Cell phone booster ???

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Sorry I wans't clear
> > I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
> > Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal
> > there
> > either.
> > Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
> > cabin.
> > No joy.
> > As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the
> > road
> >
> >
>
> The amp won't help you. There must be some signal for it to work. You
> are in a shadow from all the cells.


Technically correct, but in reality it might still work.

I have the same situation in Southern Utah. I get NO
signal AT ALL with the bogus antenna on the phone,
but -87 to -91 with a DA-4000 and a 15dBi Yagi.

Plenty enough to sustain CDMA calls with Alltel, and
this by bouncing the signal off of a set of 1000' sandstone
cliffs and then BACK to the cell site. You should put
your antenna as high as possible to clear the trees.

RF performance of the "toy" cell phones of the last
few years is awful. Older phones work better. I'm
using a Kyocera 3250, the current LG offerings from
Alltel are abysmal performers in remote situations, but
they take pictures and play MP3's. Whoopee. Who cares. I've
bought a lifetime supply of 3250's of Ebay (cheap) so I am set.

Find a supplier who will give your money back if it
doesn't work (many will), buy an amp, GOOD low-loss cable
(LMR-600 not RG8X or LMR-400 - it DOES make a difference,
despite the argument that my assertion here will start), and try it.
Figure about $500 for everything.

>
>
>
> These bastards keep calling me so I'm feeding them to the spambots.
> --
> Sunrise Communications
> 1374 E. Republic Rd.
> Springfield, MO 65804
> 866-483-1228
> 417-886-7091
> http://www.sunrisecommunicationsinc.com/
> 877-842-3210
> 866-842-3278
> United Healthcare
> http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/

---

› See More: Cell phone booster ???

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:13:37 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:



>"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > Sorry I wans't clear
>> > I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
>> > Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal
>> > there
>> > either.
>> > Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
>> > cabin.
>> > No joy.
>> > As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the
>> > road
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The amp won't help you. There must be some signal for it to work. You
>> are in a shadow from all the cells.


>Technically correct, but in reality it might still work.

Sure. All you need is a 7500' antenna on the roof. A satphone might be
a bit cheaper.

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:13:37 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >> > Sorry I wans't clear
> >> > I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
> >> > Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal
> >> > there
> >> > either.
> >> > Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
> >> > cabin.
> >> > No joy.
> >> > As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the
> >> > road
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The amp won't help you. There must be some signal for it to work. You
> >> are in a shadow from all the cells.
>
>
> >Technically correct, but in reality it might still work.
>
> Sure. All you need is a 7500' antenna on the roof. A satphone might be
> a bit cheaper.

Look. I'm telling you that I get NO signal AT ALL
with the built-in antenna, but that I can make calls
AT THE SAME SPOT with the appropriate setup (which as
I said, ran me about $500.) If you choose
to not believe me, that's your perogative.

At least let the OP decide for himself.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:45:07 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:



>"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:13:37 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> >> news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > Sorry I wans't clear
>> >> > I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
>> >> > Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal
>> >> > there
>> >> > either.
>> >> > Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
>> >> > cabin.
>> >> > No joy.
>> >> > As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the
>> >> > road
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The amp won't help you. There must be some signal for it to work. You
>> >> are in a shadow from all the cells.
>>
>>
>> >Technically correct, but in reality it might still work.
>>
>> Sure. All you need is a 7500' antenna on the roof. A satphone might be
>> a bit cheaper.

>Look. I'm telling you that I get NO signal AT ALL
>with the built-in antenna, but that I can make calls
>AT THE SAME SPOT with the appropriate setup (which as
>I said, ran me about $500.) If you choose
>to not believe me, that's your perogative.

Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.

At 18 Aug 2007 20:22:47 +0000 AZ Nomad wrote:

> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.


But who says the signal is actually "zero." Just because it's below
a level the phone's signal strength meter registers as usable doesn't
necessarily mean there isn't a signal for the amp to latch on to.

--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003

"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:45:07 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"AZ Nomad" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:13:37 -0700, V Green <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> >> news:[email protected]:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Sorry I wans't clear
> >> >> > I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
> >> >> > Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal
> >> >> > there
> >> >> > either.
> >> >> > Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
> >> >> > cabin.
> >> >> > No joy.
> >> >> > As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the
> >> >> > road
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The amp won't help you. There must be some signal for it to work. You
> >> >> are in a shadow from all the cells.
> >>
> >>
> >> >Technically correct, but in reality it might still work.
> >>
> >> Sure. All you need is a 7500' antenna on the roof. A satphone might be
> >> a bit cheaper.
>
> >Look. I'm telling you that I get NO signal AT ALL
> >with the built-in antenna, but that I can make calls
> >AT THE SAME SPOT with the appropriate setup (which as
> >I said, ran me about $500.) If you choose
> >to not believe me, that's your perogative.
>
> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.

Look, numbnuts, just because the crap antenna on the
PHONE shows no signal doesn't mean there ISN'T any,
it just means that stock antenna isn't good enough to see it.

Get it?

Geezzzzzz...

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:48:35 -0600, Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:


>At 18 Aug 2007 20:22:47 +0000 AZ Nomad wrote:

>> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.


>But who says the signal is actually "zero." Just because it's below
>a level the phone's signal strength meter registers as usable doesn't
>necessarily mean there isn't a signal for the amp to latch on to.

amplifiers don't latch on to signals.

There may not be a signal there strong enough for your phone to use but a direct connect amplifier can sense that signal and amplify it so it is usable to . Wireless amplifiers do require more signal to work with

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:48:35 -0600, Todd Allcock
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> At 18 Aug 2007 20:22:47 +0000 AZ Nomad wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.
>
>
>> But who says the signal is actually "zero." Just because it's below
>> a level the phone's signal strength meter registers as usable doesn't
>> necessarily mean there isn't a signal for the amp to latch on to.
>
> amplifiers don't latch on to signals.

A sensitive antenna setup can receive an otherwise unuseable signal and
amplify it to useable strength.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 16:45:04 GMT, "Les Long" <[email protected]> wrote this
with the utmost thought:

>Hate to say it but you are SOL
>
>No cheap way of getting it done.
>
>Now it depends on how much you want to spend.
>You could have a tower installed, correct antenna and amps to boost signal
>in and out.
>You could go with a Satellite phone.
>Or
>You could check with Internet satellite service that has the capability of
>using VOIP.
>
>I think I would just drive the 2 miles round trip to use the phone and tell
>family and friends to leave a voice message if they need to contact you.

Brilliant thinking *if* the OP is incapacitated in the cabin and needs to
call 911. Perhaps the cheapest overall option would be to move the cabin a
mile or so until within signal reception

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Les Long" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >I live under the same condition. I have no service inside the house. I
>had
>> > an extra magnetic antenna for the vehicle. I put the antenna on top of
>the
>> > roof and ran the wire inside through a window. I have two bars of signal
>> > now. Not able to walk around inside the house and talk but can set in my
>> > chair and talk all I want.
>> > Maybe it will work for you.
>> >
>> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> When we go to the (recently-aquired) cabin we are just on the edge of
>> >> cell
>> >> phone service.
>> >> We can get a signal less than a mile from the cabin, in terrain that is
>> >> heavily forested and has variances of elevation of no more than 50 feet
>> >> vertical
>> >> We really don't want to have permanent (line) phone service in the
>cabin,
>> >> but it would be nice to have cell phone service just in case
>> >>
>> >> Someone suggested we get a cell phone booster for the car and/or cabin
>> >>
>> >> Any advice and experience with such a device would be appreciated
>> >>
>> >> Oh yes, primary service is T-Mobile
>> >> But Cingular is the provider in and around the cabin
>> >> The phones are Motorola Razor V3s
>> >> We also have some Motorola V300s that could be left at the cabin for
>911
>> > if
>> >> a booster is a solution
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry I wans't clear
>> I'm not getting ANY service IN OR OUT of the cabin.
>> Tried climbing on the roof (A-Frame 40+ feet) and got no signal there
>> either.
>> Also tried it on the middle of the lake about 150 yards from the
>cabin.
>> No joy.
>> As I wrote, the nearest point where I get service is a mile down the road
>>
>>
>>
>

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:00:57 -1000, BruceR <[email protected]> wrote:




> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:48:35 -0600, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 18 Aug 2007 20:22:47 +0000 AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.
>>
>>
>>> But who says the signal is actually "zero." Just because it's below
>>> a level the phone's signal strength meter registers as usable doesn't
>>> necessarily mean there isn't a signal for the amp to latch on to.
>>
>> amplifiers don't latch on to signals.

>A sensitive antenna setup can receive an otherwise unuseable signal and
>amplify it to useable strength.

If the signal is unuseable, the amplified signal will be no better. You'll
amplifify noise as well and the signal will in fact be less useable.

A good dual band amplifier can make an unsable signal useable . That is the point . Lots of good products and dealers out there.

Originally Posted by AZ Nomad

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:00:57 -1000, BruceR <[email protected]> wrote:




> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 14:48:35 -0600, Todd Allcock
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> At 18 Aug 2007 20:22:47 +0000 AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>>>> Yeah, you're lying. A thousand times zero is still zero.
>>
>>
>>> But who says the signal is actually "zero." Just because it's below
>>> a level the phone's signal strength meter registers as usable doesn't
>>> necessarily mean there isn't a signal for the amp to latch on to.
>>
>> amplifiers don't latch on to signals.

>A sensitive antenna setup can receive an otherwise unuseable signal and
>amplify it to useable strength.

If the signal is unuseable, the amplified signal will be no better. You'll
amplifify noise as well and the signal will in fact be less useable.

AZ Nomad schrieb:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:00:57 -1000, BruceR <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>> A sensitive antenna setup can receive an otherwise unuseable signal and
>> amplify it to useable strength.
>
> If the signal is unuseable, the amplified signal will be no better. You'll
> amplifify noise as well and the signal will in fact be less useable.

A directional antenna does not amplify the signal and therefore does not
amplify any noise. In transmit case, it concentrates the radiated RF
energy into a certain direction, creating a stronger field in that
direction than a non directional antenna would (at the cost of creating
a weaker field in all other directions). In the receive case, it is not
as easy to understand, but the effect is the same. Signals coming from
the direction the antenna points to are received stronger while noise
from all other directions is suppressed.

Andreas

In article <[email protected]>,
AZ Nomad <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:00:57 -1000, BruceR <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >A sensitive antenna setup can receive an otherwise unuseable signal and
> >amplify it to useable strength.
>
> If the signal is unuseable, the amplified signal will be no better. You'll
> amplifify noise as well and the signal will in fact be less useable.

If you believe that, you clearly don't have the slightest idea how radio
works.

I took electronics class in high school; I built crystal radios, tube
radios, and transistor radios. The tubes or transistors served to
amplify a weak signal from an unuseable level to a useable level, and
allowed a smaller antenna to be used. Back then, manufacturers
advertised how many transistors were in their transistor radios because
as a general rule, more transistors meant more amplification and
therefore better ability to pull in weak signals from faraway stations.

Cell phones may use different frequencies and modulation techniques than
those old AM radios, and they send as well as receive, but the basic
principles are unchanged: If you add a more powerful amplifier and/or a
bigger antenna, you can pick up weaker signals and send signals farther.

Yes, the noise is amplified too, but that's only a problem when the
signal to noise ratio is low. As long as the s/n ratio is above a
certain threshold, a cell phone will have no difficulty filtering out
the amplified noise from the amplified signal.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:33:20 -0500, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote:
>When we go to the (recently-aquired) cabin we are just on the edge of cell
>phone service.
>We can get a signal less than a mile from the cabin, in terrain that is
>heavily forested and has variances of elevation of no more than 50 feet
>vertical
>We really don't want to have permanent (line) phone service in the cabin,
>but it would be nice to have cell phone service just in case

>Someone suggested we get a cell phone booster for the car and/or cabin

>Any advice and experience with such a device would be appreciated

>Oh yes, primary service is T-Mobile
>But Cingular is the provider in and around the cabin
>The phones are Motorola Razor V3s
>We also have some Motorola V300s that could be left at the cabin for 911 if
>a booster is a solution