Results 1 to 15 of 22
- 08-20-2003, 09:14 AM #1Mark FillaGuest
I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
service doesn't make you a licensee.
To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
conversation is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
that I didn't warn you.
FCC Rule:
§ 90.219 Use of signal boosters.
Licensees authorized to operate radio systems in the frequency bands
above 150 MHz
may employ signal boosters at fixed locations in accordance with the
following criteria:
(a) The amplified signal is retransmitted only on the exact
frequency(ies) of the originating base, fixed, mobile, or portable
station(s). The booster will fill in only weak signal areas and cannot
extend the system's normal signal coverage area.
(b) Class A narrowband signal boosters must be equipped with automatic
gain control circuitry which will limit the total effective radiated
power (ERP) of the unit to a maximum of 5 watts under all conditions.
Class B broadband signal boosters are limited to 5 watts ERP for each
authorized frequency that the booster is designed to amplify.
(c) Class A narrowband boosters must meet the out-of-band emission
limits of
§ 90.209 for each narrowband channel that the booster is designed to
amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the emission
limits of § 90.209 for frequencies outside of the booster's design
passband.
(d) Class B broadband signal boosters are permitted to be used only in
confined or indoor areas such as buildings, tunnels, underground areas,
etc., i.e., areas where there is little or no risk of interference to
other users.
(e) The licensee is given authority to operate signal boosters without
separate authorization from the Commission. Type-accepted equipment
must be employed and the licensee must ensure that all applicable rule
requirements are met.
(f) Licensees employing either Class A narrowband or Class B broadband
signal boosters as defined in § 90.7 are responsible for correcting any
harmful interference that the equipment may cause to other systems.
Normal co-channel transmissions will not be considered as harmful
interference. Licensees will be required to resolve interference
problems pursuant to § 90.173(b).
--
Mark KS4VT
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
› See More: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
- 08-20-2003, 11:52 AM #2John NavasGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:14:24 -0000,
[email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time
No need to do that -- twice was enough. (The actual order [FCC 96-223] is
accessible at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...96/fcc96223.wp>.)
>and state that "ONLY THE
>LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
>(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
>paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
>service doesn't make you a licensee.
That's a made-up quote (your own interpretation) -- there is no such phrase in
the rule.
>To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
>that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
>with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
>give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
>they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
>and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
>system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
My one more time:
Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
consumer use.
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.
>Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
>with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
>conversation
I have conversed with the FCC (unlike you) -- the "supposed" phone call was
real. ( Should I return the favor and call your qualifications "supposed" as
well? Likewise my calls to the manufacturers (unlike you).
>is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
>the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
>illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
>that I didn't warn you.
>[SNIP]
I'm quite comfortable relying on these manufacturers and the FCC. I don't
think there's a rules violation and risk of a $10,000 fine. You are of
course welcome to disagree, but if you want me to take you seriously, you'll
need to come up with something more than your own interpretation of the FCC
rules and your "supposed" 15 years past experience as a wireless system
engineer.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-20-2003, 11:56 AM #3JRWGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
Mark Filla wrote:
> I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
> LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
> (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
> paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
> service doesn't make you a licensee.
All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
the actual physical installation is irrelavent.
- 08-20-2003, 12:41 PM #4Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:21:22 -0000,
> >and state that "ONLY THE
> >LICENSEE" can install a BDA for their own system as it states in the
> >first paragraph and in sub-section (e).
>
> That's a made-up quote (your own interpretation) -- there is no such phrase in
> the rule.
Here is the definition of the word "Licensee" that is utilized
throughout the FCC Rule that I posted earlier:
li¡Pcens¡Pee [ lȼss¡¦n sȲ ] (plural li¡Pcens¡Pees)
noun
somebody authorized to do something: somebody who has been granted
official permission to do something
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...arch=Licensees
You sir have not been authorized or granted "official permission" to
re-amplify any cellular or PCS system. I don't care what ANDREW tells
you as they won't have to pay the penalties and while the system is type
accepted for licensees to install, it is not within the rules for you to
go out and install it where ever you please.
Please post the FCC Report and Order that overrules the Part 90 and Part
22 direction on permissible installations as there has to be some sort
of direction. The FCC doesn't work that way. In addition, to date you
have not posted any credible information (except for Andrew's sales
literature) other than you said that you spoke to them on the phone,
lets see something in writing other than your rambling.
There...I bottom posted....happy now?
Mark
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 08-20-2003, 12:46 PM #5Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
JRW <jrw@___.com> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Mark Filla wrote:
>
> > I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
> > LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
> > (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
> > paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
> > service doesn't make you a licensee.
>
> All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
> specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
> the actual physical installation is irrelavent.
And that is the way its supposed to be done as the provider has included
the coverage contour changes of the local cell sites in their
calulations. If they cause interference, to themselves they know
exactly where to go, other than if someone else puts it in (without
their knowledge) and causes interference, it could take weeks for months
for the provider to find it and have it shut off.
And who suffers while the interference is taking place? The paying
customer!
--
Mark
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 08-20-2003, 01:16 PM #6John NavasGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:50 -0000,
[email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>... to date you
>have not posted any credible information (except for Andrew's sales
>literature) other than you said that you spoke to them on the phone,
>lets see something in writing other than your rambling.
No offense, but I find Andrew (phone, product documentation, installation
guide, etc.), other manufacturers, and the spokesperson at the Commercial
Wireless Division of the FCC to be far more credible than you (particularly
since I don't know anything about you), and I'm fully satisfied with my
investigation. You are of course free to disagree. Under the circumstances,
there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the debate.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-20-2003, 01:39 PM #7Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:50 -0000,
> [email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >... to date you
> >have not posted any credible information (except for Andrew's sales
> >literature) other than you said that you spoke to them on the phone,
> >lets see something in writing other than your rambling.
>
> No offense, but I find Andrew (phone, product documentation, installation
> guide, etc.), other manufacturers, and the spokesperson at the Commercial
> Wireless Division of the FCC to be far more credible than you (particularly
> since I don't know anything about you), and I'm fully satisfied with my
> investigation. You are of course free to disagree. Under the circumstances,
> there doesn't seem to be much point in continuing the debate.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Well I too think we have exhausted our debate, as I still don't agree
with your thinking as I have licensed VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz and very
well versed on the FCCrules over the last 15 yrs., I can see where
someone not having good cellular/pcs service in their home or office
might want to put one of these it. If someone thinks that they can do
it legally or be within the FCC guideleines...so be it.
As to know knowing me...I have posted my wireless back-gound on other
posts, I'm sure your resourceful enough to find it <grin>.
We can let the other readers come to their own conclusions as to its
legality or do research on their own and comment.
Mark
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 08-20-2003, 02:41 PM #8Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
Here is what could happen, as Eric is in the cellular communications
business (posting on the Yahoo 800interference board
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/800int...e/message/1464).
Here he describes some of things that he has to do when looking for a
malfunctioning and/or unauthorized BDA:
Mark
<snip>
Some of the bigger problems I have when I go into interference hunting
mode is with a BDA that no one knows exists. When one of these things
"takes off" and starts oscillating, it causes a tremendous amount of
grief.
Even a properly functioning BDA can cause problems. I tracked down a
massive increase in dropped calls at a cellular telephone site to a BDA
that was amplifying the other cellular carrier's signals. The cellular
control channels are close enough in frequency that the BDA would work
for both systems' control channels. Unfortunately, when
the talk channel was assigned, the frequency separation was enough that
the BDA no longer worked. I would think this similar situation could
happen in the 851-869MHz band. Another BDA that was installed close to
a cell site had filtering added (to the BDA) to keep the strong cell
signal out of the BDA. The filtering was only on the base transmit
channels. There was no corresponding increase in filtering of the
mobile to base output of the BDA. The mobile frequencies at the cell
site got noised up because of the "low" level noise put out by the BDA.
If a 851-869MHz site is close to the BDA, this too could be an issue for
BDAs being used in the 851-869MHz band.
Unfortunately, it isn't easy to find these things, even when it is it is
determined that a BDA is causing a problem and the "suspect" building is
located. Usually the building operator often doesn't know that there is
such a system in the building and they sure don't want anyone walking
around, looking like a GhostBuster, poking around above the drop
ceilings and equipment spaces--looking for the elusive
BDA.
Even though the installation of a BDA is supposedly limited to radio
licensees, I think BDA installations should at least go through a
"notification only" filing due to a BDA being able to wipe out more than
just the lincensed user that installed it. I know the FCC is trying to
get out of all but hiring auction companies, but I do think that BDA
installations should get mention in the ULS. A ULS entry, even with an
out of date technical contact phone number and bad contact address is
more of a start to finding out about a BDA than
the current nothing at all.
With the BDA's going in all over the place, "YOU" could be the next
hunter.
Eric
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 08-27-2003, 03:19 PM #9Jack DanielGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
Mr. Nava,
I have been lurking and watching your comments about the FCC rules and
find your conclusion completely contrary to what the FCC has told me for
several years. I have been professionally involved in the business of
implementing in-building solutions since 1988, worked on the FCC dockets
that established the legal use of signal boosters in 1996 and have
coordinated hundreds of signal booster implementations with the
appropriate FCC licensee, such as Nextel, etc..
My purpose is not to criticize you because you may have been given
invalid information by those you apparently trust over the published FCC
rules.
I want to get these manufacturers statements in writing so the FCC won't
cite anyone later.
I have been attempting to locate the persons within the companies you
said gave you this advice and have been unsuccessful on finding anyone
who recalls talking to you. This is probably because I haven't asked the
right person yet.
I'm sure you don't deal in rumors and can remember some of the people
you takked to.
Will you please post here, or to me privately, who specifically you
talked to at these companies so I can contact them to understand how
they came to the conclusions they passed om to you? I'll keep trying in
the mean time.
I discussed this subject and your posting in length today with Mr. John
Schauble in the Policy and Rules branch and we are in agreement that
signal boosters implemented under Part 90.219 is limited to FCC
licensees.
I will be following FCC procedure soon and formally requesting an
interpretation to get a clarification in writing and will include copies
of your comments and those of any manufacturer comments directly (not
via a third party).
I appreciate your assistance. I'm sure all any of us desire is the
facts.
Jack Daniel
========================================================
John Navas wrote:
>
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:14:24 -0000,
> [email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time
>
> No need to do that -- twice was enough. (The actual order [FCC 96-223] is
> accessible at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...96/fcc96223.wp>.)
>
> >and state that "ONLY THE
> >LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
> >(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
> >paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
> >service doesn't make you a licensee.
>
> That's a made-up quote (your own interpretation) -- there is no such phrase in
> the rule.
>
> >To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
> >that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
> >with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
> >give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
> >they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
> >and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
> >system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
>
> My one more time:
>
> Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
> CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
> bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
> needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
> consumer use.
>
> 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.
>
> >Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
> >with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
> >conversation
>
> I have conversed with the FCC (unlike you) -- the "supposed" phone call was
> real. ( Should I return the favor and call your qualifications "supposed" as
> well? Likewise my calls to the manufacturers (unlike you).
>
> >is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
> >the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
> >illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
> >that I didn't warn you.
> >[SNIP]
>
> I'm quite comfortable relying on these manufacturers and the FCC. I don't
> think there's a rules violation and risk of a $10,000 fine. You are of
> course welcome to disagree, but if you want me to take you seriously, you'll
> need to come up with something more than your own interpretation of the FCC
> rules and your "supposed" 15 years past experience as a wireless system
> engineer.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-27-2003, 07:30 PM #10John NavasGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:19:08 GMT, Jack
Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Mr. Nava,
Navas
>Will you please post here, or to me privately, who specifically you
>talked to at these companies so I can contact them to understand how
>they came to the conclusions they passed om to you? I'll keep trying in
>the mean time.
I think it would be more efficient for you to seek your own statements from
these companies, who are openly selling these devices for consumer use,
without regard to the people I talked to. If you actually come up with
something different from what I came up with, we can go from there.
>I discussed this subject and your posting in length today with Mr. John
>Schauble in the Policy and Rules branch and we are in agreement that
>signal boosters implemented under Part 90.219 is limited to FCC
>licensees.
To be clear, I didn't frame my questions so narrowly when speaking to people
at the FCC -- I simply asked if there was any problem with these repeater
systems being installed and operated by consumers, and was assured by the
Commercial Wireless Division that there wasn't. (I found considerable
confusion within the FCC about FCC rules, but this was a clear and direct
answer.) I'm sending you the name and phone number of the person I spoke to
by private email.
>I will be following FCC procedure soon and formally requesting an
>interpretation to get a clarification in writing and will include copies
>of your comments and those of any manufacturer comments directly (not
>via a third party).
I suggest you refer to the websites of these manufacturers, which don't have
caveats on FCC licensing.
>I appreciate your assistance. I'm sure all any of us desire is the
>facts.
Of course.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM #11Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
service doesn't make you a licensee.
To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
conversation is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
that I didn't warn you.
FCC Rule:
§ 90.219 Use of signal boosters.
Licensees authorized to operate radio systems in the frequency bands
above 150 MHz
may employ signal boosters at fixed locations in accordance with the
following criteria:
(a) The amplified signal is retransmitted only on the exact
frequency(ies) of the originating base, fixed, mobile, or portable
station(s). The booster will fill in only weak signal areas and cannot
extend the system's normal signal coverage area.
(b) Class A narrowband signal boosters must be equipped with automatic
gain control circuitry which will limit the total effective radiated
power (ERP) of the unit to a maximum of 5 watts under all conditions.
Class B broadband signal boosters are limited to 5 watts ERP for each
authorized frequency that the booster is designed to amplify.
(c) Class A narrowband boosters must meet the out-of-band emission
limits of
§ 90.209 for each narrowband channel that the booster is designed to
amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the emission
limits of § 90.209 for frequencies outside of the booster's design
passband.
(d) Class B broadband signal boosters are permitted to be used only in
confined or indoor areas such as buildings, tunnels, underground areas,
etc., i.e., areas where there is little or no risk of interference to
other users.
(e) The licensee is given authority to operate signal boosters without
separate authorization from the Commission. Type-accepted equipment
must be employed and the licensee must ensure that all applicable rule
requirements are met.
(f) Licensees employing either Class A narrowband or Class B broadband
signal boosters as defined in § 90.7 are responsible for correcting any
harmful interference that the equipment may cause to other systems.
Normal co-channel transmissions will not be considered as harmful
interference. Licensees will be required to resolve interference
problems pursuant to § 90.173(b).
--
Mark KS4VT
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM #12Mark FillaGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
service doesn't make you a licensee.
To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
conversation is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
that I didn't warn you.
FCC Rule:
§ 90.219 Use of signal boosters.
Licensees authorized to operate radio systems in the frequency bands
above 150 MHz
may employ signal boosters at fixed locations in accordance with the
following criteria:
(a) The amplified signal is retransmitted only on the exact
frequency(ies) of the originating base, fixed, mobile, or portable
station(s). The booster will fill in only weak signal areas and cannot
extend the system's normal signal coverage area.
(b) Class A narrowband signal boosters must be equipped with automatic
gain control circuitry which will limit the total effective radiated
power (ERP) of the unit to a maximum of 5 watts under all conditions.
Class B broadband signal boosters are limited to 5 watts ERP for each
authorized frequency that the booster is designed to amplify.
(c) Class A narrowband boosters must meet the out-of-band emission
limits of
§ 90.209 for each narrowband channel that the booster is designed to
amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the emission
limits of § 90.209 for frequencies outside of the booster's design
passband.
(d) Class B broadband signal boosters are permitted to be used only in
confined or indoor areas such as buildings, tunnels, underground areas,
etc., i.e., areas where there is little or no risk of interference to
other users.
(e) The licensee is given authority to operate signal boosters without
separate authorization from the Commission. Type-accepted equipment
must be employed and the licensee must ensure that all applicable rule
requirements are met.
(f) Licensees employing either Class A narrowband or Class B broadband
signal boosters as defined in § 90.7 are responsible for correcting any
harmful interference that the equipment may cause to other systems.
Normal co-channel transmissions will not be considered as harmful
interference. Licensees will be required to resolve interference
problems pursuant to § 90.173(b).
--
Mark KS4VT
[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]
- 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM #13John NavasGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:14:24 -0000,
[email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time
No need to do that -- twice was enough. (The actual order [FCC 96-223] is
accessible at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...96/fcc96223.wp>.)
>and state that "ONLY THE
>LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
>(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
>paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
>service doesn't make you a licensee.
That's a made-up quote (your own interpretation) -- there is no such phrase in
the rule.
>To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
>that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
>with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
>give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
>they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
>and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
>system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
My one more time:
Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
consumer use.
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.
>Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
>with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
>conversation
I have conversed with the FCC (unlike you) -- the "supposed" phone call was
real. ( Should I return the favor and call your qualifications "supposed" as
well? Likewise my calls to the manufacturers (unlike you).
>is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
>the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
>illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
>that I didn't warn you.
>[SNIP]
I'm quite comfortable relying on these manufacturers and the FCC. I don't
think there's a rules violation and risk of a $10,000 fine. You are of
course welcome to disagree, but if you want me to take you seriously, you'll
need to come up with something more than your own interpretation of the FCC
rules and your "supposed" 15 years past experience as a wireless system
engineer.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM #14John NavasGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:14:24 -0000,
[email protected] (Mark Filla) wrote:
>I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time
No need to do that -- twice was enough. (The actual order [FCC 96-223] is
accessible at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/...96/fcc96223.wp>.)
>and state that "ONLY THE
>LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
>(Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
>paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
>service doesn't make you a licensee.
That's a made-up quote (your own interpretation) -- there is no such phrase in
the rule.
>To further clarify, what the FCC means by the amp not being regulated is
>that the Licensee does not have to license each individual installation
>with the Commission and have it assigned its own call sign, it does not
>give every person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA wherever
>they desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules
>and I stand by the FCC rules, my 15 years past experience as a wireless
>system engineer, and a licensee of 800 MHz frequencies.
My one more time:
Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
consumer use.
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.
>Although there have been individuals who have stated they have conversed
>with the FCC and have been told otherwise, but a supposed phone
>conversation
I have conversed with the FCC (unlike you) -- the "supposed" phone call was
real. ( Should I return the favor and call your qualifications "supposed" as
well? Likewise my calls to the manufacturers (unlike you).
>is no match for the written rules in Part 90 and they take
>the chance of being charged with a $10,000 fine if they deploy an
>illegal system. So if they want to do it that's fine....but don't say
>that I didn't warn you.
>[SNIP]
I'm quite comfortable relying on these manufacturers and the FCC. I don't
think there's a rules violation and risk of a $10,000 fine. You are of
course welcome to disagree, but if you want me to take you seriously, you'll
need to come up with something more than your own interpretation of the FCC
rules and your "supposed" 15 years past experience as a wireless system
engineer.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 09-08-2003, 04:53 PM #15JRWGuest
Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)
Mark Filla wrote:
> I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time and state that "ONLY THE
> LICENSEE" (ie. NEXTEL, ATTWS, Cingular, etc). can install a BDA
> (Cellular Repeater) for their own system as it states in the first
> paragraph and in sub-section (e), just because you subscribe to the
> service doesn't make you a licensee.
All the repeaters the company I work with installs them at the
specific request of the particular provider. Of course, who does
the actual physical installation is irrelavent.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.cingular
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung