Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
  1. #16
    JRW
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    Mark Filla wrote:

    > I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
    > LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
    > (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
    > paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
    > service doesn't make you a licensee.


    All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
    specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
    the actual physical installation is irrelavent.




    See More: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)




  2. #17
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    JRW <jrw@___.com> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > Mark Filla wrote:
    >
    > > I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
    > > LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
    > > (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
    > > paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
    > > service doesn't make you a licensee.

    >
    > All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
    > specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
    > the actual physical installation is irrelavent.


    And that is the way its supposed to be done as the provider has included
    the coverage contour changes of the local cell sites in their
    calulations. If they cause interference, to themselves they know
    exactly where to go, other than if someone else puts it in (without
    their knowledge) and causes interference, it could take weeks for months
    for the provider to find it and have it shut off.

    And who suffers while the interference is taking place? The paying
    customer!

    --
    Mark

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  3. #18
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    JRW <jrw@___.com> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > Mark Filla wrote:
    >
    > > I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
    > > LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
    > > (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
    > > paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
    > > service doesn't make you a licensee.

    >
    > All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
    > specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
    > the actual physical installation is irrelavent.


    And that is the way its supposed to be done as the provider has included
    the coverage contour changes of the local cell sites in their
    calulations. If they cause interference, to themselves they know
    exactly where to go, other than if someone else puts it in (without
    their knowledge) and causes interference, it could take weeks for months
    for the provider to find it and have it shut off.

    And who suffers while the interference is taking place? The paying
    customer!

    --
    Mark

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  4. #19
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:50 -0000,
    [email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:

    >... to date you
    >have not posted any credible information (except for Andrew's sales
    >literature) other than you said that you spoke to them on the phone,
    >lets see something in writing other than your rambling.


    No offense, but I find Andrew (phone, product documentation, installation
    guide, etc.), other manufacturers, and the spokesperson at the Commercial
    Wireless Division of the FCC to be far more credible than you (particularly
    since I don't know anything about you), and I'm fully satisfied with my
    investigation. You are of course free to disagree. Under the circumstances,
    there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the debate.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  5. #20
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

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

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:50 -0000,
    [email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:

    >... to date you
    >have not posted any credible information (except for Andrew's sales
    >literature) other than you said that you spoke to them on the phone,
    >lets see something in writing other than your rambling.


    No offense, but I find Andrew (phone, product documentation, installation
    guide, etc.), other manufacturers, and the spokesperson at the Commercial
    Wireless Division of the FCC to be far more credible than you (particularly
    since I don't know anything about you), and I'm fully satisfied with my
    investigation. You are of course free to disagree. Under the circumstances,
    there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the debate.

    --
    Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
    John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>



  6. #21
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    Here is what could happen, as Eric is in the cellular communications
    business (posting on the Yahoo 800interference board
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/800int...e/message/1464).
    Here he describes some of things that he has to do when looking for a
    malfunctioning and/or unauthorized BDA:

    Mark

    <snip>
    Some of the bigger problems I have when I go into interference hunting
    mode is with a BDA that no one knows exists. When one of these things
    "takes off" and starts oscillating, it causes a tremendous amount of
    grief.

    Even a properly functioning BDA can cause problems. I tracked down a
    massive increase in dropped calls at a cellular telephone site to a BDA
    that was amplifying the other cellular carrier's signals. The cellular
    control channels are close enough in frequency that the BDA would work
    for both systems' control channels. Unfortunately, when
    the talk channel was assigned, the frequency separation was enough that
    the BDA no longer worked. I would think this similar situation could
    happen in the 851-869MHz band. Another BDA that was installed close to
    a cell site had filtering added (to the BDA) to keep the strong cell
    signal out of the BDA. The filtering was only on the base transmit
    channels. There was no corresponding increase in filtering of the
    mobile to base output of the BDA. The mobile frequencies at the cell
    site got noised up because of the "low" level noise put out by the BDA.
    If a 851-869MHz site is close to the BDA, this too could be an issue for
    BDAs being used in the 851-869MHz band.

    Unfortunately, it isn't easy to find these things, even when it is it is
    determined that a BDA is causing a problem and the "suspect" building is
    located. Usually the building operator often doesn't know that there is
    such a system in the building and they sure don't want anyone walking
    around, looking like a GhostBuster, poking around above the drop
    ceilings and equipment spaces--looking for the elusive
    BDA.

    Even though the installation of a BDA is supposedly limited to radio
    licensees, I think BDA installations should at least go through a
    "notification only" filing due to a BDA being able to wipe out more than
    just the lincensed user that installed it. I know the FCC is trying to
    get out of all but hiring auction companies, but I do think that BDA
    installations should get mention in the ULS. A ULS entry, even with an
    out of date technical contact phone number and bad contact address is
    more of a start to finding out about a BDA than
    the current nothing at all.

    With the BDA's going in all over the place, "YOU" could be the next
    hunter.

    Eric

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  7. #22
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    Here is what could happen, as Eric is in the cellular communications
    business (posting on the Yahoo 800interference board
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/800int...e/message/1464).
    Here he describes some of things that he has to do when looking for a
    malfunctioning and/or unauthorized BDA:

    Mark

    <snip>
    Some of the bigger problems I have when I go into interference hunting
    mode is with a BDA that no one knows exists. When one of these things
    "takes off" and starts oscillating, it causes a tremendous amount of
    grief.

    Even a properly functioning BDA can cause problems. I tracked down a
    massive increase in dropped calls at a cellular telephone site to a BDA
    that was amplifying the other cellular carrier's signals. The cellular
    control channels are close enough in frequency that the BDA would work
    for both systems' control channels. Unfortunately, when
    the talk channel was assigned, the frequency separation was enough that
    the BDA no longer worked. I would think this similar situation could
    happen in the 851-869MHz band. Another BDA that was installed close to
    a cell site had filtering added (to the BDA) to keep the strong cell
    signal out of the BDA. The filtering was only on the base transmit
    channels. There was no corresponding increase in filtering of the
    mobile to base output of the BDA. The mobile frequencies at the cell
    site got noised up because of the "low" level noise put out by the BDA.
    If a 851-869MHz site is close to the BDA, this too could be an issue for
    BDAs being used in the 851-869MHz band.

    Unfortunately, it isn't easy to find these things, even when it is it is
    determined that a BDA is causing a problem and the "suspect" building is
    located. Usually the building operator often doesn't know that there is
    such a system in the building and they sure don't want anyone walking
    around, looking like a GhostBuster, poking around above the drop
    ceilings and equipment spaces--looking for the elusive
    BDA.

    Even though the installation of a BDA is supposedly limited to radio
    licensees, I think BDA installations should at least go through a
    "notification only" filing due to a BDA being able to wipe out more than
    just the lincensed user that installed it. I know the FCC is trying to
    get out of all but hiring auction companies, but I do think that BDA
    installations should get mention in the ULS. A ULS entry, even with an
    out of date technical contact phone number and bad contact address is
    more of a start to finding out about a BDA than
    the current nothing at all.

    With the BDA's going in all over the place, "YOU" could be the next
    hunter.

    Eric

    [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]



  • Similar Threads

    1. alt.cellular.verizon
    2. alt.cellular.cingular
    3. alt.cellular.verizon
    4. alt.cellular.cingular
    5. alt.cellular.cingular



  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12