Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.

* Andrew Corporation (EAC-50 Repeater Kit, Model ASPM1850-50,
<http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/eac50_pcs.html>, 440-349-8647)
(Andrew is a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company.)

* 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)

These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
correct it.)

Cost is in the range of $500-700 for a complete system (outdoor antenna,
bi-directional amplifier, indoor antenna, and cables, not including
installation). Typical indoor coverage is in the range of 500-1000 sq ft or
so, depending on indoor antenna type, placement, walls, etc. Units with
greater indoor coverage are also on the market, but are generally much more
expensive.

Be sure to get a system that supports the frequency band you need.

So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.

A less expensive alternative that can work is an external antenna that
connects to your cellular phone with a cable.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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"....


Larry W4CSC

NNNN

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"....


Larry W4CSC

NNNN

Don't buy from CellAntenna Corp since they won't talk to you once they get
your money. I was burned that way when I bought a repeater and it didn't
work as advertised. The frequency range is not as wide as they make you
believe on the web page. They claim is "FOR ALL PCS , ALL CELLULAR CARRIERS
AND NEXTEL!! " and it's just not so.

I returned it but the kept a 15% restocking fee (which was about $60), and
they refused to talk to me insturcting me to do everything via email.



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




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Don't buy from CellAntenna Corp since they won't talk to you once they get
your money. I was burned that way when I bought a repeater and it didn't
work as advertised. The frequency range is not as wide as they make you
believe on the web page. They claim is "FOR ALL PCS , ALL CELLULAR CARRIERS
AND NEXTEL!! " and it's just not so.

I returned it but the kept a 15% restocking fee (which was about $60), and
they refused to talk to me insturcting me to do everything via email.



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




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>
> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
> correct it.)

In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
only one that can legally operate such a device.

I have the origional e-mail and I believe it can be forwarded (as it
hasn't been archived yet) if your interested. E-mail me directly if
your so inclined to see it.

> Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR17
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
> Organization: FCC
> To: Mark Filla
>
> You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on 10/6/2003 12:39:56 PM.
>
> Thank you for contacting the FCC.
>
> 47 CFR 90.219 and 47 CFR 22.283 both include the same term to identify who is eligible to utilize these devices, the licensee.
>
> Dear FCC Representative,
>
> I am in search of the clarification of the FCC rule stated above on
the ability of a private, non-FCC licensed individual, to install a
signal booster (aka Bi-Directional Amplifier) to amplify signals above
150 MHz (specificially 800 and 1.9 GHz) inside of a private building.
In my interpretation of the FCC rule as I tried to explain to an
individual that the said installation of such a system can only be
authorized and/or installed by a "licensee" holding a Part 90 or Part
22 license (or their
>
> This individual is under the impression that because the signal
booster (BDA) is an un-regulated device he has the ability to install
these units without the concurrence of the Cellular/PCS providers
without their knowledge. Of course we are at a blockage here as the
manufacturers of these devices (specificially Andrew Corp.) have also
advised him that he doesn't need any type of authorization to install
such a device to amplify someone else's licensed channels.
>
> For your convenience I have cut and pasted the rule below.
>
> Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.
>
> Mark Filla
>
> Sec. 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 Sec. 90.209 for each narrowband channel that the booster is
> designed to amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the
> emission limits of Sec. 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., or in remote areas, 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. Certificated
> 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 90.173(b).
>
> [61 FR 31052, June 19, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 36610, July 7, 1998]
>
> Representative Number : TSR17

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>
> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
> correct it.)

In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
only one that can legally operate such a device.

I have the origional e-mail and I believe it can be forwarded (as it
hasn't been archived yet) if your interested. E-mail me directly if
your so inclined to see it.

> Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR17
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 12:40:30 -0400 (EDT)
> From: FCCInfo <[email protected]>
> Organization: FCC
> To: Mark Filla
>
> You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on 10/6/2003 12:39:56 PM.
>
> Thank you for contacting the FCC.
>
> 47 CFR 90.219 and 47 CFR 22.283 both include the same term to identify who is eligible to utilize these devices, the licensee.
>
> Dear FCC Representative,
>
> I am in search of the clarification of the FCC rule stated above on
the ability of a private, non-FCC licensed individual, to install a
signal booster (aka Bi-Directional Amplifier) to amplify signals above
150 MHz (specificially 800 and 1.9 GHz) inside of a private building.
In my interpretation of the FCC rule as I tried to explain to an
individual that the said installation of such a system can only be
authorized and/or installed by a "licensee" holding a Part 90 or Part
22 license (or their
>
> This individual is under the impression that because the signal
booster (BDA) is an un-regulated device he has the ability to install
these units without the concurrence of the Cellular/PCS providers
without their knowledge. Of course we are at a blockage here as the
manufacturers of these devices (specificially Andrew Corp.) have also
advised him that he doesn't need any type of authorization to install
such a device to amplify someone else's licensed channels.
>
> For your convenience I have cut and pasted the rule below.
>
> Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.
>
> Mark Filla
>
> Sec. 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 Sec. 90.209 for each narrowband channel that the booster is
> designed to amplify. Class B broadband signal boosters must meet the
> emission limits of Sec. 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., or in remote areas, 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. Certificated
> 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 90.173(b).
>
> [61 FR 31052, June 19, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 36610, July 7, 1998]
>
> Representative Number : TSR17

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

In <[email protected]> on 5 Dec 2003 11:06:41
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
>> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
>> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>>
>> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
>> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
>> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
>> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
>> correct it.)
>
>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
>FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
>origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
>the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
>only one that can legally operate such a device.
>[SNIP]

In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:

1. 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.

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.

I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
check with my contact. He also said:

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).

Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

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

In <[email protected]> on 5 Dec 2003 11:06:41
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
>> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
>> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>>
>> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
>> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
>> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
>> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
>> correct it.)
>
>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
>FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
>origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
>the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
>only one that can legally operate such a device.
>[SNIP]

In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:

1. 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.

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.

I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
check with my contact. He also said:

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).

Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

In article <[email protected]>,
MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:
>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>the posting shown above is incorrect.

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?

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

In article <[email protected]>,
MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:
>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>the posting shown above is incorrect.

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?

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

I'm sure glad I'm FCC licensed......(c;

Guess I can operate them, here....



On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on 5 Dec 2003 11:06:41
>-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
>>> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
>>> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>>>
>>> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
>>> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
>>> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>>> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
>>> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
>>> correct it.)
>>
>>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>>the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
>>FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
>>origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
>>the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
>>only one that can legally operate such a device.
>>[SNIP]
>
>In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:
>
>1. 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.
>
>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.
>
>I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
>of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
>check with my contact. He also said:
>
> 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).
>
>Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.
>
>--
>Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Larry W4CSC

NNNN

I'm sure glad I'm FCC licensed......(c;

Guess I can operate them, here....



On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <[email protected]> on 5 Dec 2003 11:06:41
>-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> If you can get a usable cellular signal outside your building, but not inside
>>> your building, a "cellular repeater" (sometimes called a "cellular booster")
>>> may be able to solve the indoor coverage problem.
>>>
>>> These companies have all assured me that their bidirectional amps are FCC
>>> Approved/Type Accepted. I called the FCC, and was assured by a spokesperson
>>> at the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
>>> these FCC Type Accepted devices, and thus no license is required to install
>>> and operate them. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to
>>> correct it.)
>>
>>In rebuttal to this posting I have to clarify that no one except the
>>licensee is legally permitted to amplify or boost cellular signals and
>>the posting shown above is incorrect. Two months ago I contacted the
>>FCC by e-mail to get a clarification on the FCC Rule and below is my
>>origional query and their response back to me that clearly states that
>>the "licensee", hence the person holding the valid FCC license, is the
>>only one that can legally operate such a device.
>>[SNIP]
>
>In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:
>
>1. 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.
>
>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.
>
>I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
>of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
>check with my contact. He also said:
>
> 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).
>
>Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.
>
>--
>Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
>John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Larry W4CSC

NNNN

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?

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?