dslreports logo
 story category
Cell Carriers Want 3rd Party Signal Boosters Killed Off
Carriers say interference, gear vendors say protectionism

The New York Times explores how wireless companies are making a push to have third party signal repeater/boosters restricted. According to a complaint to the FCC by the wireless industry's primary trade group, the CTIA, the devices interfere with cellular networks and disrupt service to customers. Device makers suggest that poorly made devices could do this, but that carriers essentially don't want vendors competing with their own broadband-driven femtocell devices. The irony of course is that as we've discussed at great length, carriers have been doing their very best to make such devices as unappealing as possible by overcharging for the hardware or by having them eat wireless minutes, despite easing congestion on local towers.

view:
topics flat nest 
tman852
join:2010-07-06
Columbus, OH

1 recommendation

tman852

Member

Well

Then offer an affordable alternative or upgrade your shitty networks so we don't need these devices.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Re: Well

I agree with you completely although I would just settle with the change to femtocell services that use your home ISP connection to make the call yet still the call counts against your 3g plan minutes.

100% Evil.
tman852
join:2010-07-06
Columbus, OH

tman852

Member

Re: Well

That would be alright with me as well, I guess that falls under my affordable alternatives category.

adfsdf43545r
@thvilledigital.net

adfsdf43545r

Anon

Re: Well

Sprint already offers you the 3G one for FREE and FREE a month...

Geminimind
Premium Member
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA

Geminimind

Premium Member

Re: Well

Only if your special and don't have an asl account.
GraysonPeddi
Grayson Peddie
join:2010-06-28
Tallahassee, FL

GraysonPeddi

Member

Re: Well

Ah, American Sign Language for the Deaf/deaf?
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4 to Geminimind

Member

to Geminimind
not true. been there done that. and i have it. and can prove i'm on ASL. they only need approval to get it done. The reps can do it if they choose to.

The device is a POS though. had it on 3 differnet connections; device didn't work. couldnt get calls but out going worked fine when the device decided to pick up the internet. other than that...the phone would bring busy or just ring and ring without voicemail. ended up moving to VZW.

Geminimind
Premium Member
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA

Geminimind

Premium Member

Re: Well

I've tried numerous times and just won't deal with it anymore. They made a shitty offer of 50 bucks and 4.99 a month
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Well

just keep calling back. You gotta get the right person that will actually take the time to do it. Sprint tells you they can't do a lot on ASL but in return they can. The one thing is they don't like doing it though is because its actually raises your ASL limit each month by what ever ever it is at this time. So if you have $150 each month you now get $300 per month.

del ftl
@comcast.net

del ftl to tman852

Anon

to tman852
WiFi (UMA) calling from tmobile is the ideal.

Free (as in no hardware to buy or monthly fee to pay).
Can be used anywhere in the world (this includes hospitals, cabins, basements, a beach in some exotic country).
No messy signal boosters, no silly femtocells, no gps lock requirements, as long as you can associate with a wireless access point you have full talk/text/data capabilities as if you were sitting next to a cell tower in your home town.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Well

It requires a wifi phone.

I think it is a good idea and I would have liked to have it.

But I don't see a problem with the femtocell, at least AT&T's implementation of it.

The GPS lock is necessary for E911 service and to ensure you are not using unauthorized frequencies in a foreign country and violate local laws. Laws are all over the place in different parts of the world. In fact I used to live in a country where they would charge ~$20 per handset to the end user as an annual license fee.

The microcell can be had for free if you're an AT&T broadband customer or $50 if you take the unlimited package.

del ftl
@slcgov.com

del ftl

Anon

Re: Well

All GSM phones can support wifi calling if they are programmed as thus. All blackberries in the last ~3 years do, some regular flip phones do, and now that kineto has an app for android, those as well. Apple could add it to the iphone I'm sure fairly easily, and if they ever drop for Tmo, I cant imagine they would overlook that feature.

I know why they require a gps lock. It just is "silly" because many places that you want a femto cell (say a 3rd basement down in a medical labratory, underground parking structure, etc..) you're not going to get a GPS signal there anyways to verify. Again, the wifi calling is superior in almost every way. If the sub basement or parking garage has simple, inexpensive wifi coverage they are good to go. At&t customers are getting shafted by them not supporting it.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Well

The Att Microcell has a port for an external gps antenna.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Well

as so does Sprint's.

but he's saying kill the femto and go UMA like TMO did. cuts the extra fees and the GPS lock.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Well

said by hottboiinnc4:

as so does Sprint's.

but he's saying kill the femto and go UMA like TMO did. cuts the extra fees and the GPS lock.

After rebate my microcell came up to $50 and GPS lock is not a big deal for me. It's not even a window, gets GPS lock in a few seconds and I get coverage even in the basement of my 2 story 2800sf house.

I would like the wifi calling though, but the microcell isn't a bad solution either. Not all phones have wifi and sometimes you get a phone from work that can't do wifi but it's nice to have the coverage.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Re: Well

with more and more smart phones coming out and are cheaply priced and fully fuctional (especially from TMO), these phones will appear.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to del ftl

Member

to del ftl
said by del ftl :

I know why they require a gps lock. It just is "silly" because many places that you want a femto cell (say a 3rd basement down in a medical labratory, underground parking structure, etc..) you're not going to get a GPS signal there anyways to verify.

That is due to a broken GPS Lock implementation. Lets say I am out in the open and have a GPS signal. At that point the lock code can see where I am and validate my location. If I then, without turning off the phone, move to a location where I can no longer get a GPS signal, a time stamp on the lock entry can show that I am still authorized (since I can not have moved to an unauthorized location in 10 or so minutes).

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster to del ftl

Member

to del ftl
said by del ftl :

All GSM phones can support wifi calling if they are programmed as thus. All blackberries in the last ~3 years do, some regular flip phones do, and now that kineto has an app for android, those as well. Apple could add it to the iPhone I'm sure fairly easily, and if they ever drop for Tmo, I cant imagine they would overlook that feature.

I know why they require a GPS lock. It just is "silly" because many places that you want a femto cell (say a 3rd basement down in a medical laboratory, underground parking structure, etc..) you're not going to get a GPS signal there anyways to verify. Again, the wifi calling is superior in almost every way. If the sub basement or parking garage has simple, inexpensive wifi coverage they are good to go. At&t customers are getting shafted by them not supporting it.

You have just illustrated to me at least one of the reasons if I ever decide to get a smart phone it will be a Blackberry. Right now with the shitty service we have in Cheyenne I just can't see having one yet. I suppose if I was ignorant of what type of service available elsewhere I might not be dragging my feet but thanks to broadband Reports I know and it would irritate me to no end knowing what this fancy device in my hand could do if we had the service. Especially knowing I am getting charged the same or more dollars for what little I would get

I have done WiFi calling on my Touch using Skype, but mostly to demonstrate that I could do it.

NetFixer
From My Cold Dead Hands
Premium Member
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
Netgear CM500
Pace 5268AC
TRENDnet TEW-829DRU

NetFixer to fifty nine

Premium Member

to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:

The microcell can be had for free if you're an AT&T broadband customer...
I don't think so. Can you provide a link to a document?

The only thing I can find on the AT&T web site is a reference to a now expired mail-in rebate*

»www.wireless.att.com/lea ··· #rebates




* Even if this particular rebate were not already expired, I know from experience with AT&T/BellSouth mail-in rebates that they are often printed using disappearing ink. One should think of an AT&T mail-in rebate as being equivalent to buying a lottery ticket, not as being a discount from the purchase price.

Oh, and speaking of disappearing ink, here is a screen shot of the down-loadable rebate form:



fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Well

Wheni bought mine I was given the rebate form in the store. I don't know if it is ongoing but I've seen a few rebate forms with different dates.
fifty nine

fifty nine to NetFixer

Member

to NetFixer
The broadband rebate expired literally a few days ago.

You can still get the $100 rebate when you choose the $20 unlimited calling plan though. That brings the microcell to $50.

All of the forms load for me at this website:

»www.wireless.att.com/lea ··· #rebates

iLive4Fusion
Premium Member
join:2006-07-13

iLive4Fusion to NetFixer

Premium Member

to NetFixer
said by NetFixer:

said by fifty nine:

The microcell can be had for free if you're an AT&T broadband customer...

I don't think so. Can you provide a link to a document?

The only thing I can find on the AT&T web site is a reference to a now expired mail-in rebate*

»www.wireless.att.com/lea ··· #rebates

[att=1]

* Even if this particular rebate were not already expired, I know from experience with AT&T/BellSouth mail-in rebates that they are often printed using disappearing ink. One should think of an AT&T mail-in rebate as being equivalent to buying a lottery ticket, not as being a discount from the purchase price.

Oh, and speaking of disappearing ink, here is a screen shot of the down-loadable rebate form:

[att=2]

I got mine free by signing up for UVERSE
OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium Member
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA

OwlSaver to del ftl

Premium Member

to del ftl
I would like to see every cell phone use 3G Data, 4G Data, or wi-fi for voice calls as is available. It would seem that soon (within three years) LTE and WiMax will be widely available. The separation of voice and data is archaic and just a way for the providers to make money. Cell phones that work this way would be really useful.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Well

Data networks tend to be congested in populated areas. If they could guarantee bandwidth for voice calls I would agree with shifting the voice calls to the data network. But as it is I place the ability to call 911 above the ability to update facebook.

iLive4Fusion
Premium Member
join:2006-07-13

iLive4Fusion to OwlSaver

Premium Member

to OwlSaver
W-CDMA integrates voice with data and can dynamically balance bandwidth between the two. VOIP is just not reliable enough as it is, throw wireless into the mix and it's certain trouble.

Geminimind
Premium Member
join:2003-12-20
Sacramento, CA

Geminimind to tman852

Premium Member

to tman852
Agreed!
cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

cghh

Member

Aren't there already regulations?

I thought that there already were FCC regulations prohibiting unlicensed transmitters in licensed bands such as for cellular? Cell phones operated in the U.S. need to get FCC type acceptance, and operate under the license of the wireless provider they are using. What the wireless providers seem to be arguing here is that their license gives them the right to control anything that behaves like a cell site.

Not that they are angels by any stretch of the imagination, but I think one needs to think this through a bit before doing a knee-jerk blast of the providers.
tman852
join:2010-07-06
Columbus, OH

tman852

Member

Re: Aren't there already regulations?

I would imagine that if they cared enough, they would've done something by now to manipulate the devices so they could either a.) Not work with any external signal boosting device or b.) Only work with compatible devices sold by the appropriate provider of the cellular service. So to me, their statement comes off as a bitchy whiney rant because more money isn't in their pocket for something they COULD take advantage of if they really wanted to. Just my two cents.
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14

LostInWoods to cghh

Member

to cghh
There are regulations. A quick look at the spec sheet for one of the vendors (Wi-ex) shows:

System Certifications| FCC Parts 15 & 24 (PCS) and Parts 15 & 22 (CEL), Industry Canada

If there is truly a problem where "boosters interfere with cellular networks and disrupt service to customers", document it and let the FCC investigate. But I wouldn't just take the AT&T or VZW's word for it that there is a problem. If the specifications need to be strengthened, fine, but it should be done in such a way to make the network more robust, not insulate the carrier from outside influence.

For products I design, there are FCC requirements that I not pollute the spectrum beyond certain limits, and also requirements that I handle some pollution (interference) from other sources. It's partly up to the carriers to deal with signals that they don't control, as long as those signals meet the requirements for that portion of the spectrum.

The way I read what is really happening is that the carriers see a market opportunity (localized access improvement) that they created themselves (by not building a network that services all customers), and want the government to push out any competition so that they can feed at the trough like good monopolistic piggies. Sadly, no one would be surprised if they get their way.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine to cghh

Member

to cghh
said by cghh:

I thought that there already were FCC regulations prohibiting unlicensed transmitters in licensed bands such as for cellular? Cell phones operated in the U.S. need to get FCC type acceptance, and operate under the license of the wireless provider they are using. What the wireless providers seem to be arguing here is that their license gives them the right to control anything that behaves like a cell site.

Not that they are angels by any stretch of the imagination, but I think one needs to think this through a bit before doing a knee-jerk blast of the providers.
I don't know the specific requirements but I'd imagine that the device makers could argue that these are just signal amplifiers and not transmitters. They are simply amplifying signals, not generating them.

rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY

rit56

Member

FCC

Gee who do you think will win?

jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Asheville, NC

jimbo48

Member

Sleazy under-handed

more of the same sewage from these thieves scoundrels and liars a.k.a. Communications providers.
A 3rd party could produce a device that if analyzed by a non-biased party and proven to meet or exceed any technical requirements of the Communication providers own device and they would still say it causes problems

Hazy Arc
join:2006-04-10
Greenwood, SC

Hazy Arc

Member

I'm Confused

The carriers claim that the devices are causing interference...but the fact of the matter is, folks don't use these devices if there was already sufficient signal from the tower.

So how can these devices cause interference with signal that wasn't there to begin with?

••••

Cjaiceman
MVM
join:2004-10-12
Castle Rock, WA
(Software) pfSense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

Cjaiceman

MVM

Cold dead hands

They can have it from my cold dead hands. I love the amplifier in my truck and will use it till the day that the cell carriers get decent signal out here and to where I don't drop calls while driving.

(This is not about any one carrier, they all have issues out here)

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: Cold dead hands

If the FCC starts fining people, you'll have no choice.

Sr Tech
Premium Member
join:2003-01-19
Meriden, CT

Sr Tech

Premium Member

BDA's

When I used to work for Nextel we would encourage people to come directly to us for assistance with these devices. A few times I had issues in an area and found them to be BDA's (Bi Directional Amplifiers) causing interference and sometimes overloading a sector on a site. Yes they were installed due to poor indoor coverage, but we did not force the customer to turn them off otherwise try to help them. Some instances they had poor cabling, connections, wrong style antennas or the input and outputs reversed. can somewhat see the carries point of view but at the same time they should take coverage issues more seriously.
bcltoys
join:2008-07-21

bcltoys

Member

Take them.

What are they going to do hunt us down and take them. All 12 million or so.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

No broadband connection required.

Signal Repeaters do not require a broadband connection, which is great because there are many locations in this area where there is no broadband service and a weak cellphone signal. Without signal repeaters customers in those areas will not be able to get access to cell phone service in their homes.

A high quality, low cost cell phone repeater would have been handy after I discovered that Sprint did not deliver an adequate signal in my new home, when I moved here Five Years ago. I considered adding one but the cost was prohibitive for a high quality system and wiring a two story house was almost impossible. In view of the fact that I needed new handsets, a local telephone number and was on a month to month contract with Sprint, I chose to order new service from Verizon since I am about a mile from a Verizon tower and received a strong signal without additional equipment.

The wireless carriers theory that Femtocells will not cause interference with nearby customers service is Bull Feces. I occasionally pull out my old Sprint handset to see if Sprint has improved their signal in my home. I recently checked Sprint's signal and found my handset switching between Sprint's weak signal from their distant tower and a nearby Sprint Femtocell. Whenever I connected with the Femtocell I received a recording that I should move to a location where I was not connecting to the Femtocell in question.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Re: No broadband connection required.

Sprint's implementation is poor then. With AT&T you have to specifically whitelist phones to use the femtocell. If you're not on the whitelist you aren't connected.

iLive4Fusion
Premium Member
join:2006-07-13

iLive4Fusion

Premium Member

T-Mobile

Umm T-Mobile a wireless provider is actually PUSHING repeaters to some trial customer's. I am part of the signal booster trial program, basically it's a repeater you place in your window and it repeats the AWS 3G signal without use of an ISP or anything like that. So not everyone agree's it causes interference it seems.

Anon_Anon
@dataside.com

Anon_Anon

Anon

ATT's response to 3rd party telephones in early 1970's

For years (decades?) ATT successfully had the US Gov't ban 3rd party telephone sets for sale in America, hence allowing ATT to keep a monopoly on phone sets and requiring every American to pay a monthly lease for the phone set to ATT.
Their stated argument for this?:

Inferior Japanese made phones might disrupt the entire US communications network, which as we all know, is considered a Priority 1 National Security asset. If the Russians attack and Grandma is using her Panasonic phone set, we could loose the ability to direct civilian and military assets to where they are needed.

So what is CTIA's argument in the '10's?