Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:49:58 GMT,
[email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:44:24 -0600, "Jim Dawson" <2dawson@c h a r t e
>r.net> wrote:
>
>>Hmm, where in the 1.9GHz band are you licensed?

>Oh, I'm not.....nor are any of the other thousands of private
>cellphone repeater owners operating in hospitals, factories, high rise
>office buildings, apartment buildings and homes throughout the
>country.....
>
>What are they gonna do, bust 'em all for providing a public service?
>
>Not to mention the FCC could really care less unless there's some kind
>of interference......reactive, not proactive.
>
>What nonsense....Some on these boards need to get out more....have
>some beer and enjoy life.

Yep.

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

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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

In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2003 11:24:50
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

>[email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:44:24 -0600, "Jim Dawson" <2dawson@c h a r t e
>> r.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Hmm, where in the 1.9GHz band are you licensed?

>> Oh, I'm not.....nor are any of the other thousands of private
>> cellphone repeater owners operating in hospitals, factories, high rise
>> office buildings, apartment buildings and homes throughout the
>> country.....
>>
>> What are they gonna do, bust 'em all for providing a public service?
>
>In could be considered a public nuisance also if it creates
>interference to some carriers while providing a service to others.

That's the big "if" -- you are, of course, prohibited from causing
interference, whether licensing is required or not, but that's a whole
different thing from your claim that licensing required.

>Which side you rather be on and how can you say that you will be on
>the winning side?

<yawn> If there's a valid complaint of interference, I'll fix it. No biggie.

>Besides, there is enough licensed spectrum
>pollution out there (aka NEXTEL) to other licensed systems, we don't
>want to add to it by allowing private individuals to install BDA
>systems they know absolutely nothing about.

Not terribly relevant, but noted.

>> Not to mention the FCC could really care less unless there's some kind
>> of interference......reactive, not proactive.
>
>The rules are provided to be the law of the land, just like the posted
>speed limit. You exceed it and get caught, you pay the judge.

No, FCC regulations (real or not) are different from posted speed limits.
Enforcement is subject to the current whim of the FCC.

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

> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003
05:55:29
> -0500, Harry Krause <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Larry W4CSC wrote:
> >
> >> We all know about them, John. Verizon uses them in their mall stores,
> >> here, so customers think they have a great signal in the mall when
> >> they're looking at the demo phones in the store.....(c; I call 'em
> >> the "Cheater Repeaters"....
>
> >Uh...what's wrong with having a strong cell signal in a shopping mall?
> >You think it is done to sandbag potential cell buyers? B.S. It's just a
> >convenience. Malls are places where customers demand strong cell signals.
>


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?

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:59:39
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>>2. I called the FCC regarding this, and was assured by a spokesperson at
>>the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>>these FCC Type Accepted low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no
>>license is required to install and operate them. We specifically discussed
>>them being operated by consumers, not carriers.
>
>Section 90.219 says that your informant is misinformed.

That's your interpretation. My interpretation, and that of the FCC
spokesperson, are different.

>FCC employees
>don't have the authorization to change the meanings of laws.

These are regulations, not laws, and I personally consider an FCC spokesperson
to be more credible than an anonymous Usenet participant. (As always, YMMV.)

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

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

In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2003 03:32:22
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:
>>
>> 1. Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
>> CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
>> bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
>> needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
>> consumer use.
>
>Andrew Corporation is in business to make $. They will sell you
>whatever they want in order to make the stockholders happy. You don't
>need to provide them a license to purchase a 6' parabolic dish and
>wave guide and if you ask them if it's legal to put it up of course
>their answer will be yes. They don't interperate or enforce the rules
>and honestly...they really don't care who buys or installs a BDA.

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

>> 2. I called the FCC regarding this, and was assured by a spokesperson at
>> the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>> these FCC Type Accepted low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no
>> license is required to install and operate them. We specifically discussed
>> them being operated by consumers, not carriers.
>>
>> I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
>> of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
>> check with my contact. He also said:
>>
>> I will be following FCC procedure soon and formally requesting an
>> interpretation to get a clarification in writing and will include copies
>> of your comments and those of any manufacturer comments directly (not
>> via a third party).
>
>Lets see something in writing.

I personally see no need to do that. If you do, then feel free to step up to
the line. (Hint: purported email doesn't count.) Unless and until that
happens, we just have differing interpretations.

>The government doesn't do an "official
>intrepretation of the rules" over the phone.

I didn't say it did. I'm nonetheless satisfied with the advice I received.

>I work for a gov't
>agency and we do everything on paper or electronic medium.

Good for you, but I fail to see the relevance.

>Call this
>guy back and tell him that you want his position in writing.

As I said, I personally see no need to do that.

>If he
>provides something and its the opposite than mine then we can send
>both back to the FCC for an official position. But until you can
>provide otherwise, the FCC rule stands as on the "licensee" can
>operate such a device.

I respectfully disagree.

>> Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.
>
>I haven't hear from Jack either, he is probably out making money.

Or wrong.

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

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

In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2003 03:47:41
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

>[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>> I know that Navas has a tendency to spout off without having all the
>> facts, but Mark, as I said to you about this months ago, this is one of
>> those "no harm, no foul" kinda deals. The only ones likely to care about
>> the repeater would be those harmed by it. Unless the repeater is poorly
>> designed and causes interference or somehow inconveniences other
>> subscribers, why would the FCC ever get involved?

>Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
>you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
>of your sites by improperly installing such a device?

That's not a real issue here -- you're wildly exaggerating (i.e., spreading
FUD).

>In addition, when one is operating improperly it is a royal pain in
>the ass to try to find it (based on personal experience). It could
>take months to try to find one if it's causing interference to a
>carrier that didn't install the device or have a record of its
>installation.

If it really is a problem, then it should be pretty easy for someone skilled
in the art to find it.

>Its far from being "no harm, no foul" situation.

I respectfully disagree.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

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

But they don't now, do they? Where's the penalty for not PORTing in 2
1/2 hours.

[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.

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

In article <[email protected]>,
"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?


A deceptive sales practice is the legal term.

Peter Pan wrote:

>> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003
> 05:55:29
>> -0500, Harry Krause <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Larry W4CSC wrote:
>> >
>> >> We all know about them, John. Verizon uses them in their mall stores,
>> >> here, so customers think they have a great signal in the mall when
>> >> they're looking at the demo phones in the store.....(c; I call 'em
>> >> the "Cheater Repeaters"....
>>
>> >Uh...what's wrong with having a strong cell signal in a shopping mall?
>> >You think it is done to sandbag potential cell buyers? B.S. It's just a
>> >convenience. Malls are places where customers demand strong cell signals.
>>
>
>
> 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?
>

Really? Then there must be some other reason why my cell phone works so
well in the shopping malls and stores in those malls to which my wife
drags me. A conspiracy, maybe?






--
Email sent to [email protected] is never read.

Peter Pan 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?
>
>

Well, it could be they hide their own equipment in their own closet for
reasons nobody understands.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:57:41 GMT, [email protected] (Larry W4CSC) posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>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?
>
>The one in my stepvan works fine. There's a 6 dB antenna mounted on
>top of the truck sticking up that is simply connected to a quarterwave
>800 Mhz whip inside my truck. Inside the shield of the van's steel
>body, the signal jumps from no signal to over half scale when you
>connect the cable......
>
>A friend's toyphone just wouldn't stay connected in his home so he
>could make reliable calls. I installed a 9-element beam antenna at
>10' over his chimney, pointed at the nearest cell tower, where,
>luckily, he's nearly in the middle of a sector panel pointed our way.
>In the hall between his den, dining room and living room downstairs, I
>installed a halfwave sleeve dipole in the hall closet. Between the
>gain of the antenna up over the house and his proximity to the inside
>antenna, we gained 4 bars of signal in the downstairs rooms, making
>calling possible. It works, too. There isn't enough signal
>downstairs to cause multipath fading from the injected signal from the
>passives. Of course, the closer you are to the hallway, the more
>signal the phone shows.

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

In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Peter Pan 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?
> >
> >
>
> Well, it could be they hide their own equipment in their own closet for
> reasons nobody understands.



I think Mr. Pan has the best explanation.

John Navas wrote:


> These are regulations, not laws, and I personally consider an FCC spokesperson
> to be more credible than an anonymous Usenet participant. (As always, YMMV.)
>

Yet, both are enforceable by statutory entities. I suspect if someone
installed a BDA (whether authorised or not) that was causing
interference to a licensed cellular carrier, the interfering BDA would
eventually be found after exhaustive testing by the carrier's own
technicians. Then, having found said BDA, contacting the property owner
would follow, and hopefully a resolution could be arranged. The FCC
would only get involved if a resolution couldn't be worked out.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:42:17 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 04:59:39
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>>2. I called the FCC regarding this, and was assured by a spokesperson at
>>>the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>>>these FCC Type Accepted low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no
>>>license is required to install and operate them. We specifically discussed
>>>them being operated by consumers, not carriers.

>>Section 90.219 says that your informant is misinformed.

>That's your interpretation.

It's Washington's interpretation. HOW many years have you been
working with the FCC?

>My interpretation, and that of the FCC spokesperson, are different.

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