Wilson Electronics, Verizon Reach Agreement on Cell Booster Rules

The joint proposal would divide boosters into three groups: (1) Consumer boosters, defined as small fixed and mobile boosters that can be bought, installed and used by consumers. (2) Certified engineered and operated (CEO) boosters, which are larger, higher powered boosters designed for businesses, college campuses and similar settings that require professional installation and carrier coordination. (3) Carrier installed boosters. “These distinct categories of boosters are necessary in order to account for differences in the way each category of boosters is designed, installed and operated,” the joint filing said (http://xrl.us/bk28uz).

Consumer boosters would have to be registered with carriers “either manually or through a Bluetooth connection to the device” and would have to meet requirements for “antenna gain, emission limits, automatic gain control (AGC), wide band signal design, anti-oscillation protection, in-band noise and base station ... overload limits.” CEO booster standards would be developed by industry participants -- including trade associations, manufacturers, installers and licensed carriers, the filing said. Installers would work with carriers to ensure the devices don’t cause interference. CEO booster installation would have to be coordinated with the appropriate licensee, with the installer maintaining a database of where units are installed, the filing said. Carriers would be given a 24-hour hotline number to call so that the devices could be turned off if interference occurs.

Wilson Electronics said the rulemaking led to further discussions with Verizon Wireless and a joint proposal by the two that resolves many disagreements about the use of cell boosters (http://xrl.us/bk28q9). Wilson said in its reply comments the joint proposal was a result of a push from the commission (http://xrl.us/bk28q9). “Wilson believes that its collaboration with Verizon Wireless was only possible because the regulatory framework for signal boosters was skillfully constructed by the Commission to evenly balance the interests of consumers, manufacturers and carriers,” the company said. “The Joint Proposal obviously does not represent an industry consensus on the technical requirements for robust signal boosters that do not harm wireless networks. However, it does detail the technical requirements that Verizon Wireless and Wilson agree should be imposed on the manufacture of CMRS signal boosters to prevent harm to wireless networks."

In other comments, CTIA said the FCC should require that signal boosters can be operated only with operator permission and strengthen proposed rules to guard against any threat to carrier networks. “The ongoing illicit use of signal boosters can cause serious disruption to wireless networks and interfere with vital Public Safety communications,” CTIA said (http://xrl.us/bk28mt). The FCC “must clarify that the sale of boosters to unauthorized parties is illegal. The sale and unauthorized use of these devices will continue to proliferate if the Commission does not affirm and enforce its existing requirements.” Any rules for signal boosters must be designed to “completely mitigate harmful interference,” the group said.

"The history of the carriers of providing cell phone boosters to the customers has been shaded with terms and conditions that often would strangle a customer prior to providing the signal that the cellular carrier should have provided in the first place,” said Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna (http://xrl.us/bk28p8). “Why else would the public come to companies such as CellAntenna Corporation to pay for a solution to their problem of signal coverage if the cell phone providers would have provided a solution in the first place?” But Melamed said the rules proposed by the FCC give carriers too much power in deciding whether boosters can be used. “Our current experience with one carrier has our client, the United States Government, waiting more than a year for an answer to what is required regarding power levels and frequencies,” Melamed said. “If the U.S. government cannot get anywhere or get an answer on time from the carrier, then how can the public be assured of a quick response to their request?"

The Wireless Communications Association also asked the FCC to tread lightly in allowing more use of cell boosters (http://xrl.us/bk29p5). “The Commission’s proposal to allow end user operation of signal boosters without licensee consent and control would contradict the statutory scheme by effectively shifting control of transmitters from licensees to end-users,” WCA said. “This transfer of control would eliminate the ability of licensees to ensure that the use of exclusively licensed spectrum complies with the rules of the Commission. This result would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme and established policy.” The Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Forum said (http://xrl.us/bk29pv) the proposed “license by rule” framework could work, but should “differentiate between professional, enterprise-level applications for fixed signal boosters, such as used by DAS providers, and retail, end-user applications.”