1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by John Navas, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:53:12 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >In <q5o2tvghibfr29o7hqr13fktc738ilcg2p@Pern.rk> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:53:29
    >GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:40:20 GMT, John Navas
    >><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:


    >>>So-called "passive repeaters" do not work.


    >>How many have you personally field tested?


    >Perhaps half a dozen.


    Do you want to put in the effort to find out what you've been doing
    wrong? (They DO work - as Larry, and many others, can testify.)



    › See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)
  2. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:37:52 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >No, FCC regulations (real or not) are different from posted speed limits.
    >Enforcement is subject to the current whim of the FCC.


    Enforcement of speed limits is subject to the whim of the cop covering
    the area.
  3. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Only problem is that's it's usually not in the entire mall to service
    >shoppers, it's ONLY in the cellular store (and right outside the doors).
    >Since it doesn't help ANYONE unless they are in the store, what could it be
    >besides a sales trick?


    Simon seems to cover their entire mall when they cover it. They even
    have signs on the doors (that don't mention Verizon, btw). I don't
    know how many malls they have spread over how much of the country, but
    the few on Long Island are set up with mall-wide repeaters.

    (I agree that having a repeater covering only the cell phone store and
    its immediate vicinity is a sales gimmick, whether done by Verizon or
    an indy.)
  4. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:49:27 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
    >FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.


    Like all those companies that sold linears that covered 27 MHz?

    Like all those stores that sell ham gear without asking to see a
    license (all of them)?

    Like all the stores in NYC that sell high-powered (illegally so)
    cordless phones, but only if you're going to use them in countries
    that allow them to be used? But don't ask you where you intend to use
    them?

    Yeah, the FCC really comes down heavily on people against whom no
    complaints have been made. They usually don't come down heavily (or
    at all) on people against whom complaints HAVE been made.
  5. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:43 GMT, Tim Harrick <Tim233@hotmail.com>
    posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >In article <X1tAb.1129$XF6.28478@typhoon.sonic.net>,
    > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:


    >> I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
    >> FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.


    >But they don't now, do they? Where's the penalty for not PORTing in 2
    >1/2 hours.


    Remember, the comment was made by the same guy who said, "Enforcement
    is subject to the current whim of the FCC".
  6. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:09 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <35b1619d.0312060347.26c46205@posting.google.com> on 6 Dec 2003 03:47:41
    >-0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:
    >
    >>taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in message news:<bqr3fk$mss$1@panix2.panix.com>...

    >
    >>> I know that Navas has a tendency to spout off without having all the
    >>> facts, but Mark, as I said to you about this months ago, this is one of
    >>> those "no harm, no foul" kinda deals. The only ones likely to care about
    >>> the repeater would be those harmed by it. Unless the repeater is poorly
    >>> designed and causes interference or somehow inconveniences other
    >>> subscribers, why would the FCC ever get involved?

    >
    >>Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
    >>you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
    >>of your sites by improperly installing such a device?

    >
    >That's not a real issue here -- you're wildly exaggerating (i.e., spreading
    >FUD).
    >
    >>In addition, when one is operating improperly it is a royal pain in
    >>the ass to try to find it (based on personal experience). It could
    >>take months to try to find one if it's causing interference to a
    >>carrier that didn't install the device or have a record of its
    >>installation.

    >
    >If it really is a problem, then it should be pretty easy for someone skilled
    >in the art to find it.
    >
    >>Its far from being "no harm, no foul" situation.

    >
    >I respectfully disagree.


    No one ever said that you had to know what you're talking about in
    order to have an opinion, and this post clearly proves the point.

    BDAs DO change the contour of the cell, it's NOT very easy to find a
    transmitter that only transmits irregularly and running RF equipment
    one knows nothing about DOES usually cause harm.
  7. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <treydog90spam@hotmail.com>
    posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >I have no coverage in my house, and patchy coverage outside. I'm sure a high
    >gain directional going to a BDA can light up my house. but I'm still looking
    >for the pricing for all the required parts.


    BDAs run in the neighborhood of $500. A high-gain antenna and
    mounting won't cost more than $100.

    But Larry wasn't talking about a BDA, but a passive repeater. That's
    two antennas connected together - usually a high-gain Yagi outside and
    an omnidirectional antenna inside. $100 for the Yagi, mount and cable
    and nothing for a coaxial antenna made out of the end of the cable
    coming from the Yagi.

    >BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
    >blackout?


    I don't run a BDA (pretty good ambient signal), but I have my cordless
    phone and wireless router/cable modem on a UPS. I can sit here in
    candle-light and enjoy a high-speed connection to the internet if the
    power goes out but the cable hasn't been damaged. :)
  8. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:32:51 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <584a61bdc20af9dfedf9ab2e3cee5a47@dizum.com> on Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:10:06
    >+0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <3fd1422b.183569129@news.knology.net>
    >>nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    >>
    >>Actually, this chick needed very little training in saying "I'm not sure
    >>of that." It's a shame when the client has a better working knowledge of
    >>the technology than those assigned to "advise" the customer.

    >
    >Because ... ?
    >
    >Sales people aren't there to "'advise' the customer" -- they're there to
    >generate sales!


    They should know their products. Even McDonalds' "sales people" know
    the difference between a hamburger and a chicken sandwich.
  9. Strontium

    Strontium Guest

    -
    Al Klein stood up at show-n-tell, in
    7g05tvcrvnk33msoajga27p2qh80r5pmjq@Pern.rk, and said:

    > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:32:51 GMT, John Navas
    > <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >>
    >> In <584a61bdc20af9dfedf9ab2e3cee5a47@dizum.com> on Sat, 6 Dec 2003
    >> 17:10:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <3fd1422b.183569129@news.knology.net>
    >>> nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Actually, this chick needed very little training in saying "I'm not
    >>> sure of that." It's a shame when the client has a better working
    >>> knowledge of the technology than those assigned to "advise" the
    >>> customer.

    >>
    >> Because ... ?
    >>
    >> Sales people aren't there to "'advise' the customer" -- they're
    >> there to generate sales!

    >
    > They should know their products. Even McDonalds' "sales people" know
    > the difference between a hamburger and a chicken sandwich.


    It's funny, though...a lot of them don't understand what 'no cheese' means.


    --
    Strontium

    "It's no surprise, to me. I am my own worst enemy. `Cause every
    now, and then, I kick the livin' shit `outta me." - Lit
  10. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<X1tAb.1129$XF6.28478@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <35b1619d.0312060332.1e9e4fa2@posting.google.com> on 6 Dec 2003 03:32:22
    > -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:
    >
    > >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<147Ab.1006$XF6.23352@typhoon.sonic.net>...

    >
    > >> In surrebuttal, I repeat what I've posted previously:
    > >>
    > >> 1. Andrew Corporation (a near billion dollar S&P500 communications company),
    > >> CellAntenna Corporation, and Wilson Electronics have all assured me that their
    > >> bidirectional amps are FCC Approved/Type Accepted, and that no FCC license is
    > >> needed to install and operate them here in the USA. They openly sell them for
    > >> consumer use.

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

    >
    > I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
    > FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.


    If they don't ask for the license they have no idea who they are
    selling too nor what the application is. The manufacturer and/or
    distributor cannot be held liable for a misapplication of their
    product unless they were involved in the design, installation, and
    actually operated it in an illegal fashion. As an example of this,
    the State of Nevada installed a State-Wide Motorola Trunking system
    without FCC licenses and right now is being investigated for operation
    without a license. Motrola as the manufacturer of the system is not
    being mentioned or investigated because they didn't operate it, the
    State of Nevada did.

    >
    > >> 2. I called the FCC regarding this, and was assured by a spokesperson at
    > >> the Commercial Wireless Division that the FCC does not regulate the use of
    > >> these FCC Type Accepted low-power cellular repeaters/boosters, and thus no
    > >> license is required to install and operate them. We specifically discussed
    > >> them being operated by consumers, not carriers.
    > >>
    > >> I sent the name and phone number of my contact at Commercial Wireless Division
    > >> of the FCC by private email to another challenger ("Jack Daniel") who asked to
    > >> check with my contact. He also said:
    > >>
    > >> I will be following FCC procedure soon and formally requesting an
    > >> interpretation to get a clarification in writing and will include copies
    > >> of your comments and those of any manufacturer comments directly (not
    > >> via a third party).

    > >
    > >Lets see something in writing.

    >
    > I personally see no need to do that. If you do, then feel free to step up to
    > the line. (Hint: purported email doesn't count.) Unless and until that
    > happens, we just have differing interpretations.


    No really....provide me with the proof or who you spoke to and I will
    forward the official e-mail that still has the FCC address on it. Are
    you afraid that you misrepresented yourself to the FCC official and if
    you were to put in writing would come out maybe being....incorrect?

    >
    > >The government doesn't do an "official
    > >intrepretation of the rules" over the phone.

    >
    > I didn't say it did. I'm nonetheless satisfied with the advice I received.


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

    >
    > >I work for a gov't
    > >agency and we do everything on paper or electronic medium.

    >
    > Good for you, but I fail to see the relevance.
    >
    > >Call this
    > >guy back and tell him that you want his position in writing.

    >
    > As I said, I personally see no need to do that.


    Why...do you think that you will get an opinion of someone who will
    tell you that the first person gave you bad information?

    >
    > >If he
    > >provides something and its the opposite than mine then we can send
    > >both back to the FCC for an official position. But until you can
    > >provide otherwise, the FCC rule stands as on the "licensee" can
    > >operate such a device.

    >
    > I respectfully disagree.


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

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

    Mark
  11. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Al Klein wrote:

    > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:32:51 GMT, John Navas


    >>Sales people aren't there to "'advise' the customer" -- they're there to
    >>generate sales!

    >
    >
    > They should know their products. Even McDonalds' "sales people" know
    > the difference between a hamburger and a chicken sandwich.


    This, of course, presumes one's need to actually know the difference
    between a hamburger and a chicken sandwich - which is irrelevant when
    one is looking for a simple supply of food. And this presumes a
    McDonald's hamburger or chicken sandwich could actually qualify as food
    in the first place in the same way a sales droid is actually qualified
    to explain the technical intricacies of a cell phone service. Neither
    should be presumed as accurate.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
  12. Trey

    Trey Guest

    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.

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:v505tv0s6aha8la0tb9d8ppuocbich67fs@Pern.rk...
    > On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:51:23 GMT, "Trey" <treydog90spam@hotmail.com>
    > posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >I have no coverage in my house, and patchy coverage outside. I'm sure a

    high
    > >gain directional going to a BDA can light up my house. but I'm still

    looking
    > >for the pricing for all the required parts.

    >
    > BDAs run in the neighborhood of $500. A high-gain antenna and
    > mounting won't cost more than $100.
    >
    > But Larry wasn't talking about a BDA, but a passive repeater. That's
    > two antennas connected together - usually a high-gain Yagi outside and
    > an omnidirectional antenna inside. $100 for the Yagi, mount and cable
    > and nothing for a coaxial antenna made out of the end of the cable
    > coming from the Yagi.
    >
    > >BTW, do you have the BDA on a battery backup so he still has signal in a
    > >blackout?

    >
    > I don't run a BDA (pretty good ambient signal), but I have my cordless
    > phone and wireless router/cable modem on a UPS. I can sit here in
    > candle-light and enjoy a high-speed connection to the internet if the
    > power goes out but the cable hasn't been damaged. :)
  13. Trey

    Trey Guest

    I get full signal in every cell phone store I go to. I am sure they have a
    BDA installed in the phone stores. how bad would it be if they could not
    demo phones because there was no signal in the stores!
    "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:9cv4tv4ip80ovpu83biov2um5djobu45uv@Pern.rk...
    > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:40:59 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    > <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >Only problem is that's it's usually not in the entire mall to service
    > >shoppers, it's ONLY in the cellular store (and right outside the doors).
    > >Since it doesn't help ANYONE unless they are in the store, what could it

    be
    > >besides a sales trick?

    >
    > Simon seems to cover their entire mall when they cover it. They even
    > have signs on the doors (that don't mention Verizon, btw). I don't
    > know how many malls they have spread over how much of the country, but
    > the few on Long Island are set up with mall-wide repeaters.
    >
    > (I agree that having a repeater covering only the cell phone store and
    > its immediate vicinity is a sales gimmick, whether done by Verizon or
    > an indy.)
  14. 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.

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

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


    > BDAs DO change the contour of the cell, it's NOT very easy to find a
    > transmitter that only transmits irregularly and running RF equipment
    > one knows nothing about DOES usually cause harm.
  15. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <7g05tvcrvnk33msoajga27p2qh80r5pmjq@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:57
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:32:51 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>In <584a61bdc20af9dfedf9ab2e3cee5a47@dizum.com> on Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:10:06
    >>+0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <3fd1422b.183569129@news.knology.net>
    >>>nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Actually, this chick needed very little training in saying "I'm not sure
    >>>of that." It's a shame when the client has a better working knowledge of
    >>>the technology than those assigned to "advise" the customer.

    >>
    >>Because ... ?
    >>
    >>Sales people aren't there to "'advise' the customer" -- they're there to
    >>generate sales!

    >
    >They should know their products.


    Why?

    >Even McDonalds' "sales people" know
    >the difference between a hamburger and a chicken sandwich.


    Some do; some don't. Likewise some cellular sales people know the difference
    between (say) Nokia and Motorola; some don't.

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <vct4tvki9mcd677jokp51rng0ajnkaj36e@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:35:58
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:42:17 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >>In <lfo2tvs5co465lkbcfnlvpcjocdf19f89s@Pern.rk> on Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:59:39
    >>GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:49:49 GMT, John Navas
    >>><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

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

    >
    >>>Section 90.219 says that your informant is misinformed.

    >
    >>That's your interpretation.

    >
    >It's Washington's interpretation. ...


    Not true.

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


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

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <3jv4tvgsogkv3bkj8utcmf2pvib52p0phb@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:15:29
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:49:27 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
    >>FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.

    >
    >Like all those companies that sold linears that covered 27 MHz?
    >
    >Like all those stores that sell ham gear without asking to see a
    >license (all of them)?
    >
    >Like all the stores in NYC that sell high-powered (illegally so)
    >cordless phones, but only if you're going to use them in countries
    >that allow them to be used? But don't ask you where you intend to use
    >them?
    >
    >Yeah, the FCC really comes down heavily on people against whom no
    >complaints have been made. They usually don't come down heavily (or
    >at all) on people against whom complaints HAVE been made.


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

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <35b1619d.0312062000.5b8de03e@posting.google.com> on 6 Dec 2003 20:00:46
    -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<X1tAb.1129$XF6.28478@typhoon.sonic.net>...


    >> I respectfully disagree -- companies that knowingly aid and abet violations of
    >> FCC regulations can get in serious trouble.

    >
    >If they don't ask for the license they have no idea who they are
    >selling too nor what the application is. ...


    That's not the current context.

    >> I personally see no need to do that. If you do, then feel free to step up to
    >> the line. (Hint: purported email doesn't count.) Unless and until that
    >> happens, we just have differing interpretations.

    >
    >No really....provide me with the proof or who you spoke to and I will
    >forward the official e-mail that still has the FCC address on it.


    There is no such thing.

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


    No.

    >> ... I'm nonetheless satisfied with the advice I received.

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


    Me too. Next?

    >> As I said, I personally see no need to do that.

    >
    >Why...do you think that you will get an opinion of someone who will
    >tell you that the first person gave you bad information?


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

    >> I respectfully disagree.

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


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

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


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

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <hvv4tvsvaoc2gc7p6rb5k4cq096q7llk2f@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 02:49:55
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 22:52:09 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>In <35b1619d.0312060347.26c46205@posting.google.com> on 6 Dec 2003 03:47:41
    >>-0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:
    >>
    >>>taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in message news:<bqr3fk$mss$1@panix2.panix.com>...

    >>
    >>>> I know that Navas has a tendency to spout off without having all the
    >>>> facts, but Mark, as I said to you about this months ago, this is one of
    >>>> those "no harm, no foul" kinda deals. The only ones likely to care about
    >>>> the repeater would be those harmed by it. Unless the repeater is poorly
    >>>> designed and causes interference or somehow inconveniences other
    >>>> subscribers, why would the FCC ever get involved?

    >>
    >>>Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
    >>>you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
    >>>of your sites by improperly installing such a device?

    >>
    >>That's not a real issue here -- you're wildly exaggerating (i.e., spreading
    >>FUD).
    >>
    >>>In addition, when one is operating improperly it is a royal pain in
    >>>the ass to try to find it (based on personal experience). It could
    >>>take months to try to find one if it's causing interference to a
    >>>carrier that didn't install the device or have a record of its
    >>>installation.

    >>
    >>If it really is a problem, then it should be pretty easy for someone skilled
    >>in the art to find it.
    >>
    >>>Its far from being "no harm, no foul" situation.

    >>
    >>I respectfully disagree.

    >
    >No one ever said that you had to know what you're talking about in
    >order to have an opinion, and this post clearly proves the point.


    Rubbish.

    >BDAs DO change the contour of the cell, it's NOT very easy to find a
    >transmitter that only transmits irregularly and running RF equipment
    >one knows nothing about DOES usually cause harm.


    No and no.

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <obt4tv4q022d0nu7dttr7u35tm43if70tv@Pern.rk> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:34:24
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

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


    Right.

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

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?