Thanks,<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>How come that some manufacturers can sell a unit that cheap like AT&amp;T does?</div><div><br></div><div>Albert</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Sylvain Munaut <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:246tnt@gmail.com">246tnt@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">Hi,<br>
<br>
&gt; I have been looking around and I am wondering, when you are interested in a<br>
&gt; consumer 3G / Femto or Pico cell it might be very cheap through AT&amp;T at<br>
&gt; around $150.<br>
<br>
&gt; Might somebody be working rverse engineering on those cheaper<br>
&gt; cells?<br>
<br>
</div>Probably, but theses are 3G only, they won&#39;t work if your phone<br>
doesn&#39;t support 3G.<br>
The lack of good free ASN1 tool (for PER Unaligned and Aligned)<br>
doesn&#39;t help because 3G use those a lot.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
&gt; The nanoBTS from ipaccess is costing euro 3450 Mind you this is without any<br>
&gt; software or server, just a single nanoBTS unit.<br>
<br>
</div>I thing several things contribute to the high price:<br>
<br>
 - That&#39;s part of ip.access revenue stream, they need to make money<br>
 - Quantity: There is probably much more femtocell made than nanoBTS<br>
 - GSM vs 3G. I think 3G was designed from the get go to support<br>
femtocell and so the RF interface has been designed to be doable with<br>
cheap components.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
    Sylvain<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>