Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:46:44
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:45:17 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>>>They're ALWAYS a solution to the problem of having a strong signal
>>>there, but a weak one here, as long as there and here can be bridged
>>>by a passive repeater.
>
>>Not really true, as I explain above.
>
>As you claimed. But reality and your claim are at odds, ...

On the contrary.

>>>Needing anything larger than a 32 element bedspring says that there's
>>>no tower available, but that's an easily portable antenna at 1900 MHz,
>>>and not that large at 850 MHz. (It's only about 1 foot by 2 feet at
>>>1900, if my not-even-BOE calculation is correct.) But it's close to
>>>20dbd gain. A 5 element quad is also pretty small up there. Even a
>>>30dbd parabolic is doable. 30dbd.
>
>>For a cellular band Loop Yagi:
>
>> Length (in) Gain (db)
>> ----------- -------
>> 72 16
>> 144 18
>> 216 20
>
>>A 216" antenna is of course 18 feet long, neither cheap nor easy to mount (nor
>>terribly attractive).
>
>Not much of a problem on a house. (I had something larger than that
>on my roof when I was 16.)

Good for you (notwithstanding how that undercuts your earlier claims, but
not for the great majority of the rest of us.

>>>That's 1,000 times amplification
>>>bidirectionally - over a full dipole. Turns a 200mw handset into 200
>>>WATTS of radiated power, all aimed directly at the tower.
>
>>That would only be true if all of the handset power is captured by the indoor
>>antenna
>
>No, the gain of the antenna doesn't depend on the signal level (until
>the losses start warming the antenna).

I didn't say it did. What I said was that it doesn't have 200mw to work with,
and it doesn't, only a tiny fraction of that.

>>but in fact it captures only a tiny fraction of that essentially
>>omnidirectionally radiated power. ( Either that, or we are indeed living in
>>universes with different physical laws! That's why a wired external
>>antenna is much more practical.
>
>Only if one wants to be tethered to a wire.

I'd prefer not to be, but it beats not working at all.

>If a passive repeater
>turns no signal into adequate signal, why be tethered?

Because a passive repeater isn't a good solution for the great majority of us
(your personal enthusiasm notwithstanding).

>>>... All it takes is a little gain...
>
>>What it really takes is less loss and/or more power.
>
>As long as the gain is greater than the loss, and the outside signal
>is adequate, it works.

With all due respect, that doesn't make sense.

>(The unidirectionality of the handset antenna
>is moot - standing with the tip of the antenna pointing to a cell 3
>miles away also doesn't work.)

Standard handset antennas are OMNI (as I wrote), not UNI.

--
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 16 Dec 2003 02:35:04
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

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

>> He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
>> the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
>> have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
>> here.
>
>That's fair...awaiting your posted FCC reply.

I finally got a reply, which is attached below, along with my inquiry. It
would indeed seem to resolve the matter as far as FCC rules are concerned.

Since this advice is inconsistent with the earlier advice I had gotten by
phone, I made some further calls to the FCC. The gist of those calls is that
this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
big fine). Regardless, I personally wouldn't do it.

Best regards,
John Navas

---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
To: John Navas
Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
Organization: FCC

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.

In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
LICENSEE.
Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
licensee.

These fall under Part 22 and 24 of the rules, which are available online from
a link at wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.

The "FCC Approval" on products is not a license or endorsement, but only
states that it has passed examination for use in a particular radio service
under the rules of that service.



Representative Number : TSR41
---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------


---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Navas
To: [email protected]
Subject: Low power in-building cellular repeaters
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:22:46 -0800

I've been investigating products to improve cellular reception in my home.

* Andrew Corporation (EAC-50 Repeater Kit, Model ASPM1850-50,
<http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/eac50_pcs.html>, 440-349-8647)

* CellAntenna Corporation (CAE50 SOHO Repeater Package,
<http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/CAE50new.htm>, 877-998-2628)

* Wilson Electronics (BD800AM-B / BD800AM-B50,
<http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/amps/wcamps.htm>, 800-204-4104)

have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type
Accepted, and that *no* FCC license is needed to install and operate that
kind of in-building cellular repeater here in the USA. In addition, I note
that such products are openly sold to consumers by several dealers.

To check this, on August 19, 2003, I called the FCC, and was routed to the
Commercial Wireless Division [which]
confirmed to me that no license was required.

Is this true or not? Thank you.
---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>The gist of those calls is that
>this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
>low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
>you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
>big fine).

As we've told Mark like a dozen times, "no harm, no foul." The worst
that would happen is you're asked to turn it off. Big deal.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 16 Dec 2003 02:35:04
> -0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:
>
> >John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >> He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
> >> the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
> >> have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
> >> here.
> >
> >That's fair...awaiting your posted FCC reply.
>
> I finally got a reply, which is attached below, along with my inquiry. It
> would indeed seem to resolve the matter as far as FCC rules are concerned.
>
> Since this advice is inconsistent with the earlier advice I had gotten by
> phone, I made some further calls to the FCC. The gist of those calls is that
> this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
> low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
> you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
> big fine). Regardless, I personally wouldn't do it.
>
> Best regards,
> John Navas
>
> ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
> From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
> To: John Navas
> Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
> Organization: FCC
>
> You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
> 12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
>
> In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
> LICENSEE.
> Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
> licensee.
>
> These fall under Part 22 and 24 of the rules, which are available online from
> a link at wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.
>
> The "FCC Approval" on products is not a license or endorsement, but only
> states that it has passed examination for use in a particular radio service
> under the rules of that service.

Thanks for posting John and to you and everyone else have a happy
holiday and a great New Year.

Mark

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
>From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
>To: John Navas
>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
>Organization: FCC
>
>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
>
>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
>LICENSEE.
>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
>licensee.

Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.

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

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
-0500, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
>>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
>>From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
>>To: John Navas
>>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
>>Organization: FCC
>>
>>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
>>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
>>
>>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
>>LICENSEE.
>>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
>>licensee.
>
>Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.

Did you have a point? Or were you just being a jerk?

Happy Holidays!
John

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:48:02 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted to alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
>-0500, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
>><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>>
>>>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
>>>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
>>>From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
>>>To: John Navas
>>>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
>>>Organization: FCC
>>>
>>>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
>>>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
>>>
>>>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
>>>LICENSEE.
>>>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
>>>licensee.

>>Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.

>Did you have a point?

That you proved yourself wrong.

>Or were you just being a jerk?

*I'M* not the one who claimed that anyone could use a cellular
repeater without breaking the law.

Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:48:02 GMT, John Navas
> <[email protected]> posted to alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> >In <[email protected]> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
> >-0500, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
> >><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
> >>
> >>>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
> >>>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
> >>>From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
> >>>To: John Navas
> >>>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
> >>>Organization: FCC
> >>>
> >>>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
> >>>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
> >>>
> >>>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
> >>>LICENSEE.
> >>>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
> >>>licensee.
>
> >>Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.
>
> >Did you have a point?
>
> That you proved yourself wrong.
>
> >Or were you just being a jerk?
>
> *I'M* not the one who claimed that anyone could use a cellular
> repeater without breaking the law.


Gentlemen...Gentlemen...

I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough to
post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what he was
looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it and not
continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told you so".
John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the FCC's
reply and that should be good enough for all of us.

There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
to the judge.

Mark

"MarkF" wrote:

> Gentlemen...Gentlemen...
>
> I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough
to
> post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what
he was
> looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it
and not
> continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told
you so".
> John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the
FCC's
> reply and that should be good enough for all of us.
>
> There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on
BDA's
> specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also
probably
> think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value
that has
> no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit
and if
> there is an enforcement action against them then they can
explain it
> to the judge.
>
> Mark

"MarkF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Gentlemen...Gentlemen...
>
> I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough to
> post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what he was
> looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it and not
> continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told you so".
> John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the FCC's
> reply and that should be good enough for all of us.
>
> There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
> specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
> think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
> no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
> there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
> to the judge.
>
> Mark

This thread definitely makes the Geek Hall of Fame!

SOrry for going OT on this but this waws too funny to pass up.

Actually posted speed limits ARE suggestions. they are "maximum suggested"

IE you can not legally go faster but YOU CAN illegally go the same speed as.

IE you can be tickets for doing 55 in a 55 IE a speeding ticket if that
speed is unsafe for the conditions.

rain snow etc.. etc..

Just thought that was an interesting tidbit.

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


> There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
> specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
> think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
> no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
> there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
> to the judge.
>
> Mark

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:09:29 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.186.221.222
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1071029369 24.186.221.222 (Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:09:29 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:09:29 EST
Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:43279 alt.cellular.cingular:25960 alt.cellular.verizon:130366

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:40:42 GMT, [email protected] (Larry W4CSC) posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Even then, the savvy customer will be treated like a 2-year-old during
>potty training.

I never put up with that - I always challenge them if they're wrong,
and dare them to prove me wrong. I haven't lost an argument with one
of them yet.