HD Television

Many people have upgraded to flat screen LCD or plasma televisions in the last few years. Usually, these would be "HD Ready" and fully capable of displaying high resolution material whether broadcast or using BluRay HD disks.

Like many others, I bought one a year or two ago but never had any way of providing HD quality content for it. Here in the UK, there is a choice of HD services from different broadcasters: Satellite (Paid and Free), Cable and (under development) Terrestial.

Extremely Good Quality

As with many new features, once you have the service and are using it, you realise that you didn't know what you were missing. It's possible to switch between the HD and normal resolutions, so you can compare the same program. There is no doubt about the sharp detail and picture clarity in HD.

Wimbledon Tennis this year was much more enjoyable for the whole family because we could see where the ball went, which wasn't so easy before even on a flat screen TV.

It has recently been reported that BBC will have to spend more money on their scenery and stage sets because picture sharp HD shows up all the blemishes and scratches - an unexpected and unintended consequence.

However, I suspect many people will stick with their HD ready TVs, but not make the small additional investment to bring out its full potential.

Femtocells offer HD quality voice

Since using my femtocell for the last week or so, I've also noticed a significant improvement in voice quality on my mobile phone. It really is crystal clear (depending of course on what equipment is being used at the other end of the line). When working from home in the past, I've sometimes had to concentrate hard to hear what people are saying. Now I find this is as good as the best landline.

I'd go further, and say that the voice quality is better than using a cordless phone I have a digital DECT cordless phone with several units spread around the house. Although cordless phones use the dedicated DECT frequency band at around 1800MHz, it can still suffer interference at the extremities of the house.

Why femtocells offer better voice quality than DECT

Voice quality using the femtocell is definitely better than DECT, probably because it is using a much newer and more advanced voice codec (analogue to digital voice encoder). Although 3G femtocell transmits less power than a cordless phone, it is able to recover lower signal levels and handle poorer quality transmission (what a radio engineer would call operating using a lower link budget).

Perhaps I don't really need one.

My home does have pretty good coverage, and picks up both 2G and 3G signals indoors. I've always been able to make and receive calls from home - there is no lack of basic coverage in any part of the house.

Here the comparison with HDTV comes in. Once you start using HDTV, you don't want to "downgrade" to ordinary quality. I think that once users start enjoying the benefits of "HD voice" from their femtocell, they will think likewise.

So are operators underestimating the demand for high quality?

We've seen a lot of press and blog comments around the basic femtocell coverage proposition. The response has often been quite negative - why should a user pay for a femtocell (including the broadband and power), when already paying the network provider for a service that isn't good enough. There are many calls for these units to be free of charge and given out to any customer who wants one. This has led operators to examine business cases for bundling where they can do exactly that.

A different proposition for femtocells?

I wonder whether there is a case for positioning "HD voice" in a similar vein as for HDTV. As with HDTV, customers will need to buy/obtain a new box (the femtocell) to make this work effectively. But having already got an "HD voice" capable handset (such as that iPhone or other 3G handset you've paid substantially for), customers may yet be convinced that there is really some additional value here.

With bundled voice minutes removing the need to use landlines to save money when making calls, femtocells could close the gap further by ensuring high voice quality. This will make the move towards using mobile phones for all our calls one step nearer.

True - I've compared femtocells and HDTV before - but after using both I'm now much more convinced.

Comments (4)

Rik Reynaers said:

Femto and HD Voice as a USP Hello david, I 200% agree with you. I have had the chance to use (years ago) HD Voice quality and since then I'm indeed eager to have it again. Yes, it may sound strange that "just good voice" would be a Unique Selling Point, but once you tasted it ... Further, I also confirm, that when I use the fix line at home, it is not because it is cheaper (on the contrary, my mobile phone has always been paid for by the company), it is just because I understand people better. Isn't possible that Mobile Operators underestimate by far the quality of in-house signal? Best Regards, Rik

report abuse vote down vote up

July 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +1

Thinkfemtocell said:

... Rik, Thanks for your endorsement. I also find that the excellent quality of the traditional landline is often undermined by poor quality telephones (you know, the type that look like Donald Duck or a Fire Engine), or low cost cordless handsets that just don't cut it. The experience around a phone call is so much better if you don't have to strain and struggle just to make out what the other person is saying, and can instead think about what is being said.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 29, 2009
Votes: +0

tingzhan said:

	... hello David, HD quality voice can only achieve when your peer side have the same enviroment as yours, this often not the case. you often call a user who is not using Femtocell. tingzhan
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 18, 2009
Votes: +0

Thinkfemtocell said:

I'd still say the quality is better than average @tingzhan - Perhaps I have used the term HD Voice enthusiastically. When comparing with a good landline connection, I've often found that voice quality has been degraded when either one of the parties is using a cordless phone or mobile phone in a poor coverage area. Voice calls made on the femtocell are at least as good as landline - although the codec bit rate may technically be lower than that used for landlines, for me I found the experience very good indeed. I'd agree that for a new service using a wideband codec or other higher bandwidth capability, then both parties would need new devices. But for me, restoring the pristine quality found in a decent landline call when using my mobile was more than good enough.

report abuse vote down vote up

August 18, 2009
Votes: +0