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" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:h387tv4bj9bpmcbcdl3sfg079nchp62qt5@Pern.rk...

    > >Why?

    >
    > Oh, I was assuming that having a job required a certain level of
    > competence. Silly me. All they need to know is which phone and which
    > plan give them the greatest commission.


    A salesperson with knowledge will usually end up generating more sales and
    more commission. There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago
    about a sales guy at CompUSA. The hourly wage sucks of course, but he does
    very well in commissions because he knows the stock, and knows what he's
    selling. A salesperson that can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of
    each of the phones is more likely to make a sale at all.



    › See More: Cellular Repeaters (in the USA)
  2. "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:9e87tvc5ro9dvsr203lcv3864u2uvcnou1@Pern.rk...
    > On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:45:52 GMT, John Navas
    > <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >[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:

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

    >
    > >Rubbish.

    >
    > Crushing argument, there.


    No, the Navas standard. No references, no cites, the one-word response when
    he's beaten.
  3. "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:aDYAb.5499

    > A salesperson with knowledge will usually end up generating more sales and
    > more commission. There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago
    > about a sales guy at CompUSA. The hourly wage sucks of course, but he does
    > very well in commissions because he knows the stock, and knows what he's
    > selling.


    Found the link:

    http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/2003/12/05/business/7411135.htm

    > A salesperson that can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of
    > each of the phones is more likely to make a sale at all.
  4. "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:de37a2e0.0312071846.4ac90bdd@posting.google.com...

    > If you expect them to know what chipsets phones use, or if it's able
    > to send SMS to carrier so-and-so in Pago-Pago, then I'm afraid you
    > won't be satisfied with their training. "I don't know" and "I'll be
    > happy to find out for you, sir" are perfectly acceptable answers to
    > questions, IMHO. I'd much rather have that than a line of BS from a
    > salesperson afraid to appear unknowledgeable.


    They should at least know the features of each phone model, the networks it
    uses, etc. I.e., they should ask where the buyer expect to use their phone,
    and if it's in rural areas they should be offering phones with AMPS (except
    T-Mobile or Nextel of course). They should know which phones offer voice
    dialing, speakerphones, infrared, data cables, car kits, etc.
  5. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:pZYAb.5505$rP6.2257@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:de37a2e0.0312071846.4ac90bdd@posting.google.com...
    >
    > > If you expect them to know what chipsets phones use, or if it's able
    > > to send SMS to carrier so-and-so in Pago-Pago, then I'm afraid you
    > > won't be satisfied with their training. "I don't know" and "I'll be
    > > happy to find out for you, sir" are perfectly acceptable answers to
    > > questions, IMHO. I'd much rather have that than a line of BS from a
    > > salesperson afraid to appear unknowledgeable.

    >
    > They should at least know the features of each phone model, the networks

    it
    > uses, etc. I.e., they should ask where the buyer expect to use their

    phone,
    > and if it's in rural areas they should be offering phones with AMPS

    (except
    > T-Mobile or Nextel of course). They should know which phones offer voice
    > dialing, speakerphones, infrared, data cables, car kits, etc.
    >
    >


    Just out of curiosity, what planet are you from? Been to a store lately?
    While there are a few knowledgeable people, in my experience they are VERY
    few and far between, heck, most managers don't even know that stuff, and if
    training ever gets done, it's usually a few months after a product starts
    selling (and about the time it is obsolete and replaced with a new model).
    If you think the churn rate on phones is high, you should see what it is for
    the store salespeople!
  6. "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:br1ob7$26occn$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...

    > Just out of curiosity, what planet are you from? Been to a store lately?
    > While there are a few knowledgeable people, in my experience they are VERY
    > few and far between, heck, most managers don't even know that stuff, and

    if
    > training ever gets done, it's usually a few months after a product starts
    > selling (and about the time it is obsolete and replaced with a new model).
    > If you think the churn rate on phones is high, you should see what it is

    for
    > the store salespeople!


    I've never purchased anything at a Verizon store, only on-line and via an
    independent agent. The independent store sold all five carriers (T-Mobile
    was not yet in existence), and they knew their stuff pretty well.
  7. Jack

    Jack Guest

    Nope, it's his son.

    "David S" <dwstreeter@att.net> wrote in message
    news:kp17tvoglq920369648h6dtdlkq04uca86@4ax.com...
    > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 17:20:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
    > chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    > everything:
    >
    > >In article <lfo2tvs5co465lkbcfnlvpcjocdf19f89s@Pern.rk>
    > >Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >The whole FCC has been screwed up for years. Of course, adding the
    > >nepotism-driven appointment of Colin Powell's son didn't help matters

    any.
    >
    > I believe it's his brother, not son.
    >
    > --
    > David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    > http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    > Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    > "They're running away from communism toward our way of life because of
    > television and basketball. You play basketball in this country for a

    month,
    > you go back, you're never going to be happy waiting in line for a potato."
    > - Mario Cuomo on the dissolution of the Soviet Union
    >
  8. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <35b1619d.0312060347.26c46205@posting.google.com>,
    MarkF <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
    >you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
    >of your sites by improperly installing such a device? I know I
    >wouldn't want to as the general public as a whole do not own test
    >equipment to ensure that the device operates correctly.


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

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

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

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

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  9. Peter Pan

    Peter Pan Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    news:Yq1Bb.5747$rP6.5636@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
    > "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:br1ob7$26occn$1@ID-190045.news.uni-berlin.de...
    >
    > > Just out of curiosity, what planet are you from? Been to a store lately?
    > > While there are a few knowledgeable people, in my experience they are

    VERY
    > > few and far between, heck, most managers don't even know that stuff, and

    > if
    > > training ever gets done, it's usually a few months after a product

    starts
    > > selling (and about the time it is obsolete and replaced with a new

    model).
    > > If you think the churn rate on phones is high, you should see what it is

    > for
    > > the store salespeople!

    >
    > I've never purchased anything at a Verizon store, only on-line and via an
    > independent agent. The independent store sold all five carriers (T-Mobile
    > was not yet in existence), and they knew their stuff pretty well.
    >
    >


    That explains it, and a smart move by you in my opinion. Buy online or at a
    multi-vendor independent store and you don't run into all the incompetents
    at vendor specific stores. Just to be fair, I have been to Sprint, Verizon,
    and Singular stores, and find it sort of funny to see the same salesperson
    at a different store a few months later and the high churn rate (they say
    95%) was from them, not from any credible source.
  10. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 7 Dec 2003 18:46:30 -0800, elecconnec@aol.com (Todd Allcock) posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >If you expect them to know what chipsets phones use, or if it's able
    >to send SMS to carrier so-and-so in Pago-Pago, then I'm afraid you
    >won't be satisfied with their training. "I don't know" and "I'll be
    >happy to find out for you, sir" are perfectly acceptable answers to
    >questions, IMHO.


    The latter, yes - the former, no. "I don't know <clunk>" is
    unacceptable in ANY line of work. "I don't know but I'll try to find
    out" is fine. I don't know everything about what I do, and I've been
    doing it for almost 30 years. But I can sure try to find answers when
    I don't have them.

    >I'd much rather have that than a line of BS from a
    >salesperson afraid to appear unknowledgeable.


    I never accept that.
  11. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:45:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    >news:h387tv4bj9bpmcbcdl3sfg079nchp62qt5@Pern.rk...


    >> >Why?


    >> Oh, I was assuming that having a job required a certain level of
    >> competence. Silly me. All they need to know is which phone and which
    >> plan give them the greatest commission.


    >A salesperson with knowledge will usually end up generating more sales and
    >more commission. There was an article in the paper a couple of days ago
    >about a sales guy at CompUSA. The hourly wage sucks of course, but he does
    >very well in commissions because he knows the stock, and knows what he's
    >selling. A salesperson that can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of
    >each of the phones is more likely to make a sale at all.


    There are two salespeople at the local Best Buy about whom I've
    written to corporate hq more than once. They both know not only the
    stock, but the field. I bought one of my current printers on a
    recommendation from one of them (and am very happy with it), and the
    other one has taught me a lot, even though I got into the computer
    field before he was born.
  12. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:47:13 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
    <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    >news:9e87tvc5ro9dvsr203lcv3864u2uvcnou1@Pern.rk...
    >> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:45:52 GMT, John Navas
    >> <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >>
    >> >[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:

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

    >>
    >> >Rubbish.

    >>
    >> Crushing argument, there.

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


    I've been on usenet long enough to recognize it. :)
  13. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    taite@panix.com ("RDT") wrote in message news:<br2g46$6vq$1@panix3.panix.com>...
    > In article <35b1619d.0312060347.26c46205@posting.google.com>,
    > MarkF <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > >Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
    > >you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
    > >of your sites by improperly installing such a device? I know I
    > >wouldn't want to as the general public as a whole do not own test
    > >equipment to ensure that the device operates correctly.

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


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

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


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

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

    Regards
    Mark
  14. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <35b1619d.0312090316.68e305ce@posting.google.com>,
    MarkF <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >OK...how is a subscriber know that they are not increasing the
    >geographical coverage area and how do they know if they are causing
    >interference?


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

    >The answer to both is "NO".


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

    RDT
    --
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
    inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
    --- Sir Winston Churchill
  15. 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]
    >
    > >> Over three months have passed since then, and I've heard nothing further.

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

    >
    > Or wrong.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hello Mr. Daniels,

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

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


    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=22&SECTION=527\
    &YEAR=2002&TYPE=TEXT

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

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

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

    One signal booster will be used for cellular system handsets.

    One signal booster will be used for Nextel handsets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thanks,
    Jack Daniel
    JackDaniel@j...
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:46:48 -0800, "Peter Pan"
    <Marcs1102NOSPAM@Hotmail.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
    >news:pZYAb.5505$rP6.2257@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...


    >> They should at least know the features of each phone model, the networks it
    >> uses, etc. I.e., they should ask where the buyer expect to use their phone,
    >> and if it's in rural areas they should be offering phones with AMPS (except
    >> T-Mobile or Nextel of course). They should know which phones offer voice
    >> dialing, speakerphones, infrared, data cables, car kits, etc.


    >Just out of curiosity, what planet are you from? Been to a store lately?


    Steven said they should, not they do.
  17. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On 8 Dec 2003 13:32:38 -0500, taite@panix.com ("RDT") posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >In article <35b1619d.0312060347.26c46205@posting.google.com>,
    >MarkF <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >>Lets see, if you paid billions of dollars for wireless licenses, would
    >>you want every subscriber to have the ability to change the contours
    >>of your sites by improperly installing such a device? I know I
    >>wouldn't want to as the general public as a whole do not own test
    >>equipment to ensure that the device operates correctly.


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


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

    Al Klein Guest

    On 9 Dec 2003 13:27:10 -0500, taite@panix.com ("RDT") posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >In article <35b1619d.0312090316.68e305ce@posting.google.com>,
    >MarkF <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote:


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


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


    Ever hear of emission inspections?

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


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

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


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

    >>The answer to both is "NO".


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

    Al Klein Guest

    On 7 Dec 2003 17:39:57 -0800, bb+graffiti.spam.gopi@andrew.cmu.edu
    (gopi) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<CPBAb.1195$XF6.32385@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    >> >>>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.

    ><snip>
    >> They can be made to work in certain circumstances, but they aren't a
    >> general-purpose solution.

    >
    >Stop being such an obtuse moron. Just admit that you've been proven
    >wrong and move on.
    >
    >Your initially claimed that they didn't work. Not that they rarely
    >worked, not that they were unreliable, or difficult to make work; you
    >made the absolute claim that they didn't work. It seems like you've
    >backed down significantly and admit that they _can_ work.
    >
    >You're really going to shoot your credibility to hell if you can't
    >distinguish between "impossible" and "improbable."


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

    Todd Allcock Guest

    "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message news:<pZYAb.5505$rP6.2257@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
    > "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    > news:de37a2e0.0312071846.4ac90bdd@posting.google.com...
    >
    > > If you expect them to know what chipsets phones use, or if it's able
    > > to send SMS to carrier so-and-so in Pago-Pago, then I'm afraid you
    > > won't be satisfied with their training. "I don't know" and "I'll be
    > > happy to find out for you, sir" are perfectly acceptable answers to
    > > questions, IMHO. I'd much rather have that than a line of BS from a
    > > salesperson afraid to appear unknowledgeable.

    >
    > They should at least know the features of each phone model, the networks it
    > uses, etc. I.e., they should ask where the buyer expect to use their phone,
    > and if it's in rural areas they should be offering phones with AMPS (except
    > T-Mobile or Nextel of course). They should know which phones offer voice
    > dialing, speakerphones, infrared, data cables, car kits, etc.


    I'll accept that. I just think too many of us tech-savvy users, or
    worse, those of us in the industry, expect the average salesperson to
    know as much as we do. I get annoyed particularly when they get a
    kick out of playing "stump the salesdroid" ("Which car kit does this
    phone use?" "Um, er, the CARK-93, I think..." "No, you idiot! It
    uses the CARK-93B! What are trying to sell me the wrong stuff?!?")

    Then, of course, it can be dangerous when they know TOO much! When
    AT&T launched GSM in Kansas City last year, I found an independent
    reseller in a kiosk in the mall. This reseller was supplementing the
    "official" AT&T lineup with high-end unlocked GSM phones, probably in
    an attempt to differentiate themselves from the other gazillion AT&T
    stores. Anyway, unfortunately for them, one of the phones on display
    was a Nokia 9210 Communicator. I asked about it because AT&T was
    running some great promo plans for the GSM launch in KC, but I was
    repelled by the cost of mMode data, and discovered after talking to
    AT&T CS that they didn't support CSD. I asked the salesman about the
    9210 and he knew the phone and it's features cold, and offered to give
    me a demo. I was incredulous, knowing the 9210 didn't do GPRS, and
    _thought_ I knew AT&T (by their 800# CS' own admission) that they
    didn't do CSD. As the guy is doing an expert presentation demoing and
    letting me play with the 9210, I ask how it's working,
    since I thought AT&T didn't support CSD. The salesman pauses and asks
    "are you sure?" I said that's what AT&T told me. He pauses again and
    says "that exains why I can't get this thing to connect with the
    store's AT&T SIM. I have to put the T-Mobile SIM from my personal
    phone to make it work!" At least a less knowledgeable salesperson
    can't snow you, intentionally or unintentionally! ;-)

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?