Commenters Debate Merits of Verizon/Wilson Cell Booster Proposal

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. Different requirements would apply to each (CD July 27 p5).

The agreement between Wilson and Verizon is encouraging, CTIA said (http://xrl.us/bmbksv). “An industry-based solution is the proper way to address the issues of signal booster interference,” CTIA said. “Rather than attempting to create a regulatory framework for signal boosters based on questionable legal authority, CTIA encourages the Commission to allow the industry to develop certification standards for signal boosters without regulatory intervention.” But CTIA also argued that “given the gravity of the interference issues” that it said were already well documented, “the technical requirements for Consumer Boosters should be comprehensively vetted with the carriers.” The group suggested the use of the ATIS incubator process to test for potential problems.

The Telecommunications Industry Association said the Verizon/Wilson proposal deserves additional study (http://xrl.us/bmbkyz). The FCC should avoid excessive regulation and rely on industry-developed solutions, the group said. “TIA believes that in all instances possible, the Commission and the public are best served by deferring to the existing voluntary, consensus-based standardization process when making technical parameter determinations."

Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation said the Verizon/Wilson agreement is a step in the right direction for cell boosters (http://xrl.us/bmbk2x). But the groups opposed a requirement that boosters need to be registered with the licensed carriers, either manually or through a Bluetooth connection to the device. “Boosters should be generally licensed and available to the public without the need for any carrier coordination, particularly if the coordination would limit the user’s ability to amplify signals other than the wireless carriers,” the filing said. “We note that Verizon and Wilson filed separate and conflicting views on the issues of signal booster licensing and carrier-specific registration requirements.” Keeping boosters free from carrier control “would be the most beneficial option for the public, increasing booster utility and competition among wireless carriers as well as booster manufacturers,” they said.

U. S. Cellular said it expects the FCC to give substantial weight to the Verizon/Wilson agreement, though the carrier expressed skepticism that the rules go far enough to guard against interference (http://xrl.us/bmbk6z). “To put it simply, USCC does not believe that the FCC type acceptance or certification processes or the process by which ‘installers’ are approved can work sufficiently well as to obviate the need for continuing vigilance against interference,” U.S. Cellular said. “Whether or not a ‘Consumer’ booster has been certified in accordance with the FCC’s Rules or a CEO booster has been installed by a qualified installer, if they cause interference, they have to be shut down.”

"Sprint generally supports this Joint Proposal, though additional specificity is needed in some areas in order to ensure the efficacy and enforceability of the proposed requirements,” Sprint Nextel said (http://xrl.us/bmbkt8). “In particular, Sprint supports the proposed separation of signal boosters into three categories.” But Sprint suggested a few tweaks to the Verizon/Wilson proposal, including language making it clear that “boosters and booster installations that do not meet the CEO booster, consumer booster, or licensee-installed booster requirements are illegal and may not be operated."

The use of high quality filters will solve almost all interference issues from boosters, said booster maker Bird Technologies (http://xrl.us/bmbkwe), which didn’t mention the Verizon/Wilson agreement. “We have found that in almost all instances, interference has been caused by poorly installed or poorly designed (Class A and Class B) signal boosters,” the company said. Bird “continues to support a requirement that a signal booster should reject frequencies 1 MHz or more above and below the frequency band it is licensed for by at least 35dB. ... These additional requirements should alleviate just about all interference issues that have resulted from Class B signal boosters in the past."

Signal booster-specific technical criteria and a booster registry should be enough to address interference issues and other regulations are not necessary, booster-maker CellAntenna said (http://xrl.us/bmbky9). “The Commission is limited by its obligation to adopt the regulations most narrowly tailored to its rulemaking goal and by the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,” CellAntenna said. “Without a track record of performance under the signal booster-specific rules, the Commission is without a basis to impose any additional requirements or processes on signal booster operators, many of whom are small businesses.” CellAntenna said booster makers have long welcomed technical requirements for boosters. The filing does not discuss the Verizon/Wilson proposal.

Whatever steps the FCC takes, it should exempt the 2.5 GHz, 800 MHz and 700 MHz bands from any new booster rules, the Wireless Communications Association said (http://xrl.us/bmbkwz). “All of these bands have either recently completed a transition to a new band plan or are still being transitioned, involve non-commercial public safety or educational use and are subject to relatively complex service rules and interference environments,” WCA said.