during setup?  Could be out of luck?

No GPS lock, no workie.

>2) Once GPS connection is made, I understand I can then move the unit to 
>another room in the house, and GPS is no longer needed.  Yes?

I don't think so. It seems to want the check the GPS from time
to time.

I placed mine on a window sill for the initial lock. Then moved
it to a more convenient location 2 or 3 feet away. As best as
I can tell, it's been able to maintain a continuous lock in a
far-from-ideal location. 

As someone else mentioned there is provision for an external
antenna.

I think AT&T were fearful that hackers would have a ball 
with this device and everything has been bolted down real
tight with encryption, the GPS lockout and even anti-tamper
alarms. Yup, if you try and open the box, AT&T will call you!

Assume you need a GPS signal. However, the sensitivity of
this receiver is pretty good and it does get a signal
indoors. 

>3)  Registering my family ATT account members authorizes the Microcell to 
>hand incoming calls over to their cell phones, and to hand over any 
>outgoing call signals they make to the Microcell.  Yes?

>4)  I can register other (up to 10) ATTWS users for use when they are in 
>my home?

Yes, you can register up to 10 numbers with AT&T. These are
"authorized" to use your Microcell (up to 4 simultaneously).

The Microcell works well when I am at home. However, call
handover to/from the conventional towers as you enter/leave
the Microcell coverage area is total crap. It usually drops
the call.

This handoff is a very complex process and I'm not at all
surprised it doesn't work as advertized.

>5)  I assume that when anyone calls from outside (1 mile away or 2000 
>miles away, and from ANY? carrier), to any registered Microcell user that 
>it senses is within range of the Microcell,  the ATTWS knows to route 
>that incoming call to the internet, so that it can reach the Microcell.  
>Is this correct?

Basically yes.

In short, if you are generally okay with AT&T's cellular
service but have a major reception problem at your home
location, the Microcell is well worth considering. 

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Boris" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9D83708E8D9E6blahblahcom@188.40.43.245...
> Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:4bfc0d13$0$1643$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

>>> 5)  I assume that when anyone calls from outside (1 mile away or 2000
>>> miles away, and from ANY? carrier), to any registered Microcell user
>>> that it senses is within range of the Microcell,  the ATTWS knows to
>>> route that incoming call to the internet, so that it can reach the
>>> Microcell.  Is this correct?
>>
>> Well, only for AT&T 3G phones that are registered with the device.
>>
>
> Dane, you're not saying that outside callers have to be authorized
> microcell users?
>
> If a Verison user calls, will the call be routed through the internet to
> the microcell, to an authorized ATTWS (3G phone) microcell user?
>
> If yes, does the Verizon caller have to be 3G, or is the 3G requirement
> only on the authorized users end?
>
> Thanks, Dane


From the end-user's perspective, the Microcell is just like any other cell 
tower- calls get routed to your handset when connected to the Microcell just 
as they would if you were connected to a "real" cell tower.

Dane just meant _you_ (the AT&T user receiving the call) had to be using a 
3G phone, since Microcells are 3G-only- they don't fall back to 2G like 
AT&T's real network does.

The whole point of the Microcell is that the use of it, once properly set 
up, is transparent to the user- it's just another cell site you don't have 
to think about, like all of the other cell sites your phone uses.

My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
broadband you already have.

In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
bandwidth you're also paying for.
-- 
	-Ed Falk, falk@despams.r.us.com
	http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article <hthldr$ad9$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
> they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
> inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
> broadband you already have.
> 
> In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
> you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
> bandwidth you're also paying for.

And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the 
microcell can use it as well. So...not only do you pay to improve AT&T's 
miserable coverage for YOU (by paying them and also providing the 
bandwidth), but for anyone else who happens by. 

That's the cooperative Internet for you: you pay AT&T and then you share 
your resources.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 5/25/2010 4:28 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<hthldr$ad9$1@blue.rahul.net>,
>   falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>
>> My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
>> they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
>> inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
>> broadband you already have.
>>
>> In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
>> you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
>> bandwidth you're also paying for.
>
> And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the
> microcell can use it as well. So...not only do you pay to improve AT&T's
> miserable coverage for YOU (by paying them and also providing the
> bandwidth), but for anyone else who happens by.
>
> That's the cooperative Internet for you: you pay AT&T and then you share
> your resources.
>

Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow only 
certain wireless numbers to use the cell.

On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:10:51 +0000 (UTC), falk@green.rahul.net (Edward
A. Falk) wrote in <hthldr$ad9$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
>they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
>inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
>broadband you already have.
>
>In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
>you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
>bandwidth you're also paying for.

Your understanding is wrong.  Cellular is designed for *outdoor*
coverage.  Indoor coverage may or not exist due to a multitude of
factors, especially building construction.  MicroCell is a way to give
you *more* than what you're paying for with standard service.
-- 
Best regards,
John

"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]

In article <huoov5dlnuqvhk2b5740rmiib0eeds7h2m@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
> >they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
> >inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
> >broadband you already have.
> >
> >In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
> >you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
> >bandwidth you're also paying for.
> 
> Your understanding is wrong. 

he's right.

> Cellular is designed for *outdoor*
> coverage. 

maybe originally, but it works just fine indoors and has for a decade
or two. i even get a good signal inside a metal elevator.

> Indoor coverage may or not exist due to a multitude of
> factors, especially building construction. 

rarely an issue, and it may not exist outside due to a multitude of
factors too. 

> MicroCell is a way to give
> you *more* than what you're paying for with standard service.

nope. a microcell is a way to milk the user to make up for weakness in
the carrier's infrastructure. 

they should put up another cell tower if it's needed. unfortunately,
that's not always feasible or cost effective, especially when too many
idiotic residents complain and if the user is willing to pay for a
microcell, why even bother?

In article <sTUKn.37556$304.17356@newsfe12.iad>,
 "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> 
> The whole point of the Microcell is that the use of it, once properly set 
> up, is transparent to the user- it's just another cell site you don't have 
> to think about, like all of the other cell sites your phone uses.

That's my impression as to how my Verizon femtocell works.

[That is, when my cellphone -- or anyone else's Verizon cellphone -- is 
located inside my house, so that the femtocell is the strongest nearby 
"tower", the femtocell senses that that cellphone is there, within 
connection range of the femtocell "tower;" and tells Verizon (over the 
Internet) that that cellphone is currently electronically linked to, or 
available through, that tower.  Verizon then remembers that, and  if a 
call for that cellphone -- mine or someone elses -- comes in to the 
Verizon system from anywhere else, the Verizon system sends it on to my 
femtocell tower, and rings the appropriate cellphone cellphone.  Right?]

But if this is true, what purpose does "registration" serve?  My 
impression is that it only gives the registered phones some priority, in 
situations where a _bunch_ of Verizon cellphones may all be in close 
physical range of and electronic contact with the femtocell "tower"...??

In article <hthldr$ad9$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> My understanding is that because of AT&T's poor coverage in some areas,
> they make the MicroCell available to improve your personal coverage
> inside the immediate area of the device.  The device attaches to the
> broadband you already have.
> 
> In other words, they're giving you the privilege of paying them money so
> you can expand *their* inadequate infrastructure for them, using network
> bandwidth you're also paying for.

This is the interpretation I've seen taken by a lot of people -- I don't 
buy it.  

My house is in a very dead spot for cell signals -- and this happens 
because I have a lot of surrounding dense trees and shrubs all around my 
house, which I'm able to enjoy and which give me privacy, and a lot of 
berm-provided noise shielding from a nearby noisy freeway.

I don't think Verizon (or AT&T) should be required by a divine mandate 
to put up an expensive extra tower just to serve me, and  I'm happy to 
pay the modest price for the femtocell, with no additional cost at all 
(at least for the Verizon case)

In article
<siegman-F3BAA6.19175525052010@bmedcfsc-srv02.tufts.ad.tufts.edu>, AES
<siegman@stanford.edu> wrote:

> I don't think Verizon (or AT&T) should be required by a divine mandate 
> to put up an expensive extra tower just to serve me, and  I'm happy to 
> pay the modest price for the femtocell, with no additional cost at all 
> (at least for the Verizon case)

it's a *lot* less expensive to give you a femtocell instead of putting
up an expensive tower. 

and why lock it down like they do by registering handsets? why not make
it strong enough to help out the neighbors too.

it's a money grab.

In article <higgy-912EE7.16281525052010@news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:

>And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the 
>microcell can use it as well. 

No, it's only available to numbers that you, as owner of
the Microcell, authorize.

>So...not only do you pay to improve AT&T's 
>miserable coverage for YOU (by paying them and also providing the 
>bandwidth), but for anyone else who happens by. 

Yeah, kind of. But let's face it, if you're an AT&T subscriber
you pay a share of the cost of their infrastructure anyway.
With a Microcell, you pay a small premium, and you get a say
in exactly how that additional infrastructure is deployed.

It's not exactly the greatest thing since sliced bread. But
it works for me because:

1. I am an AT&T subscriber that is generally reasonably happy
   with their service. The coverage is mainly decent, the rates
   are competitive, and I like the rollover minutes.

2. There's a specific problem with reception at my home location.
   Verizon and Sprint are just as bad. T-Mobile is okay but
   their coverage elsewhere is not as good and they don't offer
   rollover minutes.

3. For the first time in 5 years I have decent cell coverage
   at home for a one-time cost of $150. That's not great but
   it does represent an improvement for me.

For anyone that isn't basically in the same situation the
Microcell is completely irrelevant, in my view.

Of course, I still think AT&T, and the cellular industry as
a whole, pretty much suck. We have no disagreement there.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On 5/25/2010 11:43 AM, Malcolm Hoar wrote:
> In short, if you are generally okay with AT&T's cellular
> service but have a major reception problem at your home
> location, the Microcell is well worth considering.



Other than getting better coverage at the location of the microcell, is 
there any other advantage to getting one of these devices, maybe 
something like "3G calls that are routed over the internet and then to 
the microcell don't use my minutes, or are billed at a lower rate"

"Malcolm Hoar" <malch@malch.com> wrote in message news:hti0op1bm262002malch@news.sonic.net...
> In article <higgy-912EE7.16281525052010@news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
> 
>>And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the 
>>microcell can use it as well. 
> 
> No, it's only available to numbers that you, as owner of
> the Microcell, authorize.

That could be a nuisance if you have frequent visitors who also use AT&T wireless service.

-- 
John Richards

On 5/25/2010 9:28 PM, Anthony Guzzi wrote:
> On 5/25/2010 11:43 AM, Malcolm Hoar wrote:
>> In short, if you are generally okay with AT&T's cellular
>> service but have a major reception problem at your home
>> location, the Microcell is well worth considering.
>
>
>
> Other than getting better coverage at the location of the microcell, is
> there any other advantage to getting one of these devices, maybe
> something like "3G calls that are routed over the internet and then to
> the microcell don't use my minutes, or are billed at a lower rate"

It depends on what you want and the provider (Verizon, AT&T, etc).  One 
option may be unlimited minutes via the microcell for a monthly fee and 
another option is no monthly fee and you use your minutes.

In article <4bfca37c$0$1605$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 Anthony Guzzi <dukeofurl@sonic.net> wrote:

> Other than getting better coverage at the location of the microcell, is 
> there any other advantage to getting one of these devices, maybe 
> something like "3G calls that are routed over the internet and then to 
> the microcell don't use my minutes, or are billed at a lower rate"

Internet calls don't use minutes regardless.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On Tue, 25 May 2010 22:35:00 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-1E0643.22350025052010@news.announcetech.com>:

>In article <4bfca37c$0$1605$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> Anthony Guzzi <dukeofurl@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Other than getting better coverage at the location of the microcell, is 
>> there any other advantage to getting one of these devices, maybe 
>> something like "3G calls that are routed over the internet and then to 
>> the microcell don't use my minutes, or are billed at a lower rate"
>
>Internet calls don't use minutes regardless.

Not in the case of AT&T Wireless.
-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:55:54 -0700, "John Richards"
<JR@blackhole.invalid> wrote in <tR1Ln.24973$Ak3.14471@newsfe16.iad>:

>"Malcolm Hoar" <malch@malch.com> wrote in message news:hti0op1bm262002malch@news.sonic.net...
>> In article <higgy-912EE7.16281525052010@news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the 
>>>microcell can use it as well. 
>> 
>> No, it's only available to numbers that you, as owner of
>> the Microcell, authorize.
>
>That could be a nuisance if you have frequent visitors who also use AT&T wireless service.

They are always free to use public towers or your landline.
-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In article <ekhqv55r8gjdehlu947msstcs7lplq19pm@4ax.com>, John Navas
<jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >>>And my further understanding is that ANYONE within range of the 
> >>>microcell can use it as well. 
> >> 
> >> No, it's only available to numbers that you, as owner of
> >> the Microcell, authorize.
> >
> >That could be a nuisance if you have frequent visitors who also use AT&T
> >wireless service.
> 
> They are always free to use public towers or your landline.

not always an option if there's no cellular coverage (the reason why
someone would have a microcell) and/or if the call would incur charges
on the land line.

In article <kjhqv55538ui157b4n1iq9r5gmejovbhje@4ax.com>,
 John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >Internet calls don't use minutes regardless.
> 
> Not in the case of AT&T Wireless.

Huh? If I use the Internet (IP on 3G) to make calls through my own 
switch, what mechanism does AT&T use to bill "minutes"?

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

In article <elmop-CC1F75.05400227052010@news.eternal-september.org>,
 "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> Their microcell talks to the mothership, and tells the mothership (a) 
> which phone used it, (b) when, and (c) for how long.
> 
> It's just another cell tower as far as your phone and their billing 
> system is concerned.

In article <xwoLn.22397$mi.13484@newsfe01.iad>,
 Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> The Microcell doesn't place calls through "your own switch."  It's not
> VoIP- your broadband connection just carries the 3G data/voice back to
> AT&T just as their own infrastructure would've, and the calls are
> processed by their systems, including the billing system!

Neither of you are apparently understanding what I'm saying. An 
"Internet call" doesn't go through the MTSO as a "call", but looks more 
like a connection to a web site (the difference being other ports and 
UDP data). Do you get charged minutes when you surf the web with 3G? I 
never do. 

If you place a call through Skype, does AT&T send you a bill? How would 
they do that?

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

Edward A. Falk wrote:
> In article <htjsq52m2j8002malch@news.sonic.net>,
> Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>> However, you can subscribe to a $20/month plan that gives you
>> unlimited calling through the Microcell.
> 
> Which you paid for in the first place, and for which you also pay for
> the bandwidth.

You don't pay for the other end of the connection.  When you make 
unlimited use of your microcell, you are making increased use of the 
other end of the system - potentially expensive use, depending on the 
carrier agreements AT&T has with other LECs.

Would you be happier if they gave you the microcell for free, then 
charged you extra because you got extra service (extended coverage) over 
the services other AT&T users get?

jc

On Wed, 26 May 2010 22:13:49 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-A921BE.22134926052010@news.announcetech.com>:

>In article <kjhqv55538ui157b4n1iq9r5gmejovbhje@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Internet calls don't use minutes regardless.
>> 
>> Not in the case of AT&T Wireless.
>
>Huh? If I use the Internet (IP on 3G) to make calls through my own 
>switch, what mechanism does AT&T use to bill "minutes"?

Femtocell calls are routed over the Internet.
If you really meant VoIP you should have said so.

-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

On Thu, 27 May 2010 04:55:40 +0000 (UTC), falk@green.rahul.net (Edward
A. Falk) wrote in <htku0c$78q$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>In article <htjsq52m2j8002malch@news.sonic.net>,
>Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>>
>>However, you can subscribe to a $20/month plan that gives you
>>unlimited calling through the Microcell.
>
>Which you paid for in the first place, and for which you also pay for
>the bandwidth.
>
>Man, those AT&T executives must have a hard time walking down the hallways
>without spontaneously breaking into giggles.

If it's such a bad deal to you, then don't buy it.
That's how the free market works.

-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In article <g61tv5dm9ta0hsejja3gf9pdt0cjhekar0@4ax.com>,
 John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Femtocell calls are routed over the Internet.
> If you really meant VoIP you should have said so.

Oh, I didn't know that. To me "Internet calls" are those placed with 
VOIP. Is there some other protocol used for Internet calls?

In any event, thank you for your usual snarky reply.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

On 5/27/2010 8:11 AM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<g61tv5dm9ta0hsejja3gf9pdt0cjhekar0@4ax.com>,
>   John Navas<jnspam1@navasgroup.com>  wrote:
>
>> Femtocell calls are routed over the Internet.
>> If you really meant VoIP you should have said so.
>
> Oh, I didn't know that. To me "Internet calls" are those placed with
> VOIP. Is there some other protocol used for Internet calls?
>
> In any event, thank you for your usual snarky reply.
>

Heh, heh... Standby for the next episode of the continuing Higgy, Novice 
pissing contest. Details at eleven.

In article <db1tv51rv5lv9kmnde9i9h8e5uuh6ctv9b@4ax.com>, John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Man, those AT&T executives must have a hard time walking down the hallways
>>without spontaneously breaking into giggles.
>
>If it's such a bad deal to you, then don't buy it.
>That's how the free market works.

Yup, but for some folks (me included) it's a pretty decent
offering. I have a huge problem with reception at home and
my options were limited:

1. Switch carrier. Verizon and Sprint reception is just as
   bad. T-Mobile is fine but I don't like other aspects of
   their package.

2. Install a repeater. Something of a crap-shoot and a 
   decent one would have cost a *lot* more than the $150
   I paid for the Microcell.

For me, it solved my one and only serious problem -- for
a one-time payment of $150 and no additional monthly fees.

That's something I can live with. And I'm no AT&T fan boy
either. I'd ditch 'em in a heartbeat if I could. Having
said, that I've found the wireless side of AT&T to be far
less obnoxious than the copper side.


-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thu, 27 May 2010 08:11:41 -0700, John Higdon <higgy@kome.com> wrote
in <higgy-BC90C8.08114127052010@news.announcetech.com>:

>In article <g61tv5dm9ta0hsejja3gf9pdt0cjhekar0@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Femtocell calls are routed over the Internet.
>> If you really meant VoIP you should have said so.
>
>Oh, I didn't know that. To me "Internet calls" are those placed with 
>VOIP. Is there some other protocol used for Internet calls?
>
>In any event, thank you for your usual snarky reply.

Not even a decent scramble.

-- 
Best regards,
John

If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?

In article <higgy-BC90C8.08114127052010@news.announcetech.com>,
John Higdon  <higgy@kome.com> wrote:
>In article <g61tv5dm9ta0hsejja3gf9pdt0cjhekar0@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Femtocell calls are routed over the Internet.
>> If you really meant VoIP you should have said so.
>
>Oh, I didn't know that. To me "Internet calls" are those placed with 
>VOIP. Is there some other protocol used for Internet calls?

I'm confused.  Are we talking about VOIP, or are we talking
about ATT MicroCells?  Or are you thinking that a MicroCell
is just a device that lets you make VOIP calls?

-- 
	-Ed Falk, falk@despams.r.us.com
	http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

In article <htmfhg$nmq$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:

> I'm confused.  Are we talking about VOIP, or are we talking
> about ATT MicroCells?  Or are you thinking that a MicroCell
> is just a device that lets you make VOIP calls?

No, I understand how that works now. I wasn't the one who brought up the 
term "Internet call", which is generally thought of to mean VOIP. I 
understand the difference between the data and voice wireless services.

I just can't wait for the day when we all do our own telephony over IP 
networks without the provider wringing dollars out of us a minute at a 
time.

That day is done.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
AT&T-Free At Last

malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
news:htm9brbe296002malch@news.sonic.net: 

> In article <db1tv51rv5lv9kmnde9i9h8e5uuh6ctv9b@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote: 
>>>Man, those AT&T executives must have a hard time walking down the
>>>hallways without spontaneously breaking into giggles.
>>
>>If it's such a bad deal to you, then don't buy it.
>>That's how the free market works.
> 
> Yup, but for some folks (me included) it's a pretty decent
> offering. I have a huge problem with reception at home and
> my options were limited:
> 
> 1. Switch carrier. Verizon and Sprint reception is just as
>    bad. T-Mobile is fine but I don't like other aspects of
>    their package.
> 
> 2. Install a repeater. Something of a crap-shoot and a 
>    decent one would have cost a *lot* more than the $150
>    I paid for the Microcell.
> 
> For me, it solved my one and only serious problem -- for
> a one-time payment of $150 and no additional monthly fees.
> 
> That's something I can live with. And I'm no AT&T fan boy
> either. I'd ditch 'em in a heartbeat if I could. Having
> said, that I've found the wireless side of AT&T to be far
> less obnoxious than the copper side.
> 
> 

Yep.  Pretty much my attitude.  I can complain all I want, but that won't 
get me reception inside my home.

After reading all the tech reviews, and this ng, I decided it was time to 
just buy the thing and try it out.  I went to the ATT store and bought the 
microcell last night.

Four days earlier, when I called ATT and they told me the solution was 
their microcell for $150, I balked at the price, and the rep said he'd note 
in my file that they'd credit my bill $50 if I bought the thing.  We'll 
see.

I haven't had time to set it up yet, but will report back in a few days.

Thanks.

On 5/26/2010 3:40 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<4bfca37c$0$1605$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>   Anthony Guzzi<dukeofurl@sonic.net>  wrote:
>
>> Other than getting better coverage at the location of the microcell, is
>> there any other advantage to getting one of these devices, maybe
>> something like "3G calls that are routed over the internet and then to
>> the microcell don't use my minutes, or are billed at a lower rate"
>
> <snort>  This IS AT&T, you know.  "Microcell minutes don't come off my
> account"?  Yeah, right.  Dream on.
>
> "Minutes are billed at a lower rate"?  See above.


Apparently you confused a question for a statement.

On 5/27/2010 2:04 PM, John Higdon wrote:
> In article<htmfhg$nmq$1@blue.rahul.net>,
>   falk@green.rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
>
>> I'm confused.  Are we talking about VOIP, or are we talking
>> about ATT MicroCells?  Or are you thinking that a MicroCell
>> is just a device that lets you make VOIP calls?
>
> No, I understand how that works now. I wasn't the one who brought up the
> term "Internet call", which is generally thought of to mean VOIP. I
> understand the difference between the data and voice wireless services.
>
> I just can't wait for the day when we all do our own telephony over IP
> networks without the provider wringing dollars out of us a minute at a
> time.
>
> That day is done.
>

       Actually it's not. In fact IP telephony and/or VOIP have 
opened up markets for those who provide the service. They have 
the resources to create and maintain a network that is stable. 
They also make it easier to connect to the traditional telephony 
network. Most people will pay $100 per year or less to have that 
work done for them. Most people won't want to go through the 
hassle of building their own network using software that doesn't 
support a universal protocol.



John

Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Xns9D8596BA6A40blahblahcom@85.214.73.210: 

> malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
> news:htm9brbe296002malch@news.sonic.net: 
> 
>> In article <db1tv51rv5lv9kmnde9i9h8e5uuh6ctv9b@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <jnspam1@navasgroup.com> wrote: 
>>>>Man, those AT&T executives must have a hard time walking down the
>>>>hallways without spontaneously breaking into giggles.
>>>
>>>If it's such a bad deal to you, then don't buy it.
>>>That's how the free market works.
>> 
>> Yup, but for some folks (me included) it's a pretty decent
>> offering. I have a huge problem with reception at home and
>> my options were limited:
>> 
>> 1. Switch carrier. Verizon and Sprint reception is just as
>>    bad. T-Mobile is fine but I don't like other aspects of
>>    their package.
>> 
>> 2. Install a repeater. Something of a crap-shoot and a 
>>    decent one would have cost a *lot* more than the $150
>>    I paid for the Microcell.
>> 
>> For me, it solved my one and only serious problem -- for
>> a one-time payment of $150 and no additional monthly fees.
>> 
>> That's something I can live with. And I'm no AT&T fan boy
>> either. I'd ditch 'em in a heartbeat if I could. Having
>> said, that I've found the wireless side of AT&T to be far
>> less obnoxious than the copper side.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Yep.  Pretty much my attitude.  I can complain all I want, but that
> won't get me reception inside my home.
> 
> After reading all the tech reviews, and this ng, I decided it was time
> to just buy the thing and try it out.  I went to the ATT store and
> bought the microcell last night.
> 
> Four days earlier, when I called ATT and they told me the solution was
> their microcell for $150, I balked at the price, and the rep said he'd
> note in my file that they'd credit my bill $50 if I bought the thing. 
> We'll see.
> 
> I haven't had time to set it up yet, but will report back in a few
> days. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 

I set up the microcell.  It took 5 hours for the GPS to go solid, and 
another hour for the 3G light to go solid.  The microcell is positioned 
near a window, upstairs.  While upstairs, I get between 4 and 5 bars, and 
when I go downstairs I get between 3 and 4 bars.

I tried calling a friend in New Mexico, one that I had previously been 
able to call from my house without the microcell (with 1 to 2 bars on my 
phone).  The call got dropped 5 times, and I finally gave up and used my 
landline.

I wonder if my cell phone is first connecting with the microcell signal, 
but then wants to hand the call off to the outside (weaker) signal, and 
it gets dropped during the handoff, and not because the outside signal is 
weaker.

I have read, and the ATT rep did tell me, that hand offs get dropped.

Wonder if I should try a different placement of the microcell.  Something 
tells me I'm going to end up returning the unit.  I really do wish it 
would work.

On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:50:24 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>Or another solution to enhancing the signal in your house--something 
>anyone can come in and make use of.

Yep.  I have installed 3 of these so far:
<http://www.wi-ex.com/YX500-CEL.aspx>
<http://www.wi-ex.com/files/YX500.510_SpecSheet.pdf>
in peoples houses.  An antenna goes on the roof.  RG-6/u (yes, it's 75
ohm coax but it's cheap) between the antenna and the box.  Short dual
band antenna on the box.  The trick to making it work is that there
has to be quite a bit of vertical isolation between the outside and
inside antenna.  They should not see each other.  

I don't use the supplied omnidirection outside antenna.  Instead, I
installed a rather directional home made panel antenna pointed in the
general direction of the cell site.  It works with all the providers
(except Nextel) especially since the major providers are sometimes
co-located at the same site.   I've tried it with an iPhone running 3G
and it works.

Prices vary from $200 to $275.  I've seen them on eBay used for less.

Unfortunately, it does not improve coverage for the entire
neighborhood.  The non-removable inside antenna is the major
limitation.  I found that it works well over about a 50ft radius,
kinda marginal at 75ft, and dead at 100ft.  Data range is slightly
less.  Put an inside wall in the way and cut the range by about 1/3.
Put a concrete for foil backed insulation wall in the way and nothing
goes through it.

I'll be doing another install in about 2 weeks.  This one will be
primarily a coax cable routing exercise between a 2nd floor in an
office building, to a below ground level parking garage.  The most
difficult part will be getting the necessary permissions and permits.
I have 2 more bids pending.


-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

In article <Xns9D88B2EAE9646nospamnospaminvalid@85.214.73.210>, Boris <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>I set up the microcell.  It took 5 hours for the GPS to go solid, and 
>another hour for the 3G light to go solid.  The microcell is positioned 
>near a window, upstairs.  While upstairs, I get between 4 and 5 bars, and 
>when I go downstairs I get between 3 and 4 bars.

I get 4 or 5 bars all over my house except for one dead spot
(a large oven and fridge are between the Microcell and that
spot so I assume all of the metal blocks that signal).

>I wonder if my cell phone is first connecting with the microcell signal, 
>but then wants to hand the call off to the outside (weaker) signal, and 
>it gets dropped during the handoff, and not because the outside signal is 
>weaker.
>
>I have read, and the ATT rep did tell me, that hand offs get dropped.

Yes, handoffs suck. And my phone does (rarely) connect to a
regular tower although it's on the Microcell 98% of the time.

>Wonder if I should try a different placement of the microcell.

It's certainly worth a try. With all low power RF setups, minor
changes to the position and orientation of the antenna can make
a huge difference.

Sorry it hasn't worked out better for you so far.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In message <BJCdnXgH7Ymx_mHWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>
Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> was claimed to have wrote:

>Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow only 
>certain wireless numbers to use the cell.

This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the whole thing.  I
don't want to limit it to me, I want my visitors to have decent cell
service too.

On 6/1/2010 1:27 PM, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message<BJCdnXgH7Ymx_mHWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>
> Roy<aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org>  was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow only
>> certain wireless numbers to use the cell.
>
> This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the whole thing.  I
> don't want to limit it to me, I want my visitors to have decent cell
> service too.

The Verizon microcell gives priority to the registered phones but allows 
all Verizon subscribers to use the box.  There is an upper limit to the 
number of simultaneous calls (three I think).

At 01 Jun 2010 13:27:22 -0700 DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <BJCdnXgH7Ymx_mHWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>
> Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> was claimed to have wrote:
> 
> >Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow
only 
> >certain wireless numbers to use the cell.
> 
> This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the whole thing.  I
> don't want to limit it to me, I want my visitors to have decent cell
> service too.


I think that's probably just AT&T's way of "protecting" the owner- IIRC,
the Microcell can only handle a few (five?) simultaneous connections, so
a "whitelist" is an easy way to guarantee it's always available to your
phone(s).  

Perhaps they're picturing a Microcell owner using it in an apartment
building where a dozen AT&T phones might be in range at all times, and
the owner might have a hard time getting a channel on his own cell!  ;)

Having said that, there are certainly other, and perhaps better, ways to
deal with it- e.g. an "open" Microcell with a "priority" whitelist that
can bump other users, or dedicated channels for your phone(s), and first
come-first served for the remainder.

In message <vEkNn.21260$7d5.9890@newsfe17.iad> Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> was claimed to have wrote:

>At 01 Jun 2010 13:27:22 -0700 DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <BJCdnXgH7Ymx_mHWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet>
>> Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> was claimed to have wrote:
>> 
>> >Your understanding is wrong.  As part od the setup you set to allow
>only 
>> >certain wireless numbers to use the cell.
>> 
>> This is actually one of my biggest complaints about the whole thing.  I
>> don't want to limit it to me, I want my visitors to have decent cell
>> service too.
>
>
>I think that's probably just AT&T's way of "protecting" the owner- IIRC,
>the Microcell can only handle a few (five?) simultaneous connections, so
>a "whitelist" is an easy way to guarantee it's always available to your
>phone(s).  

Making it a "Allow all phones" option would be sufficient in my books.

>Perhaps they're picturing a Microcell owner using it in an apartment
>building where a dozen AT&T phones might be in range at all times, and
>the owner might have a hard time getting a channel on his own cell!  ;)

Yeah, it's a risk.  However, for the farm-out-in-the-boonies, it would
be a godsend.

>Having said that, there are certainly other, and perhaps better, ways to
>deal with it- e.g. an "open" Microcell with a "priority" whitelist that
>can bump other users, or dedicated channels for your phone(s), and first
>come-first served for the remainder.

All of those would be nice options.

malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
news:htvj8m824i002malch@news.sonic.net: 

> In article <Xns9D88B2EAE9646nospamnospaminvalid@85.214.73.210>, Boris
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: 
>>I set up the microcell.  It took 5 hours for the GPS to go solid, and 
>>another hour for the 3G light to go solid.  The microcell is
>>positioned near a window, upstairs.  While upstairs, I get between 4
>>and 5 bars, and when I go downstairs I get between 3 and 4 bars.
> 
> I get 4 or 5 bars all over my house except for one dead spot
> (a large oven and fridge are between the Microcell and that
> spot so I assume all of the metal blocks that signal).
> 
>>I wonder if my cell phone is first connecting with the microcell
>>signal, but then wants to hand the call off to the outside (weaker)
>>signal, and it gets dropped during the handoff, and not because the
>>outside signal is weaker.
>>
>>I have read, and the ATT rep did tell me, that hand offs get dropped.
> 
> Yes, handoffs suck. And my phone does (rarely) connect to a
> regular tower although it's on the Microcell 98% of the time.
> 
>>Wonder if I should try a different placement of the microcell.
> 
> It's certainly worth a try. With all low power RF setups, minor
> changes to the position and orientation of the antenna can make
> a huge difference.
> 
> Sorry it hasn't worked out better for you so far.
> 

Good news.

I looked for the next most convenient spot to locate the microcell, 
somewhere that didn't require me to run any ethernet wiring from my 
router, yet place near a window.  I have a wired pc in the garage, but 
about 10-15' from any garage windows.  This hookup was a little different 
in that the first time I connected the microcell directly to my router, 
but this time, because the microcell would be 'sharing' an ethernet LAN 
connection with a pc, I removed the ethernet cable from the pc, plugged 
it into the microcell, and then used another ethernet cable to connect 
the microcell to the pc.  (Are the microcell and the pc are using the 
same ip that's handed out by my router?  Is there a switch in the 
microcell?)

The garage is at street level, and the rest of the house is one level up.

The gps came up solid right away, no hunting.  Actually, once it 
established gps connection the first day, it never hunted again whenever 
I'd reboot (to get 3G going).

The internet connection came up solid right away, and dropped a few 
times, but stayed solid within minutes.


The 3G signal took about 15 minutes.

While away from home, I used my att cell phone and called in to family's 
att cell phones to check the microcell home connection, and all stayed 
connected.  I had family move about the house, especially where 
connections had dropped the week before using the microcell, and this 
time the connections held.

The garage is at street level, and the rest of the house is one level up.    
The microcell, so far, works well under the devices it needs to reach.  
When the microcell was on the same floor, it wouldn't hold a connection.

I would like to place the microcell somewhere other than the garage, but 
for now, I seem to have a place that works.

Boris <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Xns9D919057D2A26blahblahcom@81.169.183.62: 

> malch@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote in
> news:htvj8m824i002malch@news.sonic.net: 
> 
>> In article <Xns9D88B2EAE9646nospamnospaminvalid@85.214.73.210>, Boris
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: 
>>>I set up the microcell.  It took 5 hours for the GPS to go solid, and
>>>another hour for the 3G light to go solid.  The microcell is
>>>positioned near a window, upstairs.  While upstairs, I get between 4
>>>and 5 bars, and when I go downstairs I get between 3 and 4 bars.
>> 
>> I get 4 or 5 bars all over my house except for one dead spot
>> (a large oven and fridge are between the Microcell and that
>> spot so I assume all of the metal blocks that signal).
>> 
>>>I wonder if my cell phone is first connecting with the microcell
>>>signal, but then wants to hand the call off to the outside (weaker)
>>>signal, and it gets dropped during the handoff, and not because the
>>>outside signal is weaker.
>>>
>>>I have read, and the ATT rep did tell me, that hand offs get dropped.
>> 
>> Yes, handoffs suck. And my phone does (rarely) connect to a
>> regular tower although it's on the Microcell 98% of the time.
>> 
>>>Wonder if I should try a different placement of the microcell.
>> 
>> It's certainly worth a try. With all low power RF setups, minor
>> changes to the position and orientation of the antenna can make
>> a huge difference.
>> 
>> Sorry it hasn't worked out better for you so far.
>> 
> 
> Good news.
> 
> I looked for the next most convenient spot to locate the microcell, 
> somewhere that didn't require me to run any ethernet wiring from my 
> router, yet place near a window.  I have a wired pc in the garage, but
> about 10-15' from any garage windows.  This hookup was a little
> different in that the first time I connected the microcell directly to
> my router, but this time, because the microcell would be 'sharing' an
> ethernet LAN connection with a pc, I removed the ethernet cable from
> the pc, plugged it into the microcell, and then used another ethernet
> cable to connect the microcell to the pc.  (Are the microcell and the
> pc are using the same ip that's handed out by my router?  Is there a
> switch in the microcell?)
> 
> The garage is at street level, and the rest of the house is one level
> up. 
> 
> The gps came up solid right away, no hunting.  Actually, once it 
> established gps connection the first day, it never hunted again
> whenever I'd reboot (to get 3G going).
> 
> The internet connection came up solid right away, and dropped a few 
> times, but stayed solid within minutes.
> 
> 
> The 3G signal took about 15 minutes.
> 
> While away from home, I used my att cell phone and called in to
> family's att cell phones to check the microcell home connection, and
> all stayed connected.  I had family move about the house, especially
> where connections had dropped the week before using the microcell, and
> this time the connections held.
> 
> The garage is at street level, and the rest of the house is one level
> up.    The microcell, so far, works well under the devices it needs to
> reach.  When the microcell was on the same floor, it wouldn't hold a
> connection. 
> 
> I would like to place the microcell somewhere other than the garage,
> but for now, I seem to have a place that works.

Well, it didn't work for long.  Keeps dropping calls.  Works better 
without it.  Going back.