Re: GSM Reception Questions

[Dana]

"Jerry" > wrote in message
...
> I am looking for input into Mobile 1900Mhz Antennas for Vehicle Use.
> Has anyone had positive experience with a certain brand or model that you
> would share??? Please...
>
> Would anyone have experience with Repeater/Amplifiers for the 1900Mhz
Range.
> I am looking to install an In-Building Repeater and would like any input
> available.
>
> Thank you in advance..

You may want to talk to your carrier before you try to install an in
building repeater. You cannot on your own just start transmitting on the PCS
frequencies, as they are protected by the FCC for the carrier that paid to
use those frequencies. And by transmitting on the frequencies used by the
carrier of those frequencies you may cause interference problems.
>
>

[John Navas]

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

In > on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:44:41 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"Jerry" > wrote in message
...

>> Would anyone have experience with Repeater/Amplifiers for the 1900Mhz Range.
>> I am looking to install an In-Building Repeater and would like any input
>> available.

>You may want to talk to your carrier before you try to install an in
>building repeater. You cannot on your own just start transmitting on the PCS
>frequencies, as they are protected by the FCC for the carrier that paid to
>use those frequencies. And by transmitting on the frequencies used by the
>carrier of those frequencies you may cause interference problems.

Unless you're a business, I doubt it would do much good to talk to the
carrier. I also doubt that there is any real problem as long as you get an
FCC approved unit, and install and operate it in the specified manner.

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

[Mark Filla]

You can't install a BDA to intentually amplify someone elses signals,
its a violation of FCC rules (assuming your in the US).

If your not in the US, then I have tons of experience in BDA design and
deployment, having designed a few jail and courthouse systems. They are
very expensive and unless your prepared to spend 3 dollars per foot on
slotted cable, approximately $5,000 on a high quality amp, and core
boring holes on each floor to make the vertical run....don't waste your
time.
--
Mark KS4VT


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:44:41 -0800,
> "Dana" > wrote:
>
> >"Jerry" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Would anyone have experience with Repeater/Amplifiers for the 1900Mhz Range.
> >> I am looking to install an In-Building Repeater and would like any input
> >> available.
>
> >You may want to talk to your carrier before you try to install an in
> >building repeater. You cannot on your own just start transmitting on the PCS
> >frequencies, as they are protected by the FCC for the carrier that paid to
> >use those frequencies. And by transmitting on the frequencies used by the
> >carrier of those frequencies you may cause interference problems.
>
> Unless you're a business, I doubt it would do much good to talk to the
> carrier. I also doubt that there is any real problem as long as you get an
> FCC approved unit, and install and operate it in the specified manner.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:44:41 -0800,
> "Dana" > wrote:
>
> >"Jerry" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Would anyone have experience with Repeater/Amplifiers for the 1900Mhz
Range.
> >> I am looking to install an In-Building Repeater and would like any
input
> >> available.
>
> >You may want to talk to your carrier before you try to install an in
> >building repeater. You cannot on your own just start transmitting on the
PCS
> >frequencies, as they are protected by the FCC for the carrier that paid
to
> >use those frequencies. And by transmitting on the frequencies used by the
> >carrier of those frequencies you may cause interference problems.
>
> Unless you're a business, I doubt it would do much good to talk to the
> carrier. I also doubt that there is any real problem as long as you get
an
> FCC approved unit, and install and operate it in the specified manner.


Those are licensed frequencies, so legally you cannot on your own just go
out and put a repeater in, you would have to get a license from the FCC. And
again that is only legally.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[Mark Filla]

There is NO license that he can get from the FCC to amplify someone
else's signal with a BDA, it doesn't exist....sorry.

--
Mark KS4VT


>
> Those are licensed frequencies, so legally you cannot on your own just go
> out and put a repeater in, you would have to get a license from the FCC. And
> again that is only legally.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[Dana]

"Mark Filla" > wrote in message
...
> There is NO license that he can get from the FCC to amplify someone
> else's signal with a BDA, it doesn't exist....sorry.

I know that, and you know that, but I do not think the original poster knew
that. He must think they are like the wi-fi frequencies.
>
> --
> Mark KS4VT
>
>
> >
> > Those are licensed frequencies, so legally you cannot on your own just
go
> > out and put a repeater in, you would have to get a license from the FCC.
And
> > again that is only legally.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> > > John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
> >
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

Both Andrew Corporation (EAC-50 Repeater Kit, Model ASPM1850-50,
<http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/eac50_pcs.html>, 440-349-8647) and
CellAntenna Corporation (CAE50 SOHO Repeater Package,
<http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/CAE50new.htm>, 877-998-2628) assured me
that their bidirectional amps are FCC Approved, and that no FCC license is
needed to install and operate them here in the USA.

In > on Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:52:17 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>You can't install a BDA to intentually amplify someone elses signals,
>its a violation of FCC rules (assuming your in the US).

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:

>> Unless you're a business, I doubt it would do much good to talk to the
>> carrier. I also doubt that there is any real problem as long as you get an
>> FCC approved unit, and install and operate it in the specified manner.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:52:17 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>You can't install a BDA to intentually amplify someone elses signals,
>its a violation of FCC rules (assuming your in the US).

* Andrew Corporation (EAC-50 Repeater Kit, Model ASPM1850-50,
<http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/eac50_pcs.html>, 440-349-8647)

* 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)

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.

>If your not in the US, then I have tons of experience in BDA design and
>deployment, having designed a few jail and courthouse systems. They are
>very expensive and unless your prepared to spend 3 dollars per foot on
>slotted cable, approximately $5,000 on a high quality amp, and core
>boring holes on each floor to make the vertical run....don't waste your
>time.

A typical home in the USA is quite different from a typical jail or
courthouse. The systems above are "only" about $500-700, but reportedly do a
good job of providing coverage in a limited area (500-1000 sq ft or so).

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

[Mark Filla]

A house installation will not give you the required 40 to 60dB isolation
required for a BDA (you need a minimum double of what the gain of the
amp is). The amplifier will self oscillate if the isolation is not
there and will end up with more problems than you started with.
--
Mark KS4VT


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> A typical home in the USA is quite different from a typical jail or
> courthouse. The systems above are "only" about $500-700, but reportedly do a
> good job of providing coverage in a limited area (500-1000 sq ft or so).
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:11:13 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>WRONG....He must be the licensee of the amplified channels. He is not
>allowed to amplify someone elses signal as defined in the FCC Rules
>shown below in section A, E and F:
>[SNIP]

I actually called the FCC regarding this, and, after a few false starts, 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. (If you created interference, you would be obligated to correct it.)

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:38:30 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>>
>> A typical home in the USA is quite different from a typical jail or
>> courthouse. The systems above are "only" about $500-700, but reportedly do a
>> good job of providing coverage in a limited area (500-1000 sq ft or so).

>A house installation will not give you the required 40 to 60dB isolation
>required for a BDA (you need a minimum double of what the gain of the
>amp is). The amplifier will self oscillate if the isolation is not
>there and will end up with more problems than you started with.

According to Andrew Corporation (Antenna Specialists):

RF Isolation

RF Isolation is defined by the path loss or attenuation, between the
donor and interior antennas. It is important to ensure that the two
antennas are sufficiently separated, such that the signal transmitted
by one antenna is not received by the other. For optimal performance,
the separation of the two antennas must provide a path loss of at
least 15 dB greater than the gain of the BDA. Therefore, the EAC-50
requires at least 65 dB of attenuation between the antennas.

In most cases, isolation will be achieved by properly locating the
donor and interior coverage antennas, respectively. The optimal
location for the donor antenna is high above the roof line, and
exterior to the building. The interior coverage antenna should be
installed inside, near or below the ceiling. Following these
guidelines should ensure adequate isolation between antennas.

* Never mount the donor or coverage antenna near a window, where
signal can easily pass through the glass.

* Mount the donor antenna as high as physically possible to the
exterior of the building, maximizing the vertical separation between
antennas and pointing away from the building, toward the base station
site.

* Install the antennas taking advantage of any existing building
structure such as brick walls, metal roofs, or multiple wall
structures to additionally attenuate the path between them.

* When using directional antennas inside the building to cover
corridors and hallways, point the interior antenna away from the
donor antenna location.

* In extreme cases, the building configuration may not allow for such
separation and isolation. If additional isolation is required,
coaxial attenuation may be inserted between the donor antenna and the
BDA, with the potential compromise to the overall coverage within the
building.

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

[Mark Filla]

Yep...I have read that document many of times and I add in an additional
10 to 15dB additional isolation to ensure there is no chance of the amp
oscillating. In addition a normal house has 10dB loss. There is no way
to get 65dB isolation between the antennas (if you propose to use a 50dB
amp) without adding attenuation and then you defeat the purpose.
--
Mark KS4VT


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> According to Andrew Corporation (Antenna Specialists):
>
> RF Isolation
>
> RF Isolation is defined by the path loss or attenuation, between the
> donor and interior antennas. It is important to ensure that the two
> antennas are sufficiently separated, such that the signal transmitted
> by one antenna is not received by the other. For optimal performance,
> the separation of the two antennas must provide a path loss of at
> least 15 dB greater than the gain of the BDA. Therefore, the EAC-50
> requires at least 65 dB of attenuation between the antennas.
>


[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 16:49:35 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>> According to Andrew Corporation (Antenna Specialists):
>>
>> RF Isolation
>>
>> RF Isolation is defined by the path loss or attenuation, between the
>> donor and interior antennas. It is important to ensure that the two
>> antennas are sufficiently separated, such that the signal transmitted
>> by one antenna is not received by the other. For optimal performance,
>> the separation of the two antennas must provide a path loss of at
>> least 15 dB greater than the gain of the BDA. Therefore, the EAC-50
>> requires at least 65 dB of attenuation between the antennas.

>Yep...I have read that document many of times and I add in an additional
>10 to 15dB additional isolation to ensure there is no chance of the amp
>oscillating. In addition a normal house has 10dB loss. There is no way
>to get 65dB isolation between the antennas (if you propose to use a 50dB
>amp) without adding attenuation and then you defeat the purpose.

That's you. According to the part you snipped:

In most cases, isolation will be achieved by properly locating the
donor and interior coverage antennas, respectively. ...

Only in "extreme cases" is attenuation required, and even then it doesn't
defeat the purpose.

No offense, but I think Andrew (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications
company) is the more credible source. (Likewise the FCC, as per your claim on
licensing.)

Please stop top-posting.

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

[Mark Filla]

First off...I can post where ever I want. The curser starts at the top
when I click reply and that is where I coose to type. End of that
subject.

Second...I have delt with Andrew Corporation in over 25 installations,
the difference between them and me is that they sell the equipment and
give general practices. I do it as an exact science as every
installation is unique, but the attennuation of residential and meduim
density building varies by maybe 1 or 2dB no matter where you put the
antennas and it gets worse of you utilize slotted hardline.

And on the licensing issue...while your making calls, why don't you call
some of the cellular and PCS providers and ask them if you can install a
BDA to amplify their signal without them being involved in the design.
I bet they say No F* Way!

OK...I'm done

--
Mark KS4VT


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In most cases, isolation will be achieved by properly locating the
> donor and interior coverage antennas, respectively. ...
>
> Only in "extreme cases" is attenuation required, and even then it doesn't
> defeat the purpose.
>
> No offense, but I think Andrew (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications
> company) is the more credible source. (Likewise the FCC, as per your claim on
> licensing.)
>
> Please stop top-posting.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:27:12 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>First off...I can post where ever I want. The curser starts at the top
>when I click reply and that is where I coose to type. End of that
>subject.

In other words, you don't care about being rude. Nice. Not.

>Second...I have delt with Andrew Corporation in over 25 installations,
>the difference between them and me is that they sell the equipment and
>give general practices. I do it as an exact science as every
>installation is unique, but the attennuation of residential and meduim
>density building varies by maybe 1 or 2dB no matter where you put the
>antennas and it gets worse of you utilize slotted hardline.

As I said, I consider Andrew the more credible source.

>And on the licensing issue...while your making calls, why don't you call
>some of the cellular and PCS providers and ask them if you can install a
>BDA to amplify their signal without them being involved in the design.
>I bet they say No F* Way!

Not terribly surprising, since they'd rather you didn't do that, even though
it is legitimate (as the FCC confirmed to me).

>OK...I'm done

Somehow I doubt it. ;-)

If you want me to take you more seriously, come up with a credible source that
confirms your position.

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

[Mark Filla]

I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time 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). 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, it does not give every
person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA whereever they
desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules and I
stand by the FCC rules and my 15 years past experience as a wireless
system engineer.

If you want to violate the rules and take the chance of being charged
with a $10,000 fine so be it....don't say that I didn't warn you.

§ 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


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Tue, 19 Aug 2003 23:27:12 -0000,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >First off...I can post where ever I want. The curser starts at the top
> >when I click reply and that is where I coose to type. End of that
> >subject.
>
> In other words, you don't care about being rude. Nice. Not.
>
> >Second...I have delt with Andrew Corporation in over 25 installations,
> >the difference between them and me is that they sell the equipment and
> >give general practices. I do it as an exact science as every
> >installation is unique, but the attennuation of residential and meduim
> >density building varies by maybe 1 or 2dB no matter where you put the
> >antennas and it gets worse of you utilize slotted hardline.
>
> As I said, I consider Andrew the more credible source.
>
> >And on the licensing issue...while your making calls, why don't you call
> >some of the cellular and PCS providers and ask them if you can install a
> >BDA to amplify their signal without them being involved in the design.
> >I bet they say No F* Way!
>
> Not terribly surprising, since they'd rather you didn't do that, even though
> it is legitimate (as the FCC confirmed to me).
>
> >OK...I'm done
>
> Somehow I doubt it. ;-)
>
> If you want me to take you more seriously, come up with a credible source that
> confirms your position.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 12:21:22 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>I'm going to post the FCC Rule one more time

No need to do that -- once was enough. (BTW, the actual order [FCC 96-223] is
accessible at <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1996/fcc96223.wp>.)

>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.

>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, it does not give every
>person in the good ol USA the right to install a BDA whereever they
>desire, that isn't what they mean. It is very clear in the rules and I
>stand by the FCC rules and my 15 years past experience as a wireless
>system engineer.

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 actually 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.

>If you want to violate the rules and take the chance of being charged
>with a $10,000 fine so be it....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 any rules violation or 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 claimed 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>

[Mark Filla]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > 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:

li¡Pcens¡Pee [ lȼss¡¦n sȲ ] (plural li¡Pcens¡Pees)
noun
somebody authorized to do something: somebody who has been granted
official permission to do something

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=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]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:01 -0000,
(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>

[Mark Filla]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:41:50 -0000,
> (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]

[James Knott]

John Navas wrote:


>
>>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.

What does the following mean?

"§ 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:..."


--

Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.

To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
james.knott.

[Mark Filla]

James Knott > wrote in article
ogers.com>:
> John Navas wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>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.
>
> What does the following mean?
>
> "§ 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:..."
>
>
> --
>
> Fundamentalism is fundamentally wrong.
>
> To reply to this message, replace everything to the left of "@" with
> james.knott.

It means exactly what it states, Licensees, or those who have a valid
license(s), to operate transmitters in frequencies above 150 MHz, are
allowed to operate signal boosters (BDA'S) in accordance to the rules in
fixed locations to amplify their paticular frequency(ies).

I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you would
like to read the whole thing. It puts it in logical order although
there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:16:05 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>James Knott > wrote in article
ogers.com>:

>> What does the following mean?
>>
>> "§ 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:..."

According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called), it
means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted low-power
cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install and
operate them.

>It means exactly what it states, Licensees, or those who have a valid
>license(s), to operate transmitters in frequencies above 150 MHz, are
>allowed to operate signal boosters (BDA'S) in accordance to the rules in
>fixed locations to amplify their paticular frequency(ies).
>
>I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you would
>like to read the whole thing.

I posted a link to the original Order, if you would like to read the whole
thing in context.

>It puts it in logical order although
>there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.

Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)

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

[Mark Filla]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:16:05 -0000,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >James Knott > wrote in article
> ogers.com>:
>
> >> What does the following mean?
> >>
> >> "§ 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:..."
>
> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called), it
> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted low-power
> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install and
> operate them.
>
> >It means exactly what it states, Licensees, or those who have a valid
> >license(s), to operate transmitters in frequencies above 150 MHz, are
> >allowed to operate signal boosters (BDA'S) in accordance to the rules in
> >fixed locations to amplify their paticular frequency(ies).
> >
> >I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you would
> >like to read the whole thing.
>
> I posted a link to the original Order, if you would like to read the whole
> thing in context.
>
> >It puts it in logical order although
> >there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.
>
> Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)
>
> --
If the wording of the ruling has actually changed then the FCC would
update the website to say the same. To date the on-line version, which
would have a quicker revision than the printed book, has not been
changed to reflect what John has posted in the past few days.

So John, if you think your so smart....what is your intrepretation of
90.219? You do you think your excluded from it as written in Part 90 of
the FCC Rules and any of the other rules? Have you ever read Parts 90
and 22?

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 02:16:05 -0000,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >James Knott > wrote in article
> ogers.com>:
>
> >> What does the following mean?
> >>
> >> "§ 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:..."
>
> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called),
it
> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted
low-power
> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install
and
> operate them.

If installed and operated by the license holder. And we all know that you do
not hold the license in question.
>
> >It means exactly what it states, Licensees, or those who have a valid
> >license(s), to operate transmitters in frequencies above 150 MHz, are
> >allowed to operate signal boosters (BDA'S) in accordance to the rules in
> >fixed locations to amplify their paticular frequency(ies).
> >
> >I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you would
> >like to read the whole thing.
> >It puts it in logical order although
> >there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.
>
> Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)

Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.

[RDT]

In article >,
Dana > wrote:
>Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.

Could this be one of those debates where both parties have a point?
I mean let's assume for a moment that you're 100% right that the licensee
has the final say. In practical terms, how many cell companies are going
to veto a low power repeater when it is in their interests for it to
operate? Whether Navas is right or wrong about the law or the rules, you
must admit that the likelihood that any carrier would fight a low-power
repeater is very slim. They would only care if it somehow interfered with
their existing infrastructure.

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]

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

In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:10:33 -0000,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:

>> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called), it
>> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted low-power
>> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install and
>> operate them.

>If the wording of the ruling has actually changed then the FCC would
>update the website to say the same. To date the on-line version, which
>would have a quicker revision than the printed book, has not been
>changed to reflect what John has posted in the past few days.
>
>So John, if you think your so smart....what is your intrepretation of
>90.219? You do you think your excluded from it as written in Part 90 of
>the FCC Rules and any of the other rules? Have you ever read Parts 90
>and 22?

I have no interpretation of my own -- I rely on the interpretation of the
Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC, as well as manufacturers of these
devices (e.g., Andrew Corporation, a near billion dollar S&P500 communications
company).

So what happened to "I too think we have exhausted our debate?"

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

[Dana]

""RDT"" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Dana > wrote:
> >Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.
>
> Could this be one of those debates where both parties have a point?
> I mean let's assume for a moment that you're 100% right that the licensee
> has the final say. In practical terms, how many cell companies are going
> to veto a low power repeater when it is in their interests for it to
> operate? Whether Navas is right or wrong about the law or the rules, you
> must admit that the likelihood that any carrier would fight a low-power
> repeater is very slim. They would only care if it somehow interfered with
> their existing infrastructure.

Bingo, and when people who have no idea what they are doing start throwing
up repeaters all over the place, who are you going to blame when cell
service gets even worse. And the carrier would fight an unauthorized
repeater on the frequencies they paid for. So John just needs to contact the
carrier in question, and let the carrier give him the go ahead. Hell it
could be that the cell site serving that area is actually broken and not
performing as it should be, hence by contacting the carrier they may
actually improve the coverage there so no repeater would be needed. Look at
what all the amateurs are doing to the WI-FI band, do you really want that
kind of mess on the licensed bands.
>
> RDT

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:10:33 -0000,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >John Navas > wrote in article
> >:
>
> >> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I
called), it
> >> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted
low-power
> >> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install
and
> >> operate them.
>
> >If the wording of the ruling has actually changed then the FCC would
> >update the website to say the same. To date the on-line version, which
> >would have a quicker revision than the printed book, has not been
> >changed to reflect what John has posted in the past few days.
> >
> >So John, if you think your so smart....what is your intrepretation of
> >90.219? You do you think your excluded from it as written in Part 90 of
> >the FCC Rules and any of the other rules? Have you ever read Parts 90
> >and 22?
>
> I have no interpretation of my own


Looking at these posts you sure do.
Andrew has stated they make no such claims about their products being used
by un lincesed users in lincesed bands. And it is very unlikely the FCC who
is making a mint off these frequencies would allow people to use those
licenses without a license.

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:18:18 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> I have no interpretation of my own

Adding back the part you snipped without so noting:

-- I rely on the interpretation of the Commercial Wireless Division of the
FCC, as well as manufacturers of these devices (e.g., Andrew Corporation, a
near billion dollar S&P500 communications company).

>Looking at these posts you sure do.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

>Andrew has stated they make no such claims about their products being used
>by un lincesed users in lincesed bands.

Really? I actually called Andrew, and was assured that no license was needed
for me to install and operate one. And you?

>And it is very unlikely the FCC who
>is making a mint off these frequencies would allow people to use those
>licenses without a license.

I actually called the FCC as well, and was assured by the Commercial Wireless
Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted
low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to me
to install and operate one. And you?

Let me know if and when you come up with something more substantial.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:15:59 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>Bingo, and when people who have no idea what they are doing start throwing
>up repeaters all over the place, who are you going to blame when cell
>service gets even worse.

These FCC Type Accepted repeaters aren't going to make cell service get worse.
If they did, you would of course be required to correct the problem.

>And the carrier would fight an unauthorized
>repeater on the frequencies they paid for.

You base that on ... ?

>So John just needs to contact the
>carrier in question, and let the carrier give him the go ahead.

I don't "need" to do that, and I almost certainly wouldn't get anywhere by
trying.

>Hell it
>could be that the cell site serving that area is actually broken and not
>performing as it should be, hence by contacting the carrier they may
>actually improve the coverage there so no repeater would be needed.

Since I've repeatedly reported the poor coverage around here, that seems
pretty unlikely.

>Look at
>what all the amateurs are doing to the WI-FI band, do you really want that
>kind of mess on the licensed bands.

I see no problem.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:20:30 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> I actually called the FCC,
>
>So you say,

Are you calling me a liar? Have you called the FCC?

>yet Andrew states that they do not sell repeaters to be used on
>licensed frequencies unless you have the right to operate on that frequency,
>I.E. you are the license holder.

Really? I actually called Andrew, and was assured that no license was needed
for me to install and operate one. And you?

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

[Mark F]

"Dana" > wrote in article
>:
>
> "John Navas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In > on Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:40:11 -0800,
> > "Dana" > wrote:
> >
> > >"John Navas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >> Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)
> > >
> > >Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.
> >
> > Yet another time:
> >
> > I actually called the FCC,
>
> So you say, yet Andrew states that they do not sell repeaters to be used on
> licensed frequencies unless you have the right to operate on that frequency,
> I.E. you are the license holder.
>
Thanks for assisting...and being on my side. I was looking for other
infrastructure savvy pepole to post comments to him also showing the
incorrect assumptions that he has been posting to the world.

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

[John Navas]

As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.

In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:07:41 GMT,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>WRONG....He must be the licensee of the amplified channels. He is not
>allowed to amplify someone elses signal as defined in the FCC Rules
>shown below in section A, E and F:
>
>
> TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
>
> COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
>
>PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents
>
> Subpart I--General Technical Standards
>
>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]

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:20 GMT,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> >So John, if you think your so smart....what is your intrepretation of
>> >90.219? You do you think your excluded from it as written in Part 90 of
>> >the FCC Rules and any of the other rules? Have you ever read Parts 90
>> >and 22?
>>
>> I have no interpretation of my own
>
>Looking at these posts you sure do.
>Andrew has stated they make no such claims about their products being used
>by un lincesed users in lincesed bands. And it is very unlikely the FCC who
>is making a mint off these frequencies would allow people to use those
>licenses without a license.

Both Andrew and the FCC assured me that no license was needed.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:18 GMT,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called), it
>> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted low-power
>> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install and
>> operate them.
>
>If installed and operated by the license holder. ...

By anyone.

>> >I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you would
>> >like to read the whole thing.
>> >It puts it in logical order although
>> >there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.
>>
>> Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)
>
>Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.

The FCC says it's OK for me to install and operate these devices, and I give
more weight to what the FCC tells me than what you tell me (no offense
intended).

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:14 GMT,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>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.

As I wrote, the FCC assured me that no license is needed. That's good enough
for me, whether it's good enough for you or not.

>There...I bottom posted....happy now?

Yes.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:07:48 GMT,
(Mark Filla) wrote:

>If you want to violate the rules and take the chance of being charged
>with a $10,000 fine so be it....

I've been assured by the FCC that I wouldn't be violating any rules, and
that's good enough for me.

>don't say that I didn't warn you.

I won't.

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

[Mark F]

Well its funny that you re-posted something that I though that was done,
but being that you did I called the FCC also and they stated that the
"BDA Installation Company" no longer requires an FCC license to install
(i.e. General Radio/Telephone), but due to restrictions in local
governing agencies may have to have a electrical or low voltage license.

As far as an individual installing a BDA to amplify someone else's
signals, the FCC was clear in stating that "ONLY THE LICENSEE" i.e.
NEXTEL, Cingular, AT&T, Verizion, etc. can legally install a BDA to
amplify their own licensed frequencies and the rules is very clear on
this. The rule does not permit individuals to install a BDA on someone
else's licensed frequencies. To continue, the FCC clarified the rule in
that the licensee no longer had to advise the FCC of the location of the
BDA and it cannot extend the distance of their licensed footprint past
their market demarc.

So...now we have 2 opinions from the same govt agency.

So lets let the other posters on the board make their own decision as to
whether your assumption or mine is correct.....feel free to post you
guys.
--
Mark


John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:07:41 GMT,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >WRONG....He must be the licensee of the amplified channels. He is not
> >allowed to amplify someone elses signal as defined in the FCC Rules
> >shown below in section A, E and F:
> >
> >
> > TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
> >
> > COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
> >
> >PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents
> >
> > Subpart I--General Technical Standards
> >
> >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]
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.

The FCC did no such thing.
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:07:41 GMT,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >WRONG....He must be the licensee of the amplified channels. He is not
> >allowed to amplify someone elses signal as defined in the FCC Rules
> >shown below in section A, E and F:
> >
> >
> > TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION
> >
> > COMMISSION (CONTINUED)
> >
> >PART 90--PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents
> >
> > Subpart I--General Technical Standards
> >
> >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]
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:20 GMT,
> "Dana" > wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> >So John, if you think your so smart....what is your intrepretation of
> >> >90.219? You do you think your excluded from it as written in Part 90
of
> >> >the FCC Rules and any of the other rules? Have you ever read Parts 90
> >> >and 22?
> >>
> >> I have no interpretation of my own
> >
> >Looking at these posts you sure do.
> >Andrew has stated they make no such claims about their products being
used
> >by un lincesed users in lincesed bands. And it is very unlikely the FCC
who
> >is making a mint off these frequencies would allow people to use those
> >licenses without a license.
>
> Both Andrew and the FCC assured me that no license was needed.


You are a liar

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:18 GMT,
> "Dana" > wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I
called), it
> >> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted
low-power
> >> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install
and
> >> operate them.
> >
> >If installed and operated by the license holder. ...
>
> By anyone.

Nope, you are lying again. There is no FCC rule allowing unlicensed people
from transmitting on licensed frequencies.
>
> >> >I posted the whole FCC rule section 90.219 a day or 2 back if you
would
> >> >like to read the whole thing.
> >> >It puts it in logical order although
> >> >there are a few here that dispute my interpretation of the rule.
> >>
> >> Not to mention the FCC itself. ;-)
> >
> >Wrong. The FCC rules say otherwise.
>
> The FCC says it's OK for me to install and operate these devices, and I
give
> more weight to what the FCC tells me than what you tell me (no offense
> intended).

You are lying, the FCC never sai that. Meanwhile we have posted the current
FCC rules, and you think you can ignore them.

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:14 GMT,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> As I wrote, the FCC assured me that no license is needed.

So where is the rule that the fcc gave you that allows you to transmit on a
licensed frequency.
If you cannot provide the rule they gave you, well than you must be lying.

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:07:48 GMT,
> (Mark Filla) wrote:
>
> >If you want to violate the rules and take the chance of being charged
> >with a $10,000 fine so be it....
>
> I've been assured by the FCC that I wouldn't be violating any rules, and
> that's good enough for me.


You are lying.
>

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:16:22 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> As I wrote, the FCC assured me that no license is needed.
>
>So where is the rule that the fcc gave you that allows you to transmit on a
>licensed frequency.
>If you cannot provide the rule they gave you, well than you must be lying.

I'm not lying, but thanks for your concern. I suggest you call them yourself.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:14:49 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In > on Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:06:18 GMT,
>> "Dana" > wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >> According to the Commercial Wireless Division of the FCC (which I called), it
>> >> means that the FCC does not regulate the use of FCC Type Accepted low-power
>> >> cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no license is required to install and
>> >> operate them.
>> >
>> >If installed and operated by the license holder. ...
>>
>> By anyone.
>
>Nope, you are lying again. ...

Nope.

>> The FCC says it's OK for me to install and operate these devices, and I give
>> more weight to what the FCC tells me than what you tell me (no offense
>> intended).
>
>You are lying, the FCC never sai that. ...

Wrong.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:12:27 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> Both Andrew and the FCC assured me that no license was needed.
>
>You are a liar

Nope.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:16:50 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> I've been assured by the FCC that I wouldn't be violating any rules, and
>> that's good enough for me.
>
>You are lying.

Nope.

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

[John Navas]

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

In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:11:46 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
>> As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.
>
>The FCC did no such thing.

In fact it did.

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

[Mark F]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.data - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:11:46 -0800,
> "Dana" > wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.
> >
> >The FCC did no such thing.
>
> In fact it did.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Sorry John, I called the FCC and they stated just the opposite to what
you have been preaching incorrectly. I'm awaiting on their official
written reply.

Mark

[posted via phonescoop.com]

[John Navas]

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

In > on Sat, 20 Sep 2003 02:55:02 -0000,
(Mark F) wrote:

>John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>>
>> In > on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 16:11:46 -0800,
>> "Dana" > wrote:
>>
>> >"John Navas" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> As noted several times, the FCC assured me that no license is required.
>> >
>> >The FCC did no such thing.
>>
>> In fact it did.

>Sorry John, I called the FCC and they stated just the opposite to what
>you have been preaching incorrectly. I'm awaiting on their official
>written reply.

Sorry Mark. I also called the FCC. We may have gotten different answers, but
I'm satisfied with what I heard, which was consistent with what I heard from
Andrew and other suppliers, just as you are apparently satisfied with what you
heard. Until something better comes along, we'll just have to leave it at
that.

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

[Dana]

"John Navas" > wrote in message
...
> >Sorry John, I called the FCC and they stated just the opposite to what
> >you have been preaching incorrectly. I'm awaiting on their official
> >written reply.
>
> Sorry Mark. I also called the FCC. We may have gotten different answers,

You never called the FCC, or if you did, you chose to ignore what they said.
but
> I'm satisfied with what I heard, which was consistent with what I heard
from
> Andrew and other suppliers,

Andrew and other suppliers would not sell you equipment you are not licensed
to operate. In other words they would not sell you a BDA that operates on a
licensed frequency, unless you can prove to them you have been granted the
license to operate on those frequencies.

[John Navas]

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

In > on Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:35:07 -0800,
"Dana" > wrote:

>"John Navas" > wrote in message
...

>> Sorry Mark. I also called the FCC. We may have gotten different answers, but
>> I'm satisfied with what I heard, which was consistent with what I heard from
>> Andrew and other suppliers,
>
>Andrew and other suppliers would not sell you equipment you are not licensed
>to operate. In other words they would not sell you a BDA that operates on a
>licensed frequency, unless you can prove to them you have been granted the
>license to operate on those frequencies.

Andrews (Antenna Specialists) sells the EAC-50 Repeater Kit (Model
ASPM1850-50) <http://www.antenna.com/repeaters/eac50_pcs.html> for use by
consumers.

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

[Mark F]

John Navas > wrote in article
>:
>
> >Sorry John, I called the FCC and they stated just the opposite to what
> >you have been preaching incorrectly. I'm awaiting on their official
> >written reply.
>
> Sorry Mark. I also called the FCC. We may have gotten different answers, but
> I'm satisfied with what I heard, which was consistent with what I heard from
> Andrew and other suppliers, just as you are apparently satisfied with what you
> heard. Until something better comes along, we'll just have to leave it at
> that.

John,
Here is the written reply from the FCC along with my original e-mail to
them shown underneath. It is clear by their response that a private
non-licensed individual cannot utilize the device I described in the
e-mail (a BDA) or they would of stated otherwise:

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
(specifically 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 authorized sub-contractor) and he , as a private individual"
is not allowed to freely install such a system as he is not the
"licensee".

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 (specifically 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 along with my
contact phone number below if you would like to speak directly with me.


Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.



[posted via phonescoop.com]