Talk:Microcell

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I don't rate this article as being particularly useful - references to cordless phone technologies are irrelevant. I'd like to see this page merged with macrocell, but retain separate page for femtocell (and possibly picocell) because these have a different network architecture. Microcells typically have the same archiecture and management functions as macrocells, but are just smaller/lower power, whereas femtocells (and some picocells) are much more autonomous, incorporate a wider range of functionality including radio resource management, self configuration etc.

Mobilesense (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macrocells, microcells, picocells and femtocells are all distinct types of cells. Apart from the qualities listed above, a femtocell is distinguished by the way it is connected to the service provider's network, typically through a DSL or cable connection - as mentioned in the wiki.

I think they all deserve separate pages with appropriate cross-references. .

202.36.179.68 (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst reports treat them differently (e.g. http://www.instat.com/press.asp?ID=2303&sku=IN0803954GW), so I think separate articles are warranted unless an overarching language emerges to describe the family of ever-shrinking cells. I have not seen that to date. This issue if further complicated by the lack of rigor in the use of terminology by marketers. For example, the AT&T unit was developed and discussed among engineers as a femtocell, but is marketed as a microcell.

Remaker (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Femtocells do need their own space on Wikipedia but there should be links to pages about picocells etc. One of the femtocell manufacturers, ip.access, recently published a good white paper detailing the differences between the cells including management capability, method of provisioning, typical range/usage/channels and whether open or closed access. It is a good step towards the over-arching language referenced above. Telecomtails (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The application domain is far from being the same. Femtocells are mostly included in personal home offers. The basic distinction, which I believe will come up as the technology is more used and gets more familiar, is on two major points: legally (frequency attribution), and in terms of range (around 10-20 meters compared to other wider range cells). I think it should be kept in a seperate article. --Wissam Masri (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly against the merge with femtocells. Cell's range and usage are not at all the same. Abaca 13:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABACA (talk • contribs)

I agree with the suggestion to give each type of cell its own article with cross-references. I'm wondering if there might also be a general article that has a small section on each type with a cross-reference to the main article on that type, just to make it easier for the reader. Of course, the main concern is to make sure that each individual article has good content. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'm sure there are experts that could take on an article or two. : Bill (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most above seem to agree that femtocell should be distinct. The term is used independently and it just makes sense to have separate entries and cross reference. Is this enough of a consensus to pull the proposal? I will and if anyone disagrees then feel free to continue the conversation. --YakbutterT (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

add pictures[edit]

Please add pictures! -96.233.24.251 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microcell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829220710/http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/press/releases/20070209-1103860.shtml to http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/press/releases/20070209-1103860.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]