List of Femtocell Manufacturers

The combined list of femtocell manufactures have raised approximately $270M from various VCs and strategic investors over the last 2 years.  This list was compiled using Crunch Base numbers as well as news articles.  My biggest concern for these companies is the lack of consumer awareness that the companies and their products have in the marketplace.  How many consumers have heard of any of these companies below discussed in the media or know what a femtocell is?  The answer is virtually zero.

• Airvana: $83 million (AIRV) IPO and now going private for $530M purchased by 72 Mobile Holdings, S.A.C. Capital and Blackstone Group
• Vanu: $32 million Norwest, Charles River, Tata
• PicoChip: $31 million AT&T, Intel, Highland, Atlas, Samsung
• RadioFrame: $28 million Eastven, Vantage Point, Ignition, Samsung 
• Tatara: $26 million Highland, North Bridge
• Ubiquisys: $25 million from Accel, Atlas and Google & T-Ventures 
• Kineto: $15.5 million round from Venrock, SutterHill, Oak, Motorola & NEC
• Percello: $12 million Granite, T-Venture, Vertex
• AirWalk: $10 million TL Ventures, Seven Rosen, Nedelco
• ip.access: $10 million Scottish Equity, ADC, Cisco, Qualcomm

For the last two years I have noticed a pattern of frustration from executives at these companies who vent their frustration having to sell their femtocells through the carrier channels.  It troubles me that all of these companies continue rely on incompetent marketers (the carriers) to sell their products and educate consumers that they exist.  Cannibalization of your customers marketing just might be the only way to get ahead in business.   I strongly suggesting that each of these companies will need to "steal a page from the Google Nexus One Phone" and start doing some demand side research of who needs the product and where.  Its obvious that the carriers have very little financial incentive to push femtocells to their customers for fear of cannibalizing their existing businesses.  Yes I am suggesting that femtocell marketing executives start thinking like Cannibal Lecter in order to make their companies successful. Sometimes cannibalization of your own customers is the only way to succeed and rise about the crowd.

Consumer Reports Has No Credibility in Mobile

Do 50,000 people (teenagers) filling out surveys for money justify AT&T deserving the worst customer service rating from Consumer Reports?  I am not trying to defend AT&T but I would argue that the Consumer Reports survey methodology is flawed.  Service and coverage is a local issue and no one should trust surveys that represent .02% of the entire U.S. wireless market.  They need to provide more transparency about who is filling out the survey based on this quote: "AT&T ranked the lowest in overall consumer satisfaction in 19 of the 26 surveyed cities (which), ranging from New York and San Francisco to (as FierceWireless points out) Atlanta, Cleveland, and Houston. Verizon, meanwhile, ranked first in all 26 cities in the Consumer Reports survey. Ouch."

Deadcellzones.com has far more visitors and contributors that contribute to local and objective views about service.   Consumer Reports is drinking the same Kool-Aid all of the carriers want you to drink and trust surveys and coverage maps.  Wireless is a local issue and you shouldn't care about customer service if your phone works, the price is competitive and you have coverage in your home, office, and places you frequently visit.