February 16th, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Mr. Nitpick checking in: Homes are more often in urban or suburban areas than rural areas. If the rural areas had a lot of houses, they wouldn’t be rural.

February 16th, 2009 at 4:16 PM

In 2003, 59 million Americans lived in “rural” locations.
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2003/FiftyYearsofDemographicChangeinRuralAmerica.aspx
I figured that was good enough to define as “often,” even if only 21% of the population.

  -J.M.

February 16th, 2009 at 5:52 PM

I don’t think this will be that hot of a product.  In many ways, this product has the potential to be very insulting.

I’m imagining that it’s going to cost between $300-$500, and/or some monthly fee.  That’s pretty insulting for home use.  Think about it.  You’d be paying a monthly fee to use a box that enables you to use your AT&T phone on your Internet connection which you’re already paying for, all because AT&T doesn’t have adequate cell phone coverage. And it will cost you minutes on your AT&T plan on top of that. Ouch, if AT&T wasn’t trying to gouge you every which way, they’d simply allow you to do VoIP over WiFi at no extra charge.

Another problem here is that the coverage and access won’t be sufficient for mass use.  There are plenty of restaurants, rest areas/gas stations, even small towns that might want to provide this as a service, but these boxes really don’t do the job.  Their reach is too narrow and so too would be the bandwidth.

These boxes will be useful for individuals with broadband in small homes who use their AT&T phone when the go to work, or vice-versa.  However what we really want is either:

1) AT&T to allow full VoIP over WiFi.
2) Much more powerful versions of these boxes to be sold very inexpensively to people who are willing to run them in “open access” mode.  This way small businesses can advertise themselves at AT&T Cell and WiFi hotspots.

February 16th, 2009 at 8:17 PM

I see this type of product as eventually being combined with your router. In other words, you will purchase some Apple Airport product that has Wireless n (or whatever new standard is available at that time) and a femtocell or microcell to boost your cell phone coverage. It could also be combined with your Cable/DSL/Satellite modem instead of the router. I see no reason for AT&T to rip us off and charge more than a couple of hundred dollars and, potentially even less. I also do not see them charging for monthly usage. Remember, their ultimate goal is for you to use your cell phone. If they can grant you better coverage at home or the office then you are more likely to use your cell. This may put you in a higher monthly minutes plan or attract new customers who wouldn’t have bought AT&T due to poor coverage at home or work.

February 17th, 2009 at 4:07 AM

Like Ashley Grayson (above), I am likewise confused.

Unless the home in question lacks a cell signal sufficient for voice (which doesn’t even require “Edge Network” let alone “3g”), the homeowner could get all this with a simple, in-home, wi-fi connection.

And even if their cell signal IS as bad a that, they’d have to compare the savings (assuming they drop their land line) and the convenience (having just ONE phone number) against the cost of AT&T’s new Gizmo—and any related fees.

February 17th, 2009 at 3:56 PM

@ timon:
That would be fine if it were possible to do VOIP on an iPhone. It is not. The VOIP solutions for iPhone are lame, cobbled-together, call-back schemes that don’t allow anyone to call YOU, and are designed to save money calling home from abroad. There are plenty of us that have weak or non existent AT&T connections to make this other product viable (I’m one of the 59 million in rural America).

That said, you are right. The better solution would be to solve the iPhone VOIP need.