The FCC very clearly notes that signal boosters unarguably can have a positive affect, saying boosters “can help consumers, wireless service providers, and public safety first responders by expanding the area of reliable service to unserved or weak signal areas” and that current rules, “allow the use of signal enhancing devices” as part of the licensee agreement (Code of Federal Regulations part 22 & part 90). However, they also note that improperly installed devices can cause interference on the network. Its clear that signal boosters are an important part of network development and cellular networks make extensive use of them when extending wireless coverage.

So interference is clearly the crux of the issue. Both sides of the argument make different technical claims and inevitably these arguments will go on, but is it possible to quantify the prevalence of interference? In its public comments, AT&T claim in the past 3 years it recorded 87 incidents in South Florida, where many boosters are used in the yachting community. Extrapolating this nationwide we might estimate instances of interference number in the few thousands. Wilson Electronics, on their part, state that they alone have manufactured more than 2 million signal boosters since 2001. According to these figures it is perhaps one in a few thousand signal boosters that might cause interference. A figure no doubt that could be reduced further if standards for devices were raised and greater collaboration and communication could be had between network operators and device manufacturers. Indeed, in Verizon’s comments they cite just four instances of interference from Wilson Electronics’ amplifiers nationwide.

Public Safety and Emergency Services

Also at stake is the use of signal enhancers by emergency services. In the comments to the FCC petitions many police departments, fire-crews and other first responders have stated their requirement for readily available signal boosters. Numerous public safety officials have stated that they simply could not do the same job without using signal boosters. Also common are rural network customer on the fringe of coverage who rely on their cell phones for 911 emergency calls. For them a signal repeater is their only possible method of communication with family and emergency services.

What is clear from the content and number of comments is that the issue is contentious. The network operators have a right and a responsibility to ensure that their networks are not negatively impacted by user devices, but the FCC also has a responsibility to ensure that this is not abused and that if there is a solution that improves networks far greater than it impedes them, it should act swiftly to support it.

Ever since the Carterfone ruling the philosophy of the FCC has involved a commitment to competition in the marketplace. If everyone agrees that signal boosters can be positively used to improve a cellular network do we really want them to be controlled inside a walled garden by the networks or would we prefer to enable the same innovation that led to the invention of answering machines, faxes & modems after the Carterfone ruling? Also, is it not important to have some kind of quantitative investigation into how the instances of interference compare to the number of signal boosters being used by consumers, and by how much this would be further reduced by the introduction of unified and federally regulated specifications? Perhaps one day properly regulated signal boosters will be an important customer retention tool, used as a deal sweetener to keep wireless customers paying their large monthly premiums.

Pictured here, the new SignalBoost Pro is a dual-band repeater which works with all carriers (except Nextel). It plugs into a USB port, which makes it exceptionally portable. It’s ideal for a small office environment. Wilson are also releasing an in-car version, the 801241, which likewise uses a USB port.

The SignalBoost Pro comes with a high-gain antenna. More technical specifications will be available very soon. It is expected to be released in the 2nd quarter of 2008 and we are looking forward to featuring it here at RepeaterStore.com.

This week, RepeaterStore.com attended CTIA Wireless 2008 in Las Vegas. The conference featured over 1,200 exhibitors encompassing all aspects of the wireless industry. Needless to say, our eyes were fixed firmly on the cellular repeaters.

Over the course of the 3-day conference, we met many of our current suppliers (Wilson Electronics, Wi-Ex, Digital Antenna) and others we are planning to add to our store in the very near future (Shyam, Cell Ranger, and more). We discussed the current repeaters on the market, as well as some new products manufacturers are releasing this year.

The following posts will expand on the new products we saw. We’ve taken some photos and we hope you enjoy this glimpse at CTIA Wireless 2008!

Vs

This week the CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association) rejected calls for regulations that would force cellular carriers to adhere to net neutrality principles and open their networks to 3rd party applications or devices (e.g. Skype VoIP services).

In recent months, the debate over ‘net neutrality’ has spread to a new battlefield: cellular networks. Advocates argue that the principles of net neutrality should apply to cellular networks, particularly since carriers such as Sprint, Verizon, and Cingular are now offering broadband data services.

Skype formalized this concept with a plea to the FCC in February. A consortium of cellular networks represented by the CTIA challenged their plea this week with a petition that rejects wireless net neutrality on the basis that it threatens to ‘stifle consumer benefits’ (link to pdf).

Broadly speaking, net neutrality is the democratization of internet bandwidth and requires internet service providers to treat all data packets equally (e.g. not accepting payments from companies to favor their services).

Whilst the debate over net neutrality remains a hotbed of legal and political wrangling, the FCC claimed some jurisdiction over the matter as early as 2005 in a directive for the telecommunications industry. These guidelines state:

‘Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice, run applications and services of their choice and plug in and run legal devices of their choice.’

The cellular network carriers are worried that if such a directive were applied to their networks, then applications such as Skype’s VoIP service would have to be granted the free range of their network and take a big chunk out of their share of the market. In a worst case scenario for the carriers this would relegate them to an ISP type role for cellular networks, whereby they would maintain and operate the network but customers would use 3rd party VoIP software to make their phone calls.

At first glance, wireless net neutrality seems like an obvious extension of current net neutrality principles, with the end result being lower prices for consumers and higher levels of competition. However, the situation differs slightly: Unlike the wired networks operated by normal ISPs, the wireless cellular data networks are limited to the cellular bands licensed by the FCC. Cellular frequencies are a finite commodity, with many networks eager to get their hands on more spectrum just to improve their voice coverage, let alone providing extra bandwidth to accommodate users who want to use Skype. This problem is compounded by the fact that VoIP requires a more sustained data connection than the periodic data exchange pattern that marks normal internet browsing. This can lead to interference issues on existing cellular networks which were originally optimized solely for voice coverage.

Having said this, VoIP offers a cheap alternative to current cellular communications and resisting this is something that the consumers won’t stand for when price cuts may be available. The networks will argue that call quality, amongst other factors, will suffer if a switch is made to put VoIP services on an equal platform but ultimately the biggest driving force for consumers is the price they are required to pay. The networks need to bite the bullet and look back to 1968 when a similar debate arose for the PTSN (landlines). This was settled by a legal decision known as the Carterfone ruling, that forced AT&T to allow users to connect any device to their network so long as it was safe to do so. Although initially opposed, the liberation of the PTSN led to increased revenues for AT&T and the telecommunications industry at large.

Update >> Engadget reports that Vodafone in Europe are being sued for using selectively blocking VoIP clients on their network.