A bipartisan group of senators from some of America’s most rural and broadband-challenged states blasted the mapping skills of the Federal Communications Commission in a hearing Tuesday.

The senators were upset because the FCC’s Universal Service Fund will pay subsidies to extend wireless connectivity only in areas deemed to have inadequate or non-existent coverage. The FCC’s latest wireless coverage map is the determining factor whether communities get subsidies to expand service or not, and many in attendance at the Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet subcommittee hearing quickly called it worthless.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said the map’s “value is nil,” quickly followed by the Subcommittee chair Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) who added, “we might as well say it, Mr. Moran, that map is utterly worthless of giving us good information.”

“The simple answer is: it’s garbage in, garbage out,” said Steve Berry, CEO of the Competitive Carriers Association, which counts several small, rural cell phone companies as members.

This FCC map shows (in blue) areas identified as eligible to receive wireless subsidies to expand service where little or none exists today. (click map to expand)

The latest version of the map was heralded by the FCC as a significant improvement over the 2012 map used during the first round of funding. But critics like Berry claimed the map still relies entirely on carrier-provided data, much of it based on network capacity, and there is an incentive for existing wireless carriers to overestimate coverage because it assures funds won’t be given to potential competitors to strengthen their cellular networks.

The FCC claimed it gave carriers new benchmarks to meet in its latest map, including a request to only identify an area as covered if it achieves 80% certainty of coverage at 4G LTE speeds of 5 Mbps or more. To identify underserved zones, the FCC asked carriers not to identify areas that passed the first test as served if cell towers in that zone exceeded 30% of capacity. But Berry noted the FCC did not include a signal strength component, which means a carrier could report a significant area as getting adequate coverage based on the capacity of their network in a strong reception zone, even if customers nearby reported ‘no bars’ of signal strength or coverage that dropped completely once indoors.

Sen. Wicker

Senators from Kansas, New Hampshire and Mississippi were astonished to see maps that claimed virtually 100% of all three states were fully covered with mobile broadband service. The senators rejected that assertion.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) has devoted a section on her website to collecting reports from New Hampshire residents getting poor cell phone reception, and she has been a frequent critic of the FCC’s coverage maps which she has repeatedly called inaccurate.

In northern Mississippi, wireless coverage is so poor the Mississippi Public Service Commission launched an initiative to collect real-world data about reception through its “Zap the Gap” initiative. But the FCC’s latest map suggests the problem is solved in the most signal-challenged areas in the northern part of the state, with the exception of small pockets in the Holly Springs National Forest, the Enid Lake area, areas east of Coffeeville, parts of Belmont, and areas east of Smithville.

The four major national wireless carriers suggest there is no problem with wireless coverage in Mississippi either. AT&T claims to reach 98% of the state, Verizon Wireless 96.43%, T-Mobile 66.36%, and Sprint 30.92%. Regional carrier C Spire claims 4G LTE coverage that falls somewhere between T-Mobile and AT&T in reach.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) told the subcommittee in his state, the FCC’s maps have little resemblance to reality, showing 4G LTE speeds in areas where no cellular reception exists at all.

“The FCC is wrong, they screwed up, we’re getting screwed because they screwed up, so how do we fix it?” Tester asked. “There has got to be a way to get the FCC’s attention on this issue. We’ve got to do better, folks, it’s not working.”

Mississippi’s program to report cellular coverage gaps.

Independent cell phone companies that specialize in serving areas the larger carriers ignore are hamstrung by the FCC and its maps, according to Mike Romano, senior vice president for policy for NTCA – The Rural Broadband Association — a trade group and lobbyist for smaller rural providers. Romano told the subcommittee if any cellular company reports coverage to even one household in a census block (which can cover a large geographic area in rural states), that entire block is ineligible for Connect America Fund subsidies.

The FCC, rural carriers complain, is relying on small wireless companies to serve as the map’s fact checkers and forces them to start a costly challenge procedure if they want to present evidence showing the map is wrong. Such proceedings are expensive and time-consuming, they argue. Even if successfully challenged, that does not win the companies a subsidy. It only opens the door to a competitive bidding process where challengers could face competing bids from larger companies that made no effort to challenge the map data.

A group of senators signed a joint letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai complaining about the accuracy issues surrounding the FCC’s wireless map:

Dear Chairman Pai:

We write this letter to express our serious concerns that the map released by the Federal Communications Commission last week showing presumptive eligible areas for Mobility Fund Phase II (MF II) support may not be an accurate depiction of areas in need of universal service support.  We understand that the map was developed based on a preliminary assessment from a one-time data collection effort that will be verified through a challenge process. However, we are concerned that the map misrepresents the existence of 4G LTE services in many areas.  As a result, the Commission’s proposed challenge process may not be robust enough to adequately address the shortcomings in the Commission’s assessment of geographic areas in need of support for this proceeding.

MF II is intended to provide $4.53 billion in support over 10 years to preserve and expand mobile coverage to rural areas. These resources will be made available to provide 4G LTE service where it is not economically viable today to deploy services through private sector means alone.  Having consistently traveled throughout rural areas in our states, it appears that there are significant gaps in mobile coverage beyond what is represented by the map’s initial presentation of “eligible areas.” To accurately target support to communities truly in need of broadband service, it is critical we collect standardized and accurate data.

For too long, millions of rural Americans have been living without consistent and reliable mobile broadband service.  Identifying rural areas as not eligible for support will exacerbate the digital divide, denying fundamental economic opportunities to these rural communities.  We strongly urge the Commission to accurately and consistently identify areas that do not have unsubsidized 4G LTE service and provide Congress with an update on final eligible areas before auctioning $4.53 billion of MF II support.

In addition to Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the letter was signed by Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Angus King (I-Maine), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee held a hearing on broadband infrastructure needs. The FCC’s wireless broadband coverage map was a main issue in contention. (Note, the hearing begins at the 30:00 mark.) (2:05:00)

Martha's Vineyard

President Barack Obama’s arrival on Martha’s Vineyard brings a gift any local resident can enjoy: improved cell phone reception on the island, located off the coast of Massachusetts.

The president’s advance team and entourage rely on Verizon Wireless cell phone service, so when the president travels to a vacation spot, Verizon Wireless usually follows with one or two temporary cell towers to guarantee adequate coverage.  This summer is no different, and customers that used to have to walk outside and face the mainland for adequate reception are suddenly enjoying four bars, thanks to two traveling cell towers strategically placed on the island at Chilmark and West Tisbury.

Martha’s Vineyard is notorious for lousy cell phone reception, and the island’s small population has not justified investment for improved service.  Even when carriers explore the idea, local residents usually object to the proposed cell towers, dismissed as unsightly.

But for much of August, the island’s cell phones have been ringing as Verizon customers accustomed to simply going without service while on the island are suddenly getting rock solid service.  That puts a temporary end to the usual practice of trading knowledge of “known reception spots” — specific floors in buildings, certain sidewalks with an especially clear view to the coastline, or where unknown forces converge to deliver enough signal to make a quick call or send a text message.

The cacophony of ringtones has received a mixed reception from the locals, some of whom are unimpressed with wealthy vacationers, bankers, and politicians who call Martha’s Vineyard home for two weeks during the summer.

Rachel Fox, an entertainment lawyer from Manhattan whose family has a home on the island told the New York Times, “A lot of the people who vote here, who live here year-round, couldn’t care less if the people who invade them in the summer get to talk to their Hollywood producers in the middle of the Chilmark [general] store.”

Cell Tower on Wheels

When the president leaves, Verizon’s two cell-on-wheels-trucks leave as well, leading some 15,000 locals to ponder who is paying Verizon to haul the two towers on and off of the island and the expense to run them.  The newspaper wondered the same and didn’t get a clear answer.

Laura Williams, a spokeswoman for the White House Communications Agency, said its job was to ensure “that the president has the best communications possible wherever he travels” so that he can “remain informed and connected.” But Ms. Williams would not answer specific questions about the enhanced service, including how much it costs and who pays for it, citing security concerns.

One thing is certain, the two or three week cell phone nirvana the island enjoys in the summer only benefits Verizon Wireless customers.  Those with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint find themselves with no bars in virtually all places on the island.

That suits Linda Alley, whose home in West Tisbury is located right next door to one of Verizon’s temporary towers, just fine.

“I’m not attached to my cell phone like a lot of people are,” she told the Times. “I couldn’t care less.”

Signal boosters use an outdoor antenna to reach distant cell tower sites, while using an indoor antenna your mobile device can lock onto for improved reception.

If the Federal Communications Commission has its way, Americans annoyed with lousy cell phone reception will soon be able to purchase a new generation of signal boosters capable of delivering service to fringe reception areas ignored or bypassed by providers.  And unlike home cell-phone extenders, they won’t use your home broadband connection while also eating up your voice and data allowance.

A signal booster, not to be confused with a “femtocell” some wireless carriers sell or give to customers, acts like an amplified super-antenna — giving a boost to phones and mobile broadband signals in difficult reception areas.

This devices have been around and legal to use for a several years in North America, much to the consternation of cell phone companies and some public safety officials who deal with occasional interference problems created by misused or malfunctioning equipment.  The FCC is trying to find ways to mitigate interference problems while still allowing customers to benefit from signal boosters.  There are documented cases of rescuers relying on the equipment in remote disaster areas, and rural residents have managed 911 calls that would have been impossible without signal boosting technology.

Despite the agency’s efforts, several cell phone companies — particularly AT&T, object to the Commission’s plans to allow the independent use of signal-boosting equipment on “their” frequencies and networks.  Because cell phone boosters agnostically enhance every company’s signal within its frequency range and does not require users to pre-register phones to get access, AT&T stands to lose revenue if they are not the exclusive authority on selling, approving, and registering the use of miniature relay stations that boost their network’s coverage area.

AT&T currently sells customers femtocells which reduce dependence on the carrier’s overburdened 3G network — offloading traffic onto home and workplace wired broadband connections, which includes both voice calls and data.  But only a small percentage of customers get the equipment for free, often extending their contracts in the process.

Some providers and emergency responders have documented instances where these devices have created interference problems for cell tower sites and for emergency radio traffic that co-exists on the same frequency bands signal boosters occupy.  In some cases, inappropriate use of signal boosters has blocked emergency traffic, shut down cell sites, or reduced their coverage.  That is why the FCC wants the next generation of signal boosters to be able to intelligently interact with cell sites and other traffic users and reduce their power or discontinue service if they begin to create interference problems.

AT&T’s suggested safeguards go well beyond what most other carriers want from the FCC:

First, AT&T proposes that wireless licensees have “ultimate control” over any signal boosters operating on their networks under a presumptive authorization.  Specifically, signal booster operators must activate their devices with the licensee prior to initial use. In addition, the booster must possess technology to permit the licensee’s network to identify the device as a booster and identify its location at all times. Further, the licensee must have “dynamic control over the boosters’ transmit power” and have the authority and ability to turn off the booster for any reason at any time. Alternatively, AT&T proposes that the booster have “automatic gain control functionality that adjusts the power provided to the booster based on distance to the relevant base station.”

Second, AT&T proposes that signal boosters may only be operated on a channelized basis on the frequencies authorized for use by the wireless licensee whose signal is being boosted. AT&T suggests that manufacturers could meet this requirement by selling carrier-specific narrowband boosters or by designing “intelligent” boosters that limit transmissions to the spectrum licensed to the carrier whose signal is being boosted.

Third, AT&T proposes that signal boosters be designed with oscillation detection and will terminate transmission when oscillation occurs.

Fourth, AT&T proposes an expanded certification process for signal boosters that are to be used pursuant to a presumptive authorization. Specifically, the booster would be subject to (1) the Commission’s equipment certification process; (2) an industry-driven certification process;105 and (3) individual licensee approval to ensure compliance with the licensee’s proprietary confidential network protocols.

Fifth, AT&T proposes that any presumptive authorization standards be applied prospectively and that the Commission bring enforcement action against parties that sell, market, or use devices that do not meet the presumptive standard.

Wilson Electronics is a major manufacturer of cell signal boosters.

Equipment manufacturers are not impressed with AT&T’s ideas.  One tells Stop the Cap! if adopted, signal boosting equipment would cost more than double today’s average price of $200-400.

“AT&T has built so many requirements into their proposal, they know the result will be a product too expensive to sell to consumers,” the source tells us.  “And the part where AT&T wants the right to authorize and register the equipment gives them the option of charging a fee for doing so, turning the product into yet another way for AT&T to make money.”

Equipment manufacturers agree that there have been instances of interference problems, and they are willing to work with the Commission to find solutions, but not at the risk of adopting proposals some suspect are designed to destroy the signal booster business.

“AT&T is a control freak, plain and simple,” the source says.  “If they don’t own it or control it, it’s offensive to them.  It must be eliminated.”

More than one equipment manufacturer has noted, not for attribution, they find AT&T’s complaints a bit ironic.

“This is the same company that is already notorious for dropping calls,” said the source.  “You would think they would look favorably on anything that could deliver ‘more bars in more places,’ because AT&T sure isn’t doing it these days.  Just ask their customers.”

Here in West Virginia, cell phone reception is often by the grace of God.  The incredibly mountainous state makes “line of sight” communications a real problem when the nearest cell tower is blocked by a gigantic shale rock formation someone blasted through to build a road decades earlier.

AT&T probably still delivers the largest coverage of rural areas in the state because its towers expand beyond the major highways other carriers cover. But even with that expanded service, using a smartphone indoors is going to be a problem in many places.

Recently, AT&T sent letters to approximately 7.5 percent of their customers in the rural areas most likely to have reception problems, offering a free “MicroCell,” which is comparable to a mini cell tower inside your home or office.  The equipment works with your existing broadband connection to expand “coverage” inside your home.  For data purposes, the MicroCell doesn’t deliver anything your personal Wi-Fi connection couldn’t, but if you rely on a cell phone, having signal bars makes all the difference if you are waiting for an important call.

A considerable number of those letters reached families in West Virginia, and that is no surprise considering the state is by far the most difficult to blanket with wireless coverage in the eastern half of the country.

A letter to AT&T customers inviting them to receive a free MicroCell

But the problem is, some families are receiving the free offers, while others are not, and that is creating reception envy.

AT&T 3G MicroCell

Charlotte, who lives in Whipple, W.V., outside of Oak Hill, was visiting with her neighbor Joy last week and noticed her husband fiddling with the latest gadget on his computer desk.

“It looked odd because of the way it spread out on the bottom, so I asked Joy what in the world he was installing,” Charlotte says.

“It’s a cell tower thing AT&T gave us to get better reception,” Joy responded.

Despite the fact the two families live only a few homes apart and signed up for AT&T service with the exact same phones within weeks of each other, Charlotte was never offered AT&T’s MicroCell.

AT&T notified qualified customers with a letter containing a personal reservation code, and the offer was not transferable.

“Maybe you got it and threw it away,” Joy offered.

“No, ever since the credit card companies started changing terms on us, we open every envelope that comes into this house,” Charlotte replied.

Assuming it must be an oversight, Charlotte dropped by her local AT&T store to inquire about the offer.

“We quickly learned we were not the first family to bring up this issue with AT&T as the store manager told us he was fielding complaints from all over town about the highly-selective offer,” Charlotte said.

Even worse, there was nothing the manager could do to rectify the situation.

“His hands were as tied as my patience was tried,” Charlotte tells Stop the Cap!

“The store manager offered to sell me the MicroCell for around $100 with a rebate, but why should I pay AT&T for better reception they should already be providing?” Charlotte asks.  “It seems to me if they are giving away these things to some people in a neighborhood, they should be doing it for everyone, because we pay the same bill our neighbors do.”

The seemingly random offers of MicroCell units are not limited to West Virginia.  We’ve noticed complaints from residents in northern California, the Pacific Northwest, and northern New England from others who get reception while outdoors or on the go, but find their phones useless for making and receiving calls at home.

In most cases, irate customers seeking redress from AT&T run into a bureaucratic brick wall.

Rick McGee, commenting on Engadget’s website:

I have talked to Marketing, Technical Support, and my local store, and nobody can tell me who to contact to qualify for a MicroCell. I have been an AT&T Mobility customer for over four years, with four family plan phones and two more phones on corporate contracts. The reception at my house is usually zero, at times maybe one bar, but never enough to maintain an incoming call or make an outgoing call. I guess I am a glutton for punishment, but this is the last straw.

If AT&T does not magically send me one of the MicroCell coupons, I will total up my termination fees and determine the earliest date I am willing to dump AT&T and try another carrier. In addition to the cell phones, I have two AT&T land lines, plus an AT&T internet account, so I am likely in the top tier of residential customers. With no reception at my house, I don’t see how I would fail to qualify for a MicroCell, but AT&T has no process to help individual customers with bad reception. Everyone I talk to claims ignorance. I’ve done my part, AT&T — either step up, or I am gone.

Others find similar experiences — apologies from in-person sales staff about the corporate roadblocks even they cannot navigate around.

But every once in awhile, one does.  Casey Robinson’s neighborhood lost all AT&T cell phone service when their local cell tower was destroyed in a storm.  The replacement redirected most of its signal elsewhere, leaving them with no bars.

After arguing with corporate phone support in the AT&T store for 2 hours they told me pay the $149 [for a MicroCell] or tough luck. I responded by telling them to take my family plan +2 lines, my roommates family plan +3 lines, and our Uverse U400 package with high speed internet and shove it, we will be changing carriers immediately since I have tower data from AT&T pre and post storm to show they breached our contract.

The AT&T store rep was amazing through all of this. He apologized continuously and said if it was up to them they would give out the MicroCell as soon as we walked in the door, unfortunately their computers physically block them from comping a MicroCell. While I was very distraught on the phone with AT&T, he called his manager at home and explained the situation. She drove in to the store, again apologizing for everything we had to go through, checked us out with the MicroCell then credited our account for the full purchase price and credited a month’s service to both my line and my roommate’s line for the issues we had been having. They are the only reason we still have AT&T. Of course we wrote to their district manager and AT&T corporate applauding the employee and manager, and of course from what we’ve heard they still haven’t been acknowledged for their good work.

Some others have had recent success filing complaints with the Better Business Bureau, when executive level customer service representatives come to the rescue with a free MicroCell.

Charlotte’s family intends to deal with the MicroCell Gap in their own way — by switching to Verizon Wireless, which improved service in the Oak Hill region a few years ago while they’ve been under contract with AT&T.

“We were willing to put up with the MicroCell doing the job their own cell towers should be doing, but because they don’t care about us, we’re done with them,” Charlotte says.

Customers accepting AT&T’s free offer must verbally commit to stay with the carrier at least 12 months or return the MicroCell when they depart.  If they don’t, AT&T will bill an equipment fee up to $199.

Engadget obtained this inside memo about the MicroCell offer.