FCC Commissioners Agree to Cell Signal Booster Compromise

The rules divide signal boosters into two classes -- consumer and industrial, with distinct requirements for each, said Joyce Jones, a Wireless Bureau attorney who presented the order at the commission’s monthly meeting. Consumer boosters are designed to work out of the box, though they must be registered with the carrier providing service, Jones said. The rules also require boosters to be clearly labeled informing consumers about which devices are appropriate for them to use and how to comply with FCC rules and that the device be shut down if it causes interference, she said.

Industrial signal devices are designed to be installed by licensees or professional installers to cover larger areas and multiple users -- such as sports stadiums, airports, college campuses and hospitals, Jones said. These devices will require an FCC license of express carrier consent to operate, she said. Under the terms of the order, booster makers are barred from selling noncompliant devices starting March 1, 2014. Until that date they will be able to sell product still in their inventory.

Wireless Bureau Chief Ruth Milkman said the order is “a significant step forward” in promoting more widespread voice and broadband service “especially in areas with little or no wireless services” by making signal boosters more readily available. The order will also improve public safety communications while protecting carrier networks from interference “by ensuring that available signal boosters meet detailed, consensus-based technical specifications,” she said. Milkman said millions of boosters appear to be in use, but the FCC does not have an exact count.

The FCC’s original proposal in an April 2011 NPRM was to license signal boosters “by rule.” The order instead subjects boosters to the same requirements as handsets, an FCC official said.

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who had concerns that carriers not throw up unreasonable roadblocks to the use of consumer boosters, said the order achieves the right balance. “Balancing the interests of consumers, who need signal boosters, with the interests of wireless carriers responsible for protecting the technical integrity of their networks has been difficult,” Clyburn said. “Some of the engineering and other technical issues have been challenging, and some parties took rather adversarial positions on legal and technical issues. But, at the end of the day, a signal booster manufacturer and a licensed wireless service provider share the same goal -- improving the ability of consumers to receive uninterrupted, quality service from a licensed, wireless network."

Chairman Julius Genachowski said the commitment from carriers that they would consent to the use of boosters on their networks was critical to moving the order forward. “Our goal is to put in place clear rules of the road that enable and authorize signal boosters out there for consumers as quickly as possible, but as a part of a framework that protects against interference,” he said. “We're going to monitor this. We expect it to work. But we haven’t ruled out any options for the future if for some reason it doesn’t.”

Robert McDowell, the FCC’s senior Republican, said the proceeding has been complicated, but he could also accept the compromises that led to the order. “I would like to acknowledge and thank the wireless industry and signal booster manufacturers for coming together with a joint proposal for technical standards that will result in affordable and reliable consumer signal boosters that are unlikely to cause interference,” he said. “Private sector solutions are always preferable over government mandates, which is the key reason why I am supporting today’s action."

Too many boosters are in consumer hands to “put the genie back in the bottle,” said Commissioner Ajit Pai. “Instead, we have to focus on ensuring that new boosters entering the market do not cause harmful interference and mitigating as best we can the problems caused by technically deficient boosters now in use. Today’s item is the product of compromise. So naturally, no stakeholder likes every aspect of these rules."

According to the Centers for Disease Control 41 percent of children live in households served only by wireless phones, said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. “Those who live on the remote end of a network may lose their signal when they stroll indoors or drive to the edge of their farm,” she said. “But if they spend hundreds of dollars each year for wireless service they should get full value for their hard-earned money. The best solution, by far, is encouraging carriers to continue to build out and upgrade their networks. But that takes time and capital. So if the question is what can be done right now, one answer is the order on signal boosters that we adopt today."

Public Knowledge was sharply critical of the order. “Unfortunately, the FCC has chosen carriers over consumers in setting the rules,” said Harold Feld, PK senior vice president. “The initial proposal from the FCC last year would have given consumers the right to purchase whatever boosters they wished that met the technical standards. Today’s order requires subscribers to get consent from their carriers. That includes requiring the two million consumers who previously purchased boosters, to get permission from carriers to continue to use a product they purchased legally -- with no showing that the existing boosters cause interference.”

But most others who released statements said the FCC appeared to get the rules right. Device maker Wilson Electronics, a key player in an agreement with carriers that led to the order, said it “will eliminate poorly designed products that currently plague the market, and have been a source of cell site interference.”

"The use of signal boosters improves the reach of wireless networks for consumers, and we applaud the Commission’s adoption today of its Report and Order,” the Telecommunications Industry Association said. “The Commission’s technical and operational rules will provide for enhanced coverage while guarding wireless networks from interference."