Cell Phone Antenna Repeaters
Moderator: Gillespie
Cell Phone Antenna Repeaters
Anyone ever try a cell phone antenna repeater on the Island to enhance signal?
This is a little outside my expertise however, we have repeated cell phone for a specific frequencies in a factory building environment. What we understood was as long as we stayed contained within our own provate property we were OK. But to do it over public airwaves you must own the frequency and have it licensed for that use.
So it woudl seem unfeasible unless the owner (cell Phone company) repeats the signal.
So it woudl seem unfeasible unless the owner (cell Phone company) repeats the signal.
I think the issue is that it is clearly illegal if you attempt to boost the signal across public property. But, the devices are legal to own nad no one will complain if you are only boosting the signal in your own house.
i.e. antenna on roof or on side of house with reception connected into house to antenna that rebroadcasts the signal. See:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/9823/
http://www.squidoo.com/Homemade-Cell-Ph ... l-Boosters
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/03/ask- ... -boosters/
Jim
i.e. antenna on roof or on side of house with reception connected into house to antenna that rebroadcasts the signal. See:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/cellphone/9823/
http://www.squidoo.com/Homemade-Cell-Ph ... l-Boosters
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/03/ask- ... -boosters/
Jim
-
JohnAckermann
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:09 pm
- Location: Dayton, Ohio and Beaver Island
- Contact:
I looked into this a couple of months ago, as our place is about 3/4 mile south of where the cell coverage seems to end.
There are two kinds of repeaters: one is a "passive" device that's simply a directional antenna on one end of a piece of cable, that you mount outside as high and in the clear as possible, and point at the cell tower. On the other end of the cable is a small antenna that you keep near (within a couple of feet, if not inches) of the cellphone. They are inexpensive, and can work OK if you can live with the constraint of having the cellphone always close to the inside antenna.
The other type is an "active" repeater that also has an outside directive antenna, but it actually receives and then retransmits the signal over a local area. These *are* legal, if they are designed to meet FCC specs; some "high power" (usually imported from places with different legal restrictions) aren't legal here.
The active repeater can cover several thousand square feet so has the advantage that aren't tied to the end of the cable. It should also be able to work over longer distances from the cell site since it pre-amplifies, receives and then retransmits the signal, while the passive unit just redirects it.
I've looked at a couple of these and they seem to cost from about $350 up to several $K (the more expensive ones have greater local coverage area, and possibly the ability to support multiple cellphones at once). Here's a link to one that seems to be reasonably priced and reputable: http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/cae50.htm.
Either type requires a cell tower close enough that the directive antenna (which has the advantage of more efficiency than the tiny antenna in the phone, as well as being mounted at a greater height) can get a signal into/out of the cell. At the frequencies used by cellphones, trees and other vegetation can cause significant signal loss, so it may take some experimentation to see if the system works at a given location.
I haven't convinced myself yet to get one, but sooner or later I'll probably give it a try.
By the way, there's no issue about squirting the signal over either public or private property; a bunch of legal cases back in the '30s and earlier established that neither private individuals nor local governments can control the flow of radio signals. However, the FCC does put limits on the power of radio transmitters (and mandate other technical details), and cell repeaters have to stay within those power limits.
There are two kinds of repeaters: one is a "passive" device that's simply a directional antenna on one end of a piece of cable, that you mount outside as high and in the clear as possible, and point at the cell tower. On the other end of the cable is a small antenna that you keep near (within a couple of feet, if not inches) of the cellphone. They are inexpensive, and can work OK if you can live with the constraint of having the cellphone always close to the inside antenna.
The other type is an "active" repeater that also has an outside directive antenna, but it actually receives and then retransmits the signal over a local area. These *are* legal, if they are designed to meet FCC specs; some "high power" (usually imported from places with different legal restrictions) aren't legal here.
The active repeater can cover several thousand square feet so has the advantage that aren't tied to the end of the cable. It should also be able to work over longer distances from the cell site since it pre-amplifies, receives and then retransmits the signal, while the passive unit just redirects it.
I've looked at a couple of these and they seem to cost from about $350 up to several $K (the more expensive ones have greater local coverage area, and possibly the ability to support multiple cellphones at once). Here's a link to one that seems to be reasonably priced and reputable: http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/cae50.htm.
Either type requires a cell tower close enough that the directive antenna (which has the advantage of more efficiency than the tiny antenna in the phone, as well as being mounted at a greater height) can get a signal into/out of the cell. At the frequencies used by cellphones, trees and other vegetation can cause significant signal loss, so it may take some experimentation to see if the system works at a given location.
I haven't convinced myself yet to get one, but sooner or later I'll probably give it a try.
By the way, there's no issue about squirting the signal over either public or private property; a bunch of legal cases back in the '30s and earlier established that neither private individuals nor local governments can control the flow of radio signals. However, the FCC does put limits on the power of radio transmitters (and mandate other technical details), and cell repeaters have to stay within those power limits.
-
JohnAckermann
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:09 pm
- Location: Dayton, Ohio and Beaver Island
- Contact:
You spurred me to do more research.
Apparently, whether cell repeaters are legal is an open -- and controversial -- question. One interpretation of the rules is that even if the unit is FCC approved, you need the carrier's permission to use the unit.
However, the FCC hasn't specifically said that is the case, and there are some passages in the rules that apparently can be read either way.
Also, the FCC has granted its type acceptance (which says the product is technically compliant with the rules, but doesn't mean it's legal for a specific use) to a whole bunch of these units. One argument is that if the units really are illegal for their obvious application, FCC wouldn't/shouldn't be issuing them type acceptance.
Here's an article from the New York Times reviewing a repeater; it includes the most detailed discussion of the legality that I was able to find: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/techn ... ted=2&_r=1
Here's another link from what appears to be a TV news report, with similar statements about the "gray area" legality, and no definitive answer from the FCC: http://www.cellantenna.com/pressreleases/CA_nbc4.pdf
More recently than either of those articles, the FCC issued a fine against a company that failed to fully respond to questions about repeaters they sold, but the fine was based on the failure to respond rather than illegality of the repeaters. However, the wording of the FCC ruling indicates that they were assuming that carrier approval was required -- but there's no actual finding to that effect.* Here's the FCC order: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1093A1.html
So, you are running some risk in using one of these units, even if it is sold as "FCC approved." On the other hand, there's no evidence that the radio police ever actually come knocking at a user's door, though if you *do* cause interference, the cell carrier may ask you to shut the repeater down, and complying with that request is probably a very wise idea.
Thanks for nudging me to do the research; I'd done some cursory investigation a few months ago, but didn't track it this far. It took a surprisingly deep search to find this information.
* I'm not sure, but I think the company may have been arguing that their product was just an amplifier, not a "transmitter," and therefore not subject to the rule the FCC was citing. That's an interesting (and very technical) argument, and I'm not sure how it should come out.
Apparently, whether cell repeaters are legal is an open -- and controversial -- question. One interpretation of the rules is that even if the unit is FCC approved, you need the carrier's permission to use the unit.
However, the FCC hasn't specifically said that is the case, and there are some passages in the rules that apparently can be read either way.
Also, the FCC has granted its type acceptance (which says the product is technically compliant with the rules, but doesn't mean it's legal for a specific use) to a whole bunch of these units. One argument is that if the units really are illegal for their obvious application, FCC wouldn't/shouldn't be issuing them type acceptance.
Here's an article from the New York Times reviewing a repeater; it includes the most detailed discussion of the legality that I was able to find: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/techn ... ted=2&_r=1
Here's another link from what appears to be a TV news report, with similar statements about the "gray area" legality, and no definitive answer from the FCC: http://www.cellantenna.com/pressreleases/CA_nbc4.pdf
More recently than either of those articles, the FCC issued a fine against a company that failed to fully respond to questions about repeaters they sold, but the fine was based on the failure to respond rather than illegality of the repeaters. However, the wording of the FCC ruling indicates that they were assuming that carrier approval was required -- but there's no actual finding to that effect.* Here's the FCC order: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2008/DA-08-1093A1.html
So, you are running some risk in using one of these units, even if it is sold as "FCC approved." On the other hand, there's no evidence that the radio police ever actually come knocking at a user's door, though if you *do* cause interference, the cell carrier may ask you to shut the repeater down, and complying with that request is probably a very wise idea.
Thanks for nudging me to do the research; I'd done some cursory investigation a few months ago, but didn't track it this far. It took a surprisingly deep search to find this information.
* I'm not sure, but I think the company may have been arguing that their product was just an amplifier, not a "transmitter," and therefore not subject to the rule the FCC was citing. That's an interesting (and very technical) argument, and I'm not sure how it should come out.
A little off topic the FCC has encourage through multiple papers the repeating of WIFI. In fact Deployments like what we deploy can install towers in almost any situation to get telecommunications where they need. Unlike cell that can not.
This has always provided an encouragement to grow wifi.
With the new digital flip telephone the race is on to replace cell with wifi based phones
This has always provided an encouragement to grow wifi.
With the new digital flip telephone the race is on to replace cell with wifi based phones
-
DwightEarly
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:24 pm
- Location: Beaver Island, MI
- Contact:
Before I'd Invest...
Before I'd invest, I think I'd want to find someone with a signal strength meter to see if it's worth bother to order and then set one up.
John, thanks for finding the articles. I contemplated getting an extender when we built our house, but wife aptly pointed out that the Sam's Club AT&T long distance cards at <3 cents/min were more cost effective. So...
C U all the week of 4 July. Hopefully, sooner.
John, thanks for finding the articles. I contemplated getting an extender when we built our house, but wife aptly pointed out that the Sam's Club AT&T long distance cards at <3 cents/min were more cost effective. So...
C U all the week of 4 July. Hopefully, sooner.
-
Nancy Early
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 2:00 pm
- Location: Anderson, Indiana
My friend does this type of work
One of my friends does satellite communications in the Reserve and works for a major telecom/cell phone company. I asked him about what we have been discussing. Here is what he said:
"Max range for a standard cell tower is 3-5 miles, so you're just outside of coverage. To use a cellular repeater, you need to see at least one bar of signal for it to work. You might be able to make it work with a high-gain directional antenna feeding a repeater. I'd need GPS coordinates and height for the cell tower and your house to work up an equipment list. I'd also need to get some more information before working up a coverage strategy for the entire community. It's definitely possible if the right people get on board."
"Max range for a standard cell tower is 3-5 miles, so you're just outside of coverage. To use a cellular repeater, you need to see at least one bar of signal for it to work. You might be able to make it work with a high-gain directional antenna feeding a repeater. I'd need GPS coordinates and height for the cell tower and your house to work up an equipment list. I'd also need to get some more information before working up a coverage strategy for the entire community. It's definitely possible if the right people get on board."