The FCC is currently looking for public comments relating to 5 petitions it has received centering around the issue of signal boosters on wireless networks. Signal booster manufacturers such as Wilson Electronics argue that wireless networks should have open access to signal boosters, providing they adhere to standards that should be set and monitored by the FCC. Large network operators such as Verizon and AT&T would prefer the use of signal boosters to be controlled by them and not allow any 3rd party boosters on their network. Smaller networks are not quite as bold – some of which market signal boosters directly to their customers – perhaps viewing signal boosters as a way to compete with the giants of the industry. The whole situation has parallels with open network initiatives across the board and the 584 comments it has racked up (to date) indicate that a lot is at stake.

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.

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.

After purchasing and installing our repeaters, a lot of customers ask why repeaters aren’t more commonplace. Almost everyone has experienced cell phone problems, whether it’s a dropped call while you’re driving, or poor reception when you call home from the supermarket to check whether you need to buy milk. Dropped calls and poor reception mean dissatisfied customers and lost revenue, so why aren’t network providers scrambling to install repeaters on every street corner?

To explain why, I’ll have to give a little background on how cell phone networks are licensed to use their frequencies. The FCC (the Federal Communications Commission) is in charge of designating and selling licenses for the frequency spectrum that cell phones use. The FCC has two main frequency ranges that it has licensed networks to use, one is around 850MHz (the “Cellular band”) and another is around 1900MHz (the “PCS band”). Each one of these “bands” is then subdivided into smaller frequency “blocks” and sold to networks. The 800MHz band is usually shared between two networks (usually Cingular and Verizon), and the 1900MHz band is usually shared between six networks (usually T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, Cingular and a couple of regional carriers).

Have a look at the diagram below to see what the FCC licensing scheme looks like.

As part of their licensing rules for these cellular frequencies, the FCC requires that networks only sell and use equipment that works on their specific frequency “blocks”. However for technical reasons it’s very difficult and expensive to create repeaters that only cover these smaller frequency blocks. You’ll notice that all the repeaters we sell on our site cover an entire frequency band, and never just a frequency block. If networks were to start installing repeaters wherever they could, they’d be flouting FCC rules and would probably get slammed with a big fine. Moreover, Sprint would hardly want to install a 1900MHz repeater that would also improve the reception for all the other networks that share the band and with which it competes.

Since networks can’t install these repeaters or even make a little cash selling them to their customers, they don’t promote them at all. By contrast, in Asian countries like South Korea repeaters are installed in every apartment complex, shopping mall, and even on street corners. Unless the FCC makes an exception for repeaters, it’ll be a while before we see similar market penetration here in the States. With no network backing, the repeater market in the US is developing as people learn of the products through word-of-mouth and as manufacturers like Wi-Ex, Wilson, TelecomTek and Spotwave gradually promote their products.