By Maisie Ramsay
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wilson Electronics seems to have opened a can of worms. The company’s proposal to raise certification standards for cell phone signals has drawn in almost 500 comments filed with the FCC, an indication that the somewhat arcane subject remains a hot-button industry issue.
Advocates of cell phone signal boosters – mainly dealers of the devices – say they pose no harm to wireless networks when properly calibrated.
Detractors of the technology say signal boosters have – and will continue to – interfere with networks and point out that use of the devices by consumers without consent from a commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) licensee is illegal under a long line of precedents set by the FCC.
Wilson Electronics’ argument is a simple one: Tighter certification standards around cell signal boosters will stop harmful products from getting on the market. “Amplifiers today are certified by the FCC but are tested by cell phone standards that aren’t well-suited for amplifiers,” says Wilson Electronics COO Joe Banos. “The most important tests are not being performed… There’s bad product that’s getting FCC certification.”
Wilson Electronics wants to tighten standards around three key areas: Oscillation (feedback) detection and auto-shut down; proximity detection and auto-shut down; and bi-directional signal amplification. The company argues that these technologies – technologies found in its newest lineup of boosters – prevent network interference from being a problem.
ABI Research analyst Lance Wilson thinks regulations need to go beyond Wilson Electronics’ three suggestions in order to minimize network interference. “If boosters are handled in a cavalier way, they have the potential to cause numerous kinds of interference,” Wilson says. “The issue is being presented simplistically. I could think of other requirements, such as tougher spurious frequencies rules.”
Analyst Wilson’s speculation is backed up by Telus Network Engineer Jim Johannsson, who says that the cell signal boosters running on remote areas of the Canadian carrier’s network can and do cause network interference. “Boosters don’t always work the way they should,” he says. “We don’t usually have problems, but when we do, they’re bad problems.” Cell signal boosters running on Telus’ network include those made by Wilson Electronics.
In-Stat analyst Allen Nogee has a more nuanced view. While he agrees that it’s important for manufacturers to develop products that don’t interfere with networks, he is more optimistic than ABI’s Wilson on the potential use case for the devices, suggesting that cell signal boosters could help carriers extend coverage to rural areas.
“Cell phone signal boosters have become an asset to consumers and could become an asset to carriers as well,” Nogee said in a statement. “These products help enhance customer satisfaction for the customer because they improve a cell phone’s signal strength and reduce dropped calls.”
In Canada, both Telus and Bell offer Wilson Electronics Boosters to customers in rural areas. The devices are available in retail stores throughout remote regions of western Canada, where coverage is limited. The devices are not commonly available in dense urban areas such as Toronto.
In the United States, cell signal boosters can only be legally operated with a CMRS license or the permission of a CMRS licensee under Section 301 of the Communications Act.
Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel and AT&T did not reply to requests for comment, but AT&T has been a vocal opponent to the use of signal boosters by unlicensed users in the past. In a 24-page filing with the FCC in response to Wilson Electronics’ petition to raise cell signal booster certification standards, AT&T said the devices can and will cause major network interference.
The operator cited a specific incident in which it had to call in the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to force a booster user to turn off the device after it caused major disruptions in AT&T’s network. The booster cited in the December 2009 complaint was manufactured by Wilson Electronics. Wilson Electronics claims it was a legacy device not up to the higher standards of today’s boosters.
Whether or not the cell signal boosters cause network interference is of little concern to the rural residents who depend on the devices to get cellular coverage in rural and remote areas. Dozens of comments filed in response to Wilson Electronics’ petition testify to the need for the boosters. Those comments are joined by testimony from the National Transportation Safety Board and multiple public safety agencies about the crucial role of boosters in getting emergency services to crisis situations in areas without cellular service.
Legally operated signal boosters are critical for many public safety agencies that use them to maintain communications between emergency responders operating in remote areas. In comments filed with the FCC, many of the agencies say limiting the availability of boosters would significantly hamper their operations. Still other public safety agencies report that while they rely on boosters, unlicensed, malfunctioning boosters have caused significant interference.
The FCC has some time to consider the issue. The first round of comments is due Feb. 5, with a second deadline slated for Feb. 22. From there, the agency will have to weigh both the concerns of network operators and the need for the boosters by public safety agencies and rural residents. It is not clear whether the FCC will decide to take any action on the issue. An FCC spokesman would not comment on the petition.