Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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.

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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?

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

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>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?

Simon seems to cover their entire mall when they cover it. They even
have signs on the doors (that don't mention Verizon, btw). I don't
know how many malls they have spread over how much of the country, but
the few on Long Island are set up with mall-wide repeaters.

(I agree that having a repeater covering only the cell phone store and
its immediate vicinity is a sales gimmick, whether done by Verizon or
an indy.)

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.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:43 GMT, Tim Harrick <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>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.

Remember, the comment was made by the same guy who said, "Enforcement
is subject to the current whim of the FCC".

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:09 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[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.

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.

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.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>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.

BDAs run in the neighborhood of $500. A high-gain antenna and
mounting won't cost more than $100.

But Larry wasn't talking about a BDA, but a passive repeater. That's
two antennas connected together - usually a high-gain Yagi outside and
an omnidirectional antenna inside. $100 for the Yagi, mount and cable
and nothing for a coaxial antenna made out of the end of the cable
coming from the Yagi.

>BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
>blackout?

I don't run a BDA (pretty good ambient signal), but I have my cordless
phone and wireless router/cable modem on a UPS. I can sit here in
candle-light and enjoy a high-speed connection to the internet if the
power goes out but the cable hasn't been damaged.

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

If they don't ask for the license they have no idea who they are
selling too nor what the application is. The manufacturer and/or
distributor cannot be held liable for a misapplication of their
product unless they were involved in the design, installation, and
actually operated it in an illegal fashion. As an example of this,
the State of Nevada installed a State-Wide Motorola Trunking system
without FCC licenses and right now is being investigated for operation
without a license. Motrola as the manufacturer of the system is not
being mentioned or investigated because they didn't operate it, the
State of Nevada did.

>
> >> 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.

No really....provide me with the proof or who you spoke to and I will
forward the official e-mail that still has the FCC address on it. Are
you afraid that you misrepresented yourself to the FCC official and if
you were to put in writing would come out maybe being....incorrect?

>
> >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.

That is exactly what you had them do was an intrepretation of the
rules on the phone, the FCC never does this. They always ask for a
document that they can audit later. Been there, done that!

>
> >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.

Why...do you think that you will get an opinion of someone who will
tell you that the first person gave you bad information?

>
> >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.

Maybe that is your opinion...but anyone who can read the english
language can read that simple paragraph and know who the "licensee"
is.

One thing that I found interesting on your website John is that I find
no references to BDA's anywhere yet you have all kind of other
cellular information. Why is that? You seem to have no problem in
providing this type of information on these newsgroups yet you don't
back it up on your website. Please explain...

Mark

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.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >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.
>
> BDAs run in the neighborhood of $500. A high-gain antenna and
> mounting won't cost more than $100.
>
> But Larry wasn't talking about a BDA, but a passive repeater. That's
> two antennas connected together - usually a high-gain Yagi outside and
> an omnidirectional antenna inside. $100 for the Yagi, mount and cable
> and nothing for a coaxial antenna made out of the end of the cable
> coming from the Yagi.
>
> >BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
> >blackout?
>
> I don't run a BDA (pretty good ambient signal), but I have my cordless
> phone and wireless router/cable modem on a UPS. I can sit here in
> candle-light and enjoy a high-speed connection to the internet if the
> power goes out but the cable hasn't been damaged.

I get full signal in every cell phone store I go to. I am sure they have a
BDA installed in the phone stores. how bad would it be if they could not
demo phones because there was no signal in the stores!
"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "Peter Pan"
> <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >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?
>
> Simon seems to cover their entire mall when they cover it. They even
> have signs on the doors (that don't mention Verizon, btw). I don't
> know how many malls they have spread over how much of the country, but
> the few on Long Island are set up with mall-wide repeaters.
>
> (I agree that having a repeater covering only the cell phone store and
> its immediate vicinity is a sales gimmick, whether done by Verizon or
> an indy.)

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.

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

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


> 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.

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:35:58
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. ...

Not true.

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

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

--
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 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?

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