Cellphone signal booster comments point fingers at carriers, manufacturers

Reply comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking on cellphone signal boosters produced some finger-pointing between carriers and equipment manufacturers as well as renewed calls on both sides for the government agency to take action on the issue.
The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move that could impact thousands of end users already owning such devices.
Perhaps one of the angrier responses came from YMax Corp., which is building the magicJack femtocell that it says could operate under Part 15 rules of low-power devices.
CTIA in its comments before the FCC said devices like the magicJack should not be permitted to operate unless they are approved by wireless carriers.
“Unlike a signal booster, which amplifies or extends CMRS signals, the magicJack femtocell does not do this and we are left wondering why the CTIA included us in their response at all,” said YMax founder Dan Borislow. “We are simply not a signal booster. Notwithstanding the fact that low power Part 15 devices have always been permitted to operate on CMRS spectrum, on pages 6-7 of its comments, CTIA incorrectly and unfairly lumps the magicJack femtocell with signal boosters and repeaters. CTIA goes on to argue on page 8 that use of the magicJack ‘would interfere with licensees’ exclusive rights to their spectrum and carries the same potential for harmful interference as wireless boosters and repeaters.’ It is completely irresponsible to describe things you have no knowledge of, and that CTIA in this case is once again clueless. Our femtocell does not interfere. If YMax decides to file under Part 15, the CTIA knows CMRS spectrum has always been available for Part 15 use.”
The magicJack femtocell is a USB device that people can plug into their computers, connect a standard phone to the magicJack, and place calls using the magicJack network on their GSM handsets. In essence, “a magicJack femtocell will be a Global System for Mobile (GSM) base station allowing a GSM phone to connect with the new type magicJack to make calls,” according to the company.
YMax said commercial carriers themselves have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to develop femtocells. “After all, we see their own members spend tens of millions of dollars in advertising telling all of us that other members come up woefully short in this regard. When they fight like that amongst themselves, it makes one wonder why they wanted us in the fray as well, unless, of course, they feel threatened by our on going success.”
Wilson Electronics said for the carriers to set the standard for signal boosters is an “invitation to destroy the ability of innovators to make and market signal boosters that work based on scientific evidence and not based on the nonscientific concerns and motives of the carriers.”
Wilson further stated that Verizon Wireless, in particular, has not worked with Wilson and as such doesn’t understand its products and is relying on past experiences with older models. Further, Wilson states that Verizon Wireless is not serving the public interest because it has not shown any interest in approving or considering signal boosters designed with built-in protection against degradation or interference. Wilson said it tried to work with Verizon during an 18-month period to at least try to show the CDMA carrier how Wilson product could work with its system but was stonewalled.
Wilson said it has sold more than 500,000 signal boosters, including 500 to government agencies, to try to resolve problems with poor cellular coverage. Wilson also cited its experience with Canadian CDMA carrier Telus as a contrast for how U.S. carriers may act if the carrier is left in charge of deciding the signal booster issue. Telus actively markets Wilson products to its customers and worked with Wilson to best develop the signal booster, according to Wilson. “The variance in attitude between Verizon and Telus is illustrative of the variance in carrier attitudes to approve signal boosters, which is likely to occur if approval is left to each carrier.”
Both companies that filed in favor of only allowing carrier-approved boosters on their network, and those that preferred an alternative pointed to public-safety issues to defend their position. Wilson referred to the Mexican Hat incident to prove its point. Here, a bus got into an accident in a rural area and the person reporting the accident had to drive 36 miles to get cellular reception to report the accident. Since then, the National Transportation Safety Bureau has recommended that all buses traveling in rural areas be equipped with Wilson signal boosters, Wilson noted.
For its part, the DAS Forum, which is part of PCIA, reiterated that its proposed Code of Conduct would balance the need of the carriers to protect their networks from interference while not stifle innovation from outside the carrier community. In particular, the DAS Forum noted that it would be impractical and anti-competitive for neutral-host DAS providers to be forced to get approval from every carrier before erecting a DAS network, because carriers then would be getting confidential network information from their competitors.
AT&T, Verizon Wireless and CTIA reiterated their views that wireless carriers have spent billions of dollars building out their networks and as such, are required to protect them in order to best serve the public interest, and that signal booster, while they may help one person on the network get better coverage, do harm to others on the network. CTIA also asked for an accelerated docket to address complaints stemming from manufacturers that produce and market interference-prone signal boosters and labeling on signal boosters that notes the owner is legally required to get permission from a carrier to be a carrier to operate the device.