> Check out this news on the CES show:
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100108/D9D3OF780.html
>
> "LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet
> phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version
> of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a
> fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers.
> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which
> cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses.
> YMax Corp., which is based in Palm Beach, Fla., said this week at the
> International Consumers Electronics Show that it plans to start selling
> the device in about four months for $40, the same price as the original
> magicJack. As before, it will provide free calls to the U.S. and Canada
> for one year.
> The device is, in essence, a very small cellular tower for the home."

> There are, of course, FemtoCell stations that use VoIP to connect to the
> cellular network. These are small privately owned base stations that are
> used with permission of the cellular carrier.
>
> Another interesting thing in the article is that at one point, it says it
> will work with a cellphone within 8 feet. The next sentence says it will
> cover a 3,000 square foot home. Interesting math there....
>
> Harold
>
>
> --
> FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
> opportunities available!

> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 06:13 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> > Well, according to the inventor, the FCC doesn't regulate the "in-house"
> "short range" devices for cellar phones, he is an veteran on
> telecommunication, not sure where did he get those information. On one
> point, he is right, that the cellar phone signal in house is really poor.
>
> We'll see what the FCC thinks about that. If a band is regulated it
> doesn't matter how "short range" you go, ESPECIALLY if a company has
> paid hundreds of millions for exclusive rights to that band.
>
> Lets look at this simply: how would you feel if you lived in a condo and
> the guy next door bought this device and you realized your cell phone
> didn't work anymore in your condo, how would you react?
>
> Mark my words: it's not going to happen.
>
> TTYL
>
>

> On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 06:13 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
>> Well, according to the inventor, the FCC doesn't regulate the "in-house" "short range" devices for cellar phones, he is an veteran on telecommunication, not sure where did he get those information. On one point, he is right, that the cellar phone signal in house is really poor.
>
> We'll see what the FCC thinks about that. If a band is regulated it
> doesn't matter how "short range" you go, ESPECIALLY if a company has
> paid hundreds of millions for exclusive rights to that band.
>
> Lets look at this simply: how would you feel if you lived in a condo and
> the guy next door bought this device and you realized your cell phone
> didn't work anymore in your condo, how would you react?
>
> Mark my words: it's not going to happen.
>
> TTYL
>
>

> Has anyone considered that, if you read the press release carefully and
> suspend your disbelief....they could actually be talking about a UMA
> "dongle" for a computer.
>
> - UMA would require that you type in a code (in that you have to pair it
> with Wifi)
> - UMA is "unlicensed" in the home as it's covered under ISC for* low power
> use*
> - They mention "compatible" cellphones -- UMA requires a compatible
> cellphone
>
> Just a thought....given how much we're talking about this, it'd be a neat
> marketing trick to build a UMA base station and then pump it up like this.
>
> I'm not sure how they'd convince the carriers to let them use their own UNC,
> however...so that's up for debate :)
>
> -marc
>