Wireless Voice@Home: What' the Deal?
We've been asked lately about the potential competition between femtocell and Smart Wi-Fi technology. So here goes.
We are actually big fans of femtocells. They are good
way to quickly extend GSM networks while offloading cellular traffic from these
networks using broadband IP.
Most cellular operators are struggling to squeeze more capacity and throughput out of their 3G technology to support data and rich IP applications finding their way onto handheld devices. Look no further than Apple’s iPhone and you can see the future.
Dual mode phones also obviate the need for yet another technology in the home or hotspot. It’s clear that Wi-Fi provides more bandwidth and will be better suited (at a lower cost) to support dual-mode phones when a reliable Wi-Fi technology is available. Smart Wi-Fi IS that reliable technology (in our not so humble opinion).
Smart Wi-Fi solves a number of problems for operators while giving them more benefits. It solves the problems of:
- the high cost of femtocell products and technology,
- the need to support another network technology,
- the inability for femtocell to support high speed data applications.
And it provides the benefit of being a single, low-cost, high-performance and far reaching technology that can simultaneously support IP voice, IPTV and data. And why deploy femtocell technology when Wi-Fi will suffice?
We don’t really see femtocells and Wi-Fi networks as competitive. But even with
femtocells, Wi-Fi networks in the home and the hotspot and the enterprise will
continue to exist (and grow). Have you seen T-Mobile homespot blitz?
All this said, there are several issues with femtocells:
- So far no one has identified a compelling reason why the *user* would want a Femtocell.
- Operators want it because it allows lower cost data delivery, while maintaining complete control over the end-to-end solutions.
- From the user’s perspective, this is just another solution among many alternatives to get cheaper voice calls.
A direct result of #1 above, the operator will have to pay (or at least subsidize) the femtocell. A Wi-Fi access point, on the other hand, is desired by users because it offers basic data access. The fact is that the typical user pays for the Wi-Fi AP.
One clear value of femtocells to users is expanding or strengthening cellular coverage in the home. Most folks complain about spotty coverage in residential areas. This is the same reason typically associated with fixed mobile convergence (FMC).
And a key reason traditional operators love femtocells is that it lets them maintain the closed ‘walled-garden’ nature of their handsets and system. No pesky Wi-Fi with the potential for SKYPE clients, etc.
Costs on par with Wi-Fi APs would be ideal but difficult to obtain, for femtocells, until scale ramps. And it could be an RF planning nightmare that could disrupt the existing GSM/UMTS system.
There. We've said it.
Evidently YouTube has become the second most visited site on the Internet just after Google. 