Netgear R6220 and microcell

I agree. Part of the reason Cisco/AT&T designed a totally closed system is security. With a little bit of knowledge one can see how the MicroCell basically communicates, packets sent/received/dropped, but that's about it. Anything more than that would require AT&T to hire some sort of network engineer for their Support group to be able to help customer's diagnose and fix issues. Most people who use a MicroCell can't even spell DHCP let alone understand how and why it works. The MicroCell had to be designed for the least knowledgable individual for it to sell successfully to those who have gaps in their home coverage. And given the level of support, training of support, and support of support, they had to keep the diagnosing to a simple script level like most any other support groups for a major corportation.

Any MicroCell issue that is determined to be a user issue (hardware, configuration, etc) is an area where Support does not want to get involved in for obvious reasons. And, a large percentage of issues we see here are just that, end-user problems not necessarily the MicroCell. As home LANs become more involved and routers become more complicated, we will see more and more issues related to that with the MicroCell. It is 10 year old technology which is slowly on its way out. Especially with the advent of WiFi Calling (WiFi-C). Unfortunately, on the AT&T network that is only available for iPhone 5SE and above phones and an LG phone (the model escapes me now). Even when WiFi-C is adopted for all phones on AT&T, or anyother network for that matter, it is only meant to help fill in the gaps for home coverage. WiFi-C will still be subject to the robustness of your WiFi connection and any other issues that may affect WiFi in general. It is not meant to replace a cellular call.

---

@OttoPylot wrote:

...advent of WiFi Calling (WiFi-C). Unfortunately, on the AT&T network that is only available for iPhone 5SE and above phones and an LG phone (the model escapes me now). Even when WiFi-C is adopted for all phones on AT&T, or anyother network for that matter, it is only meant to help fill in the gaps for home coverage. WiFi-C will still be subject to the robustness of your WiFi connection and any other issues that may affect WiFi in general. It is not meant to replace a cellular call.

---

Yeah, the G4.  I almost canceled my AT&T service, after a family emergency last week, when I couldn't get into contact with people, because I don't have WiFi calling, for no other reason than AT&T doesn't want to let non-branded (and non-fakey certified) phones use these features, and wants to sell overpriced phones to force the issue.

I finally got Viber working (Google Voice just wouldn't play nice with my W10m browser, it was really iffy), and I'm okay, for now, 1.9c/minute WiFi calls aren't so ridiculous, but are still annoying, since I'm actually "paying" for the WiFi calling anyway, IMHO.

I find WiFi calling, even at a place I was at during this period (they had a really bad 10/0.5 connection, shared amongst about 40 units and maybe 100+ guests), to work almost flawlessly, once I had convinced myself to give up on Google Voice, and pay for a few minutes on Viber.

I really feel this is where things are going, and I really, really don't understand why AT&T would rather have us using cell (data, call it voice, but it's *really* all just data) for making voice calls, when we could be offloading it on a WiFi connection somewhere, and routing it for far less through their servers (like the MicroCell).

The whole rest of the world (metro areas anyway, look at Google Fi, for an excellent example) is heading this way fast, and other carriers are too, they see the cost/benefit, but for some reason, AT&T seems to be holding onto the idea that the phone sales offset this, I guess, I'm sure they have it calculated down to the penny, and forecasted as to when they'll need to add "real" WiFi calling support, across a broader range.

It's kindof funny, how carriers make it seem like a real bargain, being able to make WiFi calls from anywhere there's a connection, back to people in the US; what they don't realize is that these calls don't cost anything more for carriers to enable, but they sure make for good advertising, woohoo, look at this cool "feature" we gave you, maybe, if you have the right, branded-phone (AT&T) ;-]

Edit: Almost forgot, this goes back to the security issue you mentioned, as these calls are actually more secure than any of the other methods we're using now, and can easily be VERY encrypted, to the point of being fully government-level secure, by anyone.  Some VOIP services already sell this now, for minimal upcharge (since it doesn't really cost much more, once it's coded-up and tested/proven/approved).

There is another ACE who is well versed in the whys and wherefores of the Android OS and he's basically saying the same thing. Makes no sense at all as to why AT&T hasn't configured their network for some of the best selling phones around. Bottom line is the driving force I'm sure because it's certainly not customer satisfaction. AT&T probably make more off of Android devices than Apple so it just doesn't make sense.

I have an iPhone 5 so WiFi-C is not available to me. Fortunately, the MicroCell has worked almost flawlessly for us for years, over various phones so we're stuck, for now, with a femtocell for in-home cellular calls. Fortunately, we still have our landline (which is AT&T copper took over by our ISP) so we depend mostly on the land-line for house calls. However, the kids don't and neither do our friends when they come over so the MicroCell is still an integral part of our phone use. My next phone will be purchased outright so I will be able to take it with me and use any service I choose should I decided to leave AT&T.

So, tangent question: is plugging the microcell directly into a cable modem supported?

Taking the modem/router cable from the router and plugging it into the microcell should tell us if the microcell had gone nuts if its LAN light doesn't quit flashing in a short period.

Connecting the MicroCell directly to the modem is a valid troubleshooting method to see if the problem lies with the router, because that bypasses the route altogether, and is discussed in my Tech Guide. However, that only works if you have a separate modem and router, not a gateway. If you are using a modem in conjunction with a gateway, the modem needs to be in bridge mode so that all of the networking is handled by the gateway.

Thanks.

Wish I had thought of this test at the begining, because after an hour, the microcell still had not made an LAN conncetion with the modem.

My understanding is that the LAN light goes solid green when a connection has been made (please correct me if I am wrong on that point, and if so, how I can know when it has obtained its IP address). In this test case, after an hour, the LAN light was still blinking, no GPS or cellular lights.

If you are connecting to just the cable modem, and it's just a cable modem, not a gateway, then you basically have a direct connection to the internet and you should be able to register and activate the MicroCell. All lights should be a solid green because there's nothing between you and the internet but the modem and your ISP. However, if you have the newer, black MicroCell, then it's difficult to connect your router  unless the modem has multiple enet ports. The older white models had a Computer Port that you could use as a passthrough but there were so many issues with that  that Cisco did away with it on the new DPH-154.

If you have a modem -> router connection then the modem should be in bridge mode so that it just makes the connection but all of the firewalling, DHCP, NAT, duties, etc are handled by the router. If not, then you may have a double NAT (modem and router) which can cause issues.

If you have just a gateway (modem/router combo) then  you can't do the alternate connection (connecting directly to the modem).

In any of the situations where you have a router involved, then it is critical that you can verify that ALL of the router requirements are being met as listed in my Tech Guide or in the setup instructions.

If you can't get solid green lights with the alternate connection, MicroCell -> modem, then that may indicate that something is amiss on the ISP side. I'd try a hard reset of the MicroCell using the alternate method which bascially forces it back to factory defaults and it will go thru the entire Initial Activation process again.

Disconnect the power to the MicroCell. Push a paperclip into the reset hole in the back. Keep pushing in the paperclip and restore power while holding in the reset button for about 30 seconds more. Release and let it do its thing. You don't have to do anything to your myAT&T MicroCell page if that has been setup correctly already (serial number, primary phone number, physical address of the MicroCell).

Thanks again for all your thurough guidance.

A hard reset of the microcell did not change the outcome. After two minutes, the LAN light was still blinking.

Should I assume this is a microcell that has gone bad, and if so, what are the right channels within A&T& to get it replaced?

You connected the MicroCell, via a single, direct ethernet connection to the modem, bypassing the router altogether, and are still getting a flashing ethernet light,  correct?

Have you tested the ac adapter with a voltmeter to see if it reads 16VDC +/- 0.5 with no load?

If you know how to access the logs on our router, then you may be able to tell more about what's going on here.
Supporting your network logs is beyond the scope here, at least my understanding of the scope for the Microcell topics, but you can likely look up an error from your logs, with a search.

This would give insight into the LAN connection problem, more than likely you'll see an error that has greater detail, than the blinking light.  If you can figure out the intersection and maybe post some of the error investigation, it might be easier to tell if this is a return issue, or an "odd" issue with your network topology...