Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Only problem is that's it's usually not in the entire mall to service
>shoppers, it's ONLY in the cellular store (and right outside the doors).
>Since it doesn't help ANYONE unless they are in the store, what could it be
>besides a sales trick?
>
Same here. The toyphones won't work out in the mall at the RESELLERS'
booths, either......

Probably best I'm not one of the resellers. The temptation to pin
their coax real early in the morning would be overwhelming...(c;



Larry W4CSC

NNNN

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:41:41 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>hm... that would be worth trying. Its ether that, or trying a new phone
>that has 850/1900gsm. but I cant find out if there is and GSM 850 in my
>area. I have tried news groups and google searches, and nothing has come up
>for Orange county.

Can't help you there, if you mean California. I've never even been in
Orange County, unless it's part of the holding pattern for LAX.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:30:05 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:57
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:32:51 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>>>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:10:06
>>>+0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>
>>>>[email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

>>>>Actually, this chick needed very little training in saying "I'm not sure
>>>>of that." It's a shame when the client has a better working knowledge of
>>>>the technology than those assigned to "advise" the customer.

>>>Because ... ?

>>>Sales people aren't there to "'advise' the customer" -- they're there to
>>>generate sales!

>>They should know their products.

>Why?

Oh, I was assuming that having a job required a certain level of
competence. Silly me. All they need to know is which phone and which
plan give them the greatest commission.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If you don't mind me asking, just how much did the whole setup cost for your
>friend's house?
>I have no coverage in my house, and patchy coverage outside. I'm sure a high
>gain directional going to a BDA can light up my house. but I'm still looking
>for the pricing for all the required parts.
>BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
>blackout?
>
The beam antennas are under $100 at www.cellantenna.com. Look at:

http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/yagi.htm

Bigger is better.....Be sure to buy for the band your phone operates
on in your system (see all the crossposting of this thread).

The inside antenna is just a dipole. But they have nicer looking
ones:

http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/internal.htm

Then all you need is some low-loss coax cable to connect the beam
outside to the panel antenna inside.....$200 total.

If you've an old magmount for your 800 Mhz bagphone, stick it to the
top of your file cabinet for the inside antenna.



Larry W4CSC

NNNN

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:32:43 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>And the "spokesperson" was? A secretary? A receptionist?

>A wee bit more than an anonymous Usenet poster. ;-)

Not really. I've been working with FCC regs since 1957.
Receptionists don't have anything to do with the regs, nor do most of
them even know any.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:34:09 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:15:29
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:49:27 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>>I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
>>>FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.

>>Like all those companies that sold linears that covered 27 MHz?

>>Like all those stores that sell ham gear without asking to see a
>>license (all of them)?

>>Like all the stores in NYC that sell high-powered (illegally so)
>>cordless phones, but only if you're going to use them in countries
>>that allow them to be used? But don't ask you where you intend to use
>>them?

>>Yeah, the FCC really comes down heavily on people against whom no
>>complaints have been made. They usually don't come down heavily (or
>>at all) on people against whom complaints HAVE been made.

>So you now agree that the FCC doesn't care?

You really like arguing both sides of a situation, don't you?

"The FCC", a governmental body, has no feelings. Many of the
employees would like to be able to do more than they can, but they
only work 40 hour weeks, so they go after the most blatant violators.
That's less than 1%, but it's the best they can do with what they
have.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:45:52 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:55
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>No one ever said that you had to know what you're talking about in
>>order to have an opinion, and this post clearly proves the point.

>Rubbish.

Crushing argument, there.

>>BDAs DO change the contour of the cell, it's NOT very easy to find a
>>transmitter that only transmits irregularly and running RF equipment
>>one knows nothing about DOES usually cause harm.

>No and no.

See above. HOW many years did you say you have in the business?

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:47:16 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:34:24
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Yeah, but passive repeaters don't work, right?

>Right.

As I said in another post in this thread, one doesn't have to know
what one is talking about to post to usenet, and you keep proving it.
What's your degree in? English?

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:48:34 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:53:12 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:53:29
>>>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
>>>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>>>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.

>>>>How many have you personally field tested?

>>>Perhaps half a dozen.

>>Do you want to put in the effort to find out what you've been doing
>>wrong?

>I haven't been doing anything wrong.

Then you live in a universe in which the laws of physics are different
than they are in this one.

>And you?

I've been using passive repeaters that DO work.

>>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
>general-purpose solution.

Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
enough), and there's not enough inside signal.

Why would anyone use a repeater, passive or active, if there's enough
signal inside?

(Your troll-like posting is noted.)

you might be able to see Orange County form the airplane on your way in to
LAX.

GSM 1900 is fair in Southern CA, I guess I could always get a 850/1900 phone
so I am ready if they ever do put in 850 towers here.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:41:41 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >hm... that would be worth trying. Its ether that, or trying a new phone
> >that has 850/1900gsm. but I cant find out if there is and GSM 850 in my
> >area. I have tried news groups and google searches, and nothing has come
up
> >for Orange county.
>
> Can't help you there, if you mean California. I've never even been in
> Orange County, unless it's part of the holding pattern for LAX.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 03:06:29 -0500, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Have to disagree here. Most of the time it does NOT do harm or enforcement
>would be higher.

>do my illegal 35 40 and 45 mhz micro RC cars I bought tonight cause any harm
>?

>Considering very little here runs on thos frequencies and they have a range
>of maybe 20 feet if your REALLY Lucky I would have to say no they do not do
>any harm.

BDA cellular amps don't run on frequencies that aren't used.

>Most are quite harmless. NOW once you start amping up the power/range OK bad
>things can happen.

And the consumer, knowing absolutely nothing about RF, makes sure that
he installs the BDA in a way that it doesn't exceed the range it
should have - how? One bad connection and you have intermod all over
the spectrum.

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
> >>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >>>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.
<snip>
> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
> general-purpose solution.

Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
wrong and move on.

Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.

You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."

Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> >>They should know their products.
>
> >Why?
>
> Oh, I was assuming that having a job required a certain level of
> competence. Silly me. All they need to know is which phone and which
> plan give them the greatest commission.

They neea base level competency, but be reasonable. I expect a
cellphone salesperson to know rate plans, phone prices and maybe the
"bullet points" of each phone.

If you expect them to know what chipsets phones use, or if it's able
to send SMS to carrier so-and-so in Pago-Pago, then I'm afraid you
won't be satisfied with their training. "I don't know" and "I'll be
happy to find out for you, sir" are perfectly acceptable answers to
questions, IMHO. I'd much rather have that than a line of BS from a
salesperson afraid to appear unknowledgeable.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >Why?
>
> Oh, I was assuming that having a job required a certain level of
> competence. Silly me. All they need to know is which phone and which
> plan give them the greatest commission.

A salesperson with knowledge will usually end up generating more sales and
more commission. There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago
about a sales guy at CompUSA. The hourly wage sucks of course, but he does
very well in commissions because he knows the stock, and knows what he's
selling. A salesperson that can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of
each of the phones is more likely to make a sale at all.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:45:52 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003
02:49:55
> >GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>No one ever said that you had to know what you're talking about in
> >>order to have an opinion, and this post clearly proves the point.
>
> >Rubbish.
>
> Crushing argument, there.

No, the Navas standard. No references, no cites, the one-word response when
he's beaten.