Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16
  1. #1
    Mark Filla
    Guest
    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)




  2. #2
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  3. #3
    JRW
    Guest

    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.




  4. #4
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    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:

    liĄPcensĄPee [ lČźssĄŚn sȲ ] (plural liĄPcensĄPees)
    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]



  5. #5
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    JRW <[email protected]___.com> wrote in article
    <[email protected]wssvr23.news.prodigy.com>:
    > 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]



  6. #6
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  7. #7
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    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]



  8. #8
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    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]



  9. #9
    Jack Daniel
    Guest

    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>




  10. #10
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  11. #11
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    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]



  12. #12
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  13. #13
    JRW
    Guest

    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.




  14. #14
    Mark Filla
    Guest

    Re: Cellular Repeaters & the FCC Rules (in the USA)

    JRW <[email protected]___.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]



  15. #15
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast