Last week the FCC released a Notice seeking comments on the kinds of broadband performance-related information that will help consumers in purchasing broadband service. After a recent FCC survey showed that 80 percent of people with broadband don’t even know what speed they’re getting from their service, the FCC seeks to change that by obtaining input on several issues, including:

• The most important service characteristics (e.g., latency, jitter, and peak hour performance) that consumers need to determine their broadband performance requirements
• The most effective way to ensure that broadband providers inform consumers about broadband performance needs
• The best way to present information regarding broadband performance needs in a concise, cost-effective manner
• How often should “need for speed” information be updated?
• What are the most effective ways to get the information to consumers, including those with disabilities?
• How can network performance determinants best be conveyed to consumers?

What is the best way to promote broadband full disclosure, and make such disclosures understandable so that consumers have access to this information when they purchase broadband services? Does it make sense to have broadband performance labeling, such as food nutrition labeling, automobile fuel efficiency guides, or household appliances energy efficiency labels? Would this overwhelm consumers with technical data? Would government disclosure requirements for broadband constitute unnecessary government regulation of the Internet, and access to it?

We welcome your thoughts.

Comments to the FCC are due May 26, 2011. Reply Comments are due June 16, 2011. DA 11-661, CG Docket No. 09-158.

© 2011 Technology Law Group. Technology Law Group LLC, is a Washington-based law firm specializing in telecommunications, transactional, litigation and regulatory issues. The attorneys at Technology Law Group can be reached by phone at +1 202 895 1707 and by e-mail at mail@tlgdc.com. TLG is dedicated to personal service and to providing high quality legal and consulting services that enable clients to meet their business objectives.

Earlier this month the FCC proposed new regulations that would greatly expand telecommunications relay services (“TRS”) funding and revenue reporting requirements for non-interconnected VoIP providers.

By statute, providers of telecommunications services to the public must offer TRS to persons with hearing or speech disabilities in the United States that are “functionally equivalent to voice telephone service.” Under current FCC rules, carriers and interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) service providers contribute to the TRS Fund based on interstate end-user telecommunications revenues. Interconnected VoIP service 1) enables real-time, two-way voice communications; 2) requires a broadband connection from the user’s location; 3) requires internet protocol compatible customer premises equipment; and 4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.

But not all VoIP services are “interconnected VoIP” services. Under the proposed regulations, non-interconnected VoIP service “(A) means a service that – (i) enables real-time voice communications that originate from or terminate to the user’s location using Internet protocol or any successor protocol; and (ii) requires Internet protocol compatible customer premises equipment; and (B) does not include any service that is an interconnected VoIP service.” Examples of non-interconnected VoIP include “one-way” VoIP services (i.e. services that enable users to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (“PSTN”) but do not permit users to receive calls that originate on the PSTN, or enable users to receive calls from the PSTN, but do not permit the user to make calls terminating to the PSTN) and “IP-based voice services that do not require a broadband connection. Unlike interconnected VoIP service providers, non-interconnected VoIP service providers have not been required to contribute to the TRS Fund or register or report revenues through the annual filing of FCC Form 499-A for any purpose.

If the new regulations become effective, every carrier providing interstate telecommunications services (including both interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP service providers) will be required to report on FCC Form 499-A, and contribute to the TRS Fund on the basis of, interstate end-user telecommunications revenues. This includes, but is not limited to, providers of cellular telephone and paging, mobile radio, operator services, personal communications service (PCS), access (including subscriber line charges), alternative access and special access, packet-switched, WATS, 800, 900, message telephone service (MTS), private line, telex, telegraph, video, satellite, intraLATA, international and resale services. If adopted, the new regulations would require non-interconnected VoIP service providers to register by September 30, 2011, and complete and submit the FCC Form 499-A by April 1, 2012, to report interstate end-user revenues for from October 1 through December 31, 2011. The FCC proposes to begin assessing non-interconnected VoIP service providers for TRS contributions based on revenues reported for the October-December 2011 period for the 2012-2013 TRS Fund year (July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013).

If adopted, how will these regulations impact non-interconnected VoIP providers? Given that interconnected VoIP providers already support USF, are these proposed regulations a necessary and logical extension of existing rules? Will they stifle and unnecessarily raise prices for non-interconnected VoIP service, or are they critical to fund and make TRS available to more Americans for a broader array of VoIP services?

We welcome your thoughts. If you have questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

Comments to the FCC are due 30 days after the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 11-38, released March 3, 2011) is published in the Federal Register. Reply Comments are due 45 days after publication of the FCC’s Notice in the Federal Register.

© 2011 Technology Law Group. Technology Law Group LLC, is a Washington-based law firm specializing in telecommunications, transactional, litigation and regulatory issues.  The attorneys at Technology Law Group can be reached by phone at +1 202 895 1707 and by e-mail at mail@tlgdc.com.  TLG is dedicated to personal service and to providing high quality legal and consulting services that enable clients to meet their business objectives.

by Craig Dingwall

This week the FCC released a lengthy Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) in which it proposed modernizing and streamlining universal service and intercarrier compensation to promote affordable wired and wireless broadband to all Americans. If adopted, the FCC’s proposals would essentially over time shift the focus of the $8 billion Universal Service Fund (“USF”) from promoting affordable phone service to promoting affordable broadband service.

Noting that the “current rules actually disincentivize . . . the transition from analog circuit-switched networks to IP networks”, the FCC sought comment on the following four “reform” proposals designed to promote better use of Universal Service funds and broadband deployment:

• Modernize the USF and intercarrier compensation (“ICC”) for Broadband to make affordable broadband available to all Americans and accelerate the transition from circuit switched to IP networks;
• Fiscal Responsibility by controlling the USF size as it transitions to support broadband, including by reducing waste and inefficiency;
• Accountability from companies receiving USF support to ensure that public investments are used wisely to deliver intended results; and
• Market-Driven Policies that encourage technologies and services that maximize the value of scarce program resources and the benefits to all consumers.

The FCC also requested comments on many other issues, including simplifying and unifying USF into a single, streamlined Connect America Fund (“CAF”), and gradually eliminating per-minute intercarrier charges. The FCC further proposed reverse auctions to provide broadband in unserved areas, and it is considering metrics for broadband using specific performance characteristics. For example, what should be the appropriate downstream and upstream speeds? Are 3 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 768 kilobytes per second (kbps) upstream speeds reasonable? Should such metrics be mandated by regulations and, if so, can such regulations keep pace with fast changing technologies and capabilities?

Significantly, the FCC also seeks comments on the appropriate classification of interconnected voice over Internet protocol (“VoIP”) as a telecommunications service or an information service. The FCC claims that classifying interconnected VoIP as a telecommunications service would enable it to support networks used to provide interconnected VoIP, including broadband networks, but it also acknowledged in the NPRM that it has already extended universal service contribution, Customer Proprietary Network Information protection, Telecommunications Relay Service contribution and other obligations to this service. Given that interconnected VoIP is already subject to universal service contribution obligations, will this proposal impose even more regulations on interconnected VoIP, and ultimately on the Internet?

Will the FCC’s plans to phase down “legacy” high-cost support to zero, and replace USF with CAF achieve its intended goals of modernizing and streamlining Universal Service? Should the FCC mandate specific broadband speeds, and how should interconnected VoIP be classified? We welcome your thoughts.

The deadline for comments and reply comments varies by NPRM Section. For example, comments on Section XV of the NPRM pertaining to Reducing Inefficiencies and Waste are due 30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register, and Reply Comments on NPRM Section XV are due 45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. For more details, see the FCC’s NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (FCC 11-13;WC Docket No. 10-90, et. al., adopted February 8, 2011, released February 9, 2011.

© 2011 Technology Law Group. Technology Law Group LLC, is a Washington-based law firm specializing in telecommunications, transactional, litigation and regulatory issues.  The attorneys at Technology Law Group can be reached by phone at +1 202 895 1707 and by e-mail at mail@tlgdc.com.  TLG is dedicated to personal service and to providing high quality legal and consulting services that enable clients to meet their business objectives.

The convenience of the cell phone rests in the confident assertion that as a device untethered to a wired base, it provides users the ability to stay in touch at any time– no matter how far off the beaten path they’ve wandered. But with the versatility of these devices so apparent, the pendulum has swung more towards reliance than convenience in terms of usage. The mobile phone is no longer a device you use when you know you’re not going to be home, but rather something that has taken place of the trusty landline. Whereas the old technology was hardwired to your home, the newer incarnation can follow you out the door and down the street mid-conversation. The pressing issue with such overall innovation is the reliability of an intangible connection to one’s signal provider.

Countless customers have the same story to tell; it starts off with an important conversation in a place where a strong signal is assumed and ends in a dropped call. While a few minutes spent talking to dead air is embarrassing in and of itself, it’s more troubling to repeatedly lose a connection in the midst of an exchange of vital  information. That’s where companies like Wi-Ex and Wilson come in. Realizing these all-t00-frequent occurrences were not only just freak accidents, but more the result of signal and service inadequacies, these companies have cornered the market on the all-t00-valuable cell signal booster. These signal repeater devices range in price from $250-$1,000 and are the savior of many a cell phone user.

Despite salvaging the signal of many customers left out in the cold by the very own service providers they represent, the CTIA (Cellular Telephone Industries Association) is now staging opposition to such technological assistance. The Wireless Association paid a visit to the FCC to file a complaint calling for stricter regulation on signal boosters. The CTIA’s efforts echoed those of  Verizon and AT&T, both of whom had already made similar filings claiming that cell boosters were responsible for cellular network interference and service disruptions– an assertion that is supported by public safety officials operating on closed wireless networks. This is somewhat ironic when you consider the amount of product Wilson has provided to law enforcement and public safety officials alike to allow for ease of communication (most recently in Yavapai County, AZ).

The CTIA’s grievance asks for an F.C.C. mandate that  “the use of signal boosters be coordinated with and controlled by commission licensees and the sale and marketing of such devices be limited to authorized parties.”  So basically, the companies that are providing you with deficient signal in places you need it most, want to control just who can assist you with that problem. Whereas others previously had the foresight to remedy this problem, it’s likely that service providers could try to exclude companies such as Wilson and Wi-Ex from giving you a bar boost.

The complaint seems all-too-convenient for service providers who have begun producing their very own incarnation of booster called “femtocells.” Having the appearance of a wireless router, the femtocell typically attaches to a broadband connection to spread signal throughout a localized dead zone, such as a home or office. Verizon and AT&T are offering their versions of these devices at price points competitive to that of signal boosters offered by competitors such as Wilson. Sprint has taken the role of benevolent provider, in effect apologizing for signal deficiencies by offering the Airave Access Point 3G, free on a case-by-case basis.

If wireless providers have such an objection with cell repeaters and antennas compensating for their service deficiencies, it would make more sense not to strong-arm others who bring the most out of their signal out of the signal boosting game, but to work with them to get them to play ball and help maximize their signal. Or if it’s the technology they truly have qualms with, they can rely on the superiority of femtocells to win out provided the price is right for customers. Really though, it’s the responsibility of the likes of the Verizons and AT&Ts to furnish the signal that people pay for. If they’re not doing it either with their towers or femtocell technology, people should have the right to compensate for their lack of signal in any way possible. The booster companies are just trying to capitalize on the signal chasm between wireless companies and their customers. If Verizon and AT&T want to point the finger at anyone, perhaps it should be themselves.

You know what I say, Sprint’s got the right idea. Get those customers free femtocells or else it’s every phone-wielding man,woman and child for themselves.

By Craig D. Dingwall

Earlier this year, the FCC asked the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (“Joint Board”) for recommendations to improve the Universal Service Fund’s (“USF’s”) Low-Income program, which helps reduce the cost of phone service for eligible low-income persons, and for suggestions to address potential waste, fraud and abuse while improving the program’s efficiency.  In response, the Joint Board recommended that the FCC:

· encourage automatic enrollment when low-income families sign up for other benefits, such as food stamps;
· adopt minimum verification standards, with stricter standards to prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse;
· seek comment on establishing a centralized national database for certification and verification of eligibility;
· adopt outreach rules for participating Lifeline carriers;
· seek comment on increasing program eligibility by allowing households earning 150% or less of the federal poverty guidelines to participate; and
· use USF to support both voice and broadband networks, consistent with the FCC’s National Broadband Plan (“NBP”).

These recommendations raise several questions, as noted by many who filed comments with the FCC on the Joint Board’s Recommended Decision, including the costs of interconnecting agency databases with carrier databases while simultaneously protecting consumer privacy as well as the costs of funding automatic enrollment. Moreover, implementing a national database poses significant administrative, technological, and financial challenges, including designating an entity to maintain and update the database and determining how it will be compensated for doing so. In light of these and other operational challenges, will a national database be more effective than regional and/or state databases and, if so, at what cost?

Perhaps the biggest issue is the recommended use of the USF to support both voice and broadband networks. This recommendation is not novel, given the FCC’s earlier  NBP recommendation to reform the USF to support the provision of both voice and broadband communications in areas of the nation that would not be served without such support or that depend on universal service for such services.

In a separate statement, Commissioner Clybern noted that less than half of low-income Americans have subscribed to broadband, and that one-third of Americans who have not purchased broadband say they have not done so due to the expense of obtaining it. Based on these sobering facts, is funding broadband deployment an appropriate or necessary use of the USF, or should it be funded from other sources?  Will such broadband funding with the USF reduce or deplete funds that may be necessary to help support access to affordable basic local service? We welcome your thoughts?

While the boundaries of the United States of America may stretch from "sea to shining sea," the broadband access at points in between can tend to be a bit spotty. As the third largest country in the world in terms of area, there's bound to be more than a few desolate sections where broadband service leaves residents wanting. Determined not to leave those people in the the nooks and crannies of the nation in the technological dust, the FCC is going ahead with it's plan to initiate the "Mobility Fund"- an endowment aimed at spearheading the buildout of 3G and 4G mobile broadband networks in the neglected rural regions
of the U.S.

Currently up to 4 million Americans have little to no 3G service due to their habitation of geographically inconvenient areas, barely populated towns or places too distant from network centers. The prior stipulations and standards of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which aimed to assist in the spread of telecommunication service deployment to the farms and more rustic regions, just weren't cutting it. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski called the status quo "unsustainable" in that it was "designed to support the communications networks of the past, not the future."

Though the technology utilized under the USF may not be of use, the money left over from its operation will come in handy with the implementation of this new program. The Mobility Fund will take between $100 million and $300 Million of capital, some given up by Sprint Nextel and Verizon, for their rural 3G and 4G build out. There's been no talk of the preferred technology of the rural 4G rollout, but it really doesn't seem like the most immediate worry. The most important thing is to get 3G to places where it's lacking first and worry later about LTE vs. WiMax.

Even with the buildout, it isn't guaranteed that the efforts will bring a service of sparkling quality. It's likely that rural deployment won't be without signal issues. We wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in sales of signal boosters to help those with
wireless devices increase their performance on the new network. And if the deployment of 3G to rural areas proves a success we may see a boom of businesses that prefer to operate out of remote regions now that their communications capabilities have been increased, which also stands to benefit the sale of  3G and 4G wireless routers for burgeoning rural work spaces.

We won't know the true effect the implementation of the  "mobility fund" will have on the rural reaches of America until the new networks are in place, but for a nation that considers itself a global superpower, having such a large number of citizens so far behind smacks of weakness. Broadband access is quick becoming a pivotal part of national infrastructure, building an information superhighway is as important as building actual highways once was.

Back in February the wireless press and blogs were all over the cellphone booster story: Wireless carriers complained that the boosters threatened public safety. They blamed the boosters for interfering with networks. A leading manufacturer of boosters, Wilson Electronics, said hold on. Wilson, proud in making these boosters to the highest standards, said the boosters ensured public safety because they reduce the number of dropped calls and deliver connections for emergency responders in remote areas.

The FCC, considering a ban on boosters, invited comments from interested parties. Joe Banos, COO of Wilson Electronics, raised the controversy a mega-notch by proposing a detailed solution to carrier/vendor wars: Poor design leading to faulty boosters is the problem, said Banos, and the problem can be fixed by enforcing tight standards.

Wilson Electronics asked the FCC to raise certification standards and he offered specific criteria for setting those standards in place.

Banos also had a message for carriers: Why fight each other when you can make your customers happier and more loyal by sitting down with us and working out the technical solutions?

So that was back in February. This is September. Cellphone booster watchers still wait for the other shoe to drop. Where does the controversy sit now?

We got Joe Banos to answer. The man who stirred up the bees in the first place. The man who continues a crusade of awareness about cell-phone boosters to get us through dropped calls and dead zones–if and when boosters are designed and engineered to the highest standards.

As of February, the FCC was considering a ban on boosters. In September 2010 can we say the ban is likely or improbable?

Banos: The ban is improbable. I think Wilson has had moderate success in creating positive awareness within the FCC that, when properly designed, boosters are a necessary tool to improve the user’s service regardless of carrier or location.

You offered to have a discussion with the carriers to work problems out. Have you had any response from the carriers since making these overtures?

Banos: We see working with the carriers as really the only long-term solution. It will take time and, yes, there have been some somewhat positive exchanges with some carriers.

In your petition, you suggested design standards to the FCC to consider. Still under consideration?

Banos: Still under consideration. A device palatable to the carriers may require greater sophistication than we originally asked for. We have looked at some additional improvements and features which would give carriers more control over a booster's operation on the network that are attainable while keeping costs low to the consumers. Dialog with the carriers will eventually lead to this doable device.

What is Wilson’s worldwide market share in boosters? How much does the sale of boosters contribute to Wilson's total sales?

Banos: We estimate we have about 70% of the Booster market. Boosters are our business.

Worst-case scenario: A US. ban on boosters. What effect would this have on Wilson Electronics as a viable business?

Banos: This would certainly have an effect. The fallacy and sad side to a U.S. ban is that boosters of perhaps even lesser quality than available today will most likely remain available via Internet sales from low-key sellers here or abroad, which could worsen the problem.

Earlier last week, ZTE , a telecommunications manufacturer, sent the heavily anticipated global WiFi hotspot, the “FiveSpot”, to the FCC for approval. It had previously been leaked as a Verizon product, so when the device was sent to the FCC under the ZTE manufacturer name, and not with the expected Verizon branding, most technology analysts missed it in the news.

The FiveSpot is a welcomed advancement on the technological front because it is expected to replace the few years-old MiFi. The MiFi is a solid product, and there are currently three versions, the MiFi 2200, MiFi 2372 and MiFi 2352. The 2200 is unique because it is for CDMA networks only. These devices are locked, meaning that you can’t switch carriers at your will. The 2372 and 2352, on the other hand, are for GSM networks. They are unlocked, and work in North America and Europe, respectively. The FiveSpot is global and features both CDMA and GSM radios, enabling the device to work well in over 40 countries. It will be a welcome update to the already enjoyed MiFi models.

There is a lot of speculation as to why the device was sent to the FCC without the Verizon branding. Engadget is following rumors that Verizon dropped the product to make room for their LTE plans. The blog on Nexus404 is under the impression that the product will return with a Verizon branding. No information has been released as to the release date or pricing of the device yet.

Quantum-Wireless.com recently interviewed Wilson Electronic’s Marketing Manager Jonathan Bacon. He discussed Wilson’s latest offering, the Wilson Sleek along with the future of Wilson, along with his take on the F.C.C.’s position on cell signal boosters with the mobile carriers.

1.Can your please introduce yourself, your company and your position?

Wilson Electronics, Inc., a leader in the wireless communications industry for more than 40 years, designs and manufactures a wide variety of cell phone signal boosters, antennas and related components that significantly improve cellular communications. It has designed solutions for poor cellular reception in mobile, building and machine-to-machine (M2M) applications. All Wilson products are engineered, assembled and tested in the company’s U.S.-based headquarters. Wilson amplifiers fully comply with FCC regulations for cellular devices and are FCC and Industry Canada type accepted. Wilson Electronics has developed and patented microprocessor-controlled signal booster (or amplifier) technology, which protects cell towers from interference.

As the Marketing Manager at Wilson Electronics I oversee projects relating to driving SEO results for our products to ensuring that our packaging has the same look and feel. It also involves media outreach, product promotions, managing our social media outreach and projects and working with the sales team to ensure their needs, and those of their clients are being met.

2. How is the new Sleek different than other products on the market of its kind?

With the Sleek, Wilson Electronics engineers were able to combine all of the elements that make our products successful and effective, without sacrificing the key components that make it a Wilson product, all for a very affordable price. The Sleek is an all-in-one cradle cell phone signal booster. It works by having the phone placed into the cradle, placing the included magnet-mount antenna on the roof of the vehicle (or mounted on a metal bracket by a window for use indoors), and then plugging it in. It’s that easy! The cradle is also designed to support a Mifi card or even a GPS device (if it uses cellular signal) as it works to amplify both cellular and data signals.

3. What is the minimum separable distance between the cradle and the external antenna? Maximum distance?

It is recommended that the external antenna is about 12 inches away from any other antenna, and a few inches away from any windows or a sunroof. There really isn’t a maximum since you’ll only have about as much distance as the cord will allow, which is 12 feet. The key is to have the antenna mounted up high allowing it clear access to the radio waves it is trying to capture, and making sure it’s mounted on metal such as the roof of a car or a metal bracket.

4. What type of antenna can be connected to the new Sleek?

Included with every Sleek is one of our mini-mag’s, or a small, 4-inch magnet mount antenna. If you are interested, you can purchase several different, optional antenna’s as well. Those include:

* 12″ Magnet Mount Antenna: High Gain Magnet-Mount Antenna
* Trucker Antenna: Ideal for mirror mounting on a large truck. Mounts on a 3/8″ mirror mount
* NMO Mount Antenna: For permanent vehicle roof mount. For professional mounting on cars or pickup trucks
* RV Antenna: For vehicle roof mount on an RV

5. Who would be the ideal customer for the new Wilson Sleek?

Great question! Simply, it’s ideal for anyone tired of dropping calls, especially iPhone users.  Anyone who has experienced dropped calls while driving

* In a city,
* rural area
* or in general, areas of weak signal coverage

is the ideal user for the Sleek. An optional home accessory kit can be purchased as well, which will allow you to use the Sleek indoors. Please note that the Sleek is a single-user device, so it will only boost the signal of the phone in the cradle. It also works best with a bluetooth or headset device. Using it with a bluetooth device is ideal as it will give you additional range, while allowing you to enjoy the best possible cell phone signal.

6. We have read recently that the  Wilson Sleek is designed to work internationally, what is  Wilson’s marketing strategy for the international marketplace? And what regions are most appealing to Wilson?

The Sleek is designed to work with all major North American cell phone providers except for Nextel/iDen. It will be sold throughout Canada, Mexico and even parts of Central and South America.

Internationally, Canada is a great market because both Telus and Bell Canada (two prominent carriers in Canada) sell and endorse Wilson Electronics products. That said, the largest market is clearly the U.S., with rural areas (central part of the country, but rural areas don’t really have a specific region) having the largest need. That said, urban areas or heavily populated cities have a great need as well due to the buildings that can block signals, or cell towers being overloaded by the amount of people trying to make a call through each one. All of these factors make nailing down the most appealing region very difficult.

7. Would the Sleek 815226 support 3G networks on the iPhone 3GS if it uses the 2100 MHz frequency band?

No. Wilson Electronics does have some models available right now (811914) which will work with the 2100 MHz as well as 900 MHz. This will also work with the iPhone and comes with a cradle as well.

8. What other new products can we expect coming from Wilson down the pipe?

It’s important to note that for competitive reasons we’re not wanting to disclose everything we have in the pipe right now. That said, stay tuned as some very cool items are coming in soon–that will open us up to other bands and data speeds.

9. What is Wilson’s market position in the cell booster market?

Currently, it is our understanding that Wilson Electronics dominates the cell phone signal booster market. This is due to

* Our products having a reputation of being the most carrier friendly thanks to patented technologies and in-house engineering that is second to none
* A vast line of products that will work in a car, boat, RV, home, office, building, and even many M2M (machine-to-machine) products that help with asset tracking or data transfer
* Industry leading product guarantees and warranties
* U.S.-based tech support–now with extended hours of support, and
* The best credibility in the industry for building quality products that work as advertised

10. Who are some of your potential competitors, what edge does Wilson have over them?

Needless to say, there are several companies that exist in the cell phone signal boosting space, but none have been in the telecommunications business for more than 40 years, like Wilson Electronics has. Also, no one has close to the 10 years of specialized and focused experience in the signal boosting world like we do. It may sound like I’m boasting, but in reality we are proud of these facts, as both have lead to our credibility in the space and our drive to constantly improve our products and product lines. Additionally, we stand by these statements:

* Receive Signal Farther from the Site: Our signal boosters detect signals farther than anyone thanks to greater receiver sensitivity and lower noise figure
* It’s About the Patented Technology: Our patented oscillation protection eliminates interference that inferior products can create
* It’s About Protecting the Cell Towers: Our cell tower overload protection allows our signal boosters to figuratively turn the volume up when its far from the cell tower, and speak softer when its close
* All Engineering is Done In-House: Our engineers are part of the process from product development, to product testing before our award winning signal boosters ship off the production line
* Customer Satisfaction is Our Top Priority: Our products all come with a full one-year warranty and 30 day money back guarantee
* Signal boosters are proudly made in the USA

11. What’s on Wilson’s road map for 2010-2011?

We’d like to put the FCC issue behind us and either,

* Come to an agreement with cell phone carriers about what regulations should be implemented by the FCC in order to deem signal boosters as transparent tools to be used by the general public without concern of interrupting the network, or
* Work with the FCC to implement new regulations and/or standards for approving cell phone signal boosters so that poorly created boosters can be eliminated from the market

We’d also like to help more users see that dropped calls don’t have to happen just cause they have an iPhone or any phone for that matter. We’re confident the Sleek will help us break down the barrier to entry for many people who are hoping to eliminate dropped calls or poor signal strength. We’re confident the next two years will be break out years for the signal boosters especially as more people learn about the affordable and effective solutions offered to them, like those offered by Wilson Electronics.

12. What impact do you see the F.C.C. ruling having on Wilson Electronics and its competitors?

First, to clarify, there hasn’t been a ruling on signal boosters in regards to ours, and others, recent petitions. As we understand it, the FCC is currently reviewing the comments, and comments on the comments (Approx. 80% of which–by our count–were in favor of keeping signal boosters on the market from suppliers like Wilson Electronics, and in support of our petition to tighten regulations for signal boosters).

Based on the overwhelming support from the comments filed to the FCC, and the need for a signal boosters in rural areas, or even to help safety officials who depend on our products (more than 600 government or safety agencies currently use our products nationwide), we are hopeful the FCC will make a ruling in our favor. If this happened, it would either weed out the bad signal booster manufacturers since the regulations would be too strict, or at the very least, it would create a need for signal boosters manufacturers to start producing boosters at a higher standard. To reiterate, we proposed the following rule changes for approving signal boosters:

* Oscillation (feedback) detection and auto-shut down – To prevent interference with cell towers
* Proximity detection and auto shut down – To prevent signal overload of cell towers
* Bi-directional signal amplification – A weak link in cellular networks is the phone’s low power to the tower. Some signal boosters today amplify only the incoming signal to the phone. While the phone shows more bars, these boosters do nothing to increase the phone’s weak signal transmission back to the tower, where amplification is needed most.

Both cell carriers and cell signal booster makers are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to take action regarding signal boosters.

The FCC is considering legislation that would make cell signal boosters illegal unless they are released by wireless operators or consented from a wireless operator.

Wilson Electronics believes that setting standards for signal boosters by the carriers will not work on science, but on greed and motives of the carriers to make as much money as possible.

Wilson singled out Verizon Wireless because they haven’t worked with Wilson previously and only have data from older booster models. Wilson also stated that Verizon isn’t serving the public because it hasn’t shown interest in approving boosters designed with built-in protection against degradation or interference.

Wilson has sold more than 500,000 signal boosters and cite Canadian company Telus as a blueprint of how the booster companies and carriers can work together to promote products. Telus markets Wilson products in Canada.

Companies are filing in favor of carrier-approved signal boosters, but Wilson points to the need for boosters after the Mexican Hat incident where a bus accident occurred in a rural area and forced someone to drive 36 miles to get cell reception. The National Transportation Safety Bureau recommended that all buses traveling on rural routes get a Wilson cell signal booster.

The carriers have the view that because billions were spent on building out the cell networks, they must protect them to serve the public interest. Cell signal boosters help one person, but have a negative effect on the rest of the network.