Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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

In <[email protected]> on 6 Dec 2003 20:00:46
-0800, [email protected] (MarkF) wrote:

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

>> I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
>> FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.
>
>If they don't ask for the license they have no idea who they are
>selling too nor what the application is. ...

That's not the current context.

>> I personally see no need to do that. If you do, then feel free to step up to
>> the line. (Hint: purported email doesn't count.) Unless and until that
>> happens, we just have differing interpretations.
>
>No really....provide me with the proof or who you spoke to and I will
>forward the official e-mail that still has the FCC address on it.

There is no such thing.

>Are
>you afraid that you misrepresented yourself to the FCC official and if
>you were to put in writing would come out maybe being....incorrect?

No.

>> ... I'm nonetheless satisfied with the advice I received.
>
>That is exactly what you had them do was an intrepretation of the
>rules on the phone, the FCC never does this. They always ask for a
>document that they can audit later. Been there, done that!

Me too. Next?

>> As I said, I personally see no need to do that.
>
>Why...do you think that you will get an opinion of someone who will
>tell you that the first person gave you bad information?

As I said, I'm satisfied with the information I've gotten.

>> I respectfully disagree.
>
>Maybe that is your opinion...but anyone who can read the english
>language can read that simple paragraph and know who the "licensee"
>is.

No, that's your opinion versus my opinion (and that of the spokesperson
at the Commercial Wireless Division).

>One thing that I found interesting on your website John is that I find
>no references to BDA's anywhere yet you have all kind of other
>cellular information. Why is that? You seem to have no problem in
>providing this type of information on these newsgroups yet you don't
>back it up on your website. Please explain...

I haven't gotten around to writing up such a webpage. Been pretty busy
lately. Perhaps sometime soon. BTW, where are your webpages?

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

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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

In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:55
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:09 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>>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.

Rubbish.

>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.

No and no.

--
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 Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:34:24
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah, but passive repeaters don't work, right?

Right.

--
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 Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

I haven't been doing anything wrong. And you?

>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
general-purpose solution.

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

"Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We all know about them, John. Verizon uses them in their mall stores,

As do all the carriers when the in-mall signal is normally not sufficient.
However I expect that the repeaters are also installed for subscribers as
well, since malls are a high use area for mobile phones.

Few businesses are going to spend the money themselves for a cellular
repeater. The best approach is to choose a carrier that works inside the
buildings you visit the most. Try to stick with an 800 Mhz carrier for best
in-building coverage.

"PCS phones are the most fragile because they use higher frequencies whose
radio waves are more easily disturbed and because they use weaker signals to
begin with. Inside building performance is so unreliable that the newest
systems such as IS-136 permit incorporating base stations within a structure
itself, an expensive arrangement for high rise office buildings and such."

and

"1900 MHz however, is much more of a challenge as far as coverage and
in-building penetration than 800 Mhz. More transmission sites are needed
than an 800 system, even with similar technologies (i.e., TDMA, CDMA, etc).
This is because the higher frequency radio waves don't travel as far as
lower ones, are much more directional, and are attenuated more by trees,
foliage, obstructions, etc than 800MHz. "

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "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?
>
Same here. The toyphones won't work out in the mall at the RESELLERS'
booths, either......

Probably best I'm not one of the resellers. The temptation to pin
their coax real early in the morning would be overwhelming...(c;



Larry W4CSC

NNNN

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:41:41 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>hm... that would be worth trying. Its ether that, or trying a new phone
>that has 850/1900gsm. but I cant find out if there is and GSM 850 in my
>area. I have tried news groups and google searches, and nothing has come up
>for Orange county.

Can't help you there, if you mean California. I've never even been in
Orange County, unless it's part of the holding pattern for LAX.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If you don't mind me asking, just how much did the whole setup cost for your
>friend's house?
>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.
>BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
>blackout?
>
The beam antennas are under $100 at www.cellantenna.com. Look at:

http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/yagi.htm

Bigger is better.....Be sure to buy for the band your phone operates
on in your system (see all the crossposting of this thread).

The inside antenna is just a dipole. But they have nicer looking
ones:

http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/internal.htm

Then all you need is some low-loss coax cable to connect the beam
outside to the panel antenna inside.....$200 total.

If you've an old magmount for your 800 Mhz bagphone, stick it to the
top of your file cabinet for the inside antenna.



Larry W4CSC

NNNN

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:32:43 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>>And the "spokesperson" was? A secretary? A receptionist?

>A wee bit more than an anonymous Usenet poster. ;-)

Not really. I've been working with FCC regs since 1957.
Receptionists don't have anything to do with the regs, nor do most of
them even know any.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:34:09 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:15:29
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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.

>So you now agree that the FCC doesn't care?

You really like arguing both sides of a situation, don't you?

"The FCC", a governmental body, has no feelings. Many of the
employees would like to be able to do more than they can, but they
only work 40 hour weeks, so they go after the most blatant violators.
That's less than 1%, but it's the best they can do with what they
have.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:45:52 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:55
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>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.

>Rubbish.

Crushing argument, there.

>>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.

>No and no.

See above. HOW many years did you say you have in the business?

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:47:16 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

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

>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:34:24
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Yeah, but passive repeaters don't work, right?

>Right.

As I said in another post in this thread, one doesn't have to know
what one is talking about to post to usenet, and you keep proving it.
What's your degree in? English?

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:48:34 GMT, John Navas
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>In <[email protected]> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:36:50
>GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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?

>I haven't been doing anything wrong.

Then you live in a universe in which the laws of physics are different
than they are in this one.

>And you?

I've been using passive repeaters that DO work.

>>(They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)

>They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
>general-purpose solution.

Of course not. They only work where there's plenty of outside signal
(and there's almost always plenty, if you make the antenna large
enough), and there's not enough inside signal.

Why would anyone use a repeater, passive or active, if there's enough
signal inside?

(Your troll-like posting is noted.)

you might be able to see Orange County form the airplane on your way in to
LAX.

GSM 1900 is fair in Southern CA, I guess I could always get a 850/1900 phone
so I am ready if they ever do put in 850 towers here.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:41:41 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >hm... that would be worth trying. Its ether that, or trying a new phone
> >that has 850/1900gsm. but I cant find out if there is and GSM 850 in my
> >area. I have tried news groups and google searches, and nothing has come
up
> >for Orange county.
>
> Can't help you there, if you mean California. I've never even been in
> Orange County, unless it's part of the holding pattern for LAX.

How well do these inside dipoles work? My application is to cover the
interior of a residence.

[email protected] (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>If you don't mind me asking, just how much did the whole setup cost for your
>>friend's house?
>>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.
>>BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
>>blackout?
>>
>The beam antennas are under $100 at www.cellantenna.com. Look at:
>
>http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/yagi.htm
>
>Bigger is better.....Be sure to buy for the band your phone operates
>on in your system (see all the crossposting of this thread).
>
>The inside antenna is just a dipole. But they have nicer looking
>ones:
>
>http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/internal.htm
>
>Then all you need is some low-loss coax cable to connect the beam
>outside to the panel antenna inside.....$200 total.
>
>If you've an old magmount for your 800 Mhz bagphone, stick it to the
>top of your file cabinet for the inside antenna.
>
>
>
>Larry W4CSC
>
>NNNN