21 Sep
2010
21 Sep
'10
1:19 p.m.
Thanks,
To be honest I thougt a single nanoBTS would be cheaper. Of course the
server and software (if you do not use OpenBSC) adds cost, officially you
need permission to use GSM frequencies and a license on that GSM channel you
want to use. And there are some patents.
How come that some manufacturers can sell a unit that cheap like AT&T does?
Albert
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Sylvain Munaut <246tnt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I have been looking around and I am wondering,
when you are interested in
a
consumer 3G / Femto or Pico cell it might be very
cheap through AT&T at
around $150.
Might somebody be working rverse engineering on
those cheaper
cells?
Probably, but theses are 3G only, they won't work if your phone
doesn't support 3G.
The lack of good free ASN1 tool (for PER Unaligned and Aligned)
doesn't help because 3G use those a lot.
The nanoBTS from ipaccess is costing euro 3450
Mind you this is without
any
software or server, just a single nanoBTS unit.
I thing several things contribute to the high price:
- That's part of ip.access revenue stream, they need to make money
- Quantity: There is probably much more femtocell made than nanoBTS
- GSM vs 3G. I think 3G was designed from the get go to support
femtocell and so the RF interface has been designed to be doable with
cheap components.
Sylvain