Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 122
  1. #1
    John Navas
    Guest
    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)




  2. #2
    Larry W4CSC
    Guest

    Re: 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




  3. #3
    John Smith
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    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! =-----



  4. #4
    MarkF
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    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




  5. #5
    John Navas
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    [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>



  6. #6
    RDT
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    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




  7. #7
    Larry W4CSC
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    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




  8. #8
    Al Klein
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    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?



  9. #9
    Al Klein
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
    <[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >2. I called the FCC regarding this, and was assured by a spokesperson at
    >the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
    >these FCC Type Accepted low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no
    >license is required to install and operate them. We specifically discussed
    >them being operated by consumers, not carriers.


    Section 90.219 says that your informant is misinformed. FCC employees
    don't have the authorization to change the meanings of laws.



  10. #10
    Jim Dawson
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    Hmm, where in the 1.9GHz band are you licensed?

    Jim - K9DD

    "Larry W4CSC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > I'm sure glad I'm FCC licensed......(c;
    >
    > Guess I can operate them, here....
    >
    >
    >






  11. #11
    Harry Krause
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    Larry W4CSC wrote:

    > We all know about them, John. Verizon uses them in their mall stores,
    > here, so customers think they have a great signal in the mall when
    > they're looking at the demo phones in the store.....(c; I call 'em
    > the "Cheater Repeaters"....
    >
    >
    > Larry W4CSC
    >
    > NNNN
    >


    Uh...what's wrong with having a strong cell signal in a shopping mall?
    You think it is done to sandbag potential cell buyers? B.S. It's just a
    convenience. Malls are places where customers demand strong cell signals.





    --
    Email sent to [email protected] is never read.



  12. #12
    MarkF
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

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


    Andrew Corporation is in business to make $. They will sell you
    whatever they want in order to make the stockholders happy. You don't
    need to provide them a license to purchase a 6' parabolic dish and
    wave guide and if you ask them if it's legal to put it up of course
    their answer will be yes. They don't interperate or enforce the rules
    and honestly...they really don't care who buys or installs a BDA.

    >
    > 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).


    Lets see something in writing. The government doesn't do an "official
    intrepretation of the rules" over the phone. I work for a gov't
    agency and we do everything on paper or electronic medium. Call this
    guy back and tell him that you want his position in writing. If he
    provides something and its the opposite than mine then we can send
    both back to the FCC for an official position. But until you can
    provide otherwise, the FCC rule stands as on the "licensee" can
    operate such a device.

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


    I haven't hear from Jack either, he is probably out making money.



  13. #13
    MarkF
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    [email protected] ("RDT") wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > 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


    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? I know I
    wouldn't want to as the general public as a whole do not own test
    equipment to ensure that the device operates correctly.

    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.

    Its far from being "no harm, no foul" situation.

    Mark



  14. #14
    Larry W4CSC
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:44:24 -0600, "Jim Dawson" <[email protected] h a r t e
    r.net> wrote:

    >Hmm, where in the 1.9GHz band are you licensed?
    >
    >Jim - K9DD
    >

    Oh, I'm not.....nor are any of the other thousands of private
    cellphone repeater owners operating in hospitals, factories, high rise
    office buildings, apartment buildings and homes throughout the
    country.....

    What are they gonna do, bust 'em all for providing a public service?

    Not to mention the FCC could really care less unless there's some kind
    of interference......reactive, not proactive.

    What nonsense....Some on these boards need to get out more....have
    some beer and enjoy life.


    Larry W4CSC

    NNNN




  15. #15
    Larry W4CSC
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:53:29 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
    ><[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.

    >
    >How many have you personally field tested?


    The one in my stepvan works fine. There's a 6 dB antenna mounted on
    top of the truck sticking up that is simply connected to a quarterwave
    800 Mhz whip inside my truck. Inside the shield of the van's steel
    body, the signal jumps from no signal to over half scale when you
    connect the cable......

    A friend's toyphone just wouldn't stay connected in his home so he
    could make reliable calls. I installed a 9-element beam antenna at
    10' over his chimney, pointed at the nearest cell tower, where,
    luckily, he's nearly in the middle of a sector panel pointed our way.
    In the hall between his den, dining room and living room downstairs, I
    installed a halfwave sleeve dipole in the hall closet. Between the
    gain of the antenna up over the house and his proximity to the inside
    antenna, we gained 4 bars of signal in the downstairs rooms, making
    calling possible. It works, too. There isn't enough signal
    downstairs to cause multipath fading from the injected signal from the
    passives. Of course, the closer you are to the hallway, the more
    signal the phone shows.


    Larry W4CSC

    NNNN




  • Similar Threads

    1. alt.cellular.cingular
    2. alt.cellular.nextel
    3. alt.cellular.cingular
    4. alt.cellular.nextel
    5. alt.cellular.nextel



  • Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast