Personal cell tower?

Thanks for taking the time to post some useful information.

"sweston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sure! Just call Cingular in the morning and they should have one up and
> running on your property by the end of the day. Sure hope that's quick
> enough for ya...
>
> Every Cingular customer can have their own tower. Just gotta call and ask.
> That's common knowledge... surprised you didn't already know that.
>
> "Dusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> G'day all;
>>
>> I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower?
>
>

---

› See More: Personal cell tower?

Dusty wrote:
> Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive?
>
>
> Tnx again y'all,
> Dusty

No, sorry...they ARE expensive, but very well worth it.

Basically three models.

* Repeater you connect directly to you phone.
* Repeater that you install in your car with an inside antenna to catch
the phones' signal (all occupants in that car can use the repeater).
* Repeater you install in a building with 2 ft. long 1/2" diameter
external antenna.

The middle one works in a small office.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 23 Nov 2005
13:47:05 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dusty wrote:
>> Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive?
>>
>> Tnx again y'all,
>> Dusty
>
>No, sorry...they ARE expensive, but very well worth it.
>
>Basically three models.
>
>* Repeater you connect directly to you phone.

That's actually a signal booster (uni amp), not a repeater.

>* Repeater that you install in your car with an inside antenna to catch
>the phones' signal (all occupants in that car can use the repeater).
>* Repeater you install in a building with 2 ft. long 1/2" diameter
>external antenna.
>
>The middle one works in a small office.

Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal, and one for the
coverage area of the repeater. It's very important that the two antennas be
well isolated, or Really Bad Things(tm) can result, and that no other kind of
interference be caused (per FCC rules).

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4W%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 23 Nov 2005
> 13:47:05 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Dusty wrote:
>>> Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive?
>>>
>>> Tnx again y'all,
>>> Dusty
>>
>>No, sorry...they ARE expensive, but very well worth it.
>>
>>Basically three models.
>>
>>* Repeater you connect directly to you phone.
>
> That's actually a signal booster (uni amp), not a repeater.
>
>>* Repeater that you install in your car with an inside antenna to catch
>>the phones' signal (all occupants in that car can use the repeater).
>>* Repeater you install in a building with 2 ft. long 1/2" diameter
>>external antenna.
>>
>>The middle one works in a small office.
>
> Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal, and one for
> the
> coverage area of the repeater. It's very important that the two antennas
> be
> well isolated, or Really Bad Things(tm) can result, and that no other kind
> of
> interference be caused (per FCC rules).
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Or use a duplexer.

...
bamp

Ok, stop splitting hairs. For that matter NONE of the three products are
repeaters as defined by the FCC where a base station receives on one
frequency and retransmits on another frequency.

* First unit requires a direct connection to the cellphone and connects
to a small car mounted antenna.
* Second unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and
connects to a small car mounted antenna.
* Third unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and
connects to a high gain building mounted antenna.

> It's very important that the two antennas be well isolated

Instructions recommend at least 3' separation from other receiving
devices, but I've seen it leak in to the front end of some satellite
gear and at least 20' separation was needed.

> Really Bad Things(tm) can result

Not so, all that will happen is you'll get some desense of the FM
receiver. Its not going to blow up the receiver. No worse than another
transmitter antenna mounted ten feet on another leg of the tower. May I
ask how many repeaters you've installed? More than fifty?

> Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal,
> and one for the coverage area of the repeater.

I have NEVER installed ANY repeater that needed two antennas...we use
DUPLEXERS. But these units aren't repeaters, rather bi-directional
amplifiers that require two antennas. May I ask how many repeaters
you've installed with two antennas?

Get in touch with Rural Cellular Corporation (www.rccwireless.com).
They own a lot of the non-metro cell towers in the US and lease-back
time and capability to the major cell operators. Tell them that you've
got an isolated property and that you'd like to open negotiations for
them to site a tower on your property.

It costs a lot of $$ and effort to add cell coverage to a remote area.
If all you want is local handset to handset comms with some outside
world connection, you may be able to barter the price of your service
against what RCC might usually pay for site and operations
rights/easements and thusly make the transaction attractive to them.
Generally it costs $3k-$10k per month for a cell tower company to
obtain local siting and operations rights from a property owner. If
you barter this down to say, unlimited personal cell use with maybe the
convienence of a DSL-equivalent internet data line, you might be
lowering the cost of entry enough to make it reasonable for RCC.

I'm just using RCC as an example here. If RCCs 'coverage area' isn't
in your area, then do some research to find out who is and work on
establishing similar relationships with them.

One reliable local-service alternative to this would be to get a 2
meter ham license and install one or more coded repeaters on your
property. Cost of that would be about $3k including handsets and the
repeater hardware.

phreak wrote:
> It costs a lot of $$ and effort to add cell coverage to a remote area.

If an attactive ROI was there, there would already be a tower most likely.

> One reliable local-service alternative to this would be to get a 2
> meter ham license and install one or more coded repeaters on your
> property.

I don't think that would be viable solution in terms of usage and
implimentation. If they were ALREADY hams, then it has potential to a
degree.

Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some
Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones.

John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with
that number. Geostationary orbit is 22,500 miles up. That a two tenths
second round trip for a radio signal.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 24 Nov 2005
17:20:12 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ok, stop splitting hairs. For that matter NONE of the three products are
>repeaters as defined by the FCC where a base station receives on one
>frequency and retransmits on another frequency.

In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency.
You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see
<http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>.

See also "FCC PROPOSES TO AMEND PARTS 22, 90, AND 94 OF THE RULES TO PERMIT
ROUTINE USE OF SIGNAL BOOSTERS"
<http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/1995/nrwl5024.txt>

A signal booster is a device that receives an incoming signal,
amplifies it and retransmits it on the same frequency. Such devices
are used to improve communications in locations within the normal
coverage area of a radio system where the signal is blocked or
shielded due to natural terrain or man-made obstacles. For example,
a signal booster may be used in such locations as valleys, tunnels,
below-ground parking facilities, or inside cargo vessels and aircraft
hangers.

Currently, under Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service
rules, signal boosters may be used only on 10 Business Radio Service
frequency pairs in the 450-470 MHz band for communications related to
the servicing and supplying of aircraft at certain specified
airports. Under Part 22 Public Mobile Service rules, a form of
signal booster, generally called a cellular repeater, may be used by
cellular licensees without separate licensing provided that the
repeater does not extend the licensee's signal beyond the authorized
cellular service area.

>* First unit requires a direct connection to the cellphone and connects
>to a small car mounted antenna.

That's usually just a transmit power booster.

>* Second unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and
>connects to a small car mounted antenna.
>* Third unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and
>connects to a high gain building mounted antenna.

With two antennas, connected by a bidirectional amplifier, those would be true
repeater systems.

> > It's very important that the two antennas be well isolated
>
>Instructions recommend at least 3' separation from other receiving
>devices, but I've seen it leak in to the front end of some satellite
>gear and at least 20' separation was needed.

What's needed is *signal* isolation, not distance per se.

> > Really Bad Things(tm) can result
>
>Not so, all that will happen is you'll get some desense of the FM
>receiver. Its not going to blow up the receiver. No worse than another
>transmitter antenna mounted ten feet on another leg of the tower.

What actually happens when the two antennas aren't sufficiently isolated is
feedback interference, which can affect areas outside of the intended coverage
area, which is prohibited by FCC rules.

>May I
>ask how many repeaters you've installed? More than fifty?

Enough to know how to do it properly.

> > Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal,
> > and one for the coverage area of the repeater.
>
>I have NEVER installed ANY repeater that needed two antennas...

Your examples two and three appear to be two-antenna repeaters.

>we use
>DUPLEXERS. But these units aren't repeaters, rather bi-directional
>amplifiers that require two antennas.

A duplexer isn't a repeater -- a duplexer is a device which allows a
transmitter operating on one frequency and a receiver operating on a
*different* frequency to share one common antenna.

>May I ask how many repeaters
>you've installed with two antennas?

Enough to know that's what a repeater system actually is. See
<http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/building_repeater.htm>. Note the two
antennas, one on the roof that communicates with the base station, and one (or
more) inside to communicate with cell phones, connected by the repeater
bidirectional amplifier.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 25 Nov 2005
17:50:47 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some
>Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones.
>
>John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with
>that number.

Me either, since I made no such claim. You do get confused easily.

>Geostationary orbit is 22,500 miles up. That a two tenths
>second round trip for a radio signal.

Geosat latency is actually in the range of 240-280 ms for a single hop, or
480-560 ms round trip. It can be much worse than that when there is more than
one hop, and additional latency comes from the landline connection. Even at
the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most
long distance calls are carried by microwave and (land or marine) cable, not
satellite.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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


> There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's
> approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to
> allow us to connect each other around the property. Later I was thinking of
> seeing about a 2-way satellite link along with the web & TV.

Sounds like a pair of full power 5 watt GMRS Walke Talies would do the
job that you are speaking of....

zeno wrote:
> Sounds like a pair of full power 5 watt GMRS Walke Talies would do the
> job that you are speaking of....

Very likely would, but a few things to keep in mind.

I've heard stories that hunters in heavily wooded or forested areas get
better results using VHF, such as MURS. Side by side comparisons of
public safety portables on VHF and UHF (in direct talk-around mode, not
going through the repeater) appears to show the same results in wooded
areas in my county.

It has to be a "real" GMRS walkie talkie, not one of those GMRS/FRS
bubble pack radios.

Each user would need his own $80 license (good for five years). Unless
all users were within the same immdeiate family.

>>Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some
>>Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones.
>>
>>John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with
>>that number.

John Navas replied:
> Me either, since I made no such claim. You do get confused easily.

http://navasgrp.home.att.net/
Follow the link for Three Myths of Satellite Internet (April 25, 2001)

Take you to page 2 of:
http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/feat...ernet_pg2.html
2. Watch out for latency.
It takes a long time, in Internet time, for a signal to travel up to a
satellite and back down to the ground. This increases latency --
particularly when the satellite is used for upstream as well as
downstream transmission (where total latency approaches a full second).

> and additional latency comes from the landline connection.

But that's not part of the comparitive equation.

Even at
> the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most
> long distance calls are carried by microwave and (land or marine) cable, not
> satellite.

If Dusty had a microwave or fiber optic connection , that would be
great. But he doesn't so its not.

John Navas wrote:
> In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency.
> You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see
> <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>.

Not relevant - Those definitions apply commercial broadcasters, not the
same definitions for two-way radio.

> Enough to know how to do it properly.

Uh huh.......

>>May I ask how many repeaters
>>you've installed with two antennas?

Uh huh.......

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 26 Nov 2005
18:54:48 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some
>>>Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones.
>>>
>>>John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with
>>>that number.
>
>John Navas replied:
>> Me either, since I made no such claim. You do get confused easily.
>
>http://navasgrp.home.att.net/
>Follow the link for Three Myths of Satellite Internet (April 25, 2001)
>
>Take you to page 2 of:
>http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/feat...ernet_pg2.html
>2. Watch out for latency.
>It takes a long time, in Internet time, for a signal to travel up to a
>satellite and back down to the ground. This increases latency --
>particularly when the satellite is used for upstream as well as
>downstream transmission (where total latency approaches a full second).

That's approximate ("approaches"), a different context, and not a part of this
thread.

>> and additional latency comes from the landline connection.
>
>But that's not part of the comparitive equation.

Actually it is, since landline for Internet is different from the PSTN, both
in terms of routing and in terms of QoS, and additional latency is more of an
issue when overall latency is already a problem.

> Even at
>> the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most
>> long distance calls are carried by microwave and (land or marine) cable, not
>> satellite.
>
>If Dusty had a microwave or fiber optic connection , that would be
>great. But he doesn't so its not.

Another option is LEO communications.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 26 Nov 2005
19:01:47 GMT, DecTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency.
>> You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see
>> <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>.
>
>Not relevant - Those definitions apply commercial broadcasters, not the
>same definitions for two-way radio.

Really? Citation? Or must we take your personal word for it?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>