Comments on: Verizon launches Network Extender femtocell solution

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:12:10 +0000

I used the network extender for 27 days and had nothing but problems!
The unit will sink up with the phone but is only good for voice NO data!
If it sinks up for voice calls it is still looking for the evdo signal if it is able to connect to the evdo signal it will drop the network extender signal. I live up in the hill the signal is week at best. After several calls to Verizon they said they were aware of the constant switching problem and had no fix at this time. I am sending the unit back until the extender can handle data as well as voice. They did say that if I turned off the data portion of my blackberry it would work, so if I turn off half of my phones features my $250.00 extender will work! No thank you

By: Don Louie

Don Louie — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:06:44 +0000

That pretty much echos Airave holders sentiment and w/o the MRC

By: tom

tom — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 04:07:23 +0000

If you try the unit you will be a beliver as I am. The unit is dual band and voice quality is great. Verizon taken the lead with the stronger network and unit.

By: Don Louie

Don Louie — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:36:16 +0000

Has anyone got one of these yet?

By: JaggedXJ

JaggedXJ — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:54:49 +0000

On my BB8320 there is an option to not only prioritize wifi vs GSM but to also tell it to ONLY use wifi & ignore any sporadic/intrusive towers.

By: George Kaplan

George Kaplan — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:46:30 +0000

@ Nick

How interesting that my phone hasn’t received your memo. It seems to do just fine. It stays locked into the WiFi signal very well, too. But thanks for your concern, all the same.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:27:03 +0000

“Um, you can’t use 99% of “public” wi-fi portals with your T-Mobile phone because they don’t ever browse. So you can’t enter the code you get from the motel to activate the mac through their directed browser.”

um.. there’s an option to enter a code when you do connect to an access point. Its in the network setup screen. I’ve done it many times while traveling.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:02:26 +0000

It needs to be pointed out that only the Blackberry works this way. T-Mobile offers several phones that use the wi-fi stuff but only the blackberry uses wi-fi directly to browse. The regular handset phones do all browsing through the wap interface – and all ip is encapsulated into udp packets and sent to a central T-Mobile site which de-encapsulates the packets.

This means, among other things, that you can’t use any wi-fi system that requires a login because you will never see it.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:58:02 +0000

Um, you can’t use 99% of “public” wi-fi portals with your T-Mobile phone because they don’t ever browse. So you can’t enter the code you get from the motel to activate the mac through their directed browser. Yes, the phone has a browser, but it encapsulates the ip traffic into UDP packets that get sent to T-Mobile.

Oh, yeah, the implementation on the phone sucks. It has to be reset/restarted every couple hours and you miss calls – or it roams to a local roaming partner’s tower because the tower’s signal is 3 bars and the wi-fi signal is 2 bars and it drops the call.

On the other hand, Sprint’s femtocell stuff just works. For voice, for low speed data. My handset does not even know I have a femtocell, it just uses it.

I know, wi-fi *sounds* better, but it needs to be re-implemented before it is actually useful.

By: Don Louie

Don Louie — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:13:28 +0000

Sprint’s and vzw’s can be locked down but I remember reading somewhere that Airave had a problem letting unlocked phones connect to the native network and handing off calls leaving. Don’t know if those issues were fixed, by now the Samsung will have worked out the bugs on the vzw version

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:50:35 +0000

My signal is mediocre in my home. It’s okay for voice, but data really sucks (at least wirelessly)

I’m disappointed that I can’t use this for 3G data and that it’s only limited to 3 phones (simultaneously). Yeah, not all 5 of us are always on the phone at the same time, but it would at least be nice to have that option for something that uses our Broadband connection and which costs us $250.

By: cwcanty

cwcanty — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:32:29 +0000

does anyone know if this unit can be locked down so that people can potentially steal your enhanced signal since only 3 phones can use it at once.

By: George Kaplan

George Kaplan — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:08:13 +0000

@ Don Louie

But look at the rationale for the product in the first place:

1) The need is due to Verizon having poor coverage in a particular location (which may be due to building construction interference or to a lack of suitable cell tower coverage), so

2) The solution from Verizon is to charge their customers to pay $250 to buy the Extender, as well as

3) Having the customer pay for broadband service to route the calls in and out, and finally

4) Charging the customers for minutes burned on their wireless contract.

This is considered “free to use”?

The UMA service offered by T-mobile requires only:

1) access to a WiFi connection, whether within one’s home (which would be a consumer-borne cost) or through some public WiFi site (zero cost to the consumer), for which

2) T-mo doesn’t charge the customer for any inbound or outbound calls originating through a UMA connection.

That is much, much closer to the definition of “free to use”. In either case, I bear the cost of a broadband connection within my home (which I would have anyway), but I can also use the service for free outside the home, and the company doesn’t charge me minutes while on a UMA connection. By contrast, the $250 Extender has value only in the site in which it is placed.

Of course, if Verizon phones had WiFi maybe such a thing might be possible, but since the company insists on crippling any technology which would allow the user to circumvent a for-pay service of Verizon (including Bluetooth), there aren’t many options for Verizon customers except to do what the carrier instructs.

By: Don Louie

Don Louie — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:01:12 +0000

The Network Extender may cost more but it’s still free to use, the same can’t be said about Airave. Nothing the one can/can’t do is an exact reflection of the other

By: BlueBoy

BlueBoy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 20:39:42 +0000

Burgundy, you’re missing the point. These things require a WAN connection, therefore you ALREADY HAVE an Internet connection, and easy data coverage using wifi. These devices are only needed to expand your voice/sms coverage if you have a bad or no signal.

By: Chad D

Chad D — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:57:57 +0000

Glad I have my $20 router that works with TMO! Not to mention the monthly savings!

By: Burgundy

Burgundy — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:52:31 +0000

Once ANY of these things start supporting data coverage, count me in. Until then… pass.

By: George Kaplan

George Kaplan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:51:18 +0000

On the other hand, my BlackBerry from T-mobile has UMA built in, which means it uses my home WiFi at no cost to me, with *any* calls inbound or outbound costing me no minutes on my plan. The same goes for when I am on the road and able to use the WiFi connection (for example, in a restaurant or hotel). Better still is that the data I access is at 802.11g speeds, instead of using EDGE (since there is no 3G yet in my area).

The reason for this is the same as for Verizon–it is cheaper to allow callers to use an internet connection than to build another cell tower. The key difference, though, is that T-Mobile charges me nothing for the ability (after all, it is ultimately to T-mo’s benefit that I use the phone and have a good experience than suffer through bad coverage), while Verizon wants its customers to pay $250 for the device and then still charge them minutes for the calls. In addition, this service doesn’t offer any 3G goodness to the subscribers on the extender (which means a Verizon customer using that extender is at a disadvantage to me using WiFi on my BlackBerry for data purposes).

Any reason why I ditched Verizon years ago?

By: backbeat

backbeat — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:49:02 +0000

^Copy/Paste your meta-analysed, shill-shit elsewhere, Idiot. Fuckin’ Christ!

http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/01/25/verizon-gets-official-with-network-extender-249-no-monthly-fe/#readercomments

By: Anton Wahlman

Anton Wahlman — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:36:47 +0000

Unlike WiFi, this technology is carrier-specific. It will only work with Verizon. WiFi is something you already have at home, and which is already available in hundreds of millions of locations worldwide. WiFi can also be generated easily in those hotel rooms around the world. With WiFi, all services also work (including all data), not just circuit-switched voice. For these reasons, I think T-Mobile USA’s solution of using dual-mode WiFi handsets is a lot smarter. Just imagine if you’ve got several carriers in your household and/or business — Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile — why have several Femtocells (one per carrier) when it ought to be enough to just simply have WiFi? And if you have a large space — larger than 5,000 square feet — you need multiple Femtocells for each carrier. In contrast, T-Mobile USA guarantees flawless in-building coverage virtually for free, thanks to WiFi.

By: keymaker

keymaker — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:31:47 +0000

@nerdherder, No they won’t be obsolete when LTE arrives, LTE is pretty much just for data and it will never be as fast as WiFi, Femtocells just extend your voice coverage nothing to do with Data, LTE is also a few years away from initial deployment and by the time it’s fully deploy it will also be obsolete, the US is not the size of japan where you could wire the entire country in like 2 years we are big as F*ck

By: nerdherder

nerdherder — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:18:00 +0000

Ya there is a monthly fee withs Sprint’s Airrave, but it only costs $100 not a ridiculous $250 for something that will become obsolete when the days of LTE arrive.

By: keymaker

keymaker — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:07:45 +0000

The sprint model is a better option all the way, their unit only cost you $99 and for $10 more you get unlimited calling they have a monthly charge of $4.99 which they will quickly wave for you if you ask, the verizon box on the other end cost you $250 and does nothing more than extend the service your suppose to be getting already while they piggy back your bandwith that your also paying, also i don’t know if you notice but 5000 square feet is pretty crappy it’s about 70 feet from the base which is also pretty bad, my opinion this thing is not worth a dime is they don’t include a unlimited calling with it

By: Don Louie

Don Louie — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:57:47 +0000

In 3 years they should be in LTE, they plan to be there by the end of the ‘09. Maybe this could be upgraded to that, I like the fact that no added cost to use it is present but no unlimited option is a drag.

By: backbeat

backbeat — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:56:51 +0000

^Let’s do the math, shall we, indeed.

Sprint: $100 + $180(3-yrs use) = $280

Verizon: One-time fee = $250

The ‘better’ option, regarding the $30 advantage for Verizon, is in the eye of the beholder, Sport.

Where did you obtain your accounting credentials?

By: bob

bob — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:48:14 +0000

$100 and a $5 monthly fee is a better option. Do the math.

Verizon costs $150 dollars more, but $60 less a yr to operate. So it’ll take 3 years to break even. Plus, you have to shell out that money now, instead of keeping it in the bank – time value of money. Are you that confident you want to be with Verizon in 3 years? Technology changes so fast – who knows what 3 years will bring with 4G devices coming.

By: Maliek

Maliek — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:41 +0000

@ NotHTCkid

Verizon will trace your IP and you will be fired by 9:01am tomorrow morning

By: NotHTCkid

NotHTCkid — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:49:32 +0000

femtocell + the new VOIP phone from verizon wireless = the future?

I have a hard time buying that, and I work there.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:24:16 +0000

I’m still scratching my head on this one. $250 to use my broadband pipe, and my Verizon Wireless plan minutes.
Plus, according to the specs, any VZW handset can access your femtocell, but you can put in a priority list so that your approved handsets will get preferential treatment.
Calls over the femtocell should not be included in plan minutes. You should also be able to exclude all handsets except for the ones you specify.
Good idea…poor execution.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:14:26 +0000

The device supports a max of 3 handsets simultaneously and a 4th is always open for 911 dialing.

By reading the setup instructions the device has to be placed in a window seal, to acquire a GPS signal, so that’s the first problem.

The next problem is that it does not have wireless functionality to communicate with a router. You must run an ethernet cable from a router to the device for it to function.

So for everyone that has computers setup in a den or living room away from a window, as I know most to have done, the issue will be whether they wish to run a 20 to 30 ft ethernet cable to a window seal.

If the device indeed works I would cancel my abysmal Vonage VoIP that sounds like i’m talking into a styrofoam cup.