Cellphone Carriers Try To Control Signal Boosters

digitaldc writes "[Repeaters], which cost from $250 to $1,000, depending on how much they increase a signal, work by first capturing cell signals through an external antenna, ideally affixed to the roof of a dwelling. A coaxial cable then transmits the signal inside the house to an amplifier and internal antenna, which strengthen and retransmit it to cellphones... In March, CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents cellular service providers, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission demanding stricter regulation of signal boosters."

Comments

Paywalled

[MetalliQaZ]

I clicked through Google news to get it "free"... http://news.google.com/news/search?q=stricter+regulation+of+signal+boosters

Re:Paywalled

[intellitech]

I'd mod that up if I could. The smarter portion of the world thanks you.

Re:Paywalled

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it, why does it work that way?

Re:Paywalled

[CityZen]

Because news sites *want* search engines like Google to see their content, so that people searching for stuff will be directed to them. And they want the people following links from Google to come back. So they try follow the drug dealer's model: we'll give you a bit for free, so that you'll come back and pay for more later. Of course, smart people figure out how to not pay ever, but that's only a small percentage of viewers.

Re:Paywalled

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it, why does it work that way?

Why? They want Google to get through so their site gets indexed. Then people search for this information, click the search result, and receive the sales pitch for the paywall.

This is the link from news.google.com that does NOT show a paywall:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18basics.html?_r=1&src=me

This is the link from the Slashdot summary that DOES show a paywall:

http://www10.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18basics.html?_r=5&ref=technology

So apparently it's all determined by the tail end of the URL.

Opinionated rant: I can understand a paywall for specialized niche publications but for news? That I can obtain from many different sources? Really? This business model is defective and needs to go the way of the dinosaur. The sooner it does that, the better.

Re:Paywalled

[goingToSay]

Google news needs stricter regulation. Nothing should ever be free.

Re:Paywalled

[commodore64_love]

Yeah it seems rather foolish for New York Times to share its article for free, if their goal is to make money.
If it were owned by George Soros he'd probably block google, just as he's been ripping FOX News videos off youtube.

Re:Paywalled

[autocracy]

Oh, that's BRILLIANT! Click on the first link, and you'll notice that r becomes 2. Open another browser on your computer and paste the new URL in... r becomes 3. By the time we've seen it on Slashdot, this url was hot-potatoed along four times from the first viewer.

Re:Paywalled

[Anonymous Coward]

I rightclicked and said 'log me in with bugmenot'

Re:Paywalled

[bruce_the_loon]

Odd behavior here, I have a unpaid registration with NY Times and it got me to the article like they have done in the past with some of their articles.

Doesn't seem like a paywall.

Re:Paywalled

[davester666]

They used the information you provided during registration, along with the IP address you mainly use to access the site to figure out where you live, and stole a cup from your house right after you viewed the article.

Re:Paywalled

[Anonymous Coward]

That just makes me want to start changing to r= to some insanely ridiculous value every time I read an NYT article

Why?

[mattwrock]

Are the carriers planning on having a crappy network and charging us for signal boosters? My house is over a hundred years old, and I bet it has some special materials in it, because it is where signals go to die. If I could get solid reception without have to leave my house for a signal for $250, I would seriously consider it.

Re:Why?

[mark72005]

It's already happening. Both AT&T and Verizon sell them.

I asked about one from AT&T, and either it cost $150 to improve the signal in my home, or I could rent one from them for something like $10 a month.

(Hey, how about you just deliver the service you are charging me for instead?)

Re:Why?

[Quantus347]

Its called lead paint dude. I had the same problem with an old rental place I used to live in. Party at your place when the Nukes start flying!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the article, the carriers have femtocells. So basically, the carriers want to have the entire financial pie to themselves. They can't do that if other parts of the commercial sector are competing with them, and with potentially better devices as well. So, instead of simply providing a better solution, they're approaching the government to regulate them into oblivion. After all, a government imposed oligopoly is just as good as one they generated themselves.

Re:Why?

[Glendale2x]

I have one from Sprint at the office. After arguing that I might as well cancel since it's not my problem and I don't want to pay for their coverage hole, they sent me one for free. It has its bugs, but it works more often than no signal at all.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

(Hey, how about you just deliver the service you are charging me for instead?)

Did you even bother to read the contract you signed? There isn't a wireless company in the United States (and quite probably the World for that matter) that guarantees service indoors. There are too many variables in building construction and material for them to make any sort of promise about indoor reception.

If you aren't happy with your indoor wireless service there are other options available to you. One has been around for over a hundred years, perhaps you've heard of it?

Re:Why?

[CityZen]

Old plaster walls often use wire mesh as a support material. Some reinforced concrete does also.

Look at the bright side: it keeps your wifi secure from your neighbors! (Or: it encourages you to use a fast, reliable wired network instead of a slower, flakier wireless one.)

Re:Why?

[Enry]

AT&T and Verizon don't sell boosters, they're femtocells. Same result (better signal), different way to get there (femtocells rely on your existing Internet connection).

Re:Why?

[rally2xs]

Your house is built with a special alloy of Zirconium and Iridium, and designed by an architect who was a deacon in the church of worshippers of Goser, the traveler. Your place not only kills electromagnetic radiation, it is also spook central.

Re:Why?

[dickens]

The Verizon box works well, too. I have two of them deployed, one in an office above an industrial plant. The whole plant downstairs gets good service. The bandwidth used is small, but you do want to reserve some otherwise when your internet is flat-out your cellphone calls will stutter. Also it has to be able to see a window for GPS/E911 (they give you a long cord for the GPS antenna)

Re:Why?

[StuartHankins]

Maybe it's not part of the contract, but that doesn't solve the issue. Dial-up isn't a workable solution for most people, and if they're in an area where cable or DSL internet service isn't available (I recently spent a month trying to get AT&T DSL service after signing up for it and being told it was available -- eventually I gave up and cancelled). Satellite still requires a modem, and most people don't live in WiMAX range. So wireless is pretty much all there is.

I live in a very large metropolitan area and coverage is spotty with Sprint (my aircard vendor). Literally less than 2 miles east I get max bars, but outside the unit I'm in I get 0 to 2 bars, and download speed is 1/4 of what I get at the other site.

Unfortunately there aren't many choices if you need to be connected. Fortunately in my case I was able to get connected with the local cable provider, as bad as they are.

Re:Why?

[mysidia]

It's fine as long as you buy the carriers' respective rip-off box products, microcells that utilize your internet connection, and relieve their towers of actually having to provide you the wireless service you paid for.

All while still billing you the same rate for "wireless" air time and cell phone data, even though your own wired internet connection has to be used to feed the backhaul for these microsite devices.

So you pay up front for the privilege of running a microsite, to make up for the carriers' crappy networks, and you don't get any discount against cell phone costs for using your own cell tower

Now... if you are the carrier in this very lucrative situation, why the hell would you want to improve your network, or let people run boosters?

It will cut into your bottom line... that is, unless the competition is perceived as improving and having a much better network.

The "competition" factor is easily excluded by making exclusive deals with cell phone manufacturers and offering features people will drool over. People will tolerate your network if it seems to work at all, just to get those fancy devices that you have locked into your network exclusively, through deals with third parties.

Just more evidence that consumers have become sheep.

Re:Why?

[trum4n]

All republicans find an excuse. Oh it doesn't work? TOO BAD. That's the republican attitude. Change is not allowed.

Re:Why?

[natehoy]

I, for one, welcome the impending delivery of marshmallows in the form of my new tasty s'moverlord.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

So wireless is pretty much all there is.

I don't dispute that but you still have to abide by the contract you signed when you got such service. There is no way that any wireless service (be it cellular voice, cellular data, wi-fi, digital OTA television, CB radios, etc.) can be guaranteed indoors. There are too many variables in building construction and materials for any wireless provider to make such a guarantee. If they did promise indoor service they would eventually be sued by someone who would not receive such service.

It's nice when wireless services work indoors. I've been cellular only for the last eight years. I've even got a set of rabbit ears on the top of my TV that pick up OTA HD for free most of the time (it flakes out in bad weather). Neither of those services are guaranteed to work in the manner that I'm using them and I have no one to complain to when they stop working.

Here's the relevant part of Verizon's contract, do you think this is really unreasonable?:

Wireless devices use radio transmissions, so unfortunately you can't get Service if your device isn't in range of a transmission signal. And please be aware that even within your Coverage Area, many things can affect the availability and quality of your Service, including network capacity, your device, terrain, buildings, foliage and weather.

Re:Why?

[Vancorps]

This of course is great until you realize that ATT will not allow you to use their femtocell if you have a business account as the cell is limited to five devices which you have to explicitly enable. This means guests of your house won't receive any benefit whereas the repeater in this building helps everyone. This biggest issue I usually have with ATT isn't reception though, after installing the repeater I still get system busy and dropped calls all the time. Fortunately my personal cell is Sprint so when I'm really in a bind I'll just use that. Sometimes in the server room I'm on hold for a long time, sucks to have your call drop after waiting a half an hour.

ATT also locks VOIP out of my phone even though its built into the OS so I can't use the built-in wifi to use my own PBX to make calls. Again, not an issue on Sprint. The owner of the company is almost fed up enough to change, I look forward to the day.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm a "dick" when people complain about shit they agreed to while being too lazy to understand what they were agreeing to.

This happens because companies try to do it both ways. They want people who are smart enough to understand the multi-page small-print legalese agreement, that way they can be held to that agreement. They also want people who are dumb enough and readily believe everything they hear and read enough, that way their marketing has maximum effect.

Good example: ISPs that marketed "unlimited Internet" with absolutely no qualifiers, and then tried to impose caps, saying "we can do that, see look, it's right there on Page 81 of your ToS agreement..." That didn't turn out so well for the ISPs and it didn't deserve to.

Do you have any understanding of RF engineering at all? Do you have any understanding of how building materials can interact with and degrade RF signals? No? Then STFU.

Straw man. It's a marketing issue. It's not a matter of RF engineering. RF engineering is the carrier's problem. It's a matter of "did they tell me, Joe RF-Ignorant Consumer, that I would have great coverage in this area". They're the ones with the engineers, after all.

The fact that one carrier works well in a given home while another carrier has no signal at all negates any concerns about "building materials" or "signal degradation". I mean, I presume both carriers are using RF within the frequencies allocated for mobile phones. No, it's a matter of whether the coverage is as good as what the marketing promised.

Your disdain of people who don't understand what they agree to is matched by my disdain for marketers who promise mountains when they can barely deliver molehills.

-- A different AC.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

I'm not a Republican and if you think it's that easy why don't you get some venture capital and roll out a wireless product that promises service indoors? You can start by hiring an RF engineer and asking him what it will take to deploy a product that is guaranteed to penetrate all known building materials without any appreciable signal degradation. When he gets done laughing at you maybe he'll explain the reality of radio transmission and the signal attenuation caused by physical obstructions.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

They want people who are smart enough to understand the multi-page small-print legalese

This is not "legalese":

Wireless devices use radio transmissions, so unfortunately you can't get Service if your device isn't in range of a transmission signal. And please be aware that even within your Coverage Area, many things can affect the availability and quality of your Service, including network capacity, your device, terrain, buildings, foliage and weather.

I lifted that straight out of Verizon's customer agreement. If you need a lawyer to decipher what that paragraph says then your teachers failed you and you should request a refund of the monies that were spent on your education.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

T-Mobile had a product that gave you free calls when you provided your own backhaul. It used wi-fi and your broadband connection. They discontinued it because very few people adopted it.

Regarding being "billed" while using a microcell, what did you expect? You might not be using their tower but you are still using their infrastructure to complete your call. Would you prefer they itemize your charges and start billing us for long distance again instead of just having airtime minutes?

Re:Why?

[Rob the Bold]

(Hey, how about you just deliver the service you are charging me for instead?)

Did you even bother to read the contract you signed? There isn't a wireless company in the United States (and quite probably the World for that matter) that guarantees service indoors. There are too many variables in building construction and material for them to make any sort of promise about indoor reception.

If you aren't happy with your indoor wireless service there are other options available to you. One has been around for over a hundred years, perhaps you've heard of it?

So we're not just obligated to put up with crap, we have to like it too? Because I checked my contract and it doesn't have a "no bitching" clause in it. Guess the cell phone company should have checked for that before they offered it to me.

Re:Why?

[interkin3tic]

Did you even bother to read the contract you signed?

You make it sound like reading through a contract is trivial, and what is written is reasonable because it is written. The things are ubiquitous and intentionally incomprehensible. Every time I've tried to read such service contracts, what I've come away with is "We reserve the right to do whatever we want, and by buying a cell phone you agree to this."

Re:Why?

[Rob the Bold]

No, I'm a "dick" when people complain about shit they agreed to while being too lazy to understand what they were agreeing to.

Do you have any understanding of RF engineering at all? Do you have any understanding of how building materials can interact with and degrade RF signals? No? Then STFU.

And this complaining hurts you how, exactly?

And I take it that your vast RF expertise has allowed you to rule out the possibility that the original complainer's problem was due solely to building construction, and was in no way due to poor coverage in the area as a result of terrain, tower placement, etc.?

Also, if it requires an EE degree with specialization in radio propagation to own and operate a cell phone, I was unaware of that.

Re:Why?

[mysidia]

You might not be using their tower but you are still using their infrastructure to complete your call.

Their tower is the expensive part. If they are not providing the "wireless" part of the service, I would expect the usage cost and rates to be the same as a VoIP connection, such as that provided by Skype or Vonage.

Note the 'infrastructure' required is less expensive than that required to provide land line service.

No usage of limited resources on expensive high-maintenance wireless radios required on their end, since you aren't connecting to their radios or tying up a slot on their tower.

They can't even truly claim the microsite is a 'reliable' service like Cell phone technology is, especially when they are having frequent service outages that effect all microsites, and since it can be no more reliable than your DSL.

Re:Why?

[bobbuck]

Not only that, but most carriers offer a 30 day trial.

Re:Why?

[tsalmark]

That wire mesh as well as making multi-floor wifi difficult, also keeps my ceiling from crushing my melon.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then continue for years attempting to bill you even after you've cancelled and then gone and cancelled your credit card to stop the charges, and then put phone numbers blocks on your telephone since they sent your bill to a collection agency. See its easy!

Re:Why?

[gknoy]

Pretty much.

We can't force the cell phone company to give us good service indoors at our work, but you're always free to threaten to go to their competitor. Would they rather lose a $150/month customer on a multi-year contract, or send you a repeater which likely costs not a lot more than that but keeps you as a satisfied customer?

Re:Why?

[nabsltd]

This is not "legalese"

Correct, it is technically "weasel words" that basically allow the cell phone company to write off any and all problems with service as something out of their control, thus increasing their profit.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

I would expect the usage cost and rates to be the same as a VoIP connection, such as that provided by Skype or Vonage.

Why don't you vote with your wallet and switch to one of those services then if you think their tariff structure is more reasonable?

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

You are the upside down slave, angrily defending his tormentors rather than admit that he's been screwed over by total assholes all his life.

I'll be the judge of who is screwing me over, thank you very much.

Your covetous worship of power is entirely transparent.

I don't worship anything other than a desire to be left the hell alone and succeed or fail on my own merits. Unfortunately the people on your side of the political fence can't help themselves and feel the need to "help" me by using the legislative process to compel me to behave in the manner that they deem best for me.

You hold total contempt for the average person

No, I hold near total contempt for the people that claim to be looking out for the "average" person while they push their own agenda even when that agenda is opposed by the "average people" that they claim to be representing.

In any event, you are rambling pretty far away from my original point, which was the contract of every wireless company states in plan English that they can not and do not guarantee service indoors. The laws of physics will not bend simply because you think you are being "screwed over" by Verizon or AT&T.

Re:Why?

[RobNich]

Limited to 10 AT&T lines, 2 concurrent.

Re:Why?

[pla]

Satellite still requires a modem

Nope - Not for at least the two years I've used it (and I don't even have a physical landline connection, much less actual phone service).

That said, good luck trying to do VOIP over a connection with literally half second ping times... If I had any alternatives, I'd drop satellite in a heartbeat. I pay twice as much for a tenth the throughput, with insane latency and a pitifully small daily cap that I could (and have) hit before I even leave for work in the morning.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

You call them "weasel words", I call them acknowledging the reality of RF transmission.

Re:Why?

[Vancorps]

Sounds like they've upped it for a third time. Of course that still doesn't work for most offices.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

You make it sound like reading through a contract is trivial

I said nothing of the kind, only that you should read agreements before signing them. The section that talks about indoor wireless service is not written in any form of legalese and should be easy enough to comprehend for anybody that is capable of reading the written word.

The things are ubiquitous and intentionally incomprehensible

This is not incomprehensible:

Wireless devices use radio transmissions, so unfortunately you can't get Service if your device isn't in range of a transmission signal. And please be aware that even within your Coverage Area, many things can affect the availability and quality of your Service, including network capacity, your device, terrain, buildings, foliage and weather.

You can't comprehend what that says? Really?

Re:Why?

[operagost]

Wire was also (maybe still) used as a frame for stucco. It looks like chicken wire with smaller cells.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

do you really read the contract before signing it? I don't, I think most people don't. All I see is "can you hear me now?" and I also know there is a mob of people following me around making sure the answer is "yes" always. That is the deceptive part.

Re:Why?

[afidel]

Hotspot@Home is still available as a plan and UMA is still available on their Blackberry models, the wifi router however is no longer available. It's the reason I'm still with them, no carrier has coverage in my whole house (as it's small at 1200 sq ft) and since I am on call one week a month I need reliable coverage. At work we have boosters for both AT&T/T-mobile and Verizon as the entire lower level of our building has no coverage otherwise, when the contractor installed the system they didn't have the output power properly attenuated and we were apparently blinding a quadrant on the Verizon tower, they identified us as the source and asked us to turn it off then came back a few days later to help the contractor properly adjust the levels. If they had banned us from having the repeater they would have simply lost all our business (only 30 or so lines, but we have over 400 total and have considered moving the bulk to Verizon since AT&T has been pissing us off for the last 3 years).

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T and Verizon don't sell boosters, they're femtocells. Same result (better signal), different way to get there (femtocells rely on your existing Internet connection).

So they get to charge you for a device that uses YOUR internet connection to correct their deficiencies?

What a deal!

Re:Why?

[interkin3tic]

I said nothing of the kind, only that you should read agreements before signing them. The section that talks about indoor wireless service is not written in any form of legalese and should be easy enough to comprehend for anybody that is capable of reading the written word.

No, what you said was "Did you even bother to read the contract you signed," implying that he should have read the contract, when the most important bits are, in fact, intentionally obscured, and if you're buying any cell phone you're agreeing to basically the same things.

That section was written plainly, but that was also one of the least important parts of it for the consumer: it should be obvious.

Re:Why?

[mjwalshe]

so do you get to charge AT&T and Verizon for using your property - like you do if you own land with telegraph pole on them

Re:Why?

[bmk67]

T-Mobile had a product that gave you free calls when you provided your own backhaul. It used wi-fi and your broadband connection. They discontinued it because very few people adopted it.

T-Mobile still has something similar (WiFi Calling), at least on my Android phone. There's no extra charge, but they still count the minutes against your plan.

Re:Why?

[mysidia]

Why don't you vote with your wallet and switch to one of those services then if you think their tariff structure is more reasonable?

Because you cannot send and receive SMS messages over a Vonage or Skype line. Because you cannot make 911 emergency calls from a Vonage or Skype phone.

You can't "untether" your phone from the microsite if you have Skype or Vonage, the only option for placing a call is through an internet connection.

Also, your phone cannot be an iPhone, since the iPhone can only make calls through ATT.

Re:Why?

[Vegeta99]

do you really read the contract before signing it? I don't, I think most people don't.

In the words of lawyers, judges, and law professors everywhere, tough. You have a duty to read.

I used to rent apartments, and people would sign the 30 page document, not think twice about why an apartment lease is 30 pages long, and then bitch later when we charge them late fees (even when we have a 4-day grace period, are open until 11PM daily, and tenants can hand the RA in their building a check!).

You have a duty to read. I did have clients that read the whole damn lease and grilled me on it. Some left and decided the terms weren't for them.

NOBODY and I mean NOBODY ever decided to read it before the paid the non-refundable application fee, though.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

So maybe you should quit your whining if you've decided that wireless service is what you must have? It's not like you don't have other options. You've just decided not to exercise them. Neither SMS nor roaming are MUST HAVE features of telecommunications. You've just decided they are worth paying for but still don't like what they cost. Get the hell over it already.

Re:Why?

[jonwil]

Its also an issue because the boosters drive more traffic onto the already-strained towers.
The femtocells take load OFF the towers and drive it over the internet instead.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In any event, you are rambling pretty far away from my original point, which was the contract of every wireless company states in plan English that they can not and do not guarantee service indoors. The laws of physics will not bend simply because you think you are being "screwed over" by Verizon or AT&T.

Tell me how you explain this discrepency:

Company A's marketing promises good coverage in my area. In my home I get terrible reception or no reception at all. My cell is useless indoors.
Company B's marketing promises good coverage in my area. In my home I get good reception or at least decent reception. My cell works correctly indoors though I do get a couple more bars if I step outside.

My explanation is that Company A is deceptive because it exaggerates the level of service it can provide to me, while Company B was honest with me about the quality of coverage in my area.

Both companies transmit RF. So, what's your explanation? If the cat's suddenly got your tongue the reason why won't be hard to figure out. I already posed this question to you in this post and you failed to answer it then. Cat got your tongue?

Re:Why?

[trum4n]

agreed. sprint works here, ATT does not. end of story. also, to the jerk, you fed the troll.

Re:Why?

[hedwards]

Good luck with Sprint, the voice reception is better with Sprint than AT&T, but their support sucks, and I don't think that CDMA does as well with data. Not sure about that, but it does mean that you can't take the phone to the other carriers. Even if it's the same model, Sprint won't let it be activated unless it has their branding on it. Which is why I canceled my account. I shouldn't have to buy a phone that's been silk screened with their logo just so that they'll activate it.

Re:Why?

[hedwards]

That's somewhat reasonable if your in say a bunker or on the back side of an apartment building, but it's really not legitimate when you're talking about a typical single family residence. There just isn't enough material to block the signal and the carrier has some responsibility to place the cell towers in appropriate places. AT&T deciding to put all their towers north and south of Seattle pretty clearly fails to understand how RF transmission works.

Going through hills makes transmission tough unless you bounce the signal off the ionosphere. Ultimately they'd provide better service with a larger number of lower power towers arranged through the city.

But when you get down to it, you shouldn't get significant changes in reception by walking a few feet further away from the tower, further into the building I might add.

Re:Why?

[hedwards]

That was my first reaction. Rather than fix the problem, AT&T realized that they can charge you a fee to use somebody else's bandwidth as a work around to their incompetence and/or greed.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are you too chickenshit to answer this post?

I get Slashdot Messages on *my* account. You do too. Pretend like you didn't notice this some more, you fucking coward.

Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

Fail. I wanted to know "why" the cell companies don't like these boosters. What's wrong with wanting to give your cellphone better reception or transmission? It used to be commonplace (cars driving around with them on their roofs).

Re:Can't read article.

[BC_R3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18basics.html?src=tptw Cell service providers are opposed to these because they don't have control over them. Because they are no made by the service providers, cell companies can't make money off of them but are still liable for the security risks they create.

Re:Can't read article.

[falldeaf]

I'd guess it's wrong because that doesn't make the carriers any money? Although, it probably does in the long run if you consider customer experience an important factor.

Re:Can't read article.

[arth1]

I wanted to know "why" the cell companies don't like these boosters. What's wrong with wanting to give your cellphone better reception or transmission?

They like the boosters, but want regulation that prevents competition, i.e. that you will have to buy the equipment from them, at a mark-up.

It's even worse for the cell-over-internet boxes, where you buy internet access and route your home cell phone traffic over them. They want control, so they can continue to charge you air time, plus lease for the box, all for using your bandwidth instead of them paying to put up extra towers.

Re:Can't read article.

[tophermeyer]

Sounded like they didn't want other companies selling boosters. They want to be the only ones capable of providing such devices. Or even eliminate the concept of the boosters entirely, and move towards funneling calls over the customers broadband connection.

That allows a business model like Verizon's, where they will be more than happy to charge you for the device to send their calls over your own internet connection.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

A big problem is them actually making the signal worse through feedback interference. It's the same concept as putting a microphone in front of the speaker it feeds, a the sound goes right back ino the mic and causes a feedback look and an insanely loud noise. If you install signal boosters so that the indoor antenna can feed back to the outside, you actually make reception worse both inside and outside your house. You have to actually have some idea of what you're doing and how to test these things. Do carriers want to make money selling them instead of you getting them on the open market? Of course. But they also want to make sure you're using good equipment installed properly, because otherwise it interferes with the rest of their network.

Re:Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

What security risks???

Next I suppose the megacorps will tell me I can't use a room-mount antenna with my TV or FM radio. Or Comcast will say I can't use any box but theirs.

Re:Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

>>>want regulation that prevents competition

And my libertarian friends wonder why I hate both government AND mega-corporations. We the people no longer matter. Although there is one thing in favor of the megacorps: They can't suck money direct from my wallet, send armed goons to invade my house, or force me to go die in Nam or Iraq or some other stupid war.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

They like the boosters, but want regulation that prevents competition, i.e. that you will have to buy the equipment from them, at a mark-up.

Imagine that, they want control over the equipment that's broadcasting a signal on the spectrum that they paid billions of dollars to license. Next you'll tell me that your local FM radio station had the nerve to get pissed when you started repeating a signal on their channel.

Re:Can't read article.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think possible interference is a legitimate concern. I don't think requiring the device manufacturers to be FCC type accepted and requiring the repeaters to have variable output is not too much to ask. Hell just mandate the maximum amount of power that can be outputted by the device. I'm pretty sure most of these requirements already exist.

However getting the FCC to only allow the devices to be sold by the carriers or authorized by the carriers make no sense except to create another legal monopoly in repeater sales.

Re:Can't read article.

[notgm]

rf engineers don't like these boosters because they extend signals in unpredictable/uncontrollable ways.

if a cell site is propagating signal incorrectly, it can be fixed via down-tilt, power-stepping, or a host of internal-to-the-system parameters.

however, if a cell site is propagating signal just fine, but some joe is extending its signal five miles beyond its expected range, and another joe is pulling from him another two miles away, it becomes nearly impossible to predict how adjustments will affect the rest of the network.

certainly, the corporations want to make money, and can, selling pre-configured in-house repeaters, but letting anybody extend a LICENSED signal on their own, without a license is just asking for trouble.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

....Yet.

Re:Can't read article.

[notgm]

a clarifying point - a passive antenna on a car or house is not a booster - the devices in question take the signal in, amplify it, and retransmit it.

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

No, they DON'T like boosters.

this is a fundamental issue in the way wireless communications works, when you stand in one spot in a city within range of three towers, your cell phone attempts to modulate itself onto a portion of the spectrum that will allow it to speak. This in turn means that all three towers now can hear you.
because all three towers can hear you, but only one is responsible for carrying your traffic the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers. the only thing the towers can do is reduce power to the quadrant the handset is in, allowing people closer to the tower to use it at the same time. even THIS however is limited: if the MobileStation can still reach the other two towers, they can't reduce power far enough to allow anybody else to use those channels.

once you install powered signal boosters, your cell phone now may be able to reach twenty towers. those towers each have a limited number of 'slots' available for users to use, (infact the number of GSM channels is currently around 32, though through timeframing of each channel there are 7-14frames per channel/second) meaning that you effectively are now multiplying your capacity based on how many towers you can hit.

the issue here is NOT with people that are in small towns/remote location, telco's are happy to let people put up their own repeaters to enlarge the telco's network at no cost to the telco. the issue they have is that people in downtown apartments with lead paint think that by hitting every tower in 15 square blocks just so they can repeat it indoors for one customer is a good thing.

by using the air to communicate: you have to learn to share it with others. we only have one global collection of air for which EMR can radiate.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

or force me to go die in Nam or Iraq or some other stupid war.

Who was "forced" to go die in Iraq? Did we bring back the draft while I wasn't looking or something?

Re:Can't read article.

[bill_mcgonigle]

And my libertarian friends wonder why I hate both government AND mega-corporations.

That's a non-sequitor, libertarians aren't in favor of government-created monstrosities of any form.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

because all three towers can hear you, but only one is responsible for carrying your traffic the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers

This is a overly simplistic explanation. GSM uses frequency hopping for the uplink (i.e: phone to tower) channel to mitigate this sort of interference. The other towers don't perceive your phone as anything other than random background noise. CDMA uses a different mechanism (spread spectrum using a pseduo-random code) to achieve the same results, plus it has the added benefit of being able to do soft-handoffs, i.e: your phone is literally talking to multiple towers at the same time.

The whole point of digital technology is to enable multiple users to share the same channel. Repeaters don't really defeat this. What they can do is increase noise along with signal, usually to the detriment of any phones within range of them. The carriers are rightfully peeved about them because they've spent billions of dollars to license the spectrum that they use and were supposed to have exclusive rights to deploy devices that transmit on that spectrum.

Re:Can't read article.

[Improv]

Libertarian politicians are government-created monstrosities ^_^

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

technically, the issue would be fine if it were just that. No FM that I know about would have an issue with this based on how FM works.

the issue here would be more like you repeating an FM station between two towns that BOTH have stations using the same frequency, because you want to hear one of the two stations.

Re:Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

Just because they didn't use the draft this time, doesn't mean Government has lost its power to force people to go die. The draft was used in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and can certainly be used in the future.

BTW ww1 was a complete waste of american lives.

Americans opposed it, democrat candidate Wilson ran on a "keep us out" election, and then went to war a month later, PLUS arrested anyone who dared say american participation was a bad idea (in violation of the 1st amendment). There was no more reason for us to interfere in that European War then in the earlier Napoleonic Wars. It was an internal affair.

Re:Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

>>>only one tower is responsible for carrying your traffic; the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers.

Bzzzz. That's how it worked under the old Analog frequency division multiplexing, but it's not how it works on modern Coded multiplexing which allows multiple users to use the same channel concurrently.

Re:Can't read article.

[swb]

That's my biggest gripe with most libertarians I've met -- when they finally do concede that large corporations are as much of a threat to liberty as government, they blame government for creating them. Which might be true in some instances (eg, government granted monopoly) but in other instances (eg, Microsoft) it's not, or much less so (and depending on the libertarian philosophy, some are opposed to copyright & patent in any form, which may nullify that answer).

But it strikes me as too easy to *just* blame the government without questioning corporate power at all.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

Just because they didn't use the draft this time

So you lied. Thank you, we accept your apology.

Re:Can't read article.

[StuartHankins]

Comcast has already done this in many areas. Recently I received a letter stating that without their new digital boxes I would receive channels 2-22 and 97-99 only. They had already removed the TV Guide channel. Good thing I qualified for 1 "real" box and 2 DTA's for free -- my association dues pay for cable and I wasn't about to start paying for it twice.

Re:Can't read article.

[StuartHankins]

I'm not trolling, but are there really so many towers in large areas that you have many available? We don't seem to have a large number of towers in South Florida (many spots without coverage for both Sprint and AT&T).

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

Whaaaaaaaaaat!

the wireless spectrum is only so large, and you can only multiplex so many people onto any one frequency. Even if you hop the around frequencies: they still only have so many total channels available. as much as one wants to think that the air will scale indefinitely: it doesn't. every time you add more time-slots to a frequency or frequencies to a conversation: it increases the latency and error rate.

digital technology doesn't quite do the job one hopes it would, as it's still carrying digital representations of analog data. you can only deal with so much latency before it becomes unusable.

Frequency hopping provides a great increase in the number of signals per band, but this comes at a cost to the surrounding frequencies and introduces an amount of CPU load on BTS's. this in turn leads to increased cost and increased complexity of the network. Frequency hopping is only implemented in dense locations, and not all carriers do it. (in fact, the majority of them don't, though this represents the minority of customers)

at the end of the day we agree though: hardly-regulated repeaters that occupy the GSM frequency bands are not the best idea in the world.

Re:Can't read article.

[geekoid]

Why they might like that, that's not the reason. They're a non regulated device broadcasting signal on a regulated spectrum. They want to be sure they comply; otherwise they may* interfere with the spectrum.

*If not regulated, I can guarantee you poor quality device with little or no controls will eventually saturate the market.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone else's phone connecting to your (custom, modified or poorly protected) booster that is recording their calls/data?

Someone setting the equipment up in a populated area could potentially snag a lot of data before being discovered, in a similar fashion to the fake wifi points you still see crop up at airports. Presumably, they want people to buy 'black box' devices that can't be modified without destroying them in the process.

Your TV and FM radio only receive broadcast data, they don't have devices connecting to them as a relay for private communications.

Re:Can't read article.

[heathen_01]

You've gone mad.

The honerable slashdotter commodore64_love only mentioned that corporations could not force him to war in Iraq. There is no mention anywhere that anyone was forced by any organisation to go to war in Iraq.

Re:Can't read article.

[Vancorps]

Was that sarcasm? I know lots of radio stations that love people for repeating their signal for them. It's win-win! If you were sending another signal on the same frequency it would be something else entirely but that's not what a repeater does.

Re:Can't read article.

[arth1]

AFAIK, the duty length was modified twice, retroactively. I.e. people were forced to serve in Iraq for a longer time than they initially signed up for. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are a GI when congress declared war, you are pretty much forced to go to war, whether or not you agreed with the ideas behind the war, are you not? We have a voluntary armed service, but that only means you're not Uncle Sam's property until volunteer--and once you've done that, your free will regarding these things mostly goes out the window.

Soldiers who disobey orders are subject to a minimum of "failure to report", but charges go higher. "AWOL", "desertion", maybe even "treason", those are the sorts of things a soldier looks forward to when he decides not to follow orders, whether or not they're illegal, immoral or otherwise.

So, tell me, is that being forced? By any reasonable man's understanding, it is.

Re:Can't read article.

[Firethorn]

however, if a cell site is propagating signal just fine, but some joe is extending its signal five miles beyond its expected range, and another joe is pulling from him another two miles away

That is unlikely. These boosters are two antenna jobs - normally a directional mounted outside pointed at the closest tower, and a small omni inside (or a plate type on an appropriate wall). The gain on the inside is such that only really close phones will pick it up. The setup I was looking at would have gotten my house, and maybe a bit of the yard - when the next closest tower was ~30 miles away.

I can see requiring FCC certification and some electronics to make sure the booster plays nice by providing automatic gain control and such, so the booster isn't blasting numerous towers with it's max 4 watts of power if it isn't necessary.

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

I guess my wording was a little off. technically, it's the towers can't reduce power far enough to allow other MS's so communicate on the frames occupied by other callers.

there are a maximum of 125 channels for both up and down stream communication in GSM. using the wonders of TDMA, there are 8 slots containing 24 frames for data. each user get's a frame per slot, meaning you can multiplex a maximum of 3000 simultaneous conversations while maintaining 120ms latency per tower.

that's assuming that the amps and devices have access to that whole spectrum, and that it's all usable. everything from noise to reflections to weather will change that whole RF landscape.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

as much as one wants to think that the air will scale indefinitely

I never claimed it "scales indefinitely", only that it scales to the point that the distant tower seeing snippets of your transmission can deal with them without any real issue. It's literally just background noise to that tower with a frequency hopping solution like GSM uses. With CDMA it's even less of an issue because your CDMA phone was designed to talk to multiple towers at the same time. That's how soft-handoffs are accomplished. The only downside to CDMA is the near-far problem but that has nothing to do with the number of towers that can hear your phone during a call.

Frequency hopping is only implemented in dense locations

T-Mobile uses frequency hopping on their whole network. I suspect AT&T does as well. If you have a Motorola put it into field test mode and make a call. I will bet you a six pack of your favorite beer that it's using frequency hopping for the uplink back to the tower.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>only one tower is responsible for carrying your traffic; the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers.

Bzzzz. That's how it worked under the old Analog frequency division multiplexing, but it's not how it works on modern Coded multiplexing which allows multiple users to use the same channel concurrently.

Bzzzt. There is still a channel capacity limit with CDMA. There are a finite number of chip codes that don't interfere with each other by more than some threshold, and once you have more users than that, you have to start reusing the codes. So you have to keep the reused codes on towers far enough from each other that they won't interfere.

Also, there are only so many chip codes you can run in a channel before they either start interfering with each other or raise the noise floor too much. In CDMA, a transmitter on a different chip code still generates interference; it's just not correlated to the desired code, and thus simply generates an uncorrelated noise floor. With enough transmitters, signal-to-noise ratio (as opposed to signal-to-interference) can become dominant.

Additionally, CDMA mitigates as much interference as possible by negotiating for signal strength between the tower and handset. In short, the handset is told to reduce its transmit power as it approaches the tower, so that the signal level at the tower stays more or less constant. This prevents nearby users from drowning out (i.e. taking dynamic range from) the distant users, but it also means that the users at the far edges of the cell are the ones transmitting at the highest powers. These users are also the ones who would be using repeaters.

A repeater may or may not work in this configuration, especially in the case where the tower is receiving one signal path from the handset and another from the repeater (i.e. a transition region). Thus it's hard to be confident in the relationship between received signal strength at the tower and transmitted signal strength at the handset; the channel can diverge from the channel model the system was designed around.*

The solution to all these problems is actually bloody simple: The repeaters shouldn't amplify the signal, but instead should use a directional antenna aimed at a particular tower to both provide gain (from antenna directionality) to and from that tower while significantly attenuating paths to other towers. Then the repeated area just looks like an extension of the cell area of the given tower, and everything works like it's supposed to.

* Yes, the channel model a system is designed around is important. Back when Qualcomm started hawking CDMA, they were claiming a 40X increase in channel capacity. One of my former teachers was called in to check their work, and found that the expected capacity gain was really more like 20X-25X. The Qualcomm folks had assumed a r^-4 dropoff in signal strength vs. tower distance, and had estimated channel capacity based on that; in other words, they expected the fast dropoff of an urban environment to help isolate nearby towers from each other. So a more realistic dropoff of, say, r^-2.6, actually resulted in lower capacity per tower since you had to go farther before you could recycle the codes.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Britian. Remember the War of 1812? That was a side show 'cause the Brits wanted to comandeer US ships to fight Napoleon.

Re:Can't read article.

[Vancorps]

Just so you know, you would not be able to extend their signal 5 miles down the way, that would take a couple of watts whereas boosters from the manufacturers in the article are well below that. I have great reception on top of this building and almost no reception inside the building. Now that I have a repeater I can actually make calls inside. I'm not sure extending their signal 40 feet down in a 3000 square foot section of the building is going to cause any issues whatsoever with their weak signal.

We are the target market for these products. If it was really an issue cell phone carrier would have filed a complaint with the FCC but its not really a problem so they are simply trying to get rid of them to move to their model of using bandwidth that I already pay for to use their service that I also already pay for. They are making money on my bandwidth and don't wish to build capacity in their towers which are horribly anaemic. We have a show that 250k people attend, ATT's solution to cell problems? Had two T1s to their existing tower since reception was fine. Wow, a whole 3megs more bandwidth, that will help the 6000 people that are trying to use your service in a 1 square mile radius! The event is even in the same place at the same time every year so they could temporarily turn up circuits, there's even a SONET link in the same room as their gear and they choose to use T1s? Really?

We gave them billions to build infrastructure, much of that they squandered and now that people are fighting back to get what they've paid for they need to defend themselves against their own poor decisions in the past. If they hadn't gotten tax money as well as crazy service pricing rates that we have to pay anyway then people would be more willing to play ball. For now, the repeaters help a lot of us that just need to get work done, we've waited patiently for years and they've done nothing, now its time for us to act with the GNU Radio or any other means at our disposal, the problem is, the more they force us to do, the less control they have over it, they are seeking to regain the control they lost.

Re:Can't read article.

[Vancorps]

Retransmit it 40 feet down yes where reception is poor, interference would be next to nothing when you go from having no reception to enough to make a call.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

Corporations, even monopolies can not compel you to buy their product. The US Government can. That's the most important difference.

Re:Can't read article.

[pablo_max]

This is exactly correct.
It is to do with channel allocation and link budget. Not to mention that it plays hell when suddenly your signal is attenuated by 50 dB because you are no longer on your personal cell.
Lets say the tower you were on is now out of reach, but you never performed a proper detach and your phone is now trying to perform a location update on tower B. It's a pain in the ass from a network management point of view.

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

the USA is 1.8% of the landmass of the globe, and Europe is only slightly larger at 1.9%. sorry, I don't consider T-mobile to be somebody who covers the majority of area. the majority of the globe does not utilize FHSS: because it does little unless there are many towers competing for airtime/problems with peoples ablity to communicate with a tower.

if I take my USRP and modulate a GSM conversation onto the air, I assure you I WON'T be frequency hopping to communicate. most of the providers in canada don't implement it at the BTS unless the tower is experiencing problems receiving or the local landscape provides too many reflections.

one can hop channels all they want, but there are only so many available. the freq hopping is intended to allow people to communicate in higher densities with lower error rates, not to prevent people from trampling on frequencies at the towers. if a tower is within range of a MS, it cannot ignore that MS. all it can do is ignore the frames coming from that MS, by ignoring the times+frequencies it's using. this still reduces the ~3K maximum total potential slots per tower.

in effect: if you put 1 tower in the middle of a city, and put (say, random bullshit number) 2200 subscribers on it (assuming this is the "maximum") you can't just put up another tower next to it to add subscribers. there's no way to do it without increasing latency, or dividing the towers physically.

Re:Can't read article.

[afidel]

Uh, how is a booster any different than a passive antenna for capturing radio signals? The cellular part of the connection is either secure or it isn't.

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

Thank you.

as much as the "digital" buzzword comes back, at the end of the day signals are broadcasting in analog.

yes, R&D has lead to significantly increased channelizing of the existing spectrum. but analog signals can only be mixed so far and still be discernible. also, at some point you introduce co much overhead to multiplex that you add latency that makes voice communication slow and unbearable.
[sarcasm]though we all know that customers leave providers that provide high latency unbearable voice connections. [/sarcasm]

Re:Can't read article.

[Archangel Michael]

Libertarian here.

You're right in pointing out that corporations are creations of the state (government). However you are mistaken in understanding of how we might view this sort of thing.

Over Air Frequencies are allotted, and rightfully so, by government lottery or auction. As such it would be quite easy to include terms of the use of those frequencies to include all sorts of "freedom" for end users (public).

In this case, the FCC should have jurisdiction for such devices, and not the corporations. Additionally, the FCC should not even consider the desires and wishes of the corporations but rather should be looking out for the populace as a whole.

Which means, that if the FCC can regulate the devices properly, the corporations would have no say as to how they are used (or not used). And quite frankly, that is exactly what the FCC ought to be saying to the likes of the Telco's.

Where we go wrong in today's corporatism is that the corporations are allowed to petition their creators (the state) to establish profitability of operations. Corporations should not have ANY right to petition the government under any circumstances, as that completely dilutes the power of the populace ability to petition our government with grievances

Like in this case, most people don't care, the ones that do care are not listened to because corporate donations to political campaigns shouts down that voice. And thus, you have the evil of collectivism established which is to quash the voice of the wronged minority.

I blame our government, just not for the reasons you think ;)

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

depends on where you live.

Up here in Canada for example, if you're in range of a city, you're likely in range of a few towers. if you live along a major highway, there'll be a pair either east/west or north/south of you.

the issue here isn't that it'll cause a problem in rural location, it's that people are using them to provide a "better connection" in a controlled area rather than to provide "a connection" at all. This means that BTS's are seeing not only the handset, but also the repeater. (and every other handset AGAIN that is within range of the tower+repeater.)

as far as active repeaters in rural areas: few providers mind them. it's the use of those same devices in the wrong place that they hate.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an oxymoron. You can't be friends with libertarians because they don't care about anyone but themselves. He probably meant to imply that the libertarians can't understand how he can't be against the mega corporations their ideals naturally produce AND government regulation, which is an opposing viewpoint.

The worst thing about that article for me was this: "The panel chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said legislation on the matter will be a top priority after lawmakers return in January." - Lieberman is still in office and is chairman of panels.

Re:Can't read article.

[Caerdwyn]

Because a booster is not a passive antenna. It includes an amplifier and transmitter.

A booster is trivially easy to turn into a jammer. Even unintentionally... if they are poorly made or badly installed, they pump out noise which reduces signal quality for everyone nearby. As a ham radio operator, I know first hand how careful you have to be to put out a clean signal. Water in your coax dielectric? Ground loop somewhere? Connectors loose? It shows in your transmitted signal.

There's a reason that devices which transmit on cell phone frequency bands are regulated and have to be approved, and in some cases require a license just to own. It's not just you who would have their cell phone service damaged.

Re:Can't read article.

[bill_mcgonigle]

but in other instances (eg, Microsoft) it's not, or much less so

Does Microsoft take the same sorts of risks it does with corporate protection as it would if Microsoft were a general partnership between Allen, Gates, and Balmer?

Re:Can't read article.

[afidel]

5 miles can be achieved with only 30mW using a 13.5dBi yagi antenna. Even a 12dBi omni would push 30mW to 4.5 miles outdoors. Bump the power to 100mW and they go to 9.5 and 8 miles respectively. This is over flat terrain with the antenna mounted above the fresnel cone height so there are obviously many factors that could change the actual range affected but you can get some idea of how big an area can be impacted by even a fairly low power booster that's not properly configured.

Re:Can't read article.

[afidel]

Uh, the post I was responding to was talking about intercepting the signals...

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

the USA is 1.8% of the landmass of the globe, and Europe is only slightly larger at 1.9%. sorry, I don't consider T-mobile to be somebody who covers the majority of area

Nitpick much, do we?

in effect: if you put 1 tower in the middle of a city, and put (say, random bullshit number) 2200 subscribers on it (assuming this is the "maximum") you can't just put up another tower next to it to add subscribers. there's no way to do it without increasing latency, or dividing the towers physically.

So what you are saying is that if you deploy a cellular network in a manner that no carrier would ever deploy a cellular network, frequency hopping is useless? Gotcha, now I understand *eyeroll*

Re:Can't read article.

[Vancorps]

That is not what the article in question is talking about. They are talking about regular repeater setups which can't go through more than three walls. Like I said, we have a repeater, it's 40 feet away from the antenna on the roof where reception is good and where there was no reception or low reception we're now working well.

If it was really an issue the FCC would have gotten involved a long time ago. The theory that you can use a yagi style antenna to connect to a cell site to somehow cause interference just doesn't hold up. When using omnidirectional antennas with high power then you have the chance to cause a lot of interference because your signal is making it to multiple towers, when using a directional yagi style antenna the signal is hitting one tower. If the tower lacks capacity that isn't the fault of the repeater.

Re:Can't read article.

[ogdenk]

Although there is one thing in favor of the megacorps: They can't suck money direct from my wallet, send armed goons to invade my house, or forc

Re:Can't read article.

[ogdenk]

>>>want regulation that prevents competition

And my libertarian friends wonder why I hate both government AND mega-corporations. We the people no longer matter. Although there is one thing in favor of the megacorps: They can't suck money direct from my wallet, send armed goons to invade my house, or force me to go die in Nam or Iraq or some other stupid war.

No, they just bought the government and can push them into sending armed goons to your house for dubious reasons and manipulate the legal system to suck the money out of your wallet and give it straight to them.

SC treats medical debts as tax debts now and will put liens on your property, drain your bank accounts, etc if you owe an ER money for a while.

The problem is that now the megacorps ARE the government and in typical corporate fashion, if you don't like it, go work somewhere else.

I'm not lying nor am I a conspiracy theorist loon. This is fact.

The megacorps pretty much run the war as well.

Re:Can't read article.

[afidel]

Actually you can raise the noise floor enough across the entire licensed spectrum to blind the receiving antenna and hence drop the sector you are pointed at from ~30 channels to just your one.

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

funny that outside of Europe and the USA, represents almost 25% of the earth (or 74% of the usable land mass) and represents 5/6'ths of the population.

also interesting that there is GSM coverage on almost 60% of the available landmass on earth, meaning that a minimum of 58% of the coverage is outside of the two areas.

Maybe I'm just crazy (never tried to deny the fact) but having provisioned and deployed cellular networks the world over, and knowing that the majority of customers realized no benefit to many of the software "packages" the GSM alliance promotes for their BTS's,
I'm a little skeptical anytime somebody says they can "increase density in software".

randomly: your signature represents global options strikingly well. :P

Re:Can't read article.

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

Thanks! it's great to know that my understanding of the GSM protocol isin't too far off. :D

It's a good thing to.. otherwise there are a few customers that would have been calling me wanting their money back by now..

(Though I guess if I broke it enough they COULDN'T call to complain, eh? :P)

Re:Can't read article.

[pclminion]

Corporations should not have ANY right to petition the government under any circumstances

Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different? In any case, a corporation is imaginary and the person doing the talking is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Are you proposing that we strip the rights of those who work for corporations? "If you work for XYZ, then you, as an individual, may not petition the government on matters relating to XYZ." Even better, maybe you want to restrict the right of individuals to peaceably assemble in support of their employer?

Let's look at campaign donations. You say the corps shouldn't be allowed to do it. Okay, instead of the corporation donating directly, they tell the employees "Donate $500 each or you are fired." How are you going to stop that? By regulating it? How Libertarian an approach.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

You talk about corporations like they are some separate species from us humans. Fact is, beneath every public corporation is a CEO, VP's and board of directors, all citizens of the US just like the rest of us. These individuals, who usually happen to be really rich, have every right to petition the government on their own behalf, just like you or I. If we ban corporations from directly lobbying the government, what do you think will happen? Corporations will simply boost their leaders salaries even further, who will be expected to use that money to support their favorite politician(s) du jour.

Re:Can't read article.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not boosting the external signal ... you are piping it down into the house.

Re:Can't read article.

[drsmithy]

Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different?

Er, because then they only have their own resources to petition with, rather than using the collective resources of a group (the individuals of which may or may not agree with said petitioning) ?

The real problem is that monetary donations have been classed as "speech". Until that fundamental brokenness is fixed, the corporation vs individual thing is a secondary issue.

Re:Can't read article.

[Tacvek]

Hold on a second. Let's say that the repeater has a 3 dB gain (gain of 2) in both uplink and downlink. The phone will adjust its transmit gain to be just loud enough that the closest tower can hear, just like always, no? So the towers should be getting a signal no stronger than if the building simply were not there.

In all reality though, most people only need a a gain of 1 (0 dB). The real key is to get the signal through the wall without the associated losses. Heck, many people could get by with a pair of identical antennas connected by coax, despite that having a gain of significantly less than 1.

Re:Can't read article.

[Shakrai]

Funny that you are obsessing about GSM while ignoring every single thing I said about CDMA, which is soon to displace GSM's TDMA method as the standard air interface.....

Re:Can't read article.

[jonwil]

I call BS.
GSM and UMTS signals (dont know about CDMA) are encrypted and whilst you can crack the keys, its not possible to do in realtime.

Re:Can't read article.

[jon3k]

One of our network admins hooked up one of these at our CFOs (hilariously huge) house. About a week later 2 guys in a van showed up and told us it was blocking cellular signals for a several mile radius. Apparently it has to do with the distance between the base station and the antenna, and they had been installed too close. We went and re-read the instructions and sure enough the two were too close together. Apparently it's very easy to cause interference with these things.

Re:Can't read article.

[Archangel Michael]

they tell the employees "Donate $500 each or you are fired."

Being fired for lack of political activity? Really? You think a company that does that, and is exposed, can actually survive?

You have even less faith in the electorate than I do. But then again, perhaps you're one of those elitists who think the unwashed masses are too stupid and we need the elites of the world to lead the masses.

If that is the case, you're a tyrant, same as all other tyrants.

We live in an age where the truth cannot be squashed, but then again, neither can lies. There are people who believe we didn't go to the moon, the earth is six thousand years old, and 9/11 was an inside job. You may believe in one of those, and scoff at the others, it doesn't matter, because you'll never see the point I'm making.

Truthiness is subjective to our viewpoints. My viewpoints are different than yours, but mine allow for yours, while most people won't allow for a difference of viewpoints.

Re:Can't read article.

[Archangel Michael]

Monetary donations are free speech.

Corporations are not legal persons, they are legal entities. The Bill of Rights is for People, not legal entities, which are nothing but a construct of the state.

I'm against all forms of political campaign reform laws, as a pure violation of 1st Amendment Rights. However, I also believe that donations should be limited to people who can vote for the candidate or cause, an not allow any OUTSIDE contributions.

In other words, I believe I should be allowed to donate Million Dollars to the guy/gal running for MY US Representative, but should be prevented from donating any funds to any other US Rep candidate, because I cannot vote for them.

Re:Can't read article.

[commodore64_love]

>>>they blame government for creating corporations. Which might be true in some instances (eg, government granted monopoly) but in other instances (eg, Microsoft) it's not

Flat wrong.

The only reason the Microsoft Corporation exists is because the government created it, via the incorporation license. If that license did not exist, neither would the corporation. It would have to organize itself as a proprietorship or partnership with full liability, instead of its present limited-liability format.

Re:Can't read article.

[drsmithy]

Monetary donations are free speech.

No, they're not. They're either financial support for an issue, or bribes, depending on your perspective.

At no point is "speech" involved, unless the currency of the land changed dramatically when I wasn't looking.

I'm against all forms of political campaign reform laws, as a pure violation of 1st Amendment Rights.

No-one is saying people shouldn't be able to get up on their soapboxes and say whatever they want. They're saying that how much you're allowed to say shouldn't be dictated by your wallet, which is the inherent result of classifying political donations as speech.

Re:Can't read article.

[pclminion]

You're kind of a lunatic, huh?

The monster truck

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need more regulation, the market is working just fine. No need to put the monster truck in drive.

The obvious answer

[jgreco]

which is for carriers to improve their coverage, doesn't even occur to them, eh.

Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?

Re:The obvious answer

[VShael]

Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?

Ah, but they want the customer to pay *them* (the carriers) for the privilege of solving the carriers problem, not some upstart little company who has started selling boosters on Amazon.

Surely, a new level of greed.

Re:The obvious answer

[jgreco]

I concede the point. at&t already tried to sell me one of their femtocells. I told them to fix their damn coverage. They had actually turned off 3G on the local tower... but that's another story.

Re:The obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm. Turned off a 3G tower to save money. Charge consumer for femtocell to increase profit. Wow. Sounds like a win-win to me!

Re:The obvious answer

[aztektum]

While I was working at Sprint a few years ago, they began talking about phones with wifi that would use a home users internet when network signal was low. I remember thinking the same thing "Way to offload your job onto the customer." They would also get to *pay* for this feature as another service charge.

Re:The obvious answer

[natehoy]

AT&T does this with their "MicroCell", which costs about $150.

And, yeah, it sucks that they are basically loading the call data onto your Internet connection. On the other hand, most repeaters cost in the $200-300 range for good, working ones (I use a Z-Boost at the moment). So if it works for you, it's cheaper than a repeater and you don't have to run an antenna outside. So it's not all bad.

There's also a service for about $20 a month that gives you unlimited minutes as long as those minutes are on your MicroCell. Again, this should technically be free or at least a crapload cheaper since it's your bandwidth you are using. On the other hand, it's fairly competitive with getting, say, a Vonage line to supplement your cell phone, and you get the bonus of one phone number without the complexity of a Google Voice account.

My Z-Boost is starting to act up a bit, and I'm pondering the purchase of a MicroCell.

Re:The obvious answer

[FlyingGuy]

You and the other clueless people who mod'd you +5 just don't get it.

I live in the SF Bay Area and if there ever was a "TechnoLand" this is it, well in the US anyway.

You obviously don't have a clue about what it takes to put in one (1) cell tower. The average time from application to tower turn up in San Francisco is 3 to 5 Years! There are so many hearings and reviews you have to go through it is beyond ridiculous. My wife is a commercial property manager and she has said YES to every cell carrier who has ever asked to put a tower on one of her buildings because the carriers pay on average around 10K a month to have them there. She even brokered a deal to get Verizon, AT&T & Sprint to all erect ONE tower on a building that would have filled a lot of shadow zones and made everyones life a lot easier. The city was even on board, but then the loonies came out of the word work and start litigating because they think it is going to give them brain cancer or some such shite. The legal costs were going through the roof and they all just abandoned the plan

I live in a place that is in a shadow zone and you have practically stand on one foot in one of the two places in the house were we can get reception. I have a HUGE tree ( close to 80 feet tall ) that would support the antenna's with ease and they could park the dam box in a corner of my lot because it would pay my mortgage, and then some, but NO the fucking neighbors would go nuts because they might get cancer of the brain of some shit.

If not for crap like this the carriers would instantly be popping in towers where their was demand.

Re:The obvious answer

[jgreco]

Your argument is idiotic.

The carriers are claiming that signal boosters are a problem.

You're claiming the carriers can't provide coverage due to "complex" reasons.

Tell me how the hell I *AM* supposed to get reliable coverage for my mobile phone when I'm driving around, since I clearly don't "get" it and you do.

I mean, after all, presumably my "mobile" phone is supposed to *be* capable of use when I'm mobile. If I wanted to be tied down by an at&t femtocell (which only works in one location, for broadband users, and for pre-registered cell phones, how useless is that, doesn't even boost signal for friends when they're over) then I'd get rid of the cell phone and just use a really nice VoIP phone to begin with.

If your business is dependent on your being able to provide a service, and you cannot provide it, then you should catch hell for it. That people are actually stepping up to the plate and spending cash to fix their carrier's problem is amazing.

Re:The obvious answer

[FlyingGuy]

You need to read some of the other posts in this thread to get some cluage on how cells work and the problems that active transmitters can cause.

I fly airplanes for fun and guess what over populated areas I get fantastic cell coverage, the problem is I tie up many channels on many cell towers because my broadcast radius is now perfectly line of site to dozens of towers and that is why the carriers don't want me doing that.

The reason people are stepping up to the plate is..... wait for it...

Is that they are not regulated like the telco's are. What part of "it is extremely difficult for them to get a cell tower up and operating" didn't you understand? The telco's are catching hell form their customers and then the telco's try to fix the problem only to have some "tin foil hat" moron with a few bucks start filing law suits claiming that they might get brain cancer because of a 1 to 10 watt transmitter a quarter of a mile from their house and yet have no problem with the FM station banging out 100 KW only 10 miles from their home.

You would not believe the lengths the Telco's go to satisfy people. They have towers custom built ( at a huge cost mind you ) to look like fucking tree's because some bonehead doesn't want a "tower" because it is not organic to it's surroundings.

One of my wife's buildings has a cell site on it but they had to get special paint formulated that would match the existing paint and not affect antenna performance because the people across the street wanted the antenna's hidden as much as humanly possible. Guess what Sherlock, cell phones transmit at most around 300 miliwatts at frequencies in the gigahertz band, any idea how much a single layer of paint can attenuate that? Look it up.

Telco's are in business to make money and they lose money when they have spotty coverage and want to build new towers but are quite often blocked by stupid sheeple who don;t have a clue that they abosrb 1000 times more RF from the local television or radio broadcast towers or from their damn microwave ovens or their "Handy Talks" or whatever other kind of RF generating appliances they have.

Yes telco's can be greedy assholes, but trust me they are not stupid.

Re:The obvious answer

[jgreco]

I come from a telecom background. You need to get a clue about how cell phone amps work, and why what you're talking about isn't particularly relevant. Amps don't just automatically pump out peak signal. They're intelligent devices, very much like cell phones.

Anyways, you completely failed to answer my question, so I'm guessing you don't actually have a reasonable answer, and as such, I feel no need to continue this.

Re:The obvious answer

[FlyingGuy]

No I understood you just fine, you just want the Telco's to be wrong and be the bad guy in all this because you have dropped calls and places where there is spotty service.

Those people aren't trying to fix the companies problem at all, they are trying to fix their own particular problems, because they could give a shit about the Telco's problems.

Later

Tough call...

[MetalliQaZ]

From TFA,
"Supported by separate filings by AT&T and Verizon, the CTIA claims that boosters interfere with cellular networks and disrupt service to customers. As a result, CTIA has asked the F.C.C. to require that “the use of signal boosters be coordinated with and controlled by commission licensees and the sale and marketing of such devices be limited to authorized parties.” "

In other words, "we want exclusive rights to sell them, and not because it will make us tons of money and save the cost of improving our networks in poorly covered areas, we are actually looking out for consumers".

While I'm sure their motivations are at least somewhat greedy, I can't imagine the frustration of living next door to a guy who has a poorly configured or broken repeater that prevents me from making calls.

tough call...

Re:Tough call...

[jgreco]

Of course, they already have a ton of random devices all successfully sharing the airwaves. I can pop a SIM card in any random (unlocked, sigh) GSM phone that works on at&t frequencies and expect it to work. Why is it that it's just the cell repeaters that are a problem?

Re:Tough call...

[squiggleslash]

Perhaps because a GSM phone conforms to the GSM mobile phone standard, whereas a signal booster is a device that retransmits all radio signals in a certain part of the spectrum?

Or to use the car analogy: there's a reason why Amtrak would get annoyed at you trying to drive your Honda Odyssey over its rails, despite the large number of different locomotives that work on it.

Re:Tough call...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to use a cellular repeater at my home because of poor AT&T coverage in my area and the inability of the carrier's weak signals to penetrate the structure of my house. It was fine for bringing minimal-to-decent outdoor signal into the house, but the repeater's output was very low (2-3 bars inside the house was typical). The signal was not strong enough to be picked up outside of the house (or even in the attached garage), which is by design (else the outside antenna would be pick up the inside transmitter and you would have a signal loop). The transmitter was so weak that when AT&T finally stood up another tower in my area and began providing good coverage, I had to turn off the repeater to keep my phones from choosing the weaker repeater signal over the solid carrier signal while inside the house. Outside, the phones always chose the tower signal.

TL;DR: the residential cell repeaters such as the $500 PowerMax unit I installed do not put out a strong enough signal to cause interference with other cellular users - at least not in a typical single-family housing, residential neighborhood. Maybe in a condo/apartment block it's a different story.

Re:Tough call...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'd hazard an uneducated guess that your random cell phone is connecting to a cell tower, and is doing what the system was built to handle. A repeater, on the other hand, is broadcasting its own 3g signal. I honestly don't know how much that could interfere with legitimate service as I don't know how efficient the repeaters really are, but it seems clear that it's a far different use case.

Re:Tough call...

[Nethemas the Great]

I would personally like to know just what kind of a problem these "supposed" rogue repeaters are. How many people are presently being adversely affected by them. On the face of it their argument makes a certain sense, they could be a problem but are they really? Moreover since radio equipment is already regulated by the FCC would it not be appropriate to simply use the existing framework for ensuring that said equipment does not interfere. A thing I'm fairly certain it's already doing and thus this isn't a real problem except for carrier business models.

Re:Tough call...

[Nethemas the Great]

BTW: for those bored and feel like reading... here are the basic rules and such for unlicensed transmitters.

Re:Tough call...

[Terrasque]

These repeaters have been in the news here in Norway a bit. They're legal to buy, but need permit from telecompany to use (which NEVER happens, as far as I can tell).

The big, big problems with these repeaters is that if not correctly set up, they can create feedback loops with nearby cell tower(s) and effectively block all mobile phone use in the area. This have already happen at least once (The town of Voss, iirc. Lost mobile coverage over half the area until the repeater was shut down).

Re:Tough call...

[jgreco]

Perhaps if this was an FM radio amplifier, yes. However, all of the common cellular technologies are significantly more complex and involve sharing of the spectrum. That would mean that any amplifier would need to have much the same sharing logic as a cell phone would.

Re:Tough call...

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds from various posters earlier, that these actually cause problems with frequency sharing and reduce the overall load capabilities of the networks.

That, combined with the noise problems in a local area, makes me think this is kinda warranted. I think of it a bit like limiting FM broadcasting power in consumer devices. I don't want to pull up next to another car at the stoplight and have my radio station washed out because they bought an fm transmitter for their ipod.

Re:Tough call...

[squiggleslash]

If you look at what these do, they are indeed FM amplifiers. The clue is that they're spec'd by spectrum, not by cellular standard. The work you'd do in repeating, up the stack and back down, an IS-95 signal, is entirely different and unrelated to that you'd use for a W-CDMA (or HS*PA) signal, which in turn is different from a GSM signal. The three standards are pretty close to entirely unrelated at the radio level.

Re:first pot

[courteaudotbiz]

Your repeater is not reliable enough?

Booster recommendations?

[OzPeter]

Can anyone give recommendations to cell phone boosters that they have used? I'm with T-Mobile and typically get 1 bar in the house (if I am lucky). T-Mobiles solution is to allow calls via Wi-Fi but that only works if you have wi-fi enabled phone AND a contract - and I have neither. And I don't want to change carriers either.

Re:Booster recommendations?

[jgreco]

Wilson makes an absolutely fantastic booster for GSM, the 812201, which is a "direct connect" (wired) booster for a single device. I've used it with data cards and cell phones along zero-bar areas like Amtrak lines in Pennsylvania (suddenly had 3 bars and was the only person on the train with a working cell phone) and in Utah, which has sparse GSM coverage due to low population. This isn't a good house solution, but it'd make me willing to bet on their other products.

Re:Booster recommendations?

[CityZen]

The zBoost repeaters work pretty well. I got an YX-500 from Ebay for $100, and it works nicely for T-mobile. (Be sure to check that the frequencies supported by a given model match the ones used by your service provider.) Proper setup is important: the antenna to the cell tower must get an adequate signal, and it must be a minimum distance away from the repeater. The zBoost is nice in that you can use regular TV coax cable to connect the external antenna to the repeater.

In the building where I am, the cement is reinforced with wire mesh, and thus I could only get a signal standing near a window. With the repeater, I don't have that problem anymore.

Re:Booster recommendations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a Nexus One and search the XDA forums for the wifi calling solution. I have no contract on Tmob and it works wonderfully.

Re:Booster recommendations?

[vuke69]

http://jdteck.com/jd55-pr-kit-std-consumer-repeater-kits-p-692.html

Option "I" it's the only repeater on the market that works with T-Mobile 3G in the US.

Re:Booster recommendations?

[thynk]

You might check out UMA or wifi-calling that Tmob has on some of their handsets. I use it on my G2 and it's beautiful for voice and SMS (Not MMS).

Re:Booster recommendations?

[da' WINS pimp]

I use the Wilson dual-band CDMA/Sprint version in rural TX. I don't have the model info in front of me, but it is 12vDC, comes with a contact retransmit antenna (you have to set your phone in contact with it to work) and a 25' magnetic uni-directional exterior antenna. It is designed primarily for use inside a vehicle, but my understanding is you can replace both antennas (BNC connectors to coax) with directional models. As long as you don't overlap the coverage (or you are effectively retransmitting inside a Faraday cage like me) it will work for a small coverage area (100 sq. ft. 'ish).

With the existing setup I go from 0-1 bar max to 3-4 bars, and on a good day can get full EVDO data. At some point I may swap the antennas and try the area setup, but that is another $100-150 in antennas unless I want to build my own.

Does not supprise me.

[dhickman]

An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.

People get amps to make up with poor cell service, and/or the fact that their tiny little handset does not work in a rural area/congested area.

Since the majority of people out there do not know how to properly install an antenna/transmitter, I am sure that the amps cause all kinds of headaches for the carriers.

Personally I use in my truck a Motorola M900 ( a full power gsm bag phone) for its excellent hands free and for the high power when I need it.
Otherwise I carry my N900 around for portablily and cool features, but I do not expect it to work 20 miles from the nearest tower.

Re:Does not supprise me.

[Shakrai]

An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.

My old WISP employer learned this lesson the hard way. "Sure, we have -100dBm of received power and a negative signal to noise ratio, but I'm sure this $20 amplifier that exceeds the allowable FCC power limits will enable it to work!"

Re:Does not supprise me.

[TWX]

An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.

That may be true if the device is solely placed where the signal is poor, the tuner is inadequate, the antenna is bad, and the amplifier has nothing to work with, but the solutions that I've seen nullify many of these problems.

These devices have two parts. One part, located ideally outside, high up, talks to the cell company. the other part, located where the poorest signal is normally, talks to the cell phones. On top of that, these devices have much larger antennas than the phones do, and with more size they can also have better radio tuners. So, you're not amplifying crap, you're getting a better signal and forwarding it to another device that is in an area that can't get the original.

Re:Does not supprise me.

[Sockatume]

An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.

If a HAM operator has bad reception, they've got bad reception in pretty optimal receiving conditions: a good antenna in a sensible place. So the signal must be the limiting factor. Amplification is not going to help that. Cellphone users try to get reception on tiny antennas, next to their leg, in the middle of their house. The signal outside might be pretty decent. Repeating it indoors could rescue it.

Re:Does not supprise me.

[VortexCortex]

Not to mention, some repeaters are digital. The whole point of a digital repeater is that an amplifier can correct the shitty signal.

Also not to mention: Phones are TWO WAY. A nearby repeater greatly increases the disproportionate outgoing range of your cell phone.

If you've ever been able to hear someone on your cell, but they can not hear you, you probably could have benefited from an amplifier.

Re:Does not supprise me.

[Anonymous Coward]

My work space is close to being a Faraday Cage so I have been using these for years, starting with the old AMPS phones. Pairing with a high gain external antenna really multiplies the effectiveness.

The repeater is powered by an external power source, your phone can use it's lowest power setting, conserving the charge, while you still have consistent coverage.

In mobile operations (such as mine) the signal coverage is consistent internally, independent of where we are parked and what the external conditions are.

Given that, a poorly configured or improperly used repeater could cause havoc locally. I can understand why the cell providers would want to have control, but don't trust them to wield that power in any logical way. Any "Carrier Licensed" repeaters would be another profit center, not a tool to improve cr@ppy service areas.

Re:Does not supprise me.

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^ Completely ignoring the folks that only have access to cell based broadband in their home/ office.

I've setup many antennae and antennae/ booster combination's for folks using cell based broadband in their homes, without the extra equipment they would not have broadband.

So the "old ham radio" saying is a load of crap regarding this topic.

How the hell can anyone botch up a cell antennae/ booster is beyond me, and how this could negatively affect anyone else is a real headscratcher...

Re:Does not supprise me.

[adolf]

I've got a little bit of experience with some of these devices.

I've installed an inexpensive 2-node system in a factory of about 15,000 square feet.

I've also installed, and maintain, a much larger distributed system that covers a 7-story hospital building, with several antennas on each floor (if you're thinking "holy shit is that a lot of 3/4" Heliax," you're on the right track -- we used miles of the stuff), and in each stairwell, with additional coverage for VHF fire/EMS and 800MHz law enforcement.

In both cases, power levels (inside and outside) are very low -- the idea is to radiate as little energy as possible, while still getting things to work properly. The outside antennas are directional, with a panel antenna with integrated electronics on the former system, and a collection of Yagis feeding a 7-foot rack full of stuff on the latter.

And, in both cases, the coverage went from no signal, to great signal. And I don't just mean signal strength -- much quality time was spend monitoring error rates, taking notes, and futzing around with service monitors. (I guess them hams was wrong -- we amplified our crap and got great results.)

The cheap system (made by Wilson, IIRC) was a no-brainer to install: Stick the antenna on the roof, run some 75-ohm coax to it (we used RG-11), power up and aim the thing (it had a lovely LED bar graph on the back of it), and then place the indoor antennas where appropriate. And then, just walk around with a handset in test mode and see if the coverage is as expected, while possibly reorienting the indoor antennas.

The expensive system is a complicated maze of big 50 ohm coax and incredibly expensive low-loss splitters, with a variety of amplifiers and several different antenna configurations. I don't take credit for designing it -- the manufacturer does that themselves, working from a blueprint of the building.

Anyone with their wits about them and an F crimper or compression tool could install the former, simple system. It's easy. There is no detailed configuration. It just works. This is the sort of thing the article is discussing -- a simple-to-install repeater system that has no means by which a user could screw it up.

The complicated system required three days for the manufacturer to adjust and test, on-site. It possessed the potential to completely ruin communications over a broad swath of spectrum if it were not properly configured. But it as a few orders of magnitude more expensive, as well...

Please don't assume that everything is as challenging as that, or that the concept is somehow unsound. It's just not the case. While there is certainly potential for a poorly-designed do-it-yourself system to trash a cell network, it seems to be more the exception than the rule, and we've already got laws to deal with folks who do stuff like that (unintentionally, or not).

Passive Boosters?

[Joe U]

Anyone ever try a passive booster?

Overly simplified: it's basically an external antenna connected to an internal antenna.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[dmgxmichael]

Yes, when I drove a truck. They are very popular with truck drivers and you can find them at any truck stop -- admittedly in a form well suited to being bolted to a truck. Most drivers put the thing on whatever mirror is not holding their CB ariel. I have seen a few suitable for use in a car there though, so look around.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I made 1 for Metro PCS for use in my house where the reception was spotty.

It did improve the reception to where it stopped dropping calls but I did not notice an improvement in the number of bars displayed.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[MobyDisk]

Fewer and fewer phones are coming with connectors for external antennas.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you really want is one of these with a directional antenna for the external, aimed at a tower. That takes care of the interference problems with other towers.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[foxharp]

do these exist in a form suitable for whole-house use?

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Guppy]

Not a passive booster, but I've used an external antenna before on my Touch HTC -- which still has a jack for such a thing (many newer phones do not, or have them hidden internally with no holes in the case for access).

In some locations I sent from 0-1 bars to 1-2 bar, which doesn't sound like much but makes an enormous difference in being able to make phone calls and transmit data.

I also tested it out using Field test mode (For those with an HTC Touch, enter ##33284# to access)
to see the dbm measurements, and there were definite changes as I moved the external antenna around the room.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not a booster, it is a passive repeater. The word boost means that it boosts the signal. Passive repeaters are fairly common in the microwave world. If there is an object in the way of your shot put an antenna on both sides of the object and connect with coax/waveguide.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Guppy]

Are any of these examples of what you're talking about?
http://www.google.com/products?q=cell%20phone%20passive%20repeater

I'm curious about them, but cautious about cheap ones which may not work.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[afidel]

Yes, basically you take a yagi and point it at the nearest tower and then attach an omni via a short cable and you have a passive repeater that should cover a house nicely. Though to be of much use it would probably need to go through the roof.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[CityZen]

Isn't an antenna itself an amplifier of sorts? After all, what does "gain" mean re: high-gain antenna?

The idea is to have a high-gain antenna directed towards a cell tower connected to a moderate antenna that covers your living space.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[Tacvek]

Heck most of the time you should be able to get away with an a pair of omnidirectional antennas, one in the Faraday cage (house) and one outside connected by RG6. A high gain directional should really only be needed if you also have pretty poor signal outside the house.

Re:Passive Boosters?

[adolf]

They work fine.

It's just two antennas, connected together. In a car (which acts a bit like a Faraday cage), you might just think of it as a hole that allows the RF to leak in, plus a little bit more height.

In my mostly-windowless work van, I've built my own: There is a through-mounted gain antenna on the roof, and a magnetic mount gain antenna on the inside, connected by a few inches of coax.

Works well enough: I put it together after I was on my way to a job one day, and close to my destination there was a bridge out (I'd been ignoring the detour signs because I was close). So, I pulled out my trusty Droid, fired up Google Maps and, lo! There was no cell coverage. I spent half an hour trying to cross that body of water, and was late. Boo.*

So, I threw it together out of spare parts. And the next time I was in that stretch of the woods, I had plenty of bandwidth. At a glance, it would appear that any of the stuff you linked to would behave similarly well. (My antennas probably have higher gain, but the off-the-shelf passive repeaters don't have the connector losses that mine does.)

*: A paper map would've worked just as well, but wouldn't help me make phone calls in poor coverage areas, would've had non-zero cost, and wouldn't give me an excuse to drill holes in the truck. (I like drilling holes in automobiles.)

Simple solution for carriers. Do the right thing

[nevermindme]

Simple solution for carriers. Do the right thing and provide PICOcell (to Broadband) or Repeaters at zero cost and control the equipment. Instead of litigation, spend some time to develeop a single chassie, E911 (dGPS), software radio, 30 day UPSed, solution and send a text invite to everyone who has a single bar at the same address they get their bill sent to. Now if they were real smart they could add WiMax and WiFi and make every one of these points where customers could opt in for additional services.

Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[RobinEggs]

Read the third paragraph from the bottom to see what's really happening. Carriers don't want boosters dead, they simply want to become the vendors rather than allow smaller companies a slice of the action.

Furthermore, look at what femtocells, the type of boosters Verizon and AT&T want to sell you, actually do: they "push wireless signals onto the Internet" to improve signal.

That's right, rather than upgrade networks that the iPhone and Droid will saturate to uselessness within the next year (I hear that in NYC AT&T is already almost worthless), they're pushing a device that works around their own incompetence by shoving your "wireless" signal back onto copper, fiber, or coax before it even leaves your house. They're not just avoiding the issue of under-developed networks, they've figured out how to charge you for it.

Rather than trying to ban unregulated devices and trying to transform our cell phones into wireless landlines wherever they can manage it, how about they propose better specifications for the "boosters" that actually boost a wireless signal, or spend some money on their damn networks?

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[b0bby]

Mod parent up - boosters sold by others still use their towers, femtocells sold by the carriers use your internet connection. If they can outlaw the boosters, the carriers win twice.

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[kbielefe]

I make a living writing embedded software for telecommunications equipment and am also a ham radio operator, so I have a hard time seeing why this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone, but if you want more wireless bandwidth and less congestion, each individual's signal must have the lowest power necessary for reliable communication.

For example, say you have 100 cell phones in active use at any given time in your neighborhood. If every cell phone signal in that neighborhood is boosted to be able to cover the entire neighborhood, each subscriber necessarily is limited to 1% of the available wireless bandwidth for that neighborhood. If you limit each signal to the walls of a person's home, every individual gets 100 times more bandwidth because they aren't competing with their neighbors. You can always lay more fiber to increase bandwidth. Increased wireless bandwidth is only possible by limited technological improvements. That's an over-simplification, but you get my point.

Boosting an individual's signal may be temporarily good for that individual, but bad for the system. There are alternatives that are good for both the individual and the system. Hence, the desire for regulation.

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[russotto]

Boosting an individual's signal may be temporarily good for that individual, but bad for the system.

If the booster behaves the same as any other cellular device -- that is, has the same maximum power and adaptive power characteristics -- then from the system's point of view it's the same as if someone climbed up on their roof with such a device. A booster can have more power than a handheld cellphone (because FCC human exposure limits for handheld phones are less than the limits for cellular devices in general), but not all cellular devices are handheld cellphones.

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[kbielefe]

from the system's point of view it's the same as if someone climbed up on their roof

True, but irrelevant. Climbing on the roof is still better for the individual at the expense of the system. Just because behavior is accepted and accounted for doesn't make it optimal.

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[Chelloveck]

Even better than that. Now the carrier, which is probably your landline and internet carrier as well, through one of their nifty triple-play bundles, can hit you for "excessive internet usage" charges due to all that extra voice traffic. It's not just a win-win, it's a win-win-win.

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[Lehk228]

the FCC needs to mandate that airtime not be counted when it is not carried by cellular towers or carrier provided broadband (such as AT&T wifi hotspots)

Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters

[russotto]

True, but irrelevant. Climbing on the roof is still better for the individual at the expense of the system.

Err, no. It's better for the individual, possibly at the expense of some other individual (if the system is running at capacity), but it's not bad for the system at all.

carriers: "We don't need not regulation"

[ndbecker]

Right now, the carriers are having their drones (congressman, esp Republicans) argue there is no need for regulation of the internet. Oh, but I guess we need it when it's in their interest.

Re:first pot

[oldspewey]

Mod parent "repeater"

T-Mobile 3G Booster

[vuke69]

http://jdteck.com/jd55-pr-kit-std-consumer-repeater-kits-p-692.html

Option "I" it's the only repeater on the market that works with T-Mobile 3G in the US.

Passive Repeaters

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab two big beefy high gain cell phone antennas, these should be at least a foot or two tall and well thought out. Also grab however much low loss coax you need, the pricier the better, and connectors to go on the end of the cable to plug it straight in to the antennas. Connect it all up and stick one antenna somewhere you know you have good service ("full bars") and the other end where you need service. I would suggest using a very high gain directional antenna of some sort for the "link to tower" side of the system. If you do a good job installing it, it will work fine. If you just throw the ends around and ignore grounding it won't work at all. There is nothing illegal about doing this, whereas active solutions are obviously in a bit of a grey area because they actively transmit on licensed frequencies.

The only time you should ever need an active solution is if you have a very large area to cover (like an entire multistory office building, not your house). A passive system works for smaller areas only because the phones are close enough to an endpoint to have overcome the losses in the system.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to realize how and why this works. The benefits should be obvious though.

UMA Over Wi-Fi Acomplishes the same thing

[bamwham]

This is (one of) the reason(s) I started getting Wi-Fi capable phones. Plus I only have to have my wireless router configured. Seems like the better solution than a separate antenna system. Of course not every service supports UMA capability - or at least not on every phone that could have it.

Interesting tidbit FTA...

[InvisiBill]

The article mentions that AT&T and Verizon are selling femtocells for $150 and $250 respectively, while T-Mobile has some "WiFi phones" that can use VoIP directly and Sprint gives out their femtocells for free to customers with proven signal issues.

Unlike AT&T and Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile have not told the F.C.C. of any concerns about boosters.

While I do understand that a proliferation of random radio devices could very well lead to issues, it does seem a bit suspect that the carriers selling competing products are complaining about this, while the carriers that are not selling them have not mentioned this problem.

Who deserves the right to capitalize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that the security and regulation of these devices is sorted out, the question in my mind is "Who deserves to capitalize on the boosters"? As land lines continue on a trend that leads to them being completely obsolete, the demand for these devices will become much greater. There are few things more frustrating then knowing that you can download a movie more seamlessly then make a phone call within your house. Some sort of device will be needed to allow for cell phone reception to be clear both indoors and outdoors. If it is decided that the service providers should have control to more adequately control the boosters, how will this affect consumers? Will it strengthen the strangle hold that the major providers have in the market? Maybe the best solution would be for the companies currently selling these products to make an agreement with the cell providers that allows for control. This agreement could involve payment to the service providers to use their network. There should be some advantage for the companies who first moved into the market.

Re:extra towers

[microcars]

while I agree with your comment that they want to regulate away the competition that they have no control over, it is just not that easy to "put up extra towers".
I have terrible service in my home and there is nowhere they can stick up another tower in my residential neighborhood.
I would let them stick a tower in my backyard but the neighbors won't allow it.
They all want great reception but they don't want the towers anywhere near their homes.
The only solution I can think of is to use existing above ground Utility poles for micro-cells or something.
Or buy a Femtocell (which is what I did and it pretty much solved all my problems). What incentive do they have to put up micro-cells on Utility poles when people like me will actually buy femtocells?
I'm not sitting around waiting for them to increase coverage "someday". I need coverage NOW. $150? fine, done.

Exactly, and they really work.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Ah, but they want the customer to pay *them* (the carriers) for the privilege of solving the carriers problem, not some upstart little company who has started selling boosters on Amazon.

You're not kidding. I recently installed a Wilson booster that I got from Amazon, and it's like a whole new world for me.

Usually I had about 5 minutes of signal coverage leaving work, which is only useful for short conversations. On my long Interstate drives I'd lose signal about every 15 minutes, which made drive-time talk unpredictable. And this is on Verizon - no other carriers have close to their signal here.

With the booster, I can have a meaningful conversation on my whole ride home. There are no dead zones on my Interstate drives, so I can whittle down my GTD calls list on the road.

One thing to be aware of is that these things require an earpiece. 2010 is a good year for them - I got a Motorola Bluetooth setup from NewEgg for about $40 and it's actually great. I have a small collection of them from previous years which all suck big time. The only downside is the Motorola unit comes in a monstrous piece of cast aluminum packaging. I guess it's to thwart retail-store theft, but via NewEgg it's environmentally reprehensible.

Anyway, the Wilson booster paid for itself the first week I had it. I have a second one at my office to install in the wife's car this weekend.

Now, if I could only get PagePlus to port our numbers I'd be really happy.

Re:Exactly, and they really work.

[natehoy]

I have a Wilson unit that has a magnetic antenna that fits on the roof and a very small antenna that goes inside the car. There's no need to put the phone in a special spot, the unit basically ensures that any cell phone located inside the car gets signal as long as there's enough signal reaching the outside antenna.

Mine is very old, but is basically an earlier model of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Wilson-Electronics-801232-Mini-Mobile-Booster/dp/B001DTZ2AA/ref=sr_1_12?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1290106181&sr=1-12

For home, I have aluminum siding and a metal roof, so I had to install a ZyXel Z-Boost unit.

http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Extenders-zBoost-YX545-Booster/dp/B003VOW5WI/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1290106292&sr=1-2-fkmr0

It's an expensive little bugger and installing it is no treat, but It ensures that the inside of my house is well-covered with signal, and allowed me to drop my last non-cell telephone line. It paid for itself pretty quickly.

Re:Exactly, and they really work.

[bill_mcgonigle]

and a very small antenna that goes inside the car

Nice - last time I looked there was a requirement for more antenna separation than I could provide, but I should have looked again. I also bought the cradle-type because I'm cheap and was skeptical, but I'm actually glad it forced me to go hands-free.

I think the model you linked would have been worth the extra money, though, for two reasons: 1) my car essentailly has no smooth flat spots to put the stick-on cradle 2) if I don't remember the earpiece for whatever reason I'm stuck.

The cheap one does really work well, but the better model allows more flexibility.

Aren't those microcells?

[Firethorn]

As far as I know, what AT&T and Verizon are selling are 'microcells', basically miniature cell towers that convert your phone's signal to VOIP to get to their network; it uses your home's internet connection.

These are a bit distinct from cell phone boosters, which still has you using your phone company's towers by taking your phone's (likely) .25 watt max power signal and amplifying it to the maximum legal power of 2-4 watts*, often using a directional antenna mounted somewhere outside - like the roof.

This would be fine and dandy at my old place which was like 30 miles from the closest tower. Not so good at my parents, who are in some sort of 'signal depression' such that they have even less signal inside, but lots on the roof, the antenna is only about a mile away. Still, most have automatic gain control, so while one on my house might use the full strength(it's got a lot of distance to cover), even with a directional antenna to give me 4-5 bars, my parents might 'whisper', only needing to avoid the interference that the house adds combined with a better line of sight with the added height of the roof.

I did quite a bit of research on boosters because, well, I had lousy signal in my old(rural) place, but balked at the $500 to do a proper job of it, and it was before microcells started becoming available. Then I found out my job was moving me, and it became academic.

*Actual level dependent upon frequency, country, and other factors.

Re:Aren't those microcells?

[RobNich]

I helped oversee the installation of a repeater for the Nextel service about 7 years ago. (I ran the RF cabling and we hired a radio company to install the device and antennas.) My understanding is that it takes a portion of the frequency spectrum used by the cell tower and amplifies it locally, shifted up or down. It does the same for a local corresponding frequency block, shifting it and amplifying it toward the tower.

This places the repeater coverage in a frequency range outside of that of the tower, and means that there's no chance of feedback on the tower's frequencies. Phones are always searching for the strongest frequency, so those that enter the repeater area may settle on the repeater's frequency range if it's stronger, and as they leave the repeater range, they simply continue searching for the strongest available frequency.

This method may be specific to the iDen protocol, but it may be useful for GSM as well.

Of course, the device installation had to be surveyed by Nextel and was installed by one of their partners, a local company that apparently happened to also maintain Nextel's cell sites. The shifted frequency range had to be within Nextel's licensed spectrum for the geographic region, and also not step on any nearby Nextel towers or repeaters. They also helped by providing a dead-accurate map showing the location of the nearest towers, along with information on their power and direction.

Re:Aren't those microcells?

[Firethorn]

The boosters I've looked at are much cheaper, but don't do frequency shifting; you need a certain minimum Db difference between the indoor antenna and the outdoor one otherwise you can get feedback.

frequency shifting would indeed be a reason to get the techs involved; sounds like you were essentially installing a cell tower in the building.

I ahve to address your sig

[geekoid]

Modern libertarian is NOT the same as Jeffersonian.

I am so sick and god damn tired of people trying to associate there stupid Libertarian fallacies.

The very thinkgs Jeffersonians believe in ou contrary to Libertarians.

For example" Jeffersonians think Banks, People who run them, and industrialist are corrupt and should be regulated.

Another example: Jeffersonians recognize that the constitution isn't written in stone and will need to adopt according to the current generation.

This is the same shit they lied about in '76

Re:I ahve to address your sig

[operagost]

Who said that libertarians don't believe in amending the Constitution? Talk about fallacies. In addition, if you were truly Jeffersonian, you would have to accept even greater state power than the average libertarian espouses. The Antifederalists wanted extremely decentralized power, emphasizing agrarian interests.

Repeaters, yes, boosters, no

[Animats]

The problem with "boosters" is that they're just amplifiers. They're not players in the cell phone RF protocol system.

Everything that talks in the cell phone bands is supposed to be part of a system that has RF power level control and talks to the cell phone control station. That's what keeps the transmitters from jamming each other. Adding a dumb transmitter isn't helpful. The right answer would be a "femtocell" unit which connects to an external antenna and connected to the cellular network, and is itself a proper player in the RF protocol.

It would be OK to have a booster if the problem was that you're in a remote location and just need some antenna height to get out. (I'm in such a situation; I'm in a semi-rural area and there's a hill between my house and the nearest cell tower.) What's not OK is installing a booster in Manhattan, where you can't get through because the bands are cluttered, not empty. More RF signal strength just raises the noise floor and cuts system bandwidth. In a crowded area, what's needed is another wired path into the network, not more RF power.

A cell phone that could seamlessly transition from a cell phone network to VoIP over WiFi would be consistent with the system design. There ought to be an Android app for that.

Re:Repeaters, yes, boosters, no

[Agripa]

Everything that talks in the cell phone bands is supposed to be part of a system that has RF power level control and talks to the cell phone control station. That's what keeps the transmitters from jamming each other. Adding a dumb transmitter isn't helpful. The right answer would be a "femtocell" unit which connects to an external antenna and connected to the cellular network, and is itself a proper player in the RF protocol.

Since the boosters are linear amplifiers, when the cell tower and the cell phone adjust transmit power the booster amplifier power output will adjust also. It just functions as another fixed gain or loss element.

Boo Hoo

[TheWoozle]

The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.

What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:

Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market!
Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!

but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...

Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD!
Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!

Sounds good to me

[ArhcAngel]

Let them get the law but have it regulate all femtocels such that third parties can provide them to end users and carriers cannot charge extra for their use.

Re:extra towers

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the MicroCell (AT&T's name for what you called a FemtoCell) was a better deal. It provides full 3G coverage for a house-sized location with the backbone being your DSL/Cable. Well, if I am paying for the power, bandwidth, $150 device, and the receiver is paying for the receiving (unlike in some other countries)... why the heck am I using up minutes?!! Shouldn't minutes going through this device be counted the same as in-network or weekends? I doubt the call "routing" for net calls cost anything compared to the cellular routing for N&WKs.

If we had service at our homes, we not need them

[bobjr94]

I have been looking at buying one myself, I am tired of going outside on a rainy night and holding my phone up to send a text back to someone. T-mobile, Verizon & ATT all have little to no service around our house.

Re: Nope...

[colinnwn]

T-Mobile didn't discontinue the feature, only the $10/mo upgrade that provided unmetered minutes. Most people believe it wasn't discontinued because of low penetration, but to encourage people to upgrade to their "low cost" unlimited or higher rate plans. Now all minutes, regardless of how they originate, are billed to your rate plan.

The feature is called UMA, and they sell phones (mostly Blackberries) that feature it. They supposedly will have an app that will allow UMA on Android soon. One cool advantage is you can connect by UMA/WiFi in a foreign country and place or receive calls to/from your home country with no roaming charge. It is billed as if you are still in your home country. Of course calls to/from numbers in the foreign country you are in will be charged long distance as if they were originated inside your home country too.

Awesome - a new Super bowl

[s122604]

Not the football game, I'm talking about 27.025Mhz

How long till we have the tragedy of the commons effect seen on 27MHZ CB...

Giv'em Welfare...!

[OldHawk777]

Please, Mister Government Man, my company can't compete in this unfair market place.
Please, Mister Government Man, give me money, tax brakes, and protection from competition and innovation.
Mister Government Man either give me what I want or I will fyck you in the next election with PAC-Truth slander.

THANKS for your assistance Uncle Sam, it will help he to outsource more and import cheap labor.

Then The People spoke fyck U$ every time.

I have one of these boosters because

[Dee Ann_1]

AT&T SUCKS.

I was a Centennial Wireless customer for years. They had towers all over and everywhere I went, I had 5 bars of signal.
Inside any and all buildings, anywhere. My cell phone worked perfectly inside my house which has a steel roof, inside stores, inside METAL buildings.

AT&T bought up Centennial and they turned off all the Centennial towers. There is ONE AT&T cell tower now to cover the entire area where I live and the signal strength is POOR.
I get "no signal" inside buildings, inside stores, and especially inside metal buildings. Inside my house, service was usually "no signal" or if I was lucky, ONE BAR.
I would miss calls, and there were constant dropped calls. I was PISSED. However I have an iPhone and moving to Verizon isn't an option.
Even when I put my SIM back in my old Nokia the service was still PISS POOR.

What I did find out through the FCC website, AT&T has turned all the old Centennial towers into ROAMING TOWERS so when I can't get a decent AT&T signal, which is frequently, it jumps me to an old Centennial tower and gives me 5 bars of signal but it says ROAMING here in my home town and I'm charged roaming fees.
IN MY OWN HOME I AM CHARGED ROAMING FEES!!

I bought one of those zBoost yx510 boosters. I had an antenna put up on my roof, 22 feet up in the air and I had the inside unit mounted to the ceiling in the center of my house. Now when I'm in my house I get 5 bars of signal, like I used to get on Centennial, before AT&T screwed things up. This booster, and I'm sure others, are great but they only help you in your home, they do no good when you're in a store and have no service there.

BTW, the cell thinging that AT&T sells, is CRAP. You have to have DSL service and it routes your phone calls through the DSL service and they then charge you data rates for doing so. It's not a cell repeater, it converts your cell phone into a wifi phone more or less. And if you walk out of your house or into your house with the AT&T "repeater" it drops the call, it won't do hand offs. The zBoost does do hand offs flawlessly, I can walk in and out of my personal cell bubble inside/outside and there is no glitch, no drop.

AT&T is a bunch of inept thieves. They are crooks and thieves and criminals and they rip people off with the WORST service on earth, period.
I despise AT&T with every fiber of my soul and being.

I had to spend $400 on this booster to get back service that I once had. I loved Centennial, they were 100% reliable no matter where I went, no matter where I traveled. I never missed calls, never had dropped calls, I was never over charged, I had GREAT terms of 200 minutes a month outgoing and unlimited 24/7 incoming minutes. I would call people and tell them "hey, call me back" and talk for free for as long as I wanted.

AT&T is garbage. AT&T sucks. Worst company on earth run by criminals that needs to be disbanded and torn down. Capitalism at it's worst.

By the way, check out this site, http://deadcellzones.com/
They are also on facebook if you look them up. You can report deadzones in your area.

Wireless Provider Power Trip

[mcnameer]

I thought that there already were FCC regulations prohibiting unlicensed transmitters in licensed bands such as for cellular? Cell phones operated in the U.S. need to get FCC type acceptance, and operate under the license of the wireless provider they are using. What the wireless providers seem to be arguing here is that their license gives them the right to control anything that behaves like a cell site.

I think people are missing the issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think wireless providers really care if you install a booster. The article doesn't mention that providers want absolute control over selling repeaters, that was speculation by the author.

Their complaint is that repeaters can have negative affects on their network, this is a legitimate concern. Boosters have the possibility of spreading the signal into bands that it shouldn't be in, raising the noise floor, and amplifying signals in other bands which it shouldn't. All legitimte concerns that could be controlled with regulation on booster specifications.

The average home consumer looking to get better signal repection doesn't have an understanding of how signals are transmitted over RF waves, and could easily mess with something they shouldn't and did not intend to.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Mobile phones were not intended for household use

[kriston]

It's simple. Mobile phones were not intended for household use. The 1900 MHz frequency does not penetrate walls very well. Those services (AT&T and VZW) that do have 850 MHz spectrum have moved as much of their voice service and control channels down to 850 MHz as possible because it penetrates walls so much better.

Sprint and T-Mobile are stuck in the 1900 MHz range in most markets. These are the majority of booster customers. The problem is that the boosters mess up an already weak service.

In Sprint's case, it's exponentially worse, since CDMA only works because the handset and the base station carefully agree on power levels, and the booster removes that control, thus causing havoc all over the Sprint CDMA bands.

Time to end cellular piracy.

[bobs666]

When we all have cellular repeaters on our roofs there will be only a need for ISP's 100's of them, when the right of way is returned to the people. It can work there is the bandwidth, 4G works TCP/IP works and automated routing works, QED. With many not 2 or 4 vendors replaced with 100;s of ISP's there will be capitalism and the prices will will reflect the value. Unlike what we have now.