Got a Cell Phone Booster? FCC Says You Have To Turn It Off

First time accepted submitter Dngrsone writes "Some two million people have bought cell-phone wireless signal boosters and have been using them to get better communication between their phones and distant cell towers. But now, the FCC says they all have to turn their boosters off and ask permission from their providers, and register their devices with those providers, before they can turn them back on."

Comments

I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just falling all over myself to listen to an agency that fines people tens of thousands of dollars for saying "fuck" on the radio.

Re:I'll get right on that

[cod3r_]

Yah.. I'm inclined to say "or else what?" Have fun chasing down those oilfield trucks that are 30 miels in the brush illegally using cell phone boosters!

Re:I'll get right on that

[Dishevel]

To put it succinctly ... Fuck the FCC
 

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just falling all over myself to listen to an agency that fines people tens of thousands of dollars for saying "fuck" on the radio.

Ricky Bobby, is that you?

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what I came to say. I *am* in the oilfield services and make heavy use of my booster, as do many of my coworkers. They can take a flying F at a rolling donut if they think this is going to affect us in any way.

Re:I'll get right on that

[dougmc]

Have fun chasing down those oilfield trucks that are 30 miels in the brush illegally using cell phone boosters!

The FCC used to have great fun chasing down 18 wheelers with their CB radio amplifiers. CB radios are supposed to be capped at four watts, but some people used amplifiers that boosted that to hundreds or thousands of watts. And the FCC would get complaints and would track down the offenders, sometimes as they're driving down the road -- after all, 20 kW is pretty easy to follow. And they'd hit people up with substantial penalties.

That said, cell phone boosters only operate at like a watt or so. As long as they aren't explicitly causing problems, I'd say the odds of any FCC interest whatsoever in an individual unit is next to zero. Though I can certainly see them going after the vendors and making it so that existing units can't be used any more and keeping them from selling any more.

Re:I'll get right on that

[Penguinisto]

Err, no - the phrase "dead lay" pops up mentally too much when I think of doing so.

I live out here in the sticks. Damned near half the county uses boosters, because, well, we have to. Between the abundance of mountains and the twisty roads, it's a given that if you want a signal, you get a booster.

  Hell, the carriers should be grateful we do, since w/o the boosters, they'd get to hear about how their coverage sucks, and they'd either have to put in more towers ($$$!), or have to do some shrinkage on their cute little coverage maps. (Yes, on the latter they would pretty much have to. Here in Tillamook county, residents aren't afraid to give the sales droid a good loud "bullshit!" when shown a carrier's local coverage map - especially if that carrier is AT&T.)

Re:I'll get right on that

[iamgnat]

Fuck you very much the FCC,
Fuck you very much for fining me,
Five thousand bucks a fuck,
So I’m really out of luck,
That’s more than Heidi Fleiss was charging me.

FCC Song

Re:I'll get right on that

[Keith111]

Yah.. I'm inclined to say "or else what?" Have fun chasing down those oilfield trucks that are 30 miels in the brush illegally using cell phone boosters!

Trucks in 30 miles of brush? Unleash the surveillance drones of war!

Re:I'll get right on that

[flyneye]

I remember you couldn't run linear amplifiers on C.B. radios either. But, loads did anyway and nothing ever happened.
I don't know about the world of shortwave, but I bet they have some FCC tales to tell. Anyone?..

Re:I'll get right on that

[davester666]

You mean like how the FCC is allowing vendors to keep selling the devices for another year [basically screwing customers buying these devices]?

Re:I'll get right on that

[0111 1110]

Do you have any kind of reference for 100 kW boosted mobile CB radios? That is a lot of power. It's hard for me to picture how you could get that much power from even a very large 12v battery and/or the alternator. Even 20 kW seems pretty amazing for a mobile transmitter.

Re:I'll get right on that

[operagost]

I think they sued Howard Stern millions without even saying "fuck".

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering this statement, I have to wonder if this could be a round-about way of the FCC protecting the consumer... I know, it sounds off the wall crazy but hear me out. If people are forced to turn off their boosters, and it forces the carriers to re-think their coverage maps with huge gobs of white as their great coverage areas shrink exponentially, the FCC could then start slamming fines on the carriers for not upgrading their network as much as the carriers have been reporting...thus hopefully prompting the Carriers to invest in building their networks. Of course, unless there's a loophole-less bill that gets passed (*snrk*) that says that on the accounting line this has to be done as a cost of doing business that cannot be transferred to the consumer, the companies would just find another way to screw each and every one of us over.

Re:I'll get right on that

[psm321]

hundreds or thousands

Re:I'll get right on that

[BlueStrat]

Do you have any kind of reference for 100 kW boosted mobile CB radios? That is a lot of power. It's hard for me to picture how you could get that much power from even a very large 12v battery and/or the alternator. Even 20 kW seems pretty amazing for a mobile transmitter.

I used to do CB radio electronics work back in the day. The biggest mobile amplifier I ever saw was 2KW. That required the addition of another alternator & battery to supply enough current. Most commonly-used solid-state mobile CB amplifiers are/were anywhere from 50W to 500W.

For 10-20KW or more, you'd almost have to have an auxiliary engine, battery, & alternator (and some extremely-heavy wiring) to supply the extremely high current levels needed for those kinds of power levels.

Strat

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure.
The FCC give a shit about the service we receive from the public's spectrum. For the first time ever!

Re:I'll get right on that

[jjhall]

Actually... Yes. All you have to do is look at the webpage for the FCC's Enforcement Bureau.

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/

Just the headlines near the bottom of the page show $20K fines for operating without the appropriate license, interfering with licensed users, etc. If you browse around a bit you'll see some fairly recent enforcement of CB operators with illegal setups, primarily amplifiers, but some are also related to out-of-band operation.

I don't think the FCC really has time or resources any more to go randomly look for violations, but they will react when they receive complaints of interference. They also don't usually accept "But I didn't know" as an excuse.

It can be rather interesting reading through the enforcement actions, especially since some contain responses from the accused, and the subsequent FCC responses.

Re:I'll get right on that

[hairyfeet]

Are people buying theirs from Radio Shack or something? Because my dad has one, he got it from the cell phone provider so I don't see how anybody would say he would need "permission" from the company that sold it to him, not like they don't know about it. They were more than happy to sell him a booster for his shop and what they called a "mini-tower" for his home which lets him use his DSL instead of their tower because their reception is very poor where he lives. Works great, doesn't have the drop out his HTC experienced when we were trying to run it on his WiFi, all in all he's just thrilled with it.

But to me the FCC is a good example of good intentions that have been allowed to run amok. Originally the FCC had a simple and logical goal, to make sure that our limited spectrum could be used without everybody and their dog tripping over each others signals or worse getting into a "wattage war" and blasting each other with ever louder signals. Now they just butt in where they simply aren't needed, everything from the Janet Jackson nipple slip (ZOMFG kids that have access to the Internet and can see rule 34 on anything might has saw half a titty for a tenth of a second ZOMFG!) and stupid shit like this.

This is why I've tried to warn people who cheered at the ever more intrusive laws against smokers just because they don't like smoking. Government NEVER gets smaller, only bigger and no matter how many times you elect some politician who says "I'm gonna shrink government involvement in your lives" it NEVER happens because it can only grow, it never shrinks. This is a prime example, we've not heard anybody complaining about boosters and with today's blogger culture anything that is even mildly annoying gets ranted about to death, but the FCC hasn't got in anybody's face in awhile so there ya go. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if some company slipped the right person a check so that they could have mandated "interference free" boosters at an inflated price.

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are talking about is not a booster and has nothing to do with what is meant in this ban.

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

just look at cb retards

http://www.cbretards.com/

Re:I'll get right on that

[JWSmythe]

Ya, but that's triangulating a signal, which is pretty easy, but you have to put people in the field to do it.

The FCC is most likely doing this, because it makes it harder to figure out where a cell phone user is. I'd guess it was passed by by DHS.

It can be generally assumed that they are only a few miles from a tower. Identifying which antenna they were heard on gives direction. Judging by the power, you can get distance. If they happen to hop towers, that gives you a good rough area to find the user. All that can be done from the comfort of an office.

Someone on a repeater, with a directional antenna, can be .. well .. quite a ways away from the tower. They won't hop towers, unless it happens to pass by two. Even still, it will only be a direction, not a distance. The user has an unknown possible strength. In the right environment, that can be quite a long way.

But you know what they say.. When they outlaw cell repeaters, only outlaws will have cell repeaters. I think that's right, right? :)

Re:I'll get right on that

[hairyfeet]

Can we get the ACs banned please? is there a script or checkbox that will JUST block ACs while not blocking downmodded comments by actual users?

Because if you had bothered to read the actual post you were responding to I said quite clearly they sold him a booster for the shop and a mini-tower for his home because he was too far from the tower for the booster to help.

So if anybody knows how to filter out all the AC prattle without blocking those with UID (preferably something that works with Chrome if its browser based) I'd appreciate it, because I swear the ACs are getting as thick as Zombies in a Romero flick around here and are just as dumb.

Re:I'll get right on that

[Tablizer]

Simplified: "FuCC"

Re:I'll get right on that

[Rubinstien]

It is much more likely to be a roundabout way to clear the field for carriers to roll out and profit from small-cell technology.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/a-surge-in-small-cell-sites (from January's IEEE Spectrum)

I could see that some of these older cell repeaters might interfere with the newer micro/femto-cell technology that is rapidly becoming the darling answer to cell carriers' problems with expanding data demand. Their existence would certainly interfere with the intention many carriers have of selling private small-cell devices which do their cellular backhaul over the customer's own broadband connection. Most of the carriers are in a position to profit from greater broadband adoption as well - either through owning core network switches, or selling broadband as well as cell service to the same consumers. I pay AT&T for five cell phones, with data on most of them, as well as my U-verse broadband connection at home. I'm sure they would love it if I had to pay for a private microcell as well as move to a higher-speed broadband account to deal with the backhaul capacity requirements.

Re:I'll get right on that

[Rubinstien]

Well, it has been a while anyway. I think they did the right thing back when color television was introduced. They accepted multiple proposals, and for the longest time the CBS proposal was leading the race...but the RCA proposal had the potential to be made compatible with existing black-and-white receivers. Some details were changed to allow interoperability and the FCC mandated that this modified RCA method would be adopted so that consumers would not need to purchase all new equipment. I have a 1951 "Sergeant" black-and-white television that still received off-the-air broadcasts just fine up until the digital switchover. I never bothered to get one of the converter boxes or else it would still work.

Re:I'll get right on that

[parkinglot777]

I live out here in the sticks. Damned near half the county uses boosters, because, well, we have to. Between the abundance of mountains and the twisty roads, it's a given that if you want a signal, you get a booster.

That's why you need to register your device to your provider.

Anyhow, I do not understand or like the new FCC rule. The reason "so these devices won’t cause interference to wireless networks" does not work for me. Yes, there are some who abuse the device, but they should not come out with this "general" rule that affects those who need it (such as you). They should do more investigation rather than make their job easier by setting up a new rule. Too lazy, I would think.

Re:I'll get right on that

[DedTV]

they'd either have to put in more towers ($$$!), or have to do some shrinkage on their cute little coverage maps.

Or, they could sell boosters for several times more than independently sold boosters.
And what luck! Many cell phone providers are doing just that. And now there's a great incentive for consumers to buy them thanks to the FCC. What a fortuitous coincidence!

Re:I'll get right on that

[Anonymous Coward]

Good comments until you got to the smoking thing. Second hand smoke is harmful. I completely support my government in its efforts to make it a crime for you to harm me.

Re:I'll get right on that

[dougmc]

Ya, but that's triangulating a signal, which is pretty easy, but you have to put people in the field to do it.

Well, they have to care enough to do it.

A cell phone booster doesn't put out much power. It likely doesn't interfere with anybody.

But a thousand watt CB radio? The amplifiers they used were never very good, they spewed noise all over the spectrum. But they'd be picked up by everything.

For example, I used to leave my stereo playing FM radio. Well, the guy who lived across the street had a grass sodding company, and the trucks would occasionally be parked in front of his house. When they got on the CB radio there, it came through my stereo at full volume. They were using a few hundred watts (I found out by asking.)

Most truckers didn't exceed one thousand watts, but a few took it to absolutely extreme limits. The biggest I'd ever heard of was 20 kW.

I didn't get into ham radio until later, but when I did I'd hear about the FCC tracking down truckers doing this. Not too many -- most got away with it -- but a few got hit with large fines.

Re:I'll get right on that

[JWSmythe]

I agree, the cell phone boosters don't put out a lot of power. That's why I'm fairly confident that it's a DHS concern, which is being handed off to the FCC to enforce. Like I said, with a booster and directional antenna, you could be miles away from the practical range of a tower, and since you wouldn't hop towers, which totally ruins any hope of triangulation. If the tower antenna is a 90 degree sector antenna, that makes for a huge search area.

I had a CB booster way back in the day. The 4 mile theoretical limit on standard equipment just wasn't enough out where I was. It still wasn't great even with the amplifiers and tall antennas. That was the era before affordable cell/mobile phones, or even pagers. Hell, some people still had rotary phones.

I know all about getting blasted by the high power, not so clean, CBs. We were miles away from the nearest highway, and would still get it on TV and radio. The worst was the local hospital. We could hear their broadcasts on every TV and radio channel. I understand that they needed the power to have radio service for their full coverage area. It wasn't necessary to put out such a dirty signal that it stomped on everyone else. They always preceded their voice transmission with 15 seconds of high pitched tones. Falling asleep watching TV was a bad idea, unless you wanted to wake up to that.

It's kind of funny, we accept that everyone has a cell phone, and every home has cable or satellite TV. "Broadcast" TV doesn't make their money from broadcast coverage any more, they make it because of the viewship on the broadcast being sent back over cable. People in most homes, if they have a telephone, don't use it. Why call the line were they are only a few hours a day, when you can call the cell that is near them 24/7.

I don't look back to the "good old days" with much "good". We're much better off now.

Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[Anonymous Coward]

don't forget the balls Genachowski!

Pretty sure this doesn't include ham technical class operators (and the like)

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The FCC needs to appoint a person to be the Official Lips Of The FCC. That person can suck my dick!

Ideally this person is a woman. Not a gay man. Just my preference but YMMV. Maybe they can appoint one of each to please everybody.

I mean, if there's no nipples on TV to worry about. And if there's no fining people for saying "fuck" without first proving that saying "fuck" ever hurt anyone. Isn't that a strange concept? Proving that damage was done BEFORE you punish somebody? It's almost like it would be a good idea to require this of govt.

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[sumdumass]

I dare you too start a white house petition to appoint someone's lips from the FCC to suck our dicks.

I think I might actually sign that one in order to see the president "deaL with it".

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[ArhcAngel]

Actually that is not such a bad idea. The petition, not the appointing of lips. A petition to have the towers and spectrum changed to a single regulated entity that doles out service while the carriers provide that service to customers. It would mean the nation (the US in this case) could standardize on a single cellular implementation of LTE and allow my new shiny phone to work regardless of what carrier I choose. (there are currently upwards of 45 different implementations of LTE worldwide) Perhaps the FCC could take the role since they are already in charge of the spectrum.

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[egcagrac0]

Ham licenses don't grant authority to operate on cell frequencies or interoperate with stations in other services (like cell towers) in non-emergency situations.

Re:Anonymous Coward Says FCC can suck his dick

[clm1970]

Correct. At the higher frequencies, these are the band plans where hams can operate. Citation below. All modes and licensees (except Novices) are authorized on the following bands [FCC Rules, Part 97.301(a)]: 2300-2310 MHz 2390-2450 MHz 3300-3500 MHz 5650-5925 MHz 10.0-10.5 GHz 24.0-24.25 GHz 47.0-47.2 GHz 76.0-81.0 GHz* 122.25 -123.00 GHz 134-141 GHz 241-250 GHz All above 300 GHz

*sigh*

[voice_of_all_reason]

Oh, great. More bullshit.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

you can have my signal booster when you pry it from my cold dead hands,
is what i will start hearing, maybe I should start stockpiling just in case

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

You can keep it. But your right to emit EM radiation ends when it interferes with my right to emit EM radiation.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC doesn't determine what those rights are.

Booster sticker

[adam.voss]

How do I turn off my as seen on TV signal boosting sticker?

Re:Booster sticker

[K. S. Kyosuke]

How do I turn off my as seen on TV signal boosting sticker?

You use a waterproof felt tip pen to draw a switch in the "off" position onto the sticker.

Re:Booster sticker

[mwvdlee]

If it's waterproof, that means his signal booster will be locked in the "off" position forever.

Re:Booster sticker

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's sort of the point. I don't want hist as-seen-on-TV sticker jamming my TV!

Re:Booster sticker

[TheGratefulNet]

I used green magic marker around its edge and I swear I'm getting clearer sounding audio.

do I have to erase that, too??

Re:Booster sticker

[egcagrac0]

You should be fine, the 510nm band is unlicensed.

Re:Booster sticker

[mwvdlee]

Can't you just wrap the TV in tinfoil?

Re:Booster sticker

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine that if you started broadcasting megawatts of power on the 510nm unlicensed band that there will be other consequences.

Re:Booster sticker

[NatasRevol]

Somebody should put a spotlight on those doing that.

Re:Booster sticker

[Celeritas 5k]

It sounds absurd, but If the only difference between a green light and a radio station is wavelength, would the FCC have the power to license various colored lights? (Assuming they had a mind to.) Could they write a regulation and fine you for overly bright christmas decorations?

Re:Booster sticker

[egcagrac0]

According to 47 CFR 2.101, they currently seem to stop caring at 3000GHz - the .1mm band.

This doesn't mean the scope of authority couldn't be extended, but that's likely to be an international treaty (Thanks, ITU).

Re:Booster sticker

[swilde23]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLxq90xmYUs

Gridlock, what gridlock

[OffTheLip]

Who says the current administration can't get things done...

Re:Gridlock, what gridlock

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC is one of many delegated structures. They were set up once by agreement between the Congress and President of the time, granted full authority to rule over their specific fields, and anyone who ever suggests Congressional oversight is labelled an extreme right-wing fascist racist hypocritical homophobic closet-homosexual.

HA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll turn my booster off when the FCC forces cellular companies to provide better coverage. Until then, they can both bite me.

Re:HA!!!

[skids]

Maybe the prospect of 2M users calling up to try to register their boosters could result in just such a thing.

Re:HA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be foolish. The FCC is a government bureaucracy. The clerk that hears your complaint or processes your transaction doesn't care how long you've waited in line.

Re:HA!!!

[MitchDev]

The more people waiting in line, the more Job Security for the clerk-drone...

Re:HA!!!

[redneckmother]

I'll turn my booster off when the FCC forces cellular companies to provide better coverage. Until then, they can both bite me.

I'll GLADLY shut mine down when the ILEC for my area installs a hard line for an affordable price. Their quote of $250K is a bit above my budget. All the years I lived in a metro area I paid a "tax" to support rural service. Now that I'm in a rural area I can't get a hard line - go figure.

Re:HA!!!

[i kan reed]

But you're part of why your neighbor's signal is even worse. This is by-the-book tragedy of the commons that you're engaged in.

makes some sense

[Trepidity]

Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified. A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

However isn't there also some sort of rule that says devices operating in unregulated space MUST accept any interference pushed onto them from elsewhere?

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

no no no no screw that ITS OBAMAS FAULT

Re:makes some sense

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

No, it doesn't. There are two parts to the new regulation.

1) New cell boosters must meet stricter standards of non-interference.

That's great. No objection here.

2) Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters, even the new ones that meet the stricter standard. If you have multiple carriers connected devices, you must have the booster approved by each carrier.

That makes no sense at all.

Re:makes some sense

[jythie]

Unfortunately people get really pissy when a regulation takes away some advantage they have over other people using the shared resource. It is kinda like those triggers that turn red lights green, when a few people are using them it isn't a huge deal and the people love the devices, but as they become more common it starts to degrade the whole system. Granted the FCC might be jumping the gun a bit here, but conceptually this is pretty in line with what they are supposed to be doing for once.

Re:makes some sense

[shentino]

I'd like to know what "accept" means.

Is it that they have to let their operation get fucked over, or merely that they have to use the airwaves at their own risk not unlike swimming in a river without a lifeguard.

Re:makes some sense

[bobbied]

Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) ....

Technically all of the spectrum is regulated. There is spectrum set aside for consumer use under various parts of the FCC's Rules, but there are regulations to follow even then. Most consumer devices operate under Part 15 rules, which generally regulates how much RF power you can radiate and stay legal, which boils down to "not much" and if you interfere with a licensed user you have to turn your stuff off.

By the way, there is at least one part of the WiFi spectrum that is actually allocated to Amateur Radio use. It is in the bottom of the 2.4Ghz band. (802.11b and up). Hams can use 100 Watts or more, where consumers are limited to Part 15 levels (about half a watt).

Re:makes some sense

[bobbied]

Yep, it's called Part 15... And that means that the space really is regulated...

Re:makes some sense

[Richard_at_work]

It actually does make sense - the carriers hold the licenses for using the spectrum these boosters are boosting, they paid a lot of money to use those spectrum licenses.

Thus, you must get the permission of the license holder before you can use that portion of the spectrum.

Re:makes some sense

[arielCo]

That's the FCC's Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, Part 15, and "accept" means here that it's up to the manufacturer to "deal with it", exactly because you're operating in an unregulated band. Otherwise line filters, shielded enclosures etc. would be illegal !

Re:makes some sense

[arielCo]

The second. It's a "deal with it" rule; otherwise line filters, ferrite chokes, shielding and whatnot would make your device non-compliant.

Re:makes some sense

[satch89450]

If you have ever been involved with regulated radio, the regulation " Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters" makes perfect sense.

The introduction of a repeater into a cell system means that the engineering of the cell boundaries can be affected. Now, for boosters that are used in building that shield the RF, there is little engineering that needs to be done -- you are essentially extending the antenna outside the shield. (And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)

When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.

I'm not an expert on cell systems, but I remember some of the arguments used to keep people from using cell phones from airplanes.

Re:makes some sense

[interkin3tic]

A provider could get a device+addon combination certified, however.

Something tells me this will cost users a large monthly fee despite the testing being a one-time cost...

Re:makes some sense

[drinkypoo]

(And you can get repeater antennas without boosters that do the same job, and I suspect they are *not* covered by this regulation.)

Repeater antennas without boosters do not do the same job. They cause attenuation.

When you have an active repeater, that means the cell signals from the provider can be relayed as well as the signals from your cell phone. With microcell design, this can play hob with the clearances, so that a phone will see two cell site courtesy of your repeater.

That's not even the only issue. There's also the issue of power levels. Your phone has one, the amplifier has another, the phone is matched to its antenna, etc etc.

Re:makes some sense

[bws111]

No, that's not what accept means at all. Accept means that the USER of a device gets no legal protection from interference. If your unregulated device is interfered with, too bad, you have no recourse.

Re:makes some sense

[wolrahnaes]

Ham operator and armchair lawyer here.

Part 15.5 basically says that unlicensed radio operation is a best-effort thing. If the spectrum you want to use is already taken up to a point that it makes it unusable for you, too bad, you have no right to complain. Where allowed, unlicensed operation is the lowest possible priority. A licensed user can shut you down if you interfere with them, but if someone moves in next door to you with an old cordless phone or crappy microwave which knocks out your WiFi when in use you just have to deal with it.

In general the FCC's priority goes like this:

1. Military
2. Licensed Government
3. Licensed Commercial
4. Licensed Amateur
0. Unlicensed

The military pretty much gets what they want, then below that if there's a conflict between licensed parties where both have privileges on a band it tends to go in the order listed. Unlicensed users are then left to fight amongst themselves over the scraps.

Re:makes some sense

[bws111]

Yes, but that only applies to devices in unlicensed spectrum. You could also be interfering with other licensed useds (ie other carriers), which is not allowed.

Re:makes some sense

[wolrahnaes]

It is in the bottom of the 2.4Ghz band. (802.11b and up). Hams can use 100 Watts or more, where consumers are limited to Part 15 levels (about half a watt).

We can actually use up to 1500 watts. Technician licensees like myself are limited to 200 watts on the small chunks we're allowed to touch below 50 MHz and even the Extras are limited to 100 watts on the 60 meter band, but everything else including all of our overlap with ISM bands is full power.

Of course we're only supposed to use the minimum necessary power to establish communications, so outside of contests you really shouldn't be running at that sort of power level. I'd also be concerned for my safety being near a 1500w transmitter in that band, considering that's basically a description of a modern microwave oven.

Re:makes some sense

[IndustrialComplex]

It seems an odd statement.

I've always wondered what a device that FAILED to accept interference would do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile ??

Re:makes some sense

[arielCo]

. I'll rephrase: a device under these rules is expected to have interference around it, and the owners and manufacturer have no recourse *if* it malfunctions due to said interference (not that it *has* to).
And I sincerely doubt that HARMs are specified under Part 15 rules.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that permission was granted when we inked 'our' contract locking-in the consumer for service. The legalese their armies of lawyers surely indemnifies their shitty service but does not allow the consumer to act(logically, easily, without obfuscation) in their best interests... hence the taking steps to get a signal.

The wonders of this wireless renaissance over the last 30 years are awesome. The possibilities of future growth are constrained only by the oligops who serve their accountants better than they serve their customers. Who are we kidding, though? This is how humans, as a race, have stifled progress for the benefit of the few since the dawn of man. Cognizance may always take a back seat to greed and lust...viva the reptile brain!.
 

Re:makes some sense

[Nidi62]

Devices transmitting in the regulated bands (as opposed to unregulated space like the Wifi spectrum) have to meet & be tested for certain noninterference properties, which is only valid if they're used unmodified.

Then shouldn't they be registered with the FCC, the government body that deals with testing and compliance of noninterference, rather than with a provider that will probably force you to use some kind of new plan that costs extra?

Re:makes some sense

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

But the only reason for using one is to make use of the service that I already pay for. If they are going to refuse my efforts to make their system work for me, I should have an automatic penalty free exit oppretunity from any/all contracts.

Re:makes some sense

[shentino]

Which is great unless you're playing an FPS:

http://xkcd.com/654/

Re:makes some sense

[bobbied]

You are correct.. My brain must be starting to go... After looking it up. Us Extras down to you technicians can blast away at 1500 watts on that band, assuming you needed that much power. But as you say, the RF safety issue is going to get pretty important.

Re:makes some sense

[Mattcelt]

The FCC FAQ mentions only that if you are told by a wireless carrier or the FCC that your device is interfering with a mobile network, you must turn it off. It says nothing about doing so preemptively.

Re:makes some sense

[viperidaenz]

If their coverage is not what they claimed, the service was not fit for purpose. Sane countries should have consumer protection laws that enforce this. (I don't know if USA does, but NZ does. We're not even particularly sane.)

Re:makes some sense

[Obfuscant]

Then shouldn't they be registered with the FCC, the government body that deals with testing and compliance of noninterference,

They are, as part of the certification process that makes it legal to import and or sell them. Look carefully, there will be an FCC id number on your booster somewhere.

rather than with a provider that will probably force you to use some kind of new plan that costs extra?

The provider holds the license to the spectrum you are transmitting in.

Re:makes some sense

[Technician]

A passive device does not need approval. A dish antennal on the roof with an appropiate feedhorn and feedline down to an in home antenna should not be a problem. Only active transmission equipment needs regulated.

I was in hilly countryside and asked a resident about the blank billboard on a hill nearby. They explained it was a passive cell phone repeater to bounce signal into the homes in the valley between hills. It seems to do the job well.

Re:makes some sense

[frank_adrian314159]

If they are going to refuse my efforts to make their system work for me, I should have an automatic penalty free exit opportunity from any/all contracts.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Welcome to USA (Our Democratic Paradise (TM)) where the phrase "We work hard at screwing you!" is more than a motto! - It's the watchword and operative 24/7, baby! Good thing that our Libertarian paradise is only an election away - then you won't have the government backing up the corporate fascists. Instead, you'll just have the corporate fascists on your back. Good times!

Re:makes some sense

[khallow]

Welcome to USA (Our Democratic Paradise (TM)) where the phrase "We work hard at screwing you!" is more than a motto! - It's the watchword and operative 24/7, baby! Good thing that our Libertarian paradise is only an election away - then you won't have the government backing up the corporate fascists.

The current mess, such as it is, isn't a libertarian problem (you even admit it!). It's a sentient beings with conflicting interests problem and something universal to all societies. So why bash libertarians for something that isn't even their fault? I think brain damage.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus, you must get the permission of the license holder before you can use that portion of the spectrum.

But of course the license holder (your provider) already sold you a device which uses that portion of the spectrum (your cell phone, presumably the device which is being boosted). Nowadays they probably even gave you an explicit quota for your usage of that spectrum (say, 2GB/month).

I think it is safe to say that most of the people who use these things already have permission from the license holder.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Carriers must approve of the use of each and every one of these boosters, even the new ones that meet the stricter standard. If you have multiple carriers connected devices, you must have the booster approved by each carrier.

That makes no sense at all.

Yes it does. You are selling equipment that modifies network signal strength to mostly non-network / RF engineers that have absolutely no idea what the actual network layout looks like. What could possibly go wrong? Ever heard of multipath, cell overlap, or cell fringes?

Your signal could be shitty for multitudes of reasons beyond having a weak signal. Having a improperly placed booster may work great for one person but seriously screw with cell tower signaling for a dozen other people.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually if the sold you a package that does not work at your address it is a form of fraud and in a just society you could sue their pants off. Really the very idea that a private company can control any air space for a fee is obnoxious.

Re:makes some sense

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you're using it is absolutely irrelevant. What you are doing is transmitting on a restricted frequency without a license and with unlicensed hardware. That you're rebroadcasting in band is cute, but irrelevant. And yes, you should have a penalty-free exit opportunity from the contract, but that's not germane to the argument at hand.

The poorly designed ones cause significant problems. Oh, and most carriers have already issued blanket approval for certified devices in whichever the fuck category, and only require registration. so they can easily track you down when you shit all over their spectrum.

Re:makes some sense

[hab136]

>I've always wondered what a device that FAILED to accept interference would do?

Catch fire, explode, etc.

Re:makes some sense

[Richard_at_work]

That's a rather facetious argument - if you entered into the contract knowing that the service required a booster, the problem is yours. If you entered into the contract not knowing the service required a booster, but the service provider made no false promises regarding coverage in the area, the problem is yours.

If the service provider made false promises, or the service degraded, then the problem is theirs.

I don't see why the contract should be null and void because you screwed up on your due diligence prior to signing the contract.

Far too many people think that buying something means the service or item must be fit for the purpose bought - no, it has to be fit for the purpose sold. If you screwed up, suck it up - you shouldn't have a free get out clause.

Re:makes some sense

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, no - there is no way you can argue that you get blanket permission to use the spectrum in any way you deem fit simply because you buy service from them.

Re:makes some sense

[Terrasque]

There's the same rules in Norway. And providers almost never allow repeaters / boosters.

There was a case some years ago where someone set up such a repeater illegally, managed to cause a feedback loop with some cell towers, thus knocking half the town off the grid.

Re:makes some sense

[wolrahnaes]

As the hovertext on the comic says, if you're gaming on WiFi you only have yourself to blame.

Obama's jack booted thugs can...

[freshmeathead]

have my cell phone booster when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Re:Obama's jack booted thugs can...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are against murder and for due process, you are racist.

I'm fine with this

[Anonymous Coward]

" They could cause interference with cellular networks, even if the ones today generally haven't been too problematic."

If so, I don't want my decent cellphone quality to be worse because of boosters.

What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

What do you mean I have to turn it off? The cell phone booster I got ain't got an off switch. Sounds funny, but to get this cell phone booster is so thin it fits between the battery and the inside of the battery cover. I was really lucky because they had a promotion going and this 30 .. 40 or even 50$ value booster was on sale at 19$ and I was fast enough to call them within the next 10 minutes and got the second one for free, just paid S&H alone for the second one.

This amazing cell phone booster works on all brands. It looks like a sticker with weird tattoo image like log printed on it. All I have to do is to open the battery cover and stick it to the inside of that cover. That is all. I am guaranteed to get four bars on the antenna no matter where I go. I itching to get my hands on this thing, I would like to rub it in the face of my friends who are paying big bucks for brand name companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile. My cell phone provider just charges me 10$ and his coverage map does not include my home. But, they don't know about this amazing cell phone booster. It is going to be sweet baby!, so I thought.

Suddenly this big government is thrusting its nose where it is none of its business and is banning the cell phone booster. What am I going to do?

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[sesshomaru]

"I would like to rub it in the face of my friends who are paying big bucks for brand name companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile. My cell phone provider just charges me 10$ and his coverage map does not include my home."

Um, the FCC wants you to pay for overpriced cell service from their customers, the Big Telcos.

Who did you think they work for?

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Sockatume]

DO NOT eat the booster. The signal is too clear. So clear. Too clear. I lost mine in a bag of chips and I didn't realise I had swallowed it until I started communing with other people's body thetans.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[MitchDev]

"Um, the FCC wants you to pay for overpriced cell service from their OWNERS, the Big Telcos."

FTFY

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[F34nor]

No shit. Wake up Americans. "Free market economics" is a dream that we lack. Oligopolies operating in natural monopolies is just a terrible rape fantasy for investors. Either make it a well regulated monopoly or break the fuckers up and limit the size of any telco to something tiny. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT A FREE MARKET!

You think it is? Your a moron.

You think state owned monopolies will lead to worse service and higher prices? Prove it with examples from this century.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Quantos]

They aren't banning it. Learn to read - and comprehend what you are reading.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a moron.

Thank you for this, it's easily the funniest thing I'll read this week.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not a "booster", it does not "boost" any signal (aka: amplification). It simply is a higher gain antenna, meaning your device is perfectly legal. You are not the target of big government.

I am guaranteed to get four bars on the antenna no matter where I go. I itching to get my hands on this thing, I would like to rub it in the face of my friends who are paying big bucks for brand name companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-mobile. ... It is going to be sweet baby!, so I thought.

Also, based on a few sentences in your first paragraph, it seems as though you don't actually own this "antenna" yet. Good luck, your results may vary.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

EIRP is based on all stages of amplification, boosting, antenna gain, etc. Actually it would apply. Now I doubt they'd chase down someone's POS scam-tenna, but technically even if it were a piece of metal making the cell phone's antenna act as a directional antenna, it would be illegal. (Even under present rules without a scam-tenna.)
IANAEE

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[desdinova 216]

do not taunt happy fun ball?

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not a 'booster', that is just an antenna. It only helps with receiving

A booster is a 'repeater', a device that receives the signal from your phone, increases the power and transmits it again, allowing you to get a stronger outbound signal.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

What you have isn't a signal booster. It's a reception booster. Completely different technology.

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's it supposed to be "Your a moran?"

Re:What? Turn it off? It ain't got a switch!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your a moron.

Thank you for this, it's easily the funniest thing I'll read this week.

Agreed. But will he get it?

Oh, yes of course...

[mattytee]

...that will happen.

Need more info ...

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to watch the FCC closely. They often make decisions that do not support best practices or consumer needs. This note provides notice, but doesn't provide the detail we really need.

-) Why did the FCC hand down this ruling? What was their reason? Who asked for it? Was there a comment period for this ruling?
-) Are these devices really amplifiers or are they signal boosters? How do they work?
-) Do these devices potentially harm cell phones? Where do people usually buy them? Are they still legal to purchase but not use?
-) Are service providers likely to give permissions to users, or are they likely to track requests and penalize users who have asked permission?
-) The FCC usually has a website that accepts comments and complaints about rulings like this. What is/was the URL?

Re:Need more info ...

[terraformer]

This. The cell phone providers are selling devices and subscriptions to fempto-cells and these boosters cut into that market and compete with their services. This isn't about the airwaves.

Re:Need more info ...

[Ariven]

Well, depending on the provider I don't think that they will penalize the users... I have one that I actually got from t-mobile for "free" (i.e. I had to agree to staying with the carrier for 2 years). But it works well to keep some signal for us in our house.

They won't give you one if you don't have at least 1 bar of signal some place in your house, and they won't give you one unless you have a standalone house that you live in (i.e. no apartments).

The device I have is a two piece setup.. I have a receiving antenna that I have to place wherever in the house that I can get the best signal for it (for me, its on top of a cupboard in my kitchen angling out a window past our neighbors 2 story house), and another piece that is somewhere else in the house that does the rebroadcasting of the signal that our cell phones connect to. Normally I don't get any bars anywhere in the house on my cell, but with this running and in the same room with me I get 2-4 bars.. latency is horrid, but it seems to work well to get me on the system.

Re:Need more info ...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the plus side--maybe--they state that the wireless carriers have agreed to approve boosters that have the sticker. If they really live up to that, and don't try to charge you some extra bullshit fee for the 'privilege' of using a booster, then you're good to go. It may be a little control-freaky, but it gives an official stamp of approval to something people have been doing anyway.

Re:Need more info ...

[F34nor]

AT&T never has them in stock, hmm I wonder why? Oh because they have a crap network, crap support, and spend all their retained earnings branding their god damn phones instead of doing their fucking job.

Re:Need more info ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"these boosters cut into that market and compete with their services"
And? License holders can subject you to any bullshit they dream up. Just look at IP like patents. Their JOB is to exploit the resource they paid for and bash it over your head until they can make all the money in your pockets fall out. There is no "fair". Stop dreaming.

Re:Need more info ...

[Caedite Eos]

But with T-mo, in the US anyway, aren't you better off using "wi-fi calling"? Works perfectly OK for me, and it has the advantage of working anywhere I have wi-fi access.

Re:Need more info ...

[Ariven]

Wi-fi calling does work great, if you have a phone that supports it and wi-fi.

Not all our phones were wi-fi calling capable until recently, and wi-fi calling was unreliable for text messages until recently as well.. so, free booster.. :)

Re:In the words of Slim Shady

[Anonymous Coward]

"Could start a revolution, polluting the airwaves"

Reading the replies here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm reminded how Americans first invented the round-about but it took the British to decide that everyone should travel around it in the same direction.

So best wishes to all those saying "over my dead body" and I hope that any interference YOU cause by use of an unlicensed device doesn't kill anyone (preventing Emergency communications, reseting a pacemaker to it's test settings, etc).

Re:Reading the replies here...

[Applekid]

So best wishes to all those saying "over my dead body" and I hope that any interference YOU cause by use of an unlicensed device doesn't kill anyone (preventing Emergency communications, reseting a pacemaker to it's test settings, etc).

Is there any evidence that these killing events are actually happening? Surely the FCC would have cited these are reasons people should turn off their signal boosters and register with their cell providers?

Re:Reading the replies here...

[fnj]

I'm reminded how Americans first invented the round-about but it took the British to decide that everyone should travel around it in the same direction.

And it took the Brits to pick the WRONG direction.

oil and gas

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet most of these boosters are in trucks working out in the oil and gas fields. good luck trying to get us all to do that

Uh... which carrier?

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

A client of mine has a metal building that is basically a Faraday cage. You had to go outside, or next to one-of-two windows. So they installed a cell signal repeater for the employees.

So just who do they register with? Any? All?

FYI - There is no associated carrier with the company. They let the employees expense a portion of their cell bills.

Re:Uh... which carrier?

[Controlio]

You could always install a passive repeater - two antennas and a wire connecting them. They're not illegal, and they pass signal out of faraday cages effectively. Make the outside antenna a directional one and point it in the general direction of your nearest tower, and you shouldn't have any issues.

Re:Uh... which carrier?

[F34nor]

Lath and plaster has the same problem.

Re:Uh... which carrier?

[Rob the Bold]

Lath and plaster has the same problem.

Then wrap it in aluminum siding, just to be sure.

Re:Uh... which carrier?

[tibit]

I agree, but it'd be wise to have it engineered before buying any components. Whether you do it on your own or hire a consultant RF engineer is of course up to you.

Re:Uh... which carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

A client of mine has a metal building that is basically a Faraday cage. You had to go outside, or next to one-of-two windows. So they installed a cell signal repeater for the employees.

So just who do they register with? Any? All?

That's a repeater, not a booster. A booster is designed to increase the output past normal levels, an active repeater takes a lower-than-normal signal and puts it back up to standard levels, a passive repeater is some type of conduit (such as two antennae connected by a wire) which passes a signal without altering it directly.
Active repeaters usually will technically require a license direct from the FCC, or if they only operate on specific bands you might be able to "sub-let" it from the carrier who owns that band. Since you're not actually increasing the signal with a passive repeater, that's the safest way to go.

Completely agree with this...

[Controlio]

...and I'll give you a perfect example of what they're trying to fight. I work in a stadium, in an area covered by 15-20 different "cell towers" (real towers, DAS, COWs, etc). The TV production crew works in one or more 53' aluminum expando trailers. Depending on how they're grounded, a lot of them make pretty impressive Faraday Cages - meaning cell phone and radio services are terrible inside them. Some of the TV truck engineers have installed active cell repeaters to help combat this, but of course forget if they have them turned on or not.

A TV truck came to town during an NFL game, they happened to be a truck whose engineers I'm close friends with and I happen to be aware that they run a repeater. During the game I hear reports of cell network issues. I'm walking through a service area only to find a guy with a spectrum analyzer waiving a directional antenna around the halls. I ask him what he's doing, and he says that six cell towers have been completely shut down due to some interference and it's making cell phone communication nearly impossible. (There is a baseball park next door. This can easily lead to tragedy when you have 100,000+ cell phones on the same street corner and no way to call out due to interference and capacity bottlenecks.)

I asked the engineer if he knew when the interference started, he said about 8am Saturday. He said it went away for a while, but then started up again at about 6am on game day. This is the exact schedule the TV trucks were powered up. I tell him to hang on, go to the truck engineers, and ask them if their repeater is on. I tell them to pull it, walk back in to the engineer, and ask how the towers are doing. He says everything seems to be fine now, and asks me what the issue was. I tell him it's taken care of, and walk away.

One cell repeater, left on accidentally in a densely populated area, effectively shut down communications at two major sporting events. They seem like a great idea, but they amplify so much noise at such a high power that they blow regular cell users who can't reach the repeater out of the water. I've seen it happen, and I'm glad the FCC is doing something about it.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[jythie]

And that is why there is backlash. Asking people to give up something that gives them an advantage and only negatively impacts other people plays into a rather strong narrative that many have.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't you have just wrote, "fuck the fcc or obama or the government" like everybody else? why do have to throw logic and reason around like that. You're not thinking of the children at all are you?

Re:Completely agree with this...

[tj2]

Yes, because God forbid the people at the games actually, you know, watch the games instead of surfing the web, tweeting inane opinions or Facebooking their opinions of the refs. And "tragedy"? Really? If the officials at these stadia have emergency plans for disasters that depend on all the fans having cell phone access, they ought to be flogged. We've had major sporting events for a *whole* lot longer than we've had cell phones.

Disclaimer: I've worked in wireless since the early days of cellular, and I was a field tech at Cellular One in Seattle back when turning up the 20th tower in the Seattle MSA was a big deal for us. So I understand that what you are saying is correct technically, but I'm far from convinced that this is a burning issue that the FCC needs to address. I'm still further from convinced that this isn't simply more kowtowing to the wireless carriers to allow them Yet Another Revenue Stream for which they do nothing.

And I have a repeater at my house. I'm in a semi-rural area, and the signal strength at my house flat-out sucks. My little signal repeater puts out at most 1W, and my nearest neighbor is about 200 yards away. I don't think I'm likely to cause significant interference to anyone, but it improves the usability of my cell phone dramatically.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool now I can use my cell repeater as a cell jammer. Thanks for letting me know.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey fuckhead, just step outside

I had to walk up two flights of stairs out of a basement to use a phone for years

Get a landline you moron.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why there is backlash. Asking people to give up something that gives them an advantage and only negatively impacts other people plays into a rather strong narrative that many have.

Call it an asshole trait we learned from our greedy fucks in charge. They do a bang-up job of leading by example.

What comes around...goes around...

Re:Completely agree with this...

[tibit]

Lol, the same shit about grounded vs. ungrounded Faraday cages. Man, it makes absolutely, positively no difference at the frequencies involved. None whatsoever. Any grounding you would have is a big fucking inductor that is more of an open circuit at the frequencies involved, never mind probably a half-decent antenna as well. I have checked it for myself with WiFi, and it makes absolutely no measurable difference at all whether the Faraday cage is grounded or not. No matter how I'd measure things.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's not grounded, where does the signal go? With no grounding, it's not a faraday cage, it's a reflector.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[jythie]

And around and around. How do you think they get elected in the first place? We have a very 'us first' oriented culture (not that it is unique to the US) and thus people who play to it or exemplify how 'me first' can make you rich and powerful tend to get votes.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[afidel]

Yeah, we accidentally blinded a Verizon tower, we used a certified installer but something was wrong with the amp used and we had effectively shouted over all other users on a sector of the tower, basically shutting off Verizon service for one of the biggest business areas in our region. Verizon recommended a different installer who fixed the system and we scheduled a test with them on a Saturday to make sure we weren't going to cause any further interference issues.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

What did these people do before Cell Phones?

Fucking "First World Problems"

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is, that if I turn on one of these things on in a movie theater, it'll effectively, but temporarily, kill all the cell phones in the theater and prevent their usage during the movie? Where can I get one?

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they block cell phones in a theater, I'll buy THREE!

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right, I've seen the same thing as a HAM with a truck carrying a boosted CB that sprays interference all over the adjacent side bands.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[mattytee]

I had to walk up two flights of stairs out of a basement to use a phone for years

...when Grandma would let me use it.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably it just bounces around the metal box until it is absorbed.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the paradise of John Galt.

Re:Completely agree with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't be surprised when the People's Representatives are actually representative of the people who elected them ;).

How are they going to enforce this?

[Formorian]

Can the carriers see that someone is running a booster?

I know a few businesses' that run boosters inside (from hospitals to churches to office building) so cell works in the basement or in rest of building for the major 4 carriers (or 2 att/ver in some cases). So do they have to get permission from all 4 even if the company itself doesn't have a contract with any of the 4, it's for their employee's/visitors? And really how can they tell?

Truly curious about the tell part.

Re:How are they going to enforce this?

[Controlio]

Easily. A directional antenna and a spectrum analyzer. They do it. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3482363&cid=42967297

They just don't care if you're not interfering with their regular service operations.

Can you say

[MitchDev]

Snowball's chance in hell?

In Aus this is happening aswell.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are doing this in Australia aswell, problem is I know of many people who use them and cannot get any other access to a phone line without one.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_1697

For emergencies some of these people will have to run down the street to get to a non-existent payphone or drive until they have reception again, and this isn't in rural areas neither, this is in an urban area that is hilly but because telstra and optus are such cunts they refuse to install better coverage.

Where I live I cannot get 3G, all I ever get is maybe 1 bar of GSM.

FUCK the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 40 watt cell phone booster and I use it every day.

Come and get me, motherfuckers.

Re:FUCK the FCC

[HornWumpus]

I have a thousand watt linear and use it on my cell. Back in analog phone days my neighbors could hear my calls on their TVs and landlines.

Re:FUCK the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaaand you're proud of this? Or pleased with the results? I'm not entirely sure if you're going for a "screw their rules, look what I can do" response, or a "Wow, no wonder they're regulating it, look at the shit we get away with otherwise" response.

If you're even slightly pleased or even just don't care about the fact that your phone made everyone who lived around you miserable, then you're pretty much the definition of the problem with North America nowadays. The "Screw everyone else, as long as I'm happy" mentality.

News flash: People other than you exist in the world, and generally speaking they like their shit to work properly, and dislike it when people like you stop it from doing exactly that.

Re:FUCK the FCC

[HornWumpus]

Whoosh you dolt.

Government knows what is best for you

[Anonymous Coward]

All you complainers should just quit and submit to all-knowing, all-powerful government. You have no voice in the matter. When the Republicans are in power they'll regulate your morals, when Democrats are in power they'll institute equalization programs. When either are in power, they'll regulate your guns, soda size, salt intake, how much you should exercise and whether you can use a styrofoam food container.

Or you could just say, "I aim to misbehave."

Could this article be more misleading?

[kelemvor4]

I doubt it. The article, and the summary in particular is spreading quote a bit of fud. Specifically, the FCC does not say you have to turn anything off. Most of the questions people are posting about research is answered on the document linked right on the homepage of fcc.gov. Here, since most seem to lazy: https://www.fcc.gov/ or specifically: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order Here's an important excerpt:

In order to use a Consumer Signal Booster, a consumer must:
Have some form of consent from his/her wireless provider to operate the Consumer
Signal Booster. We note that Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, AT&T, and the RTG
member companies have made voluntary commitments to consent to all Consumer Signal
Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.42 Therefore, we expect that
subscribers of these companies will not need to specifically seek consent from these
providers, or other providers who make similar “blanket” consent commitments, for
Consumer Signal Boosters that meet the Network Protection Standard.

So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.

Maybe the boys over at ARS didn't bother to read anything other than the limited FAQ, either? Or more likely they did like any "news" organization and selectively picked out the pieces that would get them the most hits on their website regardless of how they were bending the truth.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[kelemvor4]

So, consent is needed, and most providers have already given blanket consent.

Citation needed.

Are you trolling? I did post the citation. Here it is again: https://www.fcc.gov/document/use-and-design-signal-boosters-report-and-order

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[tibit]

Someone mod this to +5 informative. It makes most other rambling above completely pointless.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they've given blanket consent to signal boosters they've blessed. They haven't blessed all of them. Not all boosters "meet the Network Protection Standard". So it depends on your definition of blanket.

They're not trying to track down the repeaters they sell themselves, they're trying to track down the ones that saturate and make unusable the licensed spectrum they spent billions of dollars acquiring. So guess what. You may have to turn your cell repeater off. The FCC is cracking down on it. Thus, story.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the part Ars got that you ignored "...that meet the Network Protection Standard." If all the existing Consumer Signal Boosters meet the requirements, then that blanket will cover them nicely. If they don't - they must be turned off - immediately. No tricks involved - maybe they did read the whole thing.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[MojoRilla]

Blanket consent doesn't mean you don't have to register your device. From your article:

In addition, we require all Class B signal booster installations to be registered in an FCC signal booster registration database. Thus, in the event a Class B signal booster causes interference, the operator of the device can be located and asked to shut down the interfering device.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[dcooper_db9]

Providers have not given blanket consent for any device that meets regulations. Instead the FCC has allowed the providers to create their own licensing system. Why do I have to get permission from my service provider, but not from a competing company that uses the same spectrum? Why should xyz company have to negotiate contracts with each provider rather than simply proving that their equipment meets regulatory specifications?
The FCC should license hardware as they have in the past. Specify what frequencies can be used, at what strength, and certify that the equipment behaves as intended. They shouldn't hand over authority to a third party that has vested interests in constraining competition.
Three years ago Verizon's towers couldn't provide reliable service in my home town. Their solution was for me to buy a device that would allow me to connect through my high speed internet connection. That device would cost $500 plus the cost of internet access and would only provide service in and around my home. I wouldn't be surprised if the "allowed" signal boosters became much more expensive as a result of this rule change.

Re:Could this article be more misleading?

[Hydian]

The concern is less about consumer boosters than comercial boosters which can have a much higher power output.

Can't get coverage without booster?

[Rob the Bold]

So you can't get coverage in your location without booster, and you need to call your provider to ask permission to turn the booster on, but you can't get signal to make the call? What then, telegram?

Re:Can't get coverage without booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

The antenna for your booster is in a location with service, by definition. Make your call from the same location the antenna is in.

Re:Can't get coverage without booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Move to a different carrier, preferably one that works in your location.

When government is involved-everything is politics

[Anonymous Coward]

When government is involved, everything is political. From the control of the airwaves to scientific research.

Freedom means being free and switching the channel if you don't like the F-work.

In China

[Anonymous Coward]

the best stuff is state-owned. There is free market in China, but you will have to compete against this 1000000-pound gorilla to begin with. Some have succeed and get absorbed into the state-owned franchise, but many have failed.

Booster Trouble...

[Anonymous Coward]

So about five years ago everyone in the office was complaining about how they had "No Service" on their cell phones... so I went ahead and installed a "booster"-- an outdoor antenna with amp connected to an indoor antenna.

A few months later, some gentlemen from "AT&T Security" showed up at my office and told me they had been trying to diagnose problems with their nearby tower for several months... until they spotted the outdoor antenna on my building, and aimed some sort of gadget at it and discovered it to be a booster. They said the problem was that their antenna system was seeing the increased signal strength of my booster antenna as if their system was receiving strong signals from cell phones in the neighborhood, and their system was automatically lowering its output signal strength, causing users in the area to have dropped calls and poor connections...

They told me that legally they, as a carrier, had priority on the cell spectrum and I had no choice but to turn off or be fined. So if someone's booster is interfering with public cell use, they WILL hunt you down and pry it from your cold, dead hands.

Re:Booster Trouble...

[PPH]

They said the problem was that their antenna system was seeing the increased signal strength of my booster antenna as if their system was receiving strong signals from cell phones in the neighborhood, and their system was automatically lowering its output signal strength, causing users in the area to have dropped calls and poor connections...

Actually, cell phones are supposed to modulate their output to suit the distance and attenuation between themselves and the base station. The fact that your booster revealed itself with a higher signal strength indicates that it does not properly implement that function.

There may be 'boosters' or repeaters that are tested and approved by the carrier. Ask and they may provide you with a list.

Re:Booster Trouble...

[tlhIngan]

They told me that legally they, as a carrier, had priority on the cell spectrum and I had no choice but to turn off or be fined. So if someone's booster is interfering with public cell use, they WILL hunt you down and pry it from your cold, dead hands.

Your booster is technically transmitting illegally on a licensed band and it was discovered to be interfering with a licensed user.

AT&T did a very friendly thing by asking you to turn it off. They could've gotten the FCC involved at which point not only will you be forced to turn it off, but also subject to possible fines for interference since you were illegally transmitting on their frequencies.

That's the reason for the approval requirement - you're using frequencies licensed to someone else, and if you don't have approval, you are basically violating the law.

The thing is, most people don't really interact with licensed services much, but I'm fairly certain you would be pissed off if someone set up a big ass transmitter near you that wiped out your cellphone reception. Or a pirate FM station decided they would co-opt a popular radio station frequency to spout end of the world BS.

Re:Booster Trouble...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the FCC would force websites to turn of forum posts that unnecessarily begin with the word "actually."

Re:Booster Trouble...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have just told them to fuck off.

Re:Booster Trouble...

[PPH]

Inevitably, they will.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[causality]

When government is involved, everything is political. From the control of the airwaves to scientific research.

Freedom means being free and switching the channel if you don't like the F-work.

Consumerism and the way mass-media is done* has bred a dominant culture of intellectual and emotional babies. They're stuck at an infantile mentality and the surest sign of it is the unwillingness to take personal responsibility. A form of this personal failing is like this: "it's not good enough that *I* don't engage in an activity I disagree with - no one else should do it either!" This pathological inability to be satisfied with anything less than such options not being present at all is a complete rejection of even the slightest self-determinism. It's like these people don't even trust themselves not to watch, read, listen to, or engage in something they find distasteful.

They demand some authority to do this selection for them, and of course authorities are only too happy to find another growth area for their power. They look for it the same way businesses look to expand into new markets. Power instead of money is just a different form of currency. Usually "for the children" provides a good excuse, which again goes back to personal responsibility; it is a rejection of the idea that parents should actually be parents and be involved in what their children are exposed to. Soon enough the whole concept will be deemed absurd and wishful thinking, despite the generations before who did exactly that.

It's scary to consider that we are rapidly becoming a culture that conceives of freedom as being too bothersome. After all, real freedom means that other people might do things you wouldn't do yourself. Allowing consenting adults (and only those) to do such things would mean, most of all, believing in the power of your own counter-example if you really find some thing (drugs, curse words, whatever) so offensive. It would also mean having the emotional maturity to let go of the need to control other people, to be content living your own life as you see fit and giving others the tolerance and space to do the same.

This is what we're losing. It's no bargain because I have yet to see what we're gaining.


* Mass media doesn't inherently influence people to be shallow and stupid. It's one of those "corporations make more money that way" sort of deals. Governments also find it more convenient to rule over a population that won't question anything too deeply. Then the candidate who wins is usually the one with the most money to spend on advertising.

How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can pretend that telling people to turn them off will do something or they can face reality.

How do I turn this off?

[BetaDays]

I'be been using this antenna booster for years it makes your phone act like the antenna is 6 foot long. Oh wait I just looked at what the article is talking about. Never mind. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA07R0BH8730&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleMKP&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleMKP-_-pla-_-Signal+Boosters-_-9SIA07R0BH8730

Re:How do I turn this off?

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely useless post. Why even bother?

Back up plan

[Grayhand]

So Sprint users are supposed to go back to smoke signals and semaphore flags?

Re:Back up plan

[kelemvor4]

So Sprint users are supposed to go back to smoke signals and semaphore flags?

Since Sprint has already issued blanket consent for boosters, Sprint users are supposed to keep using their boosters.

Land of the Free, home of the Brave

[Anonymous Coward]

My ass. This place is turning into a totalitarian's wet dream.

OK But with it off I can't make a call

[Anonymous Coward]

I turned mine off and I tried to call them but I couldn't get a signal. Now what do I do?

Who the hell is paying the FCC for this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the reason you use a cell phone booster is because you barely get service. Under those conditions, what are the odds of significant interference? The solution of "let's make something poor people do illegal" instead of "require cellular companies to push out a ubiquitious mesh network so that boosters aren't necessary" is typical corporate/FCC corruption. If there's significant intererence, it's the phone companies problem. Let *them* solve it.

The Right Now triumphing over the Right.

[sabt-pestnu]

Thank you for an excellent example of the "Right" answer being forsaken for the "Right now" answer. (Or, if you prefer, the Cheap over the Elegant.)

Specifically, that the TV truck engineers chose an off-the-shelf answer (cell boosters) that required zero effort and knowledge, rather than, say, wiring external cell antennas on the trailer, and running connections inside.

Because, after all, you stop looking once you have an answer...

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't ensuring that the registered users of spectrum don't violate the spectrum bands part of the FCC's mandate? I remember previous discussions on here about some company who wanted to use a particular frequency for communication, but it was struck down because while theoretically it was supposed to be low-energy, in practice it would have been like planting a spotlight next to the adjacent spectrum bands - it would have drowned them out.

FCC can bite me!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think i will go buy one and use one.. Never needed one but if it pisses off the FCC then I am all in..

Sounds right to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no different from telling people that they can't just build an extra observation tower on their building because they want a better view and need a tall tower to see more than just the other houses.

Making other people's situation worse just so you can make yours better isn't right.

Same with that satellite company who wanted to use over-amped signals that would swamp other FCC-compliant devices in the unregulated spectrum.

Reply to FCC

[PPH]

I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram. Revised to include all seven words currently proscribed.

When is the Slashdot crowd...

[Bartles]

going to wake the hell up, and realize that the people you so avidly support really just want to control everything you do. Do you really believe net neutrality is really going to improve your life? Screw all of you people who are supposedly concerned about civil liberties. There are at least a dozen articles in the archives about Sarah Palin's email, and yet there has been no mention of the rampant law breaking at the EPA. What is the point of your so called Liberal utopia, if it is imposed by authoritarian rule? We should all be arguing for liberalism, which is completely and totally the opposite of this current Liberal fascism.

If a regulation falls in the forest...

[istartedi]

If a regulation falls in the forest, will anybody put down their "legal" pot long enough to comply with it? Will their buddy driving 10 mph over the speed limit get there in time? He's coming over to install a light fixture; but he was betting on sports in a bar. Did he file the proper permits with the county to install that fixture? Inquiring minds don't even really need to ask. We already know.

Or...

[J'raxis]

Or you can just ignore them and keep on doing what you're doing.

FCC, Library of Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

First the Head Librarian makes it illegal to unlock phones, now the FCC chimes in on Cell phone boosters...further proof that the water in Washington has been contaminated with hallucinogens...maybe the solution is to move the US capitol to Fargo or someplace more grounded. Cuz' it's obvious these people need a reality check.

Re:FCC, Library of Congress

[turkeyfeathers]

Fargo won't work... the groundwater's full of hallucinogens from all the fracking.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[glassware]

Indeed! We're losing access to the common airwaves! I demand a return to a libertarian paradise where anyone can overconsume a shared resource until the resource is so depleted that nobody can have access to it.

Dear libertarian, one day you may learn what Winston Churchill meant by "Democracy is the worst of all possible forms of government, except for all the other forms that have ever been tried." Unfortunately that day is not today.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[dosilegecko]

This is one of the best posts I've read anywhere in a long time, and I've had this argument with one of my friends many times. I have a feeling which political way you lean, but my friend who really wants more and more laws and regulations to the point where he doesn't have to think or take responsibility is VERY liberal. I really believe in taking personal responsibility and living my own life... live and let live. I guess one of his claims is that a huge government will be very transparent, but he could not elaborate on how that would be true or make sense. Usually those types of people get loud, angry, and irrational, when you ask them to explain or prove stuff (in my experience). Anyways, thanks for the great post, maybe I'll show it to him and he'll get angry :)

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[AuMatar]

Consumerism and the way mass-media is done* has bred a dominant culture of intellectual and emotional babies. They're stuck at an infantile mentality and the surest sign of it is the unwillingness to take personal responsibility. A form of this personal failing is like this: "it's not good enough that *I* don't engage in an activity I disagree with - no one else should do it either!" This pathological inability to be satisfied with anything less than such options not being present at all is a complete rejection of even the slightest self-determinism. It's like these people don't even trust themselves not to watch, read, listen to, or engage in something they find distasteful.

Yup, its a completely new phenomena. Its not like there was ever a temperance movement that outlawed drinking because they decided it should be a universal value. And we avoided a civil war because everyone without slaves respected the rights of slaveholders to have them. And nobody would ever go to war over religious differences, because its obviously enough that you worship in your own way. Yup, totally new thing caused by mass media.

Now back to reality. People haven't changed. They have always wanted to enforce some of their beliefs on others, either for their belief it was better for the other, better for 3rd parties, or better for themselves. You do it yourself- your belief is that people should never do this. Why? How far should we take it- should we make murder legal and simply hope people decide "well, *I* won't murder someone"? But you're trying to enforce that belief of yours on a population that time and again has decided that the balance should be closer to the middle.

People are people. It's not a media problem, its a humanity problem. And it's a conflict that will last until the end of time.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Penguinisto]

Small point of order: If a resource becomes overconsumed (as you put it), then the price for accessing (and using) it rises to the point where it is no longer consumed as heavily.

The only exception to this rule involves intervention by government via actions such as price controls.

Looks like the FCC has changed it's mind

[A Smilodon]

Looks like they already changed the faq

I already have a signal booster; do I need to do anything?
If a wireless provider or the FCC asks you to turn off your signal booster because it is causing interference to a wireless network, you must turn off your booster and leave it off until the interference problem can be resolved. When the new rules go into effect, you will be able to purchase a booster with additional safeguards that protect wireless networks from interference.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Damastus the WizLiz]

"its a humanity problem. And it's a conflict that will last until the end of time"

It will only last until the end of humanity.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[CdBee]

That logic generally works where economic allocation of resources is practiced. It fails where a resource is commonly available in perceived high quantities and the means to use it are simply obtained or inexpensive. For example, increased sales of radio transceivers won't make the price of radio communication higher, as after the sunk capital cost the only expense is the electricity to power it. Instead the experience just degrades in quality. Likewise, using the atmosphere as a dumping ground for waste gases won't become more expensive by purely economic means.

In both cases there will be an ability, if not a tendency, to overconsume in the lack of a non-economic regulator.

the issue isn't the repeater, but incompetence

[SuperBanana]

The issue isn't that the trucks are running repeaters. The issue is that they're running repeaters that are incompetently configured.

1)Too high a gain on the interior side = amplified noise outside.
2)Too much signal strength on the amp (probably in both directions)

For a phone inside the trailer, you should need very, very little gain. If the area otherwise has good coverage, the amp should be putting out no more than an average cell phone.

Sounds to me like someone thought Bigger was Better.

Cold dead fingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another thing they'll have to pry out of my cold, dead fingers...:-)

NTIA

[dtmos]

Actually, the military and licensed government spectrum is controlled by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. It informs the FCC what frequencies will be used by federal users. The FCC only regulates use of the spectrum by non-federal users.

Both must coordinate with each other, of course, and international bodies like the International Telecommunications Union.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[i kan reed]

To put that more straightforwardly: libertarians assume that there is a natural economic process to internalize all external costs when there is not. That is the underlying flaw of neo-liberalism.

This has always been the way of operation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Sweden this has always been the way of operation for transmitting devices, I checked up on getting a booster myself a while ago to get better coverage.
I have to get permission from 3 entities and register the booster-device with them before I can turn it on (for a 3G booster), Sweden 3G that is handling all 3G traffic, my carrier and PTS (Post och Telestyrelsen), who regulates all electronic traffic.
I also have to pay a yearly license fee, a symbolic sum, to keep the device registered and all 3 entities have the right to whenever, without reason, to withdraw their permission. Aside from all that I would also have to give them access to the device to remotely disable it.

It's quite bothersome, but it does provide some security and the carriers know what devices are out there if something is messing with the network.

Freakin FCC

[Hamsterdan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA

Aaaah...

[Anonymous Coward]

The smell of government-supported monopolies in the morning.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[0111 1110]

Actually, Libertarians rarely assume anything. Most Libertarians are fans of logic and rationality. Problems such as how to avoid overly congested airwaves could be handled just fine by limited government libertarians for obvious reasons.

Anarcho-libertarians OTOH would simply argue that either the solution is worse than the problem or that the problem will work itself out naturally. There is actually lots of room in the EM spectrum, at least for narrow band. It makes little sense for two competitors to block out each others transmissions when one can merely shift 500 kHz higher or lower. It would really be in everyone's interest to come up with commonly followed standards/guidelines for EM transmissions.

I'm not really up on all the latest pirate radio stations, but I haven't heard of many who fight against other transmissions on the same frequency. If you know that someone is already transmitting on 176.432 Mhz you can just choose 177.389 Mhz or whatever. Also consider how rare pirate radio stations are. It's just not such a huge problem that we need police state enforcement.

I don't think we have to all live as slaves just so our radio and TV stations are nice and clear. If the price of not being a slave is that it makes wireless communication more problematic then so be it. It may very well be true that EM waves are more efficient when allocated by the government, but I would much rather live in a free society with more difficult wireless than live as a slave in one where there is never any interference because causing it is punishable by death (or in our case a slap on the wrist fine only occasionally enforced)

Personally I don't have a major problem with the FCC when they are attempting to sort out wireless standards. That's a useful activity whether or not it is truly necessary. I do have a problem with them however when they engage in censorship. And such censorship is pretty much inevitable once the government is given control of the EM spectrum.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[sphealey]

Yes, the various economic actors worked auto-magically in concert to clean up the Great Lakes in the early 1970s based on nothing except price signals!

Oh wait...

sPh

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Great Lakes were going dry then from sheer overconsumption?

Oh wait...

GP's point concerned consumption, not abuse/misuse by pollution or otherwise.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[i kan reed]

I'm sorry, but while I do understand that there is diversity within every political position:

Actually, Libertarians rarely assume anything. Most Libertarians are fans of logic and rationality.

This is absolute nonsense. Everyone except those of a particularly religious bent believes their political beliefs are totally rational, and a huge percentage of people don't grasp basic logic enough to demonstrate that. Every outlook is fundamentally built on predicates. For example the de-facto core predicate of libertarianism goes something like this "Liberty is the highest good." Most, or at least many, Americans agree with this tenant, but when it's twisted to be "Liberty from government interference is the only good" it becomes a dangerous short-circuit on the role of society in achieving humanistic goals. I have objections with most libertarian thought in that it implicitly endorses many kinds of harm one private citizen can visit upon another, with no mechanism for limiting that harm.

I cannot, of course, explicitly say everyone who shares identification with that world view is engaged in the same kind of mistakes, but I can identify commonly considered core principles to be poorly reasoned.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[tombeard]

Fortunately (?), Libertarianism has never been tried.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd allow us to defend against people pumping out too much radio waves, or against polluters, then we'd see that natural process in action. That tendency to over-consume is entirely due to the legal protections granted to over-consumers by the state. Take away that barrier, admit pollution to be the assault that it is, and you'll see polluters paying restitution.

I'm sure this sounds absurd to you, but it seems just as absurd to me that everyone else thinks we shouldn't retaliate unless it's through the state. Perhaps once a few cities are destroyed by climate change, people will find the courage to defend themselves without permission.

Boosters go about it all wrong

[Miamicanes]

(note: this applies as written to the US and Canada... it would absolutely need changes for use elsewhere in the world)

The whole way that boosters work is just fundamentally wrong. Instead of using the mobile network's frequencies for the phone-booster link, they should act like a mini cell tower that operates on the old 900MHz cordless phone band (902-928MHz), allocated as follows:

1.25MHz: CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT uplink
1.25MHz: CDMA2000-EVDO uplink
5MHz: HSPA uplink #1
5MHz: HSPA uplink #2
(some chunk for legacy GSM)
1.25MHz: CDMA2000 voice & 1xRTT downlink
1.25MHz: CDMA2000-EVDO downlink
5Mhz: HSPA downlink #1
5Mhz: HSPA downlink #2

My back of the envelope calculations suggest that CDMA and HSPA will need 25MHz, leaving 3MHz for up to 15 channels of legacy GSM. In Canada (which, AFAIK, has the same frequency bandplan for 902-928MHz as the US), the device could optionally hijack the pair of EVDO channels for an additional 2.5Mhz of legacy GSM channels.

Ideally, the FCC would grow balls, define this as an objective standard that can be independently certified, then require carriers to provide autoconfiguration data and accept traffic from any device that passes the required certification when relaying traffic from one of their customers. The key point is that it would remove the carrier itself from the equation so they can't muck things up, charge additional fees, or gimp the whole thing into uselessness.

Carriers would be allowed to ignore signals from malfunctioning personal cells (providing occasional response beacons making it known that they were refusing to communicate with them and why), tell them to quit broadcasting or reduce power if they cause interference, or file a complaint with the FCC asking them to contact you to resolve problems involving conflicts between them and another carrier involving your personal cell, but if everything is working as designed, the FCC would tell them to piss off, handshake with your cell like they're supposed to, and quit harassing you.

As an end user, you'd mount it on a mast like an old TV antenna (or put it on your balcony), power it up, watch it do a site survey, then ask you which carriers you want to enable it for, and whether you want to restrict use (which would also limit its max power... share it with your neighbors, and you get to use higher power because otherwise you'd just be stomping on THEIR personal cells). If it saw other personal cells, it would negotiate with them to mutually reduce 902-928MHz transmit power more aggressively if you had yours in 'private' mode, or mesh with them and locally exchange traffic if they determined that one had a better view of a network's tower than the other if you had yours in 'public' mode.

The nice thing about a personal tower device like this is the fact that it's semi-transparent to the phone and mobile network itself. The phone just happens to see that there's a 902MHz "tower" nearby that has better connectivity to ${your-carrier} that the phone itself (after handshaking and autoconfiguration, your cell basically becomes a seamless local tower for every network you decide to enable), and relays its traffic to the proper network on the network's own frequencies under its own identity. The personal cell isn't spoofing a phone, nor is it leeching your own internet connection (and in fact, would work as a MEANS of connectivity if you were in some rural area with decent wireless, but no viable broadband).

For users in ultra-rural areas, they could expose an expansion bus that allowed you to add one or two LTE or Wimax modules and/or additional tuned directional antennas if desired. They could also allow you to add additional units that consisted only of the local 902-928MHz side, and wire them all together with cat5e (either giving them at least 2 dedicated pairs of their own so they could do ATM, using them with a QoS-enabled switch, or just tolerating random jitter) so they can share a single outdoor backhaul link.

Re:Boosters go about it all wrong

[jaymemaurice]

Back in the day, you could get cars with car phones that worked with Bluetooth Sim Access Profile - those car phones had fixed antennas mounted outside so could broadcast up to 1 watt... but then came the iphone... since the iPhone was so trendy and hip (yet not supporting SAP or copy and paste) BMW/Mercedes stopped selling such equipped bluetooth car phones instead opting for the crappy reception of your crappy mobile located inside your metal box.

Not to inject any facts into this anyting....

[EvilSS]

FTFA:

What are signal boosters?

Signal boosters are devices that can help cell phone users improve their coverage in areas where they do not get a good signal. For example, signal boosters can be placed in homes or cars to provide increased signal strength for cell phones, which may let the user complete a call in areas where they previously couldn’t. When these devices are properly installed, they can help consumers, wireless service providers, and public safety first responders by extending cell phone coverage to areas that would otherwise have weak signals such as tunnels, subways, inside buildings, and in rural areas.

Although signal boosters can improve cell phone coverage, malfunctioning, poorly designed, or improperly installed signal boosters can interfere with wireless networks and cause interference to a range of calls, including emergency and 911 calls.

I already have a signal booster; do I need to do anything?

If a wireless provider or the FCC asks you to turn off your signal booster because it is causing interference to a wireless network, you must turn off your booster and leave it off until the interference problem can be resolved. When the new rules go into effect, you will be able to purchase a booster with additional safeguards that protect wireless networks from interference.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Anonymous Coward]

From an economic perspective, they're the same thing. Tragedy of the commons.

Not to say a cherry-picked example from the 1970's proves anything about radio emissions...

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[Qzukk]

and you'll see polluters paying restitution.

So when that pesticide smell settles over your whole city you'll just go door to door at the chemical companies and say "pardon me my good sirs would you permit me to come in and see whether this noxious odor has emanated from your abode"? How many of them are going to let you on the property? How many of them are going to admit to poisoning everyone?

That this is how the EPA currently works (self inspections, self reporting, etc) because nobody will give them the money to hire inspectors with the force of government is beside the point.

3G to Wifi Voip

[pmathew]

My home has no cellular network inside which makes my life very difficult .. All the booster devices capture, boost and re-transmit the signal causing all the interference menace while enabling me to get facility of voice calls .. the purpose of getting voice call connectivity can be served if a device can intercept my incoming calls and transfer it as voip call of some sort on my phone .. this system wont have any interference issue and i get voice calls .. Is there such a device ?

Re:3G to Wifi Voip

[JonBoy47]

Sprint calls theirs "Airave" but all the major carriers have an equivalent femtocell base station that you can install in your home/office, using your wireline high speed internet as the backhaul. Inexplicably, they charge for both the device and add-on service, despite the fact that they offset the need to build more towers.

Land of the Free ....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... and the home of fucking idiots.

Where can I get one of these boosters???

[Tony Isaac]

I live in suburban Houston. There are cell towers everywhere. But I still can't get a good signal at my house! The only reason I don't complain is that my phone does WiFi calling, which works fine at home.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[0111 1110]

For example the de-facto core predicate of libertarianism goes something like this "Liberty is the highest good.

Close, but not exactly. I would say that the most fundamental principle of Libertarianism is voluntarism, that to use force by one human being against another (when you are not merely defending yourself from an attacker) is inherently wrong and having a big gang to back you up does not make the use of force any less wrong. That all human interaction should be based on the idea that all human beings are born with inalienable human rights which a government can neither give nor take away. That any just society must treat all human beings as inherently equal.

In order to justify forcing anyone to do anything that they do not want to do you are asserting that you are in some way superior to that person. That they are your slave and you are their master.

So you see, like socialists, and unlike either democrats or republicans, libertarians base their ideas, not on pragmatism, but on actual ideas about right and wrong. Politics are subservient to ethics.

Most, or at least many, Americans agree with this tenant, but when it's twisted to be "Liberty from government interference is the only good" it becomes a dangerous short-circuit on the role of society in achieving humanistic goals.

You seriously believe that many/most Americans believe in the principle of liberty? That is demonstrably untrue. AFAIK, Libertarians are the only group in America that believes in individual liberty. Republicans obviously don't. They are welcoming a police state with open arms. The democrats may be slightly more reluctant, but they definitely do not support freedom in any way. At least not anymore.

Claiming that libertarians believe that freedom is the only good may be a bit of a stretch. Nevertheless if you are the one who is locked in a cage by the state it would seem hard to imagine a higher good than freedom. Without freedom, genuine freedom, which means freedom from government tyranny, what possible good could be achieved in such a society. A society of masters and slaves.

I don't consider slavery of any kind to be "humanistic", but I agree that freedom is definitely a short circuit toward achieving the dream a dystopian society where imperfect humans working in the government get to decide the fates of everyone else and micromanage our lives and order us to do as they say in a manner no different from a Mafia kingpin. The society you envision is a society of slaves. You just don't like to call it that. You are like the man who rapes a woman and believes throughout the experience that despite the gun to her head she is enjoying it.

I have objections with most libertarian thought in that it implicitly endorses many kinds of harm one private citizen can visit upon another, with no mechanism for limiting that harm.

The whole point of libertarian thought is that harm against innocent people is minimized. Is there any worse harm than that of government imposing its will? There is no greater concentration of power than that of a government and the power can only grow and grow until or unless it is stopped through force. The 20th century had quite a few governments that attempted to achieve 'humanistic' goals and the cruelty was almost unimaginable and the body counts were in the millions.

but I can identify commonly considered core principles to be poorly reasoned.

Which principles are poorly reasoned? The point of my original comment about logic and rationality is that, based on my own personal experience, libertarians are far more likely to value both of those than people with more mixed and pragmatic political beliefs. It also takes a great deal more thought and independence to believe in such an unpopular system of government than it does to believe almost exactly the same thing that your parents and friends and most of the people you know j

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[jahudabudy]

So you see, like socialists, and unlike either democrats or republicans, libertarians base their ideas, not on pragmatism, but on actual ideas about right and wrong. Politics are subservient to ethics.

Ah, but you are implicitly asserting that your ethics are superior to mine. What if we disagree on what the ideal good is? In a society of 300 million, that is going to be inevitable. We can't resort to what works best for most of the people most of the time, i.e. pragmatism, because you have rejected that as a valid basis for a social structure. You state that it is evil to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, as though that is some hotly debated principle. It's not. Most people even accept the corollary, that it is also wrong to prevent anyone from doing that which they want, with the caveat that their actions have no negative impact on others. Which is again where we run into the problem of basing our society on ethics. Take 300 million definitions of harm, with no allowances made for pragmatism, then try to build a society that minimizes that harm. Good luck.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[causality]

Indeed! We're losing access to the common airwaves!

Only the most biased reading possible could have led you to believe I was talking about the spectrum licensing function of the FCC. While it could probably be implemented better, that idea is sound in principle and I have no problem with it.

You may have noticed that nowhere in my post did the word "license" appear in any form. That's because I was not talking about the licensing of scarce EM spectrum. So, in typical Slashdot fashion, you decided to go for what you thought was a cheap-shot slam-dunk "victory" but only managed to miss the entire point being made. This is known as making an ass of yourself by being too eager to be right.

What I *was* talking about, which you would know if you made an effort to comprehend my post, was the FCC's regulation of the speech that said license-holders may put on said airwaves. That's an entirely different matter and you know it.

It's getting more and more difficult to have adult conversation on this site because it's become overrun by people like you. Honestly, grow up.

Re:When government is involved-everything is polit

[0111 1110]

You state that it is evil to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, as though that is some hotly debated principle. It's not.

It's not hotly debated because almost no one believes it. Although they may pretend to believe it. Our whole society is based on the idea of forcing others to behave in a certain way. It certainly isn't based on the principle of voluntarism, of just leaving people alone and letting them be as long as they are not at least physically harming anyone else. I mean, christ, that's what most of the political stories here are about: forcing people to do things.

If you base your society on pragmatic, isolated, immediate issues with no principles to guide you then you get what we have today. That is our status quo. Most people don't believe in utopias or broad political principles anymore. They mostly just believe in themselves. And not just the Republicans. The Democrats too regardless of how much they deny it.

That is why libertarians and socialists have much more in common with each other than either has with the two major parties. We at least believe in right and wrong. That there is such a thing.

And libertarians believe that slavery, and police states, and ubiquitous surveillance, and a life that is at the mercy of any government agent with arbitrary power and having to ask permission or even beg just for the privilege to travel somewhere and all the rest of the tyranny that has been building in this country for decades and has blossomed in the new millenium is wrong. Just wrong.

A just society must be one where every citizen is treated equally. I'm not talking about egalitarianism. I mean that there is not one group that is 'more equal' than the other. What right does anyone have to tell someone else how they must live? What makes them so superior to be able to do that?

You see that is what human rights are really all about. The idea that one person has no right to treat another like a slave, regardless of whether they are more violent and have more guns. Human rights are all about the inalienable right to simply be left alone to live your life. That's where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness came from.

Now of course you may not believe in the idea of rights. You may believe that might makes right and that the government, as the strongest, essentially owns its citizens and can do whatever they like with them, but if you are like most people you don't believe that because you don't really believe in much of anything when it comes to politics. Just the status quo and a few narrow issues here or there, particularly when they have a personal stake in the matter.

As far as building a society that minimizes harm, the founders of this country already did that more or less. They just didn't build that society to last. Perhaps it never can. Governments will always grow out of control unless restrained by violence. There will always be selfish, power-hungry people who will try to seize power and inforce their will on a nation.

The essence of the problem with the two major parties is not what their ideas are, but that they don't actually have any. They mostly just want to nitpick at the status quo. The democrats want to raise taxes and introduce more social programs. The republicans want to micromanage and control anyone who is not a corporation and impose their religious based principles on everyone else. What both parties want is essentially a police state, but of course they don't think about it that way because that would require more than just a moment's thought and they don't like to think too much. It must give them a headache or something. Politics is actually a branch of philosophy. Without any guiding principles to determine what kind of society you think is ideal you really have nothing more than a mob fighting with each other over special interests and who gets to feed at the public trough.