Disqus - Latest Comments for kfitchard

Re: The femtocell scam

kfitchard — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:15:43 -0000

Thanks for commenting, Rob. I know you probably want to slap me upside the head for quoting you in a column with the words "con game" in the headline, but I was really impressed with your comments at the femto round table. I wanted to show that the operators are looking ahead to future femto business models. You just happened to make the case best.

--Kevin Fitchard

Re: The femtocell scam

kfitchard — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:35:04 -0000

Thanks for all for all of the responses. As you probably guessed, I intended the headline and tone of this column to be very provocative, namely because no one is talking about the business model issues surround femtos. I believe pretty strongly in femtocell technology, and I understand the propagation issues surrounding indoor coverage. Designing a macro network to punch through every wall is not only near-impossible but incredibly cost prohibitive.

However, I do take issue with the claim that the wireless network was built only for outdoor or mobile coverage. That might have been true ten years ago, but a good deal of the growth we’ve seen in recent years on the assumption that customers are using their cellphones indoors: ballooning minute plans, cord cutters, parents adding handsets to family plans in lieu of getting second home phone lines. Numerous studies have shown that the majority of mobile data use happens indoors. No offense, guys, but to say mobile operators don’t have a responsibility to extend their networks indoors is a bit of a cop out. The mobile industry’s growth has depended on the explosion in indoor use.

Femtocells and other indoor radio technologies are a great way to extend that coverage and they fit perfectly with the evolution of wireless networks moving to smaller cells and the greater re-use of spectrum. They offload traffic from the macro networks, making the cost of delivering service to customers cheaper for everyone. They will eventually provide a gateway for the operator into connected home services. In short, femtocells are great. I love ‘em.

What I have a problem with is the growing assumption that building the indoor network is the responsibility of the customer not the operator, an assumption that the current femtocell business models encourage. I believe operators know that the business model will have to change--Just look at Rob Riordan’s comments. I understand that some carriers are already heavily subsidized the femtocell cost for long-term customer and would eventually like to give them away for free. Selling femtocells is just a temporary solution while waiting for prices to come down. Even after they get cheaper they simply can’t ship a femtocell to ever customer. But they could be doing more to acknowledge the fact that by purchasing a femtocell the customer is addressing a deficiency in the operator’s own network. Tack on 1000 extra anytime minutes or lift data restrictions when in the femto zone. It won’t cost them much and they get a happy customer that probably won’t leave them for another operator anytime soon.

I think these changes in business models are going to happen sooner rather than later, but we need to start discussing it now. That was the point of this column. Femtocells will be critical to future wireless networks, but if customers are expected to foot the bill femtos won’t proliferate. Thanks again for the comments. Keep them coming.

--Kevin Fitchard

Re: Genband�s Mehmet Balos on Nortel bid

kfitchard — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:26:14 -0000

I will be out of office until Christmas, but will return to the office on Dec. 28.

Thank you,