CTIA Calls for Prompt FCC Action Prohibiting Unauthorized Cell Boosters

CTIA urged the FCC to act promptly on its 2007 petition for declaratory ruling and affirm that a FCC license, or express consent from a licensee, is required to operate a signal booster and also affirm that the sale and marketing of these devices to unauthorized parties is illegal, in reply comments. But several booster manufacturers said carrier complaints are overblown and wireless subscribers clearly want to use boosters to improve wireless coverage.

The Wireless Bureau in January sought comment on petitions asking for a rulemaking or clarification on the use of wireless boosters and repeaters. Among them was a petition by CTIA asking the commission to prohibit the unauthorized sale and use of the devices (CD Nov 9/07 p2).

The record is clear on the need for strong action by the FCC, CTIA said. “The ongoing illicit use of unauthorized signal boosters has caused significant interference to wireless networks and threatens to diminish increasingly wireless-reliant consumers’ ability to contact Public Safety entities,” the group said. “The record in this proceeding is replete with comments from commercial wireless service providers, signal booster manufacturers, and Public Safety entities documenting real-world examples of interference and expressing concerns about increasing incidents.” CTIA also called on the FCC to adopt an “accelerated docket” to resolve complaints about illegal use of boosters and adopt labeling requirements that will inform consumers about the “legal necessity” of an FCC license or licensee consent to operate a signal booster.

“Interference from signal boosters can range from degraded or dropped calls to complete disruption of wireless services,” CTIA said. “Commercial wireless carriers and Public Safety entities detail the staggering numbers of incidents and the extreme human and capital expenditures they must make to locate and resolve interference from signal boosters. By enforcing the need for a FCC license or licensee consent to operate signal boosters, the Commission can bring an end to the constant ‘cat-and-mouse game’ of carriers and Public Safety entities trying to discover, identify and resolve multiple, often-transient interfering devices impacting their networks."

Verizon Wireless called on the FCC to issue the declaratory order sought by the CTIA in its reply comments. “The record compiled in this proceeding clearly demonstrates that signal boosters that are marketed and used without licensee content cause significant interference to public safety and commercial wireless networks and create many more harms than benefits,” Verizon said. “The opening comments in this proceeding reinforce AT&T’s position that immediate Commission action is needed to prevent the unlawful operation, marketing and sale of signal boosters,” AT&T said. “A wide spectrum of commenters -- including public safety agencies, government agencies, booster manufacturers, and wireless carriers - agree that the significant and growing interference problems caused by signal boosters warrant immediate Commission action."

"Harmful interference from signal boosters is an increasing impediment to effective delivery of wireless services to consumers,” agreed Cincinnati Bell Wireless. U.S. Cellular cited evidence of problems caused by boosters filed by AT&T, Verizon Wireless and others in the initial comment round. “The common thread in all those comments is that public safety and commercial wireless networks now face new and unprecedented levels of interference from interfering radiators operating on frequencies exclusively licensed, in theory, to public safety entities and wireless carriers,” the carrier said.

Motorola filed in support of the wireless carrier comments. “Numerous commenters, including several CMRS providers and public safety commenters, have provided evidence that unauthorized signal boosters often cause significant harmful interference to licensed CMRS and [Part 90 Private Mobile Radio Service] communications Networks,” Motorola said. “Commenters report that the most common and troubling source of booster interference comes from unauthorized boosters that are often improperly installed by persons who are not fully qualified to evaluate the challenges and potential negative results of a given situation, which creates interference that is very difficult to pinpoint."

But cell booster manufacturers said the devices have a role to play and improve many people’s ability to use their cellphones. The FCC received more than 500 comments, noted Bird Technologies Group. “The vast majority of the comments were testimonials concerning the use of personal CMRS boosters.” Michael Millard and Jeremy Raines, inventors of the Smart Booster, said granting the CTIA petition “would be a serious error and would not serve the public interest.” They urged the FCC to update its rules to allow the use of boosters. “Intelligent boosters will most likely become an integral part of all future wireless networks,” Millard and Raines said. “To be sure, there is no economic incentive to build traditional base stations in sparsely populated areas, even though there is undeniable and legitimate consumer demand there. The base stations are simply too expensive to construct and maintain. In contrast, intelligent boosters are mobile and affordable. They extend service to locations where base stations will never be built."

Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna, said “hundreds and thousands” of boosters are in operation, but there have been few complaints. “Most of our customers come from the carriers recommending them to us,” Melamed said. “This is contrary to the claim of the carriers that they in fact don’t want boosters. This is often due to the fact that the carrier’s sales team and customer support team want to keep their customers happy.” The FCC could solve many problems by requiring carriers to allow subscribers to easily register boosters they need to pick up cellular signals, he said. “The carriers want us out of the picture since our integration solutions using the very same equipment they use are more economical for the customer,” he said.

The most important step the FCC could take is launching a rulemaking on a code of conduct for boosters, PCIA’s Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Forum said in reply comments. But many others including CTIA and APCO seem to misunderstand principles behind the proposed code, the group said. “The comments submitted in the initial round of this proceeding demonstrate there is a definitive need to ensure wireless coverage in certain buildings and outdoor settings where traditional macro-site infrastructure is either not feasible or is not the desired technical solution for network improvements,” the forum said. “Equally evident is that boosters that are poorly made or not properly installed can create large problems for licensees due to problems with interference. The DAS Forum’s proposed Code of Conduct effectively allows for the sale and operation of licensee-approved and professionally-installed boosters that will minimize the potential for interference without unnecessarily stifling the DAS industry.”