[netghoster]

Just moved to AT&T due to the huge employer discount program. I am really missing the UMA from T-Mobile. Is there any possibility for AT&A provide the UMA services in the future?

[aiharkness]

Wirelessly posted

If anyone knows or suspects anything in the near future, it will be in the rumors forum. You might look there. I haven't noticed any reports or discussions.

[Dubdub]

Have not seen or heard anything about ATT adding UMA to their bag of tricks.

[johnling]

Originally Posted by Dubdub

Have not seen or heard anything about ATT adding UMA to their bag of tricks.

Stupid questions but, I gotta ask.

Why don't they have UMA now? Did they just disable the feature? Why would they disable it?

[aiharkness]

Wirelessly posted

It's not that they disabled it. They don't have it. They have not done it.

[dankarlinski]

Wirelessly posted (White and Nerdy)

UMA has to do with hardware/software on the phone... However, the carrier must also support it for the phones to connect to it... With att focusing on their 3G network so much, I highly doubt we'll ever see UMA on att

[ezrunner]

Wirelessly posted (well lookie here!)

Last I heard and that was a year ago ATT has/had no plans to implement UMA

[BallHawk3]

have you checked with t-mobile to see if they provide discounts for your employer? Call their business hotline.

But, I honestly think everyone should implement UMA!

[John Clark]

UMA =

[duane534]

Originally Posted by netghoster

Just moved to AT&T due to the huge employer discount program. I am really missing the UMA from T-Mobile. Is there any possibility for AT&A provide the UMA services in the future?

I love AT&T compared to T-Mobile. Their 3G coverage in my area is SO much better, and it is an order of magnitude faster.

Though, you should never switch carriers based on a tiny rate plan difference. It can be the difference between your phone not working or working perfectly.

However, I have good news. AT&T chooses not to do UMA. Why? Because, this is better...

AT&T 3G MicroCellxxx8482;

The actual unit transmits on the same frequencies as the traditional towers. None of the range limitations or security issues of WiFi. Any AT&T device can use it. Any device with it on the plan can get it unlimited. $15 covers a whole family plan. Anyone else can connect, but it hits your minutes. Better reception, though. It's not a rumor. It's already in public testing.

[lovescakemix]

Originally Posted by duane534

I love AT&T compared to T-Mobile. Their 3G coverage in my area is SO much better, and it is an order of magnitude faster.

Though, you should never switch carriers based on a tiny rate plan difference. It can be the difference between your phone not working or working perfectly.

However, I have good news. AT&T chooses not to do UMA. Why? Because, this is better...

AT&T 3G MicroCell™

The actual unit transmits on the same frequencies as the traditional towers. None of the range limitations or security issues of WiFi. Any AT&T device can use it. Any device with it on the plan can get it unlimited. $15 covers a whole family plan. Anyone else can connect, but it hits your minutes. Better reception, though. It's not a rumor. It's already in public testing.

its pointless to even compare the two

[John Clark]

Wifi/UMA blows that out of the water. I have TMobile coverage ANYWHERE I can get on a wifi. While it's true that TMobile needs UMA to supplement their sometimes poor coverage, I really like the UMA service and actually prefer them over ATT for that reason. I can go overseas and make free calls home. It's just hard to beat.

[duane534]

Originally Posted by John Clark

Wifi/UMA blows that out of the water. I have TMobile coverage ANYWHERE I can get on a wifi. While it's true that TMobile needs UMA to supplement their sometimes poor coverage, I really like the UMA service and actually prefer them over ATT for that reason. I can go overseas and make free calls home. It's just hard to beat.

I fail to see how UMA is superior over a "MicroCell". Caveat: I haven't used the latter. Caveat 2: I haven't had to.

Case in point: I used to have an unlocked 8900 branded by T-Mobile. I lived in the basement in a city of approx. half a million people. Several others lived there, one with Cricket, one with AT&T, and several with T-Mobile. For the longest time, I "mapped out" the house, found places that consistently worked on T-Mobile, places to leave the phone so that I knew it wouldn't lose reception. Some of the residents still do, hanging the phone up in a corner to cling onto service. Leaving it upstairs if even you sleep downstairs. You get good at it and become accustomed to it. Eventually, I finally set up UMA. I found that I had reception anywhere I could hit the WiFi, i.e. everywhere. HOWEVER, if it was a time when everyone was home and generally online, audio was choppy, even in areas which would work with the "real" network because UMA got priority. Also, handing off when entering and leaving UMA was clunky at best. In the end, I just switched carriers. After all, I had a brand-new BB Curve, and the AT&T roomie had a junky Sony Ericsson, but it WORKED. With the exact same handset, I had 5/5 bars upstairs and at least two downstairs. No tricks, no fancy handset required (even though I had one). It just worked. There are plenty of ways to do cheap international calls. Heck, just use Google Voice or Vonage.

There is another sad reality. The majority of customers, regardless of carrier, carry handsets which do NOT have WiFi, especially now that smartphones have mandatory data plans. Why should anyone, anywhere, have to purchase a specific handset to use their service in their own home? You want to pair Grandpa's RAZR V3 to a MicroCell, just let it on the first time.

You can't tell me T-Mobile deployed UMA for the sole purpose of international calling. Besides, who is to say that you can't just pack your MicroCell in your suitcase?

[John Clark]

Some threads just seem to go nowhere.

Regardless, ATT is not implementing UMA--at least not in the near future.

[wolfkeeper80]

Originally Posted by duane534

I fail to see how UMA is superior over a "MicroCell".

<snip>

Besides, who is to say that you can't just pack your MicroCell in your suitcase?

From AT&T's website:

•Installing your device near a window is strongly recommended to ensure access to Global Positioning System (GPS). A GPS link is needed to verify the device location during the initial startup.
•The 3G MicroCell device is portable. The device may be moved, provided the new location is within the AT&T authorized service area and properly registered online.

You have to log into AT&T's website to move the microcell.

I have a travel WAP/router/access point that is smaller than my 8900, and I don't have to tell T-Mobile when I set it up someplace new. And it certainly doesn't need to be near a window.

I'd like to know if battery/radio usage with the microcell is the same as connecting to any other tower -- when I'm working from my office, my 8900 battery only gets hit for about 1/5th of it's capacity between a full day's worth of home and office usage, because of UMA.

[Soapm]

Originally Posted by dankarlinski

Wirelessly posted (White and Nerdy)

UMA has to do with hardware/software on the phone... However, the carrier must also support it for the phones to connect to it... With att focusing on their 3G network so much, I highly doubt we'll ever see UMA on att

I read somewhere that 2100 is owned by TMO so even if ATT uses the technology they will be using a different frequency so the current phones will need either a hardware or software update to work.

[monkeypaw]

Originally Posted by John Clark

Wifi/UMA blows that out of the water. I have TMobile coverage ANYWHERE I can get on a wifi. While it's true that TMobile needs UMA to supplement their sometimes poor coverage, I really like the UMA service and actually prefer them over ATT for that reason. I can go overseas and make free calls home. It's just hard to beat.

Another thumbs up for UMA.

I ditched AT&T for Tmobile specifically because of UMA. For about 3 years I had effectively no cell service at home. So UMA was a great solution. Being able to use it overseas is a nice bonus.

When overseas, I used to have to check voicemail to make sure messages weren't piling up. And for text messages there was no way to get them other than to roam. Now I just find wifi and I'm in business.

[Soapm]

Originally Posted by Soapm

I read somewhere that 2100 is owned by TMO so even if ATT uses the technology they will be using a different frequency so the current phones will need either a hardware or software update to work.

I guess I need to clarify my above response since it pertains to UMTS as opposed to the UMA topic of the thread. I didn't realize ATT didn't allow talking over WiFI since they won the Starbucks deal. The MicroCell™ Looks promising until you realize it only works at home where you probably have a computer for the net. It won't work on your companies, supermarkets, neighbors, friends or even in my case, our Church' WiFI but I guess that's an individual choice.

Anyone know if TMO has UMTS in Denver and if so, what kind of speeds?

[duane534]

Originally Posted by wolfkeeper80

From AT&T's website:

You have to log into AT&T's website to move the microcell.

That does kind of suck. I imagine they don't want people using it to stay on the network when they'd usually be roaming and kicked off.

Originally Posted by wolfkeeper80

I'd like to know if battery/radio usage with the microcell is the same as connecting to any other tower -- when I'm working from my office, my 8900 battery only gets hit for about 1/5th of it's capacity between a full day's worth of home and office usage, because of UMA.

I imagine the difference isn't UMA vs GSM. It's how far you are from your "tower". It may even be better, as UMA requires the WiFi radio AND the cell radio on simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Soapm

I read somewhere that 2100 is owned by TMO so even if ATT uses the technology they will be using a different frequency so the current phones will need either a hardware or software update to work.

UMA is WiFi, thus 2.4GHZ, no matter what.

Originally Posted by monkeypaw

I ditched AT&T for Tmobile specifically because of UMA. For about 3 years I had effectively no cell service at home. So UMA was a great solution. Being able to use it overseas is a nice bonus.

When overseas, I used to have to check voicemail to make sure messages weren't piling up. And for text messages there was no way to get them other than to roam. Now I just find wifi and I'm in business.

Doesn't T-Mobile have international roaming?


I guess I need to clarify my above response since it pertains to UMTS as opposed to the UMA topic of the thread. I didn't realize ATT didn't allow talking over WiFI since they won the Starbucks deal. The MicroCellxxx8482; Looks promising until you realize it only works at home where you probably have a computer for the net. It won't work on your companies, supermarkets, neighbors, friends or even in my case, our Church' WiFI but I guess that's an individual choice.
[/QUOTE]

Do you get a good experience with using public WiFi + UMA, though?

Originally Posted by Soapm

Anyone know if TMO has UMTS in Denver and if so, what kind of speeds?

Yes. 3.6.

[monkeypaw]

Originally Posted by duane534

...
I imagine the difference isn't UMA vs GSM. It's how far you are from your "tower". It may even be better, as UMA requires the WiFi radio AND the cell radio on simultaneously.

That's not true. UMA goes via wifi and in fact while overseas, turning the cell radio off is good practice to make sure everything is happening over wifi.

UMA used to drain the battery more than UMA, although tweaking the router can help. No idea if they've managed to improve things on the later BBs.

On roaming, Tmobile does have roaming, but at astronomical rates for calls just like the other providers. With UMA, it's like making a domestic call.