Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 03:06:29 -0500, "Chris Taylor Jr"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Have to disagree here. Most of the time it does NOT do harm or enforcement
>would be higher.

>do my illegal 35 40 and 45 mhz micro RC cars I bought tonight cause any harm
>?

>Considering very little here runs on thos frequencies and they have a range
>of maybe 20 feet if your REALLY Lucky I would have to say no they do not do
>any harm.

BDA cellular amps don't run on frequencies that aren't used.

>Most are quite harmless. NOW once you start amping up the power/range OK bad
>things can happen.

And the consumer, knowing absolutely nothing about RF, makes sure that
he installs the BDA in a way that it doesn't exceed the range it
should have - how? One bad connection and you have intermod all over
the spectrum.

---

› See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>>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.
<snip>
> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
> general-purpose solution.

Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
wrong and move on.

Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.

You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

No, the Navas standard. No references, no cites, the one-word response when
he's beaten.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:48:52 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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.

Verizon Wireless



----------------------------
To email me, remove the zz.

In article <[email protected]>,
MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.

From http://cellantenna.com/repeater/building_repeater.htm :

"Do I need a license or permission to operate a building repeater?

As long as you use FCC licensed amplifiers, like we have, there is no need
to obtain any permission. However, FCC regulations do specify that you
cannot increase the geographical area of a cellular providers licensed
area, which means that as long as you are within the coverage area of a
provider you can improve your signal in the building. Also, any provider
can ask that you turn as system off if it is affecting their ability to
deliver service to others. Again, if you are using a quality FCC licensed
amplifier like the ones that we supply, you are guaranteed not to affect
their capability. In fact, why shouldn't you be allowed to use your cell
phone in any area that you wish to use it?"

Basically, Mark, "no harm no foul." Which is what I've been saying
all along. Now, I'm sure you'll say that the word of the vendor is
meaningless, but let's try a different approach here. Since I've offered
evidence that you are, well, full of ****, why don't you SHOW us all the
examples of FCC licensed repeaters which have wrecked havoc with licensed
carriers. And if you can't, then would you please kindly shut the ****
up?

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

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:47:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
>No, the Navas standard. No references, no cites, the one-word response when
>he's beaten.

I've been on usenet long enough to recognize it.

[email protected] ("RDT") wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> From http://cellantenna.com/repeater/building_repeater.htm :
>
> "Do I need a license or permission to operate a building repeater?
>
> As long as you use FCC licensed amplifiers, like we have, there is no need
> to obtain any permission. However, FCC regulations do specify that you
> cannot increase the geographical area of a cellular providers licensed
> area, which means that as long as you are within the coverage area of a
> provider you can improve your signal in the building. Also, any provider
> can ask that you turn as system off if it is affecting their ability to
> deliver service to others. Again, if you are using a quality FCC licensed
> amplifier like the ones that we supply, you are guaranteed not to affect
> their capability. In fact, why shouldn't you be allowed to use your cell
> phone in any area that you wish to use it?"

OK...how is a subscriber know that they are not increasing the
geographical coverage area and how do they know if they are causing
interference? The answer to both is "NO". Besides, you have cut and
pasted a paragraph from a supplier of BDA's. They will put anything
they want on their website to sell their products. That is what they
are in the business to do.

>
> Basically, Mark, "no harm no foul." Which is what I've been saying
> all along. Now, I'm sure you'll say that the word of the vendor is
> meaningless, but let's try a different approach here. Since I've offered
> evidence that you are, well, full of ****, why don't you SHOW us all the
> examples of FCC licensed repeaters which have wrecked havoc with licensed
> carriers. And if you can't, then would you please kindly shut the ****
> up?
>
> RDT

My staff has found 3 that interfered with PS systems over the last 3
yrs. The info wasn't documented or posted on the net so you will just
have to take my word for it. But to put it in John's words that were
all just useless posters it probably wouldn't make any difference if I
told you 3 or 103.

And no..I won't shut the **** up until the FCC changes the wording of
their Rules and Regulations.

Regards
Mark

In article <[email protected]>,
MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK...how is a subscriber know that they are not increasing the
>geographical coverage area and how do they know if they are causing
>interference?

How do you know when you drive your vehicle out of the garage that
you aren't polluting in excess of EPA standards? How do you know when you
purchase pharmaceuticals they are exactly "250 mg" and not say 220 or 280?
How do you know a piece of red meat inspected in a USDA plant isn't
tainted?

>The answer to both is "NO".

The answer to both is that they've been tested and received FCC
approval, just like many devices tested by the FCC from cordless phones to
802.11 cards.

>Besides, you have cut and
>pasted a paragraph from a supplier of BDA's. They will put anything
>they want on their website to sell their products. That is what they
>are in the business to do.

You could say the same thing about car manufacturers who claim their
cars meet pollution standards or pharmaceutical companies who claim their
drugs meet FDA standards or meat packers who claimed their beef is USDA
inspected.

>My staff has found 3 that interfered with PS systems over the last 3
>yrs.

Dude, you have staff looking it up? Get a life. ****. More people
died of food poisoning this year than were harmed by FCC approved cellular
BDAs.

>The info wasn't documented or posted on the net so you will just
>have to take my word for it.

I don't take your word for it. I think you need to post cites.
After all, you have chased Navas around the net over this stupid non-issue
for months. And even I have disagreed vehemently with Navas and still
think he has a point on this one. There aren't enough people affected by
FCC licensed BDAs to really raise anyone's interest here. It's like a
huge crackdown on people ripping mattress tags off. How likely is that?
How many licensed carriers really have a huge problem with customers
****ing up the topology of their cells? You could only find 3 in a nation
of over 250 million people? Gimme a break, dude.

>But to put it in John's words that were
>all just useless posters it probably wouldn't make any difference if I
>told you 3 or 103.

103 would be more interesting, but since you've posted that 3 (laugh)
are the sum total of complaints, then I think we will have to assume that
you basically have uncovered a tempest in a thimble. Mark, are you one of
these guys who thinks the government should pass laws to make sure that
people are having sex the "right" way (i.e., no sodomy)? Why do you think
the government should micromanage FCC approved BDAs? If carriers haven't
uttered "word one" about it to the public, do you think it might not even
be on their radar screens? I'm thinking so, but you can continue with
your fantasies of BDAs conquering and destroying the cellular world.

>And no..I won't shut the **** up until the FCC changes the wording of
>their Rules and Regulations.

See, now that's even more telling. The FCC is god, is it? The
government can't even find Osama Bin Laden, Mark. Why should we trust
them to worry about such minutiae?

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> >> 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.
>
> Or wrong.

Here is a recent post by Jack on NEXTEL1 group on Yahoo where he got
the same answer as I:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/message/14108

From: Jack Daniel <JackDaniel@R...>
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 1:58 pm
Subject: New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< toi have licenses.


There has been debates in several groups over the last year as to
whether BDA USERS needed licenses or not.

Some manufacturers, importers and distributors have been telling BDA
customers they do not need a license to USE BDA's.

Those who are familiar with the rules say the FCC requires signal
booster USERS to have a FCC license for the channels they want the
signal booster to amplify, or legal approval from the appropriate FCC
licensee.

The proper term the FCC used for BDA's is "signal boosters" and there
are very specific rules concerning the USE of them to booster
cellular,
Nextel, public safety or other signals.

Today I received a statement from the FCC that should end this debate.
It is posted below. It is very clear.

So there would be no additional incorrect 'interpretations' of the FCC
rules,
I posed my questions as a typical BDA user who wants to but and
install
a BDA to be used with their cellular or Nextel handsets.

PLEASE re-post this in any group where this issue has been discussed.
PLEASE forward this to the manufacturers, importers, distributors and
dealers who have been giving bad advice to their customers.

Maybe the unlicensed end users who are now at risk of being fined by
the
FCC will get their money back?

Jack Daniel
=======================================================

Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR15
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:09:50 -0500 (EST)
From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@f...>
Organization: FCC
To: jackdaniel@r...

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
12/9/2003 8:09:45 AM.

Hello Mr. Daniels,

Signal Boosters Bi-Directional Amplifiers or BDA's are only permitted
for use by licensee's only.

Please see the FCC Rules and Regulations CFR 47 Part 22.527.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2&SECTION=527\
&YEAR=2002&TYPE=TEXT

Best Regards,
Donna
GCC15
-------------------------------

Subject: Do I need a license ?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:46:40 -0700
From: Jack Daniel <JackDaniel@R...>
To: fccinfo@f...

I want to buy two signal boosters (also called Bi-Directional
Amplifiers
or BDA's) and install them in office buildings.

One signal booster will be used for cellular system handsets.

One signal booster will be used for Nextel handsets.

These signal boosters will not be used for any other purpose.

Someone told me I needed a license (or permission from the cellular
company and Nextel) to operate these signal boosters on cellular and
Nextel channels.

Some manufacturers say I don't have to have a license.

Do I need a license (or the licensees permission) to operate signal
boosters on cellular and Nextel channels?

If I'm supposed to have a license, what is the penalty if I don't get
a
license (or the licensee's permission) to operate a signal booster on
cellular or Nextel channels?

Since I own handsets on both these systems doesn't that also give me
the
right to amplify these signals as much as I want without a license of
any kind?

Thanks,
Jack Daniel
JackDaniel@j...

On 8 Dec 2003 13:32:38 -0500, [email protected] ("RDT") posted in
alt.cellular.verizon:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:

>>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.

> From http://cellantenna.com/repeater/building_repeater.htm :

Oh, yeah, the manufacturers and sellers of BDAs are going to give
unbiased, referrable-to-FCC, advice.

On 9 Dec 2003 13:27:10 -0500, [email protected] ("RDT") posted in
alt.cellular.verizon:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>MarkF <[email protected]> wrote:

>>OK...how is a subscriber know that they are not increasing the
>>geographical coverage area and how do they know if they are causing
>>interference?

> How do you know when you drive your vehicle out of the garage that
>you aren't polluting in excess of EPA standards?

Ever hear of emission inspections?

>How do you know when you
>purchase pharmaceuticals they are exactly "250 mg" and not say 220 or 280?

How do you personally know? You don't. The government checks up on
the manufacturer.

>How do you know a piece of red meat inspected in a USDA plant isn't
>tainted?

None of which has anything to do with YOUR actively doing something
that causes problems, using something that HASN'T been checked by
anyone. I sure don;t want my next-door neighbor spewing intermod all
over the spectrum.

>>The answer to both is "NO".

> The answer to both is that they've been tested and received FCC
>approval

The amplifier modules have. The BDAs haven't. Do you understand
enough about RF electronic design to know the difference?

"Again, if you are using a quality FCC licensed amplifier like the
ones that we supply..."

There's no such thing as "an FCC licensed amplifier". There are
type-approved devices, but a device type-approved to be operated by
the licensee is NOT type-approved to be operated by others. (The only
ones licensed to operate nano-cells - which is what a BDA is - are the
licensees.) Type approval includes the use to which the device will
be put - including licensing of those who put it to such use.

>>Besides, you have cut and
>>pasted a paragraph from a supplier of BDA's. They will put anything
>>they want on their website to sell their products. That is what they
>>are in the business to do.

> You could say the same thing about car manufacturers who claim their
>cars meet pollution standards

Those cars are checked against those standards. Installed BDAs
aren't.

>>My staff has found 3 that interfered with PS systems over the last 3
>>yrs.

> Dude, you have staff looking it up? Get a life. ****. More people
>died of food poisoning this year than were harmed by FCC approved cellular
>BDAs.

More people died of food poisoning than were killed by bazookas -
which doesn't mean that it's okay to fire bazookas into crowds.

>>And no..I won't shut the **** up until the FCC changes the wording of
>>their Rules and Regulations.

> See, now that's even more telling. The FCC is god, is it?

When it comes to making and enforcing regulations in the U. S.
relating to RF emissions, yes.

> The government can't even find Osama Bin Laden, Mark. Why should we trust
>them to worry about such minutiae?

Who "trusts them to worry about" anything? We're talking about
whether running a BDA violates the law. It does. Nothing you say can
change that unless the law changes or the FCC changes the regulation.

On 7 Dec 2003 17:39:57 -0800, [email protected]
(gopi) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >>>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.
><snip>
>> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
>> general-purpose solution.
>
>Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
>wrong and move on.
>
>Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
>worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
>made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
>backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.
>
>You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
>distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."

Especially when told by those in the field that it's not improbable -
it's not even difficult.

Alas this does not fully answer the question.

HOW does one GET a license to be legal ?

IE by licensee do they mean the owner of the freq (well ok FCC legally owns
all freqs and gives permission or license to use them) but in otherwords do
they mean NExtel (etc.. etc..)

OR

Can I "get" a license from the FCC to legally operate a BDA ?

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/


> Hello Mr. Daniels,
>
> Signal Boosters Bi-Directional Amplifiers or BDA's are only permitted
> for use by licensee's only.
>
> Please see the FCC Rules and Regulations CFR 47 Part 22.527.
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html

Did you actually read what you posted?
<START PASTE>
(e) Cellular radiotelephone service. During the five-year build-out
period, the service area boundaries of the additional transmitters, as
calculated by the method set forth in Sec. 22.911(a), must remain within
the market, except that the service area boundaries may extend beyond
the market boundary into the area that is part of the CGSA or is already
encompassed by the service area boundaries of previously authorized
facilities.
<END PASTE>

Notice starting where it says "except that the service area boundaries....".
Sure sounds like it contains an exception to me...



"Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alas this does not fully answer the question.
>
> HOW does one GET a license to be legal ?
>
> IE by licensee do they mean the owner of the freq (well ok FCC legally
owns
> all freqs and gives permission or license to use them) but in otherwords
do
> they mean NExtel (etc.. etc..)
>
> OR
>
> Can I "get" a license from the FCC to legally operate a BDA ?
>
> Chris Taylor
> http://www.nerys.com/
>
>
> > Hello Mr. Daniels,
> >
> > Signal Boosters Bi-Directional Amplifiers or BDA's are only permitted
> > for use by licensee's only.
> >
> > Please see the FCC Rules and Regulations CFR 47 Part 22.527.
> > http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html
>
>

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

>
> >My staff has found 3 that interfered with PS systems over the last 3
> >yrs.
>
> Dude, you have staff looking it up? Get a life. ****. More people
> died of food poisoning this year than were harmed by FCC approved cellular
> BDAs.
>
We personally found 3 in the County that interfered with local
systems. I didn't say that we found 3 by researching the net, as this
information isn't compiled by anyone, who knows how many interference
cases have been found and cleared. I was posting personally known
cases.

Yes I have staff and operate a radio shop with a talented staff of 5,
those being 3 technicians, 1 supervior, 1 engineer, and I'm the
Network Administrator of a Public Safety 10 tower site, 28 channel 800
MHz simulcast radio system. My background is in radio system design
and deployment and I also to private two-way radio consulting (like
right now I'm in the Virgin Islands consulting on a Motorola SmartZone
System).

I concur with Al's comments on the reply to the rest of your prior
post so I'll reserve comment and head to breakfast.

Regards
Mark