Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

[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>

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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?

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, 06 Dec 2003 22:37:52 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

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

Enforcement of speed limits is subject to the whim of the cop covering
the area.

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.