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. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <aa8ttv8vkmhoh9sbis06a1jpmv8jda2r41@Pern.rk> on Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:24:56
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:02:03 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>As I've noted before, passive repeaters can be made to work in certain cases,

    >
    >No, you said they don't work. Period.


    Not true. (You've either not done your homework, or are misstating the
    record, or both.) Way back in August I wrote
    <news:xFw0b.13000$dk4.480339@typhoon.sonic.net>:

    Passive repeaters do work if you have "big" (highly directional)
    antennas and power to burn; e.g., to "bend" a microwave beam around
    an obstruction. In the case of cellular, you have a low-power phone
    with an essentially omnidirectional antenna, so not enough signal
    power is going to reach the inside antenna to do any good from the
    outside antenna after the inherent signal losses, and vice versa.
    For that outside antenna to do any good, you need to connect it to
    the phone with a cable. So-called "passive repeaters" do not work
    >> for [consumer] cellular <<.


    >>but they aren't a generally practical solution to this problem.

    >
    >They're ALWAYS a solution to the problem of having a strong signal
    >there, but a weak one here, as long as there and here can be bridged
    >by a passive repeater.


    Not really true, as I explain above.

    >Needing anything larger than a 32 element bedspring says that there's
    >no tower available, but that's an easily portable antenna at 1900 MHz,
    >and not that large at 850 MHz. (It's only about 1 foot by 2 feet at
    >1900, if my not-even-BOE calculation is correct.) But it's close to
    >20dbd gain. A 5 element quad is also pretty small up there. Even a
    >30dbd parabolic is doable. 30dbd.


    For a cellular band Loop Yagi:

    Length (in) Gain (db)
    ----------- -------
    72 16
    144 18
    216 20

    A 216" antenna is of course 18 feet long, neither cheap nor easy to mount (nor
    terribly attractive).

    >That's 1,000 times amplification
    >bidirectionally - over a full dipole. Turns a 200mw handset into 200
    >WATTS of radiated power, all aimed directly at the tower.


    That would only be true if all of the handset power is captured by the indoor
    antenna, but in fact it captures only a tiny fraction of that essentially
    omnidirectionally radiated power. ( Either that, or we are indeed living in
    universes with different physical laws! :) That's why a wired external
    antenna is much more practical.

    >... All it takes is a little gain...


    What it really takes is less loss and/or more power.

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



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

    Al Klein Guest

    On 16 Dec 2003 04:57:22 -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) posted in
    alt.cellular.verizon:

    >This is very exact science in a controlled non-moving environment with
    >parabolic antennas that have very high gain and beamwidths of
    >approximately 1 degree. As far as utilizing them in an uncontrolled
    >environment with a .6 watt handset, I really doubt that the
    >performance gain, if there is any, would be worth the expense and
    >time.


    If the handset has to work in a very shielded environment (RV, house
    with aluminum siding), the signal is fair to excellent outside that
    environment (usually attainable with some to a lot of gain) and the
    movement inside is limited (RV, one room or floor of a house), they
    work very well.

    Whether the book agrees with reality is a nice exercise in matching
    theory to practice, but totally irrelevant.
  3. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <mWYAb.5504$rP6.3371@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> on Mon, 08 Dec 2003
    11:05:54 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

    >
    >"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


    "Very well?" Taken at face value, he makes about $3,240 per month, or about
    $40,000 per year, which is barely enough to get by in the Bay Area.

    >> A salesperson that can intelligently discuss the pros and cons of
    >> each of the phones is more likely to make a sale at all.


    Most people buys phones on style, not features (contrary to what most people
    here might think). A good salesperson knows how to sell, not necessarily all
    about the features.

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

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:45:17 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >>They're ALWAYS a solution to the problem of having a strong signal
    >>there, but a weak one here, as long as there and here can be bridged
    >>by a passive repeater.


    >Not really true, as I explain above.


    As you claimed. But reality and your claim are at odds, and I don't
    think it's reality that's wrong.

    >>Needing anything larger than a 32 element bedspring says that there's
    >>no tower available, but that's an easily portable antenna at 1900 MHz,
    >>and not that large at 850 MHz. (It's only about 1 foot by 2 feet at
    >>1900, if my not-even-BOE calculation is correct.) But it's close to
    >>20dbd gain. A 5 element quad is also pretty small up there. Even a
    >>30dbd parabolic is doable. 30dbd.


    >For a cellular band Loop Yagi:


    > Length (in) Gain (db)
    > ----------- -------
    > 72 16
    > 144 18
    > 216 20


    >A 216" antenna is of course 18 feet long, neither cheap nor easy to mount (nor
    >terribly attractive).


    Not much of a problem on a house. (I had something larger than that
    on my roof when I was 16.)

    >>That's 1,000 times amplification
    >>bidirectionally - over a full dipole. Turns a 200mw handset into 200
    >>WATTS of radiated power, all aimed directly at the tower.


    >That would only be true if all of the handset power is captured by the indoor
    >antenna


    No, the gain of the antenna doesn't depend on the signal level (until
    the losses start warming the antenna).

    >but in fact it captures only a tiny fraction of that essentially
    >omnidirectionally radiated power. ( Either that, or we are indeed living in
    >universes with different physical laws! :) That's why a wired external
    >antenna is much more practical.


    Only if one wants to be tethered to a wire. If a passive repeater
    turns no signal into adequate signal, why be tethered?

    >>... All it takes is a little gain...


    >What it really takes is less loss and/or more power.


    As long as the gain is greater than the loss, and the outside signal
    is adequate, it works. (The unidirectionality of the handset antenna
    is moot - standing with the tip of the antenna pointing to a cell 3
    miles away also doesn't work.)
  5. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <0vb2uvoqdkc34o483tih5te3p8n9emv0hd@Pern.rk> on Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:46:44
    GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:45:17 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>>They're ALWAYS a solution to the problem of having a strong signal
    >>>there, but a weak one here, as long as there and here can be bridged
    >>>by a passive repeater.

    >
    >>Not really true, as I explain above.

    >
    >As you claimed. But reality and your claim are at odds, ...


    On the contrary.

    >>>Needing anything larger than a 32 element bedspring says that there's
    >>>no tower available, but that's an easily portable antenna at 1900 MHz,
    >>>and not that large at 850 MHz. (It's only about 1 foot by 2 feet at
    >>>1900, if my not-even-BOE calculation is correct.) But it's close to
    >>>20dbd gain. A 5 element quad is also pretty small up there. Even a
    >>>30dbd parabolic is doable. 30dbd.

    >
    >>For a cellular band Loop Yagi:

    >
    >> Length (in) Gain (db)
    >> ----------- -------
    >> 72 16
    >> 144 18
    >> 216 20

    >
    >>A 216" antenna is of course 18 feet long, neither cheap nor easy to mount (nor
    >>terribly attractive).

    >
    >Not much of a problem on a house. (I had something larger than that
    >on my roof when I was 16.)


    Good for you (notwithstanding how that undercuts your earlier claims:), but
    not for the great majority of the rest of us.

    >>>That's 1,000 times amplification
    >>>bidirectionally - over a full dipole. Turns a 200mw handset into 200
    >>>WATTS of radiated power, all aimed directly at the tower.

    >
    >>That would only be true if all of the handset power is captured by the indoor
    >>antenna

    >
    >No, the gain of the antenna doesn't depend on the signal level (until
    >the losses start warming the antenna).


    I didn't say it did. What I said was that it doesn't have 200mw to work with,
    and it doesn't, only a tiny fraction of that.

    >>but in fact it captures only a tiny fraction of that essentially
    >>omnidirectionally radiated power. ( Either that, or we are indeed living in
    >>universes with different physical laws! :) That's why a wired external
    >>antenna is much more practical.

    >
    >Only if one wants to be tethered to a wire.


    I'd prefer not to be, but it beats not working at all.

    >If a passive repeater
    >turns no signal into adequate signal, why be tethered?


    Because a passive repeater isn't a good solution for the great majority of us
    (your personal enthusiasm notwithstanding).

    >>>... All it takes is a little gain...

    >
    >>What it really takes is less loss and/or more power.

    >
    >As long as the gain is greater than the loss, and the outside signal
    >is adequate, it works.


    With all due respect, that doesn't make sense.

    >(The unidirectionality of the handset antenna
    >is moot - standing with the tip of the antenna pointing to a cell 3
    >miles away also doesn't work.)


    Standard handset antennas are OMNI (as I wrote), not UNI.

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

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <35b1619d.0312160235.7e874eed@posting.google.com> on 16 Dec 2003 02:35:04
    -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:

    >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<ObpDb.2889$XF6.66902@typhoon.sonic.net>...


    >> He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
    >> the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
    >> have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
    >> here.

    >
    >That's fair...awaiting your posted FCC reply.


    I finally got a reply, which is attached below, along with my inquiry. It
    would indeed seem to resolve the matter as far as FCC rules are concerned.

    Since this advice is inconsistent with the earlier advice I had gotten by
    phone, I made some further calls to the FCC. The gist of those calls is that
    this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
    low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
    you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
    big fine). Regardless, I personally wouldn't do it.

    Best regards,
    John Navas

    ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
    Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    To: John Navas
    Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    Organization: FCC

    You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.

    In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    LICENSEE.
    Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    licensee.

    These fall under Part 22 and 24 of the rules, which are available online from
    a link at wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.

    The "FCC Approval" on products is not a license or endorsement, but only
    states that it has passed examination for use in a particular radio service
    under the rules of that service.



    Representative Number : TSR41
    ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------


    ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: John Navas
    To: fccinfo@fcc.gov
    Subject: Low power in-building cellular repeaters
    Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:22:46 -0800

    I've been investigating products to improve cellular reception in my home.

    * 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 that
    kind of in-building cellular repeater here in the USA. In addition, I note
    that such products are openly sold to consumers by several dealers.

    To check this, on August 19, 2003, I called the FCC, and was routed to the
    Commercial Wireless Division [which]
    confirmed to me that no license was required.

    Is this true or not? Thank you.
    ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
  7. RDT

    RDT Guest

    In article <Lv_Fb.4682$XF6.101815@typhoon.sonic.net>,
    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >The gist of those calls is that
    >this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
    >low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
    >you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
    >big fine).


    As we've told Mark like a dozen times, "no harm, no foul." The worst
    that would happen is you're asked to turn it off. Big deal.

    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
  8. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<Lv_Fb.4682$XF6.101815@typhoon.sonic.net>...
    > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    > In <35b1619d.0312160235.7e874eed@posting.google.com> on 16 Dec 2003 02:35:04
    > -0800, KS4VT@yahoo.com (MarkF) wrote:
    >
    > >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:<ObpDb.2889$XF6.66902@typhoon.sonic.net>...

    >
    > >> He sent me the same message. I felt that the answer might well depend on how
    > >> the question is asked, so I sent my own inquiry to that same FCC address, but
    > >> have yet to receive a response. If and when I do, I will of course post it
    > >> here.

    > >
    > >That's fair...awaiting your posted FCC reply.

    >
    > I finally got a reply, which is attached below, along with my inquiry. It
    > would indeed seem to resolve the matter as far as FCC rules are concerned.
    >
    > Since this advice is inconsistent with the earlier advice I had gotten by
    > phone, I made some further calls to the FCC. The gist of those calls is that
    > this isn't something that the FCC is going to aggressively enforce. If your
    > low-power in-building cellular repeater does happen to cause interference and
    > you do get caught, you would probably just be told to shut it down (i.e., no
    > big fine). Regardless, I personally wouldn't do it.
    >
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas
    >
    > ---cut-here------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    > From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    > To: John Navas
    > Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    > Organization: FCC
    >
    > You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    > 12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
    >
    > In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    > LICENSEE.
    > Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    > licensee.
    >
    > These fall under Part 22 and 24 of the rules, which are available online from
    > a link at wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html.
    >
    > The "FCC Approval" on products is not a license or endorsement, but only
    > states that it has passed examination for use in a particular radio service
    > under the rules of that service.


    Thanks for posting John and to you and everyone else have a happy
    holiday and a great New Year.

    Mark
  9. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    >Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    >From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    >To: John Navas
    >Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    >Organization: FCC
    >
    >You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    >12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
    >
    >In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    >LICENSEE.
    >Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    >licensee.


    Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.
  10. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <5c8iuv0ajoh2k52mfu8mgjfum280sletg1@Pern.rk> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
    -0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
    ><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    >>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    >>From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    >>To: John Navas
    >>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    >>Organization: FCC
    >>
    >>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    >>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
    >>
    >>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    >>LICENSEE.
    >>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    >>licensee.

    >
    >Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.


    Did you have a point? Or were you just being a jerk? ;)

    Happy Holidays!
    John
  11. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:48:02 GMT, John Navas
    <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted to alt.cellular.verizon:

    >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    >
    >In <5c8iuv0ajoh2k52mfu8mgjfum280sletg1@Pern.rk> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
    >-0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
    >><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >>
    >>>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    >>>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    >>>From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    >>>To: John Navas
    >>>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    >>>Organization: FCC
    >>>
    >>>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    >>>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
    >>>
    >>>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    >>>LICENSEE.
    >>>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    >>>licensee.


    >>Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.


    >Did you have a point?


    That you proved yourself wrong.

    >Or were you just being a jerk?


    *I'M* not the one who claimed that anyone could use a cellular
    repeater without breaking the law.
  12. MarkF

    MarkF Guest

    Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message news:<sf6puv48ri6fgb8n2j5kesr8tev789m113@Pern.rk>...
    > On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:48:02 GMT, John Navas
    > <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted to alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
    > >
    > >In <5c8iuv0ajoh2k52mfu8mgjfum280sletg1@Pern.rk> on Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:43:06
    > >-0500, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    > >
    > >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:59:23 GMT, John Navas
    > >><spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:
    > >>
    > >>>Message-ID: <23953814.1072196261679.JavaMail.SYSTEM@P2PREM01>
    > >>>Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:17:41 -0500 (EST)
    > >>>From: FCCInfo <FCCInfo@fcc.gov>
    > >>>To: John Navas
    > >>>Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR41
    > >>>Organization: FCC
    > >>>
    > >>>You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
    > >>>12/23/2003 10:55:21 AM.
    > >>>
    > >>>In building cellular "repeaters" or "amplifiers" may be installed by the
    > >>>LICENSEE.
    > >>>Cellular end users are not the licensee. Perhaps you should contact the
    > >>>licensee.

    >
    > >>Gee, that's EXACTLY what you were told here.

    >
    > >Did you have a point?

    >
    > That you proved yourself wrong.
    >
    > >Or were you just being a jerk?

    >
    > *I'M* not the one who claimed that anyone could use a cellular
    > repeater without breaking the law.



    Gentlemen...Gentlemen...

    I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough to
    post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what he was
    looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it and not
    continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told you so".
    John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the FCC's
    reply and that should be good enough for all of us.

    There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
    specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
    think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
    no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
    there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
    to the judge.

    Mark
  13. "MarkF" wrote:

    > Gentlemen...Gentlemen...
    >
    > I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough

    to
    > post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what

    he was
    > looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it

    and not
    > continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told

    you so".
    > John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the

    FCC's
    > reply and that should be good enough for all of us.
    >
    > There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on

    BDA's
    > specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also

    probably
    > think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value

    that has
    > no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit

    and if
    > there is an enforcement action against them then they can

    explain it
    > to the judge.
    >
    > Mark
  14. G R

    G R Guest

    "MarkF" <KS4VT@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:35b1619d.0312262053.2b498485@posting.google.com...

    >
    > Gentlemen...Gentlemen...
    >
    > I think that we can bring this to a close. John was man enough to
    > post his reply from the FCC, even though it wasn't exactly what he was
    > looking for in the reply, but we all should thank him for it and not
    > continue to poke him in the ribs and continually say "I told you so".
    > John seems (from what I have read prior) satisfied with the FCC's
    > reply and that should be good enough for all of us.
    >
    > There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
    > specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
    > think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
    > no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
    > there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
    > to the judge.
    >
    > Mark


    This thread definitely makes the Geek Hall of Fame! :)
  15. SOrry for going OT on this but this waws too funny to pass up.

    Actually posted speed limits ARE suggestions. they are "maximum suggested"

    IE you can not legally go faster but YOU CAN illegally go the same speed as.

    IE you can be tickets for doing 55 in a 55 IE a speeding ticket if that
    speed is unsafe for the conditions.

    rain snow etc.. etc..

    Just thought that was an interesting tidbit.

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


    > There are still some that think the FCC's Federal R&R's (on BDA's
    > specifically) is a suggestion and not a law and those also probably
    > think that the posted speed limit is also a suggested value that has
    > no real meaning. Let them interpret the R&R's as they see fit and if
    > there is an enforcement action against them then they can explain it
    > to the judge.
    >
    > Mark
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Lines: 9
    Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:09:29 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.186.221.222
    X-Complaints-To: abuse@cv.net
    X-Trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1071029369 24.186.221.222 (Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:09:29 EST)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:09:29 EST
    Xref: news.newshosting.com alt.cellular:43279 alt.cellular.cingular:25960 alt.cellular.verizon:130366

    On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:40:42 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Even then, the savvy customer will be treated like a 2-year-old during
    >potty training.


    I never put up with that - I always challenge them if they're wrong,
    and dare them to prove me wrong. I haven't lost an argument with one
    of them yet.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?