Repeater / booster on the canyon rim

I've looked through this newsgroup and I see several message threads
regarding using a cellular "booster" (repeater), so I went and looked
at a few products via Google search. None appear to be what I am
looking for so perhaps someone here would be kind enough to offer a
suggestion.

I live in Northern New Mexico, in the bottom of a canyon. The canyon
walls rise over 1,600 feet above me. Up on the southern rim, 2,900 feet
away line-of-sight, one may make a cellular telephone call successfully
(though it is a brutal climb to get there).

Is there equipment I may place on the canyon rim, run by a deep-cycle
battery and photogalvaic solar cell (75 watts), and two Yagi antennas
that will allow me to "extend" cell service down from the canton rim
and into the canyon?

Thank you for any suggestion.

DMR

"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1143264128.219787.58760@t31g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com:

> Thank you for any suggestion.
>

http://www.powertec.com.au/repeater.php/product/ANBR10

http://www.shyamtelecom.com/outdoor%5C4R-37.pdf

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...ng/andrew_wig/
Andrew is fine stuff....

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...ilding/coiler/

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...uilding/comba/
Lots of companies in Europe where cellular repeaters are widely used.

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...nbuilding/ems/
EMS in Georgia does turnkey systems.

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...nbuilding/jas/
Asia uses lots of them, too.

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...uilding/shyam/

http://www.mobilecomms-technology.co...ding/youngwoo/
I keep bumping into Young Woo looking for these systems.

Well, after you see what it would cost to fill in a canyon, I'm sure
you'll find moving to the city much cheaper...(c;

Stupid America doesn't use them....well, except on the sales floor of
your carrier's mall store so at least the damned phone will work when
they're selling it... I call them "Cheater Repeaters".

Befor you going spending a lot of hard earned money ona BDA repeater
let me offer this article from one of the leading microwave
licensing/coordinators that is owned by the Andrew Corporation who
manufacturers high end communication components to include
BDA/Repeaters:

It Doesn't Have to Squeal to Cause a Problem - Interference from
Cellular Amplifiers

http://www.comsearch.com/newsletter/WirelessPulse.html

As many public speakers have found, placing a microphone too close
to the PA speakers can be deafening when audio feed back occurs. The
scenario that follows can best be described as an RF version of
audio feedback. It also has the potential to cause many problems
and, if you consider a dropped call deafening, have similar results.

Comsearch Field Services was contacted last October by a Cellular
(GSM) provider in the Midwest to assist in identifying a suspected
interference source at one of their tower sites. The tower was put
into service several years ago and has had the problem
intermittently since then. The "interference" caused an unexplained
increase in dropped calls, usually for periods of several hours on
various weekend days.

An omni-directional antenna was originally installed on the tower.
At a later date it was replaced with three sectorized antennas. Once
this change was made, the periods of excessive dropped calls
occurred only on the northwest sector antenna. It should be noted
that the provider's other antennas in the area did not experience
this problem.

During the two consecutive weekend periods spent at this location,
we were unable to identify the source of the interference because
the system experienced no excessive dropped calls during these
times. However, the most likely sources of the type of interference
experienced were anticipated to be either Ham Radio Operators, CB
base stations running linear amplifiers or a vehicle-mounted
cellular amplifier/repeater system.

A few weeks later, the source of interference causing excessive
dropped calls was finally identified at a separate location. The
verified interference source was indeed a vehicle-mounted cellular
amplifier system.

Over the last two months, the client identified more than twenty
instances of this type of unit causing excessive dropped calls in
their network. In every case, the interference was caused by an
improperly installed system. Figure 1 shows the RF spectrum when a
cellular amplifier is installed correctly. Figure 2 shows the RF
spectrum when installed incorrectly.

Comsearch has conducted preliminary research and testing related to
these units. There are multiple manufacturers of this type of unit
that supply systems for vehicles, marine installations and home
installations.

The home units consist of an internal antenna connected to an
amplifier with up to 60 dB of gain that is connected to an external
antenna. We have not yet researched the marine units.

The vehicle systems fall into two separate categories. Some have the
phone directly connected to the amplifier, with up to 40 dB of gain,
that then is connected to an antenna on the outside of the vehicle.
We have not tested this type of system. Another type of vehicle
system that we did test consists of an internal "strip antenna"
connected to the amplifier with up to 38 dB gain that connects to an
external vehicle antenna. These units are advertised as not needing
a physical connection to the phone.

The GSM/PCS compatible units have an uplink range of 824-849 MHz and
1850-1910 MHz. Their downlink range is 869-894 MHz and 1930-1990
MHz. The interference to the tower receivers occurs when the
internal antenna is mounted too close to the external antenna. This
results in spurious emissions that cover the entire 824-849 MHz and
1850-1910 MHz bands. The spurious signals from the amplifier are 20 -
30 dB stronger than the amplified handset levels. The result is
excessive dropped calls when the vehicle is near the cell tower
(within one mile usually). The phone does not have to be on or even
in the vehicle for this interference event to occur.

The manufacturer of the specific unit we tested was somewhat vague
concerning the proper separation between the antennas, citing at
least 5 feet and as much as 20 feet. (How many pickup trucks could
have this much separation unless you mounted the external antenna on
the tailgate?)

We have known for some time that cell phones and PCS phones emit
harmonics. This is not a problem with handsets that emit less that
one watt. However, it would be a problem if they operated at 3
watts. In 1997 and 1998, we documented two cases where 3 watt
Cellular "Bag Phones" caused interference into C-Band Earth Stations
receiving digital on the upper transponders via the phone's 5th
harmonic.

The testing we performed showed that the 5th harmonic from an 850
MHz GSM phone utilizing one of these properly operating vehicle
amplifiers would be strong enough to cause interference to the upper
four transponders of the satellite C-Band if receiving digital
video. The interference would be even stronger with an improperly
installed unit.

Further testing verified that a PCS phone connected to this type
amplifier would emit
2nd harmonics strong enough to interfere with the lower five
transponders in the satellite C-Band if receiving digital video.
Even further testing is called for since we suspect that the 3rd
harmonic of one of these units, improperly installed and being used
with a GSM (824-849 MHz) phone, might cause interference into an
802.11b system if the vehicle were parked close enough to the system.

Comsearch's Field Services group is committed to solving
interference issues and will, no doubt, find themselves busier as
telecommunication continues to evolve. Click here to find out more
about Comsearch's comprehensive field services.

Phile,
Which canyon? There are many 'canyons' in the area with good cellular
service, you just need to find it. Commnet installed a site at Questa, but
it would not reach the nearby mine, so Commnet installed an additonal cell
site in Red River aimed west to serve the mine. The problem is, the Questa
site served TDMA customers, and the Red River site served CDMA customers,
and as if that wasn't enough of a problem, the Red River site uses 1900 MHz
only. So, you need to try a TDMA, CDMA (w/analog) and GSM phone before
going for big equipment. Then your solution may be as simple as a Yagi
antenna.

Over at Tres Piedras, you can almost "see" Taos, but you can't access the
cell sites there reliably. A small yagi pointed at San Luis would access
Blanca Telephone's sites, but who knew they were there? If a yagi doesn't
quite cut it, a yagi w/a booster might do it. All these are preferable to a
repeater which has legal and physical ramifications. Commnet is installing
a couple of other new sites there, one of which is for Nextel. Would you
have tried Nextel? And even Sprint is marching up the Rio Grande valley
with sites that will reach pockets that other providers won't see.

Of course, you you live in the crater of the old Jemez volcano, you might
have a problem.


Bill Radio
Click for Wireless Reviews at:
http://www.mountainwireless.com




"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143264128.219787.58760@t31g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> I've looked through this newsgroup and I see several message threads
> regarding using a cellular "booster" (repeater), so I went and looked
> at a few products via Google search. None appear to be what I am
> looking for so perhaps someone here would be kind enough to offer a
> suggestion.
>
> I live in Northern New Mexico, in the bottom of a canyon. The canyon
> walls rise over 1,600 feet above me. Up on the southern rim, 2,900 feet
> away line-of-sight, one may make a cellular telephone call successfully
> (though it is a brutal climb to get there).
>
> Is there equipment I may place on the canyon rim, run by a deep-cycle
> battery and photogalvaic solar cell (75 watts), and two Yagi antennas
> that will allow me to "extend" cell service down from the canton rim
> and into the canyon?
>
> Thank you for any suggestion.
>
> DMR
>

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:00:04 -0800, KS4VT@yahoo_nospam.com wrote:

> Befor you going spending a lot of hard earned money ona BDA repeater
> let me offer this article from one of the leading microwave
> licensing/coordinators that is owned by the Andrew Corporation who
> manufacturers high end communication components to include
> BDA/Repeaters:
>
> It Doesn't Have to Squeal to Cause a Problem - Interference from
> Cellular Amplifiers
>
> http://www.comsearch.com/newsletter/WirelessPulse.html
>
> As many public speakers have found, placing a microphone too close
> to the PA speakers can be deafening when audio feed back occurs. The
> scenario that follows can best be described as an RF version of
> audio feedback. It also has the potential to cause many problems
> and, if you consider a dropped call deafening, have similar results.
>
> Comsearch Field Services was contacted last October by a Cellular
> (GSM) provider in the Midwest to assist in identifying a suspected
> interference source at one of their tower sites. The tower was put
> into service several years ago and has had the problem
> intermittently since then. The "interference" caused an unexplained
> increase in dropped calls, usually for periods of several hours on
> various weekend days.
>
> An omni-directional antenna was originally installed on the tower.
> At a later date it was replaced with three sectorized antennas. Once
> this change was made, the periods of excessive dropped calls
> occurred only on the northwest sector antenna. It should be noted
> that the provider's other antennas in the area did not experience
> this problem.
>
> During the two consecutive weekend periods spent at this location,
> we were unable to identify the source of the interference because
> the system experienced no excessive dropped calls during these
> times. However, the most likely sources of the type of interference
> experienced were anticipated to be either Ham Radio Operators, CB
> base stations running linear amplifiers or a vehicle-mounted
> cellular amplifier/repeater system.
>
> A few weeks later, the source of interference causing excessive
> dropped calls was finally identified at a separate location. The
> verified interference source was indeed a vehicle-mounted cellular
> amplifier system.
>
> Over the last two months, the client identified more than twenty
> instances of this type of unit causing excessive dropped calls in
> their network. In every case, the interference was caused by an
> improperly installed system. Figure 1 shows the RF spectrum when a
> cellular amplifier is installed correctly. Figure 2 shows the RF
> spectrum when installed incorrectly.
>
> Comsearch has conducted preliminary research and testing related to
> these units. There are multiple manufacturers of this type of unit
> that supply systems for vehicles, marine installations and home
> installations.
>
> The home units consist of an internal antenna connected to an
> amplifier with up to 60 dB of gain that is connected to an external
> antenna. We have not yet researched the marine units.
>
> The vehicle systems fall into two separate categories. Some have the
> phone directly connected to the amplifier, with up to 40 dB of gain,
> that then is connected to an antenna on the outside of the vehicle.
> We have not tested this type of system. Another type of vehicle
> system that we did test consists of an internal "strip antenna"
> connected to the amplifier with up to 38 dB gain that connects to an
> external vehicle antenna. These units are advertised as not needing
> a physical connection to the phone.
>
> The GSM/PCS compatible units have an uplink range of 824-849 MHz and
> 1850-1910 MHz. Their downlink range is 869-894 MHz and 1930-1990
> MHz. The interference to the tower receivers occurs when the
> internal antenna is mounted too close to the external antenna. This
> results in spurious emissions that cover the entire 824-849 MHz and
> 1850-1910 MHz bands. The spurious signals from the amplifier are 20 -
> 30 dB stronger than the amplified handset levels. The result is
> excessive dropped calls when the vehicle is near the cell tower
> (within one mile usually). The phone does not have to be on or even
> in the vehicle for this interference event to occur.
>
> The manufacturer of the specific unit we tested was somewhat vague
> concerning the proper separation between the antennas, citing at
> least 5 feet and as much as 20 feet. (How many pickup trucks could
> have this much separation unless you mounted the external antenna on
> the tailgate?)
>
> We have known for some time that cell phones and PCS phones emit
> harmonics. This is not a problem with handsets that emit less that
> one watt. However, it would be a problem if they operated at 3
> watts. In 1997 and 1998, we documented two cases where 3 watt
> Cellular "Bag Phones" caused interference into C-Band Earth Stations
> receiving digital on the upper transponders via the phone's 5th
> harmonic.
>
> The testing we performed showed that the 5th harmonic from an 850
> MHz GSM phone utilizing one of these properly operating vehicle
> amplifiers would be strong enough to cause interference to the upper
> four transponders of the satellite C-Band if receiving digital
> video. The interference would be even stronger with an improperly
> installed unit.
>
> Further testing verified that a PCS phone connected to this type
> amplifier would emit
> 2nd harmonics strong enough to interfere with the lower five
> transponders in the satellite C-Band if receiving digital video.
> Even further testing is called for since we suspect that the 3rd
> harmonic of one of these units, improperly installed and being used
> with a GSM (824-849 MHz) phone, might cause interference into an
> 802.11b system if the vehicle were parked close enough to the system.
>
> Comsearch's Field Services group is committed to solving
> interference issues and will, no doubt, find themselves busier as
> telecommunication continues to evolve. Click here to find out more
> about Comsearch's comprehensive field services.

So basically a repeater installed improperly becomes a cell phone jammer.
It is also important to get an amp that properly communicates with the
tower in liu of the cellphone itself so the tower can keep overdriving
from occuring. The nicety of a properly installed system is that the
phone itself will not need to transmit at max power, thus running cooler
and drawing less current from the battery which extends talk time. I'm a
bit wary of some unapproved cellular amps out there.


Dave

David W Studeman wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:00:04 -0800, KS4VT@yahoo_nospam.com wrote:
>
> I'm a bit wary of some unapproved cellular amps out there.
>
>
> Dave

Unless the repeater/BDA is installed by the carrier, or their "approved
representative" then it is unapproved for operation. The FCC R&R's are
very clear on this.