Groundbreaking Technology Unleashed as AT&T Looks to Femtocell and Satellite for Extending Their Network

While our friends across the pond enjoy relatively good reception throughout most of Europe, the US, with its comparatively sparse population density and mishmash of wireless technologies has made the proliferation of consistent wireless signal difficult. Poor reception may soon be a thing of the past though. A groundbreaking new product developed by TerreStar and distributed by AT&T provides a glimpse into what the future will likely have in store for the wireless phone. A joint effort between the two companies has resulted in the GENUSTM, a mobile satellite phone that is the first to ever combine both satellite and cellular capabilities into a single device. The phone’s slim, sleek design resembles a modern smart phone and, most notably, removes the massive antenna typical of satellite phones.



TerreStar will build and launch the satellite that will provide service across the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands and will also service the coastal waters offshore from the US. Users will also have access to AT&T’s 3G mobile network for typical communications needs within existing wireless coverage areas and will have the ability to switch over to satellite service when they leave cellular coverage. It appears, from early photos, that the switch from cellular to satellite will be a manual process requiring the user to press a button. The device is therefore unlikely to reduce the frequency of dropped calls while on the cellular network.

AT&T and TerreStar plan to have satellite service available in Q4 of this year. At least initially the two companies plan to appeal to the communications needs of enterprise customers such as long haul truckers who frequently travel through poorly covered regions. They also envision use of the satellite service as a backup communications system if terrestrial networks should become unavailable in the event of natural disaster or other such event.

One of the biggest costs for wireless carriers is maintaining the infrastructure of their geographically vast networks. This is an issue that seems logically combated through the use of satellites which can increase network scalability by reducing the number of physical points required for data transmission. So, while the GENUSTM device will target a niche customer in the near term, as adoption increases it may pave the way for devices and service contracts that will one day be priced for the Average Joe and provide coverage to every corner of the globe.

AT&T has also launched a new website dedicated to their new MicroCell, a 3G femtocell device that acts like a mini in-home cell tower that connects to AT&T’s network via an internet connection. Manufactured by Cisco, the MicroCell allows users with AT&T 3G handsets to seamlessly transfer between cell tower communication and MicroCell communication. Verizon, Sprint and T-mobile have also launched similar devices intended for network extension into poor coverage areas but Verizon and Sprint’s implementations work off of 2G and do not offer data services. T-mobile’s solution operates off of Wi-Fi offering similar functionality to the MicroCell. The MicroCell is currently being tested in Charlotte and Raleigh North Carolina and is full launch is rumored for early 2010. For more information about the MicroCell’s performance see Engadget’s online review.


As the number 2 carrier since Verizon’s acquisition of Alltel, it appears that AT&T is making some major strides to be the top innovator in the industry. These moves may be in response to Verizon’s plans for rollout of their GSM based 4G LTE network in 2010. By rolling out satellite and femtocell services, AT&T may be looking for less expensive and more scalable means of extending their network to compete the more extensive rural coverage offered by Verizon.

Mobile Compass
Cri Boratenski
Co - Founder / Mobile Advisor
www.mobilecompassinc.com
cri@mobilecompassinc.com

Why the $1.5M Verizon Wireless Settlement Will NOT Have an Affect on the Mobile Industry

There has been a lot of press around Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum’s announcement on June 24 of a $1.5 million settlement with Verizon Wireless and Alltel over “free” ringtone offers. I feel that a lot of the opinions on how the industry will be affected by the ruling are very much over blown. According to Adam Solomon’s article in the Mobile Marketer Daily, the “settlements require the wireless carriers to contractually cause its content providers and advertisers to adhere to certain requirements.” Solomon is correct in his assessment that Verizon and Alltel will hold the Aggregators who connect to them contractually responsible for their marketing practices, but this has been in place for quite some time already. Verizon has actually been a leader in this area, going so far as to require content providers to submit every web URL on which they advertise to Verizon for regular auditing.

Solomon continues to state that Verizon is prohibited to use "the terms ‘free,’ ‘complimentary,’ ‘no charge,’ ‘without charge,’ or any other term that reasonably causes a consumer to believe that he or she may receive something of value entirely or in part without a requirement of compensation, unless the initial advertisement (sponsored links, organic links, email subject lines, banner ads and pop-ups) that reaches the consumer clearly and conspicuously states that the free item will be received pursuant to the consumer’s authorization of billing for a paid subscription."

The MMA guidelines have been adopted by all major carriers as the foundation by which mobile campaigns are reviewed and approved. Page 26 of the MMA best practices guidelines, available at http://www.mmaglobal.com/bestpractices.pdf addresses this very issue point blank under the section “Use of ‘Free’ and ‘Bonus’ Terminology". These guidelines were just released on July 1st, but the predecessors to the current release contained the exact same wording. In fact the MMA guidelines go one step further then the Verizon ruling, stating that a program cannot be promoted as “free” when premium fees are associated with the program.

Solomon touches on several other items in his article such as font requirements for web based call to actions and the requirement that pricing on the web page must not require scrolling to view. But the fact is that these regulations have all been in place for some. If the regulations are not addressed specifically by the MMA guidelines they will be covered under carrier specific regulations from one or more of the major carriers. Since it is not profitable to run a mobile campaign that does not include all major carriers, content providers are already abiding by these regulations. In most circumstances the regulations that are in place today are as stringent or more stringent then the requirements placed on Verizon and Alltel by the Florida court ruling.

The bottom line is that this is old news. The vast majority of the misleading billing which led to these lawsuits occurred back in 2005-2006 when there was little regulation in the industry, but the mobile world has changed drastically since then. Carriers have always held the members of the mobile value chain who operate beneath them contractually responsible for the messages they deliver through the carrier platform, but today the guidelines around what are acceptable marketing practices have gotten far stricter and all major carriers audit programs on a regular basis to ensure that the regulations are adhered to. I’m sorry Adam Solomon, but I must respectfully disagree with your statement that “the Verizon Wireless settlement will likely have a significant effect on the marketing of mobile content” as the effects have already occurred.

Cri Boratenski
Co-Founder, Mobile Compass LLC.
http://www.mobilecompassinc.com/