Femtocell Trials and Deployments (to date)
January 11, 2009 at 2:32 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 6 CommentsTags: Femtocell, UMA
Let’s watch the roll-out of femtocells, as it should be interesting to track the rate of commercial success, including:
- Which operators are leading the deployment
(I foresee that the first deployments will be from either a) a short list of data-centric incumbents and b) other, innovative competitors, as described in this recent post) - How femtocells are used by operators,
- What type of femtocell is used
(there are several, different technical and capacity configurations available now and in the near future)
Here’s the current data that I’ve collected. If you have an update, please do send it to me (email can be sent to me here). Please also check out David Chambers’ assessment of the U.S. femtocell market.

Femtocell Trials and Deployments (as of 2/19/2009)
Femtocell Product Scorecard
January 10, 2009 at 10:42 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 CommentTags: Femtocell
Let’s track Femtocell product success as a combination of
(1) what Analysts think of the product (Rankings), and
(2) what the Operators think of the market (Deployment).
Vendor/Product Ranking: Each vendor’s product ranking is available from a study by ABI Research (unfortunately, they do not permit anyone to post an excerpt or image from their report without paying a big license fee, so you have to click to see the data that Ubiquisys has paid to show. When you get to the Ubiquisys site, you’ll understand why they paid to make the ABI report public
as it is extremely favorable). In case the above link expires (and it will), here is a permanent link to the Press Release that summarizes the ABI Research report. Each vendor’s products are ranked in detail on Innovation and Implementation in the ABI Research report (see the “Rankings” section in the ABI study). (For definition of how these rankings were assessed, please see the definitions here or in the report summary). Please see ABI Research for their ongoing, detailed analysis (I find that the have some of the best analysis and ongoing coverage, along with Peter Jarich of Current Analysis).
Vendor/Product Deployment: Each vendor’s success in the marketplace is available here, in my ongoing report on market deployments.
Complimentary, Market & Product Research:
Market Assessment: Please see the excellent “2008 Femtocell End of Year Report Card” by Femtohub author/contributor David Chambers.
Product Listing: Please see the excellent YE2008 Femtocell Product Review by Light Reading, “Who Makes What.” by Light Reading.
Which Operators Need to Deploy Femtocells?
January 10, 2009 at 5:41 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 CommentTags: Femtocell, UMA, Wireline replacement
Which Mobile Operators Need to Deploy Femtocells?
(A) Incumbents: Strong, Data-centric carriers (seeking efficient offload)
AND
(B) New Competition: Innovative players making a dent in existing wireline and wireless players
Incumbent candidates (category A) include (in order of data-centricity):
- NTT DoCoMo
- China Mobile
- KDDI
- Verizon Wireless
- AT&T Mobility
- Sprint Nextel Launched 8/2008
- China Unicom
- Softbank Launched 11/2008
- O2 UK
- T-Mobile USA
“New Competition” operators are defined in each market (there’s not a top 10 list for this category), but you can recognize them within each market as they:
- Significantly lag the incumbent provider(s)
Benefit: Femto improves coverage) - Innovate to succeed
- Only provide mobile services
(since operator does not currently deliver wireline service, they can provide a Femto solution that includes wireline at marginal cost)
Benefit: Cost savings for Subscriber, greater service revenue for Operator
Already there is an operator in this category (third to market, with the most advanced product deployment to date): StarHub, a cable-based (ISP) mobile competitor in Singapore. Another example would be SFR, who can leverage their broad, DSL customer base through Neuf Cegetel, of which SFR owns 40.5 % stake (as Unstrung opined in June 2008).
Note: Femtocells will become mainstream and will be widely adopted. These are the operators that will lead the delivery of Femtocell solutions, due to their competitive needs.
Watch the actual operator trials and deployments here (I plan to keep this updated to allow us to track the progress of femtocell deployment and to test my hypothesis).
Fire Sale on In-Home Repeaters (Make Room for Femtocells!)
December 3, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 CommentTags: Femtocell, Wireline replacement
Seen the fire sale on in-home repeaters?
Make way for in-home Femtocells!!
My, how things change quickly! This (in-office repeater) product won awards from the CTIA and CNET last year for best “Emerging Technology” … and one year later, it’s virtually obsolete, with the arrival this year of in-home Femtocells, with more deployments apparently coming soon from major players (AT&T, Verizon).
Summary: It’s tough to beat having your own cell site. (Just ask John McCain)
Femtocell vs. Macrocell Economics: A Model for You to Play With!
November 19, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 3 CommentsTags: Femtocell
Let’s Play Some Interactive Games
Let’s get a bit more specific about when femtocells can succeed as a replacement for macrocells (after having broadly discussed the different ways that Femtocells can be successful). To be broadly successful, Femtocells need to perform the same function—measured in capacity per square meter—as a macro cell. So, to be successful as a replacement technology, our femtocell would need to deliver the same capacity (voice calls or data bits) per square mile for the same cost. Using a simple example where we only look at basic costs (ignoring other lifecycle costs, such as operation and maintenance), I found that a femtocell could be slightly more cost efficient than a macrocellular network, if it delivered:
- 100 meter radius
- Retail cost $150
- 10% of the macro capacity (500 Kbps)
Needed: More capacity, Lower Cost
Unfortunately, existing femtocells deliver far less capacity (a few calls or data sessions for home Femtocells, such as the ip.access Oyster and Samsung Ubicell) and cost more, so they are not yet practical as a large-scale replacement of macrocells. (Update: As predicted, Larger-capacity, “Super Femtocells” are being designed to provide the higher capacity solution that I pointed out that was needed to serve more than just the Home market. Huawei is the only vendor currently with a product offering, but others are quickly planning such products for trial and deployment) The femtocells do already provide a cell size of 100 m radius—about the same coverage as modern Wi-Fi (i.e., an 802.11n access point). Accordingly, femtocells are viable in limited applications, but not as a replacement for existing macrocells (as I presented in a previous post). Initially, femtocell solutions will deliver enhanced in-building coverage to many homes (a low capacity, low coverage application), and will grow in capacity and coverage to encompass a wider set of applications.
Do you think that femtocells will succeed? Try out your future, service scenarios using this spreadsheet: Macro vs. Femto Economics
For fun, tweak the Femto and Macro parameters (size, capacity, cost), and see what you find. I learned a lot about the possible design and deployment scenarios, just by playing with the different service parameters in this simple spreadsheet.
Femtocell Happy Zone: Many, Viable Uses
You can see (from this spreadsheet) that a femtocell can be successful across a broad set of service parameters. For example, a modest-capacity Femtocell could be hugely successful replacing urban macrocells, where the cell spacing may already be quite small (200 m). Remember, to be competitive, a femtocell could deliver 1/1000 of the capacity per square meter of a macro cell (for coverage, fill-in), or it could deliver 1/10 of the capacity of a macro cell in a very small space (for locations demanding high-capacity). In my example, the femtocell described in our example would only need to be 1/30 of a mile across (approximately 50 meters across, or a radius of 25 meters). Existing femtocells can serve far greater areas, so they pass this test.
Origin of Cellular technology
November 19, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 1 CommentTags: Femtocell
Origin of the Cellular Concept
The discussion of ever-smaller femtocells reminds me that the cellular concept—breaking up an area into cells, and decreasing the size of cells to increase capacity—was invented in AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories by D. H. Ring in 1947 (the same year that AT&T Bell Labs engineers invented the transistor: John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley). They found that you can reuse your allocated spectrum (frequencies) in different cells, and even split the cells to increase capacity of the entire system. Bravo!
Can you tell that I am proud to have served with such luminaries at AT&T Bell Labs? Please forgive me for the brief excursion in the WayBack machine.
Visualizing Femtocell Capacity, or “Honey, I Shrunk the Cellular Network”
November 19, 2008 at 5:09 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a commentTags: Femtocell
Here’s a fun way to visualize the benefits of very small cells:
Macro World: Imagine the existing cellular network, with big cells (on towers) spaced a mile apart, each delivering a lot of capacity/service to many subscribers in their proximity.
Femto World: Now imagine that same network, shrunk to one thousandth of its existing size. Now, instead of one cell serving a square mile, you have 1000 cells in a square mile: a matrix of about 32 cells by 32 cells. If each of those small cells is a Femtocell, then this Femto network is delivering 1000 times the capacity of the previous, macrocellular network!! (Note: With the existing spectrum; the Operator does not need to purchase more, costly spectrum). Alternatively, each femtocell need only deliver 1/1000 of the capacity of a big cell to offer the same capacity. The desired reality (sweet spot) for femtocells will be somewhere in the middle: far less capacity than a macro cell, but costing proportionally less than the macro cell.
Conclusion: Femtocells can potentially offer far more capacity and better coverage (where people need it) and cost less versus current macro networks. Or, according to the Miller Lite formula: “Great Taste, Less Filling“
Poor coverage? Sprint offers free Femtocells
November 16, 2008 at 5:26 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a commentTags: Femtocell, Wireline replacement
Sprint is using the latest technology to provide old-fashioned value: satisfying your existing, valued customers. Sprint customers that are experiencing poor coverage can receive an in-building solution: their new AIRAVE femtocell, according to a recent New York Times article. “Kevin Packingham, a Sprint senior vice president, said the company is also giving the devices away and waiving the $5 monthly fee to customers who complain about poor coverage at home.” However, free, in-building coverage will only be provided after Sprint verifies that you’ve experienced dropped calls. For more on the Sprint femtocell, please see this earlier post that compares Sprint’s AIRAVE to T-Mobile’s @Home service.
Nice move by Sprint to retain their customer base in a way that is fairly likely to retain the subscriber. The benefit is only for subscribers that continue to use Sprint service, since the Femtocell will only deliver a boost for a Sprint phone on Sprint’s cellular frequencies.
Perhaps other carriers will use femtocells in a similar manner, as the article also notes that almost 20 percent of the wireless calls in North America and Europe have unacceptable voice quality [Ditech Networks] undoubtedly many in-building, due to reduced signal strength.
Update: Poor coverage info is shared and available at Dead Cell Zones (http://www.deadcellzones.com/), where you can identify coverage holes for all North American carriers. What a great resource! If you are considering changing cell phone companies, you can go here and find out if there are coverage gaps that have been reported in your neighborhood, your drive to work, etc. Naturally, you can also check the mobile operator’s web site for their coverage map, but not all provide this data and they may be subjective or optimistic in their coverage maps. This site offers an unbiased report based on thousands and thousands of reports collected monthly. Share your coverage gaps with other consumers at www.deadcellzones.com!
Are Femtocells Cost-Efficient?
November 11, 2008 at 5:03 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 CommentsTags: Femtocell
Femtocells are already successful in remote locations and could be hugely successful in a broader measure.
We can evaluate the success of femtocells in two, distinct applications (each of which has its own measure of success):
(1) Near-term, in-building use
(2) Long-term, overlay
Near-term: In-building use
Femtocells are already cost-effective in focused applications. Anything that can deliver coverage in an indoor venue at a lower cost than the incumbent solution (i.e., a dedicated microcell, base station) … is successful. Since base stations are expensive—even microcells—then the use of a much less expensive, Femtocell solution, is far more advantageous. Better to use a dedicated, inexpensive femtocell to provide heaps of capacity in a home than to dedicate a fraction of a very expensive macrocell. (Note: I was surprised to learn that as much as 40% of mobile data usage takes place in the home, according to a Nokia smartphone study, December 2007). Femtocell solutions already succeed for specialized solutions (e.g., delivering high-capacity to areas of high usage, such as the office or home, where standard cellular coverage would be more costly). Femtocell in the home, for example, is a benefit to the Consumer (better in-building coverage and increased capacity) and to the Operator (decreased cost of delivering capacity).
Long-term: Overlay

Femtocells are not yet cost-effective in broad application: as a general replacement of the existing method of providing radio coverage and capacity. Could a femtocell replace the macrocell? The measure of success here is: Can a Femtocell deliver capacity more efficiently on a square-meter, life cycle basis (than an existing, GSM base station)? This assessment includes several cost elements:
Initial cost: Femtocells competitive
Measured on cost of capacity and coverage, Femtocells are on the right track, since they already are close to matching the cost:capacity of existing, GSM base stations (i.e., one could theoretically use femtocells just as efficiently as a macrocell to light up a coverage area with a given capacity). So femtocells offer an attractively low, initial cost. However, let’s not count out the incumbent, as they can also adapt and compete (in this case: reduce their cost using some of the same techniques as the Femtocell providers).
Backhaul Expense: Femtocells cost less
Femtocell deployments have a lower cost of backhaul—zero—versus the cost of backhauling the traffic from the GSM cell to the Mobile Switch. Even if the cost is not completely zero (Home femtocell traffic riding on the subscriber’s DSL), it’s vurtually zero: the Operator simply has to pay for a DSL instead of multiple T1/E1 connections. Huge advantage here for femtocells. But in this advantage lies a major problem: how can one deliver backhaul to a large number of small-radius femtocells? Unfortunately, what works well in a home or enterprise does not work well in large coverage areas. I imagine that the lack of power and backhaul will prevent femtocells from being used out in the open; a large network of lower-powered cells is not going to replace a single, large-radius cell.
Operating Expense: Femtocells cost more
Although this is conjecture until there are results from a major trial, I suspect that the cost of operating & maintaining hundreds of femtocells is greater than that for one macrocell. Further, macrocells have to interoperate seamlessly with the existing macrocellular system, which already have established network management systems & procedures. The need to interoperate with the existing macrocellular network is a major hurdle that I discussed in a previous post, ”Hurdles to Femtocell Success.”
SUMMARY: Femtocells are cost-efficient today, and will be increasingly used in low-power, small-radius applications to complement the macrocellular network. While not replacing the existing cellular network, they may take over the responsibility of delivering a substantial amount of capacity to subscribers in a wider variety of locales.
Femtocell: Hurdles to Success
November 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | 3 CommentsTags: Femtocell, Wireline replacement
Femtocells are a big, long-term winner if vendors can deliver a solution that is technically and operationally simple for the operator to deliver and maintain. The opportunity is big, since operators spend a large percentage of their capital budget on base stations, and if Femto is successful, it could replace the existing macro network architecture: an opportunity of hundreds of billions of dollars. This opportunity is long-term because there are significant hurdles that the vendors must overcome, which will not occur overnight. For a Femto vendor to really succeed, they must provide a solution that integrates with the operator’s existing infrastructure. This is not trivial, as it will require that the consumer-deployed device meet many requirements for the operator (Update: I see that ABI Research makes this same point in their ongoing Femtocell research here and here). The analogy (made by The Economist) of Femtocells to PCs is apt: consider the difficulty that an IT department has in managing thousands of PCs vs. a few mainframes. Did that revolution occur overnight? This is one of the major hurdles that Femtocells have to overcome.
Who Can Succeed? Cisco Looks Good
Femtocells looks like a great, long-term opportunity for Cisco (Linksys), in particular. They can readily obtain the radio and chipset technology (they recently acquired a strong interest in Femtocell vendor ip.access), have demonstrated the ability to make the solution consumer-friendly, and can leverage their strength in managing a large network of devices (think large Aironet Wi-Fi networks and Navini Networks WiMax deployments) and their strength in Software-Defined Radio (SDR). The future of Femto could look a lot like the evolution of Enterprise Wi-Fi (proprietary solutions, standardization enabling mix-and-match of best-in-class components, simple and powerful network management solutions, and consolidation). The snag here is that this is not a greenfield deployment: Femto must operate in synch with the Operator’s existing macrocells, which creates additional complexity in RF Engineering and Maintenance (e.g., updates), in particular. It will be a challenge for a Femto operator to work with the existing infrastructure, but they may succeed by adapting to it (hence the utility of SDR), which would make the Femto solution more flexible (and valuable) than the existing macro solution. (I can relate to these difficulties, as I pioneered the use of a mix and match infrastructure in the CDMA world while at Qwest Wireless. Although this allowed us the choice of best-in-class price and performance from all base station vendors, our Engineering and Operations teams had to manage a network with a mixture of base stations from multiple vendors).

Femtocells Deployments Will Require Sophisticated Network Management (Shown: Cisco Wireless Control System Navigator)
Other companies could deliver an excellent product, but I think that Cisco has the right mix to win here. I expect that success will most likely come from a vendor outside of the mobile space, instead on inside it (and having to reinvent themselves). Further, many challenging aspects require skill in delivering a consumer product (in massive volumes) instead of big gear that sits in an enclosure. Some mobile network vendors are already placing bets to get in on the action by investing in femtocell start-ups (Motorola and QUALCOMM have invested in ip.access, for example).
High Ground Belongs to Incumbents
As with other major changes in technology, the incumbents have the high ground, but the start-ups have the innovative technology. It’s up to the incumbent to recognize the change, reinvent themselves (the really hard part) to the detriment of their existing products, often acquiring the start-up companies. The major network vendors did just this with VoIP, and I expect them to do it with Femtocells. The network equipment providers have major advantages that will allow them to best serve the customer: embedded systems, ability to integrate the new with the old, cash flow, customer relationships, and more. So the new vendor is severely disadvantaged, and may be forced to work with an incumbent to deliver the goods.
Opportunity: Huge Savings for Operators. Needed (note that Operators will be increasingly squeezed, as Data Use Explodes, but not Data Revenues, discussed here). We saved over 50% on CAPEX just from the ability to create competition and select the best product (in our industry-leading implementation in 2000), so I anticipate at least this level of cost reduction, if not a lot more, due to the scale (just as in millions of consumer devices, such as DSL models and wireless routers). Winners in the vendor space would include ip.access, RadioFrame, Ubiquisys, and losers would include Nokia Siemens Networks, Ericsson, and Alcatel-Lucent (unless they acquire and deploy these as well, which they probably will).
Forecast: Already … I don’t even have to say this, do I, as there is always someone who think that there is a great growth in this or that product. But one can always weigh the value of the opinion based on your trust in the source, right? Well, anyway … some analysts are already predicting a huge market for femtocells: a recent report from IDATE forecasts that 10 million UMTS femtocells will ship worldwide in 2010, rising to 18 million in 2011 (approx. $3 B revenues in 2011).
For reasons that I’ve stated, I doubt that Femtocells will catch on that fast. Supporting my perspective on the immaturity of Femtocells, a major operator voiced similar concerns about the viability of Femtocell technology: SFR (44% owned by Vodafone
) stated that the lack of a standard will slow the deployment of Femtocells. [Femtocell Europe 2008 conference, October 2008] This represents the latest opinion from a major Operator group that has all of the facts collected during a recent Femtocell RFP assessment.
The race starts now, as major operators are trialing Femtocells (lots of announcements reported here, on the ip.access Blog). Although some will have limited deployments in 2009, the real success will come only over time, as operators become pleased with the simplicity of the solution.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.




