Cellphone Carriers Try To Control Signal Boosters 231
digitaldc writes "[Repeaters], which cost from $250 to $1,000, depending on how much they increase a signal, work by first capturing cell signals through an external antenna, ideally affixed to the roof of a dwelling. A coaxial cable then transmits the signal inside the house to an amplifier and internal antenna, which strengthen and retransmit it to cellphones...
In March, CTIA-The Wireless Association, which represents cellular service providers, filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission demanding stricter regulation of signal boosters."
Paywalled (Score:5, Informative)
I clicked through Google news to get it "free"... http://news.google.com/news/search?q=stricter+regulation+of+signal+boosters [google.com]
Re:Paywalled (Score:4, Informative)
Because news sites *want* search engines like Google to see their content, so that people searching for stuff will be directed to them. And they want the people following links from Google to come back. So they try follow the drug dealer's model: we'll give you a bit for free, so that you'll come back and pay for more later. Of course, smart people figure out how to not pay ever, but that's only a small percentage of viewers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah it seems rather foolish for New York Times to share its article for free, if their goal is to make money.
If it were owned by George Soros he'd probably block google, just as he's been ripping FOX News videos off youtube.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't get it, why does it work that way?
Why? They want Google to get through so their site gets indexed. Then people search for this information, click the search result, and receive the sales pitch for the paywall.
This is the link from news.google.com that does NOT show a paywall:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18basics.html?_r=1&src=me [nytimes.com]
This is the link from the Slashdot summary that DOES show a paywall:
http://www10.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/technology/personaltech/18basics.html?_r=5&ref=technology [nytimes.com]
S
Re:Paywalled (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, that's BRILLIANT! Click on the first link, and you'll notice that r becomes 2. Open another browser on your computer and paste the new URL in... r becomes 3. By the time we've seen it on Slashdot, this url was hot-potatoed along four times from the first viewer.
Can't read article. (Score:2)
Fail. I wanted to know "why" the cell companies don't like these boosters. What's wrong with wanting to give your cellphone better reception or transmission? It used to be commonplace (cars driving around with them on their roofs).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't read article. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wanted to know "why" the cell companies don't like these boosters. What's wrong with wanting to give your cellphone better reception or transmission?
They like the boosters, but want regulation that prevents competition, i.e. that you will have to buy the equipment from them, at a mark-up.
It's even worse for the cell-over-internet boxes, where you buy internet access and route your home cell phone traffic over them. They want control, so they can continue to charge you air time, plus lease for the box, all for using your bandwidth instead of them paying to put up extra towers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>want regulation that prevents competition
And my libertarian friends wonder why I hate both government AND mega-corporations. We the people no longer matter. Although there is one thing in favor of the megacorps: They can't suck money direct from my wallet, send armed goons to invade my house, or force me to go die in Nam or Iraq or some other stupid war.
Re: (Score:2)
And my libertarian friends wonder why I hate both government AND mega-corporations.
That's a non-sequitor, libertarians aren't in favor of government-created monstrosities of any form.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian politicians are government-created monstrosities ^_^
Re:Can't read article. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's my biggest gripe with most libertarians I've met -- when they finally do concede that large corporations are as much of a threat to liberty as government, they blame government for creating them. Which might be true in some instances (eg, government granted monopoly) but in other instances (eg, Microsoft) it's not, or much less so (and depending on the libertarian philosophy, some are opposed to copyright & patent in any form, which may nullify that answer).
But it strikes me as too easy to *just* blame the government without questioning corporate power at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Libertarian here.
You're right in pointing out that corporations are creations of the state (government). However you are mistaken in understanding of how we might view this sort of thing.
Over Air Frequencies are allotted, and rightfully so, by government lottery or auction. As such it would be quite easy to include terms of the use of those frequencies to include all sorts of "freedom" for end users (public).
In this case, the FCC should have jurisdiction for such devices, and not the corporations. Additiona
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the duty length was modified twice, retroactively. I.e. people were forced to serve in Iraq for a longer time than they initially signed up for. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:Can't read article. (Score:5, Informative)
this is a fundamental issue in the way wireless communications works, when you stand in one spot in a city within range of three towers, your cell phone attempts to modulate itself onto a portion of the spectrum that will allow it to speak. This in turn means that all three towers now can hear you.
because all three towers can hear you, but only one is responsible for carrying your traffic the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers. the only thing the towers can do is reduce power to the quadrant the handset is in, allowing people closer to the tower to use it at the same time. even THIS however is limited: if the MobileStation can still reach the other two towers, they can't reduce power far enough to allow anybody else to use those channels.
once you install powered signal boosters, your cell phone now may be able to reach twenty towers. those towers each have a limited number of 'slots' available for users to use, (infact the number of GSM channels is currently around 32, though through timeframing of each channel there are 7-14frames per channel/second) meaning that you effectively are now multiplying your capacity based on how many towers you can hit.
the issue here is NOT with people that are in small towns/remote location, telco's are happy to let people put up their own repeaters to enlarge the telco's network at no cost to the telco. the issue they have is that people in downtown apartments with lead paint think that by hitting every tower in 15 square blocks just so they can repeat it indoors for one customer is a good thing.
by using the air to communicate: you have to learn to share it with others. we only have one global collection of air for which EMR can radiate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the wireless spectrum is only so large, and you can only multiplex so many people onto any one frequency. Even if you hop the around frequencies: they still only have so many total channels available. as much as one wants to think that the air will scale indefinitely: it doesn't. every time you add more time-slots to a frequency or frequencies to a conversation: it increases the latency and error rate.
digital technology doesn't quite do the job one hopes it would, as it's still carrying
Re: (Score:2)
if I take my USRP and modulate a GSM conversation onto the air, I assure you I WON'T be frequency hopping to communicate. most of the providers in canada don
Re: (Score:2)
there are a maximum of 125 channels for both up and down stream communication in GSM. using the wonders of TDMA, there are 8 slots containing 24 frames for data. each user get's a frame per slot, meaning you can multiplex a maximum of 3000 simultaneous conversations while maintaining 120ms latency per tower.
that's assuming that the a
Re: (Score:2)
>>>only one tower is responsible for carrying your traffic; the others make that channel unavailable to the people within range of the other two towers.
Bzzzz. That's how it worked under the old Analog frequency division multiplexing, but it's not how it works on modern Coded multiplexing which allows multiple users to use the same channel concurrently.
Re: (Score:2)
as much as the "digital" buzzword comes back, at the end of the day signals are broadcasting in analog.
yes, R&D has lead to significantly increased channelizing of the existing spectrum. but analog signals can only be mixed so far and still be discernible. also, at some point you introduce co much overhead to multiplex that you add latency that makes voice communication slow and unbearable.
[sarcasm]though we all know that customers leave providers that provide high latency unbearable v
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly correct.
It is to do with channel allocation and link budget. Not to mention that it plays hell when suddenly your signal is attenuated by 50 dB because you are no longer on your personal cell.
Lets say the tower you were on is now out of reach, but you never performed a proper detach and your phone is now trying to perform a location update on tower B. It's a pain in the ass from a network management point of view.
Re:extra towers (Score:2)
I have terrible service in my home and there is nowhere they can stick up another tower in my residential neighborhood.
I would let them stick a tower in my backyard but the neighbors won't allow it.
They all want great reception but they don't want the towers anywhere near their homes.
The only solution I can think of is to use existing above gro
Re: (Score:2)
Why they might like that, that's not the reason. They're a non regulated device broadcasting signal on a regulated spectrum. They want to be sure they comply; otherwise they may* interfere with the spectrum.
*If not regulated, I can guarantee you poor quality device with little or no controls will eventually saturate the market.
Re: (Score:2)
the issue here would be more like you repeating an FM station between two towns that BOTH have stations using the same frequency, because you want to hear one of the two stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that sarcasm? I know lots of radio stations that love people for repeating their signal for them. It's win-win! If you were sending another signal on the same frequency it would be something else entirely but that's not what a repeater does.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounded like they didn't want other companies selling boosters. They want to be the only ones capable of providing such devices. Or even eliminate the concept of the boosters entirely, and move towards funneling calls over the customers broadband connection.
That allows a business model like Verizon's, where they will be more than happy to charge you for the device to send their calls over your own internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
rf engineers don't like these boosters because they extend signals in unpredictable/uncontrollable ways.
if a cell site is propagating signal incorrectly, it can be fixed via down-tilt, power-stepping, or a host of internal-to-the-system parameters.
however, if a cell site is propagating signal just fine, but some joe is extending its signal five miles beyond its expected range, and another joe is pulling from him another two miles away, it becomes nearly impossible to predict how adjustments will affect the
Re: (Score:2)
however, if a cell site is propagating signal just fine, but some joe is extending its signal five miles beyond its expected range, and another joe is pulling from him another two miles away
That is unlikely. These boosters are two antenna jobs - normally a directional mounted outside pointed at the closest tower, and a small omni inside (or a plate type on an appropriate wall). The gain on the inside is such that only really close phones will pick it up. The setup I was looking at would have gotten my house, and maybe a bit of the yard - when the next closest tower was ~30 miles away.
I can see requiring FCC certification and some electronics to make sure the booster plays nice by providing
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you know, you would not be able to extend their signal 5 miles down the way, that would take a couple of watts whereas boosters from the manufacturers in the article are well below that. I have great reception on top of this building and almost no reception inside the building. Now that I have a repeater I can actually make calls inside. I'm not sure extending their signal 40 feet down in a 3000 square foot section of the building is going to cause any issues whatsoever with their weak signal.
We ar
Re: (Score:2)
a clarifying point - a passive antenna on a car or house is not a booster - the devices in question take the signal in, amplify it, and retransmit it.
Re: (Score:2)
I ahve to address your sig (Score:2)
Modern libertarian is NOT the same as Jeffersonian.
I am so sick and god damn tired of people trying to associate there stupid Libertarian fallacies.
The very thinkgs Jeffersonians believe in ou contrary to Libertarians.
For example" Jeffersonians think Banks, People who run them, and industrialist are corrupt and should be regulated.
Another example: Jeffersonians recognize that the constitution isn't written in stone and will need to adopt according to the current generation.
This is the same shit they lied ab
Re: (Score:2)
What security risks???
Next I suppose the megacorps will tell me I can't use a room-mount antenna with my TV or FM radio. Or Comcast will say I can't use any box but theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't read article. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think possible interference is a legitimate concern. I don't think requiring the device manufacturers to be FCC type accepted and requiring the repeaters to have variable output is not too much to ask. Hell just mandate the maximum amount of power that can be outputted by the device. I'm pretty sure most of these requirements already exist.
However getting the FCC to only allow the devices to be sold by the carriers or authorized by the carriers make no sense except to create another legal monopoly in repeater sales.
The obvious answer (Score:5, Insightful)
which is for carriers to improve their coverage, doesn't even occur to them, eh.
Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Customers so desperate to be able to use a sucky service that they're willing to do the job a carrier ought to be doing... how many other businesses would *kill* to have that problem?
Ah, but they want the customer to pay *them* (the carriers) for the privilege of solving the carriers problem, not some upstart little company who has started selling boosters on Amazon.
Surely, a new level of greed.
Re: (Score:2)
I concede the point. at&t already tried to sell me one of their femtocells. I told them to fix their damn coverage. They had actually turned off 3G on the local tower... but that's another story.
Exactly, and they really work. (Score:2)
Ah, but they want the customer to pay *them* (the carriers) for the privilege of solving the carriers problem, not some upstart little company who has started selling boosters on Amazon.
You're not kidding. I recently installed a Wilson [amazon.com] booster that I got from Amazon, and it's like a whole new world for me.
Usually I had about 5 minutes of signal coverage leaving work, which is only useful for short conversations. On my long Interstate drives I'd lose signal about every 15 minutes, which made drive-time tal
Re: (Score:2)
While I was working at Sprint a few years ago, they began talking about phones with wifi that would use a home users internet when network signal was low. I remember thinking the same thing "Way to offload your job onto the customer." They would also get to *pay* for this feature as another service charge.
Re: (Score:2)
You and the other clueless people who mod'd you +5 just don't get it.
I live in the SF Bay Area and if there ever was a "TechnoLand" this is it, well in the US anyway.
You obviously don't have a clue about what it takes to put in one (1) cell tower. The average time from application to tower turn up in San Francisco is 3 to 5 Years! There are so many hearings and reviews you have to go through it is beyond ridiculous. My wife is a commercial property manager and she has said YES to every cell carrier who h
Tough call... (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA,
"Supported by separate filings by AT&T and Verizon, the CTIA claims that boosters interfere with cellular networks and disrupt service to customers. As a result, CTIA has asked the F.C.C. to require that “the use of signal boosters be coordinated with and controlled by commission licensees and the sale and marketing of such devices be limited to authorized parties.” "
In other words, "we want exclusive rights to sell them, and not because it will make us tons of money and save the cost of improving our networks in poorly covered areas, we are actually looking out for consumers".
While I'm sure their motivations are at least somewhat greedy, I can't imagine the frustration of living next door to a guy who has a poorly configured or broken repeater that prevents me from making calls.
tough call...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they already have a ton of random devices all successfully sharing the airwaves. I can pop a SIM card in any random (unlocked, sigh) GSM phone that works on at&t frequencies and expect it to work. Why is it that it's just the cell repeaters that are a problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Booster recommendations? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wilson makes an absolutely fantastic booster for GSM, the 812201, which is a "direct connect" (wired) booster for a single device. I've used it with data cards and cell phones along zero-bar areas like Amtrak lines in Pennsylvania (suddenly had 3 bars and was the only person on the train with a working cell phone) and in Utah, which has sparse GSM coverage due to low population. This isn't a good house solution, but it'd make me willing to bet on their other products.
Re: (Score:2)
I use the Wilson dual-band CDMA/Sprint version in rural TX. I don't have the model info in front of me, but it is 12vDC, comes with a contact retransmit antenna (you have to set your phone in contact with it to work) and a 25' magnetic uni-directional exterior antenna. It is designed primarily for use inside a vehicle, but my understanding is you can replace both antennas (BNC connectors to coax) with directional models. As long as you don't overlap the coverage (or you are effectively retransmitting inside
Re: (Score:2)
You might check out UMA or wifi-calling that Tmob has on some of their handsets. I use it on my G2 and it's beautiful for voice and SMS (Not MMS).
Does not supprise me. (Score:3, Interesting)
People get amps to make up with poor cell service, and/or the fact that their tiny little handset does not work in a rural area/congested area.
Since the majority of people out there do not know how to properly install an antenna/transmitter, I am sure that the amps cause all kinds of headaches for the carriers.
Personally I use in my truck a Motorola M900 ( a full power gsm bag phone) for its excellent hands free and for the high power when I need it.
Otherwise I carry my N900 around for portablily and cool features, but I do not expect it to work 20 miles from the nearest tower.
Re:Does not supprise me. (Score:5, Informative)
That may be true if the device is solely placed where the signal is poor, the tuner is inadequate, the antenna is bad, and the amplifier has nothing to work with, but the solutions that I've seen nullify many of these problems.
These devices have two parts. One part, located ideally outside, high up, talks to the cell company. the other part, located where the poorest signal is normally, talks to the cell phones. On top of that, these devices have much larger antennas than the phones do, and with more size they can also have better radio tuners. So, you're not amplifying crap, you're getting a better signal and forwarding it to another device that is in an area that can't get the original.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, some repeaters are digital. The whole point of a digital repeater is that an amplifier can correct the shitty signal.
Also not to mention: Phones are TWO WAY. A nearby repeater greatly increases the disproportionate outgoing range of your cell phone.
If you've ever been able to hear someone on your cell, but they can not hear you, you probably could have benefited from an amplifier.
Re: (Score:2)
An old ham radio saying is all an amplifier does is amplify crap.
If a HAM operator has bad reception, they've got bad reception in pretty optimal receiving conditions: a good antenna in a sensible place. So the signal must be the limiting factor. Amplification is not going to help that. Cellphone users try to get reception on tiny antennas, next to their leg, in the middle of their house. The signal outside might be pretty decent. Repeating it indoors could rescue it.
Passive Boosters? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone ever try a passive booster?
Overly simplified: it's basically an external antenna connected to an internal antenna.
Re:Passive Boosters? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, when I drove a truck. They are very popular with truck drivers and you can find them at any truck stop -- admittedly in a form well suited to being bolted to a truck. Most drivers put the thing on whatever mirror is not holding their CB ariel. I have seen a few suitable for use in a car there though, so look around.
Re: (Score:2)
Are any of these examples of what you're talking about?
http://www.google.com/products?q=cell%20phone%20passive%20repeater [google.com]
I'm curious about them, but cautious about cheap ones which may not work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They work fine.
It's just two antennas, connected together. In a car (which acts a bit like a Faraday cage), you might just think of it as a hole that allows the RF to leak in, plus a little bit more height.
In my mostly-windowless work van, I've built my own: There is a through-mounted gain antenna on the roof, and a magnetic mount gain antenna on the inside, connected by a few inches of coax.
Works well enough: I put it together after I was on my way to a job one day, and close to my destination there was
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer and fewer phones are coming with connectors for external antennas.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a passive booster, but I've used an external antenna before on my Touch HTC -- which still has a jack for such a thing (many newer phones do not, or have them hidden internally with no holes in the case for access).
In some locations I sent from 0-1 bars to 1-2 bar, which doesn't sound like much but makes an enormous difference in being able to make phone calls and transmit data.
I also tested it out using Field test mode (For those with an HTC Touch, enter ##33284# to access)
to see the dbm measurements,
Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, look at what femtocells, the type of boosters Verizon and AT&T want to sell you, actually do: they "push wireless signals onto the Internet" to improve signal.
That's right, rather than upgrade networks that the iPhone and Droid will saturate to uselessness within the next year (I hear that in NYC AT&T is already almost worthless), they're pushing a device that works around their own incompetence by shoving your "wireless" signal back onto copper, fiber, or coax before it even leaves your house. They're not just avoiding the issue of under-developed networks, they've figured out how to charge you for it.
Rather than trying to ban unregulated devices and trying to transform our cell phones into wireless landlines wherever they can manage it, how about they propose better specifications for the "boosters" that actually boost a wireless signal, or spend some money on their damn networks?
Re:Carriers Prefer Charging for the Boosters (Score:4, Informative)
Mod parent up - boosters sold by others still use their towers, femtocells sold by the carriers use your internet connection. If they can outlaw the boosters, the carriers win twice.
Re: (Score:2)
I make a living writing embedded software for telecommunications equipment and am also a ham radio operator, so I have a hard time seeing why this isn't blindingly obvious to everyone, but if you want more wireless bandwidth and less congestion, each individual's signal must have the lowest power necessary for reliable communication.
For example, say you have 100 cell phones in active use at any given time in your neighborhood. If every cell phone signal in that neighborhood is boosted to be able to cover t
Re: (Score:2)
If the booster behaves the same as any other cellular device -- that is, has the same maximum power and adaptive power characteristics -- then from the system's point of view it's the same as if someone climbed up on their roof with such a device. A booster can have more power than a handheld cellphone (because FCC human exposure limits for handheld phones are less than the limits for cellular devices in gen
Re: (Score:2)
True, but irrelevant. Climbing on the roof is still better for the individual at the expense of the system. Just because behavior is accepted and accounted for doesn't make it optimal.
T-Mobile 3G Booster (Score:2, Interesting)
http://jdteck.com/jd55-pr-kit-std-consumer-repeater-kits-p-692.html [jdteck.com]
Option "I" it's the only repeater on the market that works with T-Mobile 3G in the US.
Interesting tidbit FTA... (Score:2)
The article mentions that AT&T and Verizon are selling femtocells for $150 and $250 respectively, while T-Mobile has some "WiFi phones" that can use VoIP directly and Sprint gives out their femtocells for free to customers with proven signal issues.
Unlike AT&T and Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile have not told the F.C.C. of any concerns about boosters.
While I do understand that a proliferation of random radio devices could very well lead to issues, it does seem a bit suspect that the carriers selling competing products are complaining about this, while the carriers that are not selling them have not mentio
Repeaters, yes, boosters, no (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with "boosters" is that they're just amplifiers. They're not players in the cell phone RF protocol system.
Everything that talks in the cell phone bands is supposed to be part of a system that has RF power level control and talks to the cell phone control station. That's what keeps the transmitters from jamming each other. Adding a dumb transmitter isn't helpful. The right answer would be a "femtocell" unit which connects to an external antenna and connected to the cellular network, and is itself a proper player in the RF protocol.
It would be OK to have a booster if the problem was that you're in a remote location and just need some antenna height to get out. (I'm in such a situation; I'm in a semi-rural area and there's a hill between my house and the nearest cell tower.) What's not OK is installing a booster in Manhattan, where you can't get through because the bands are cluttered, not empty. More RF signal strength just raises the noise floor and cuts system bandwidth. In a crowded area, what's needed is another wired path into the network, not more RF power.
A cell phone that could seamlessly transition from a cell phone network to VoIP over WiFi would be consistent with the system design. There ought to be an Android app for that.
Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer should be obvious: if they want this, they need to support the ability of the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality.
What?! What does this have to do with Net Neutrality? It's simple:
Customer: We want Net Neutrality regulations to ensure a true free market!
Telco: No! You cannot tell us how to manage traffic on our networks! Regulation is BAD!
but suddenly the shoe is on the other foot...
Telco: We need regulation to protect the network! Regulation is GOOD!
Customer: You need to manage your network better! You shouldn't make this a less free market to solve technical issues!
Sounds good to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Let them get the law but have it regulate all femtocels such that third parties can provide them to end users and carriers cannot charge extra for their use.
Awesome - a new Super bowl (Score:3, Insightful)
How long till we have the tragedy of the commons effect seen on 27MHZ CB...
Mobile phones were not intended for household use (Score:3, Informative)
It's simple. Mobile phones were not intended for household use. The 1900 MHz frequency does not penetrate walls very well. Those services (AT&T and VZW) that do have 850 MHz spectrum have moved as much of their voice service and control channels down to 850 MHz as possible because it penetrates walls so much better.
Sprint and T-Mobile are stuck in the 1900 MHz range in most markets. These are the majority of booster customers. The problem is that the boosters mess up an already weak service.
In Sprint's case, it's exponentially worse, since CDMA only works because the handset and the base station carefully agree on power levels, and the booster removes that control, thus causing havoc all over the Sprint CDMA bands.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked about one from AT&T, and either it cost $150 to improve the signal in my home, or I could rent one from them for something like $10 a month.
(Hey, how about you just deliver the service you are charging me for instead?)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have one from Sprint at the office. After arguing that I might as well cancel since it's not my problem and I don't want to pay for their coverage hole, they sent me one for free. It has its bugs, but it works more often than no signal at all.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
AT&T and Verizon don't sell boosters, they're femtocells [wikimedia.org]. Same result (better signal), different way to get there (femtocells rely on your existing Internet connection).
Re: (Score:2)
The Verizon box works well, too. I have two of them deployed, one in an office above an industrial plant. The whole plant downstairs gets good service. The bandwidth used is small, but you do want to reserve some otherwise when your internet is flat-out your cellphone calls will stutter. Also it has to be able to see a window for GPS/E911 (they give you a long cord for the GPS antenna)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This of course is great until you realize that ATT will not allow you to use their femtocell if you have a business account as the cell is limited to five devices which you have to explicitly enable. This means guests of your house won't receive any benefit whereas the repeater in this building helps everyone. This biggest issue I usually have with ATT isn't reception though, after installing the repeater I still get system busy and dropped calls all the time. Fortunately my personal cell is Sprint so when
Re: (Score:2)
Limited to 10 AT&T lines, 2 concurrent.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't those microcells? (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know, what AT&T and Verizon are selling are 'microcells', basically miniature cell towers that convert your phone's signal to VOIP to get to their network; it uses your home's internet connection.
These are a bit distinct from cell phone boosters, which still has you using your phone company's towers by taking your phone's (likely) .25 watt max power signal and amplifying it to the maximum legal power of 2-4 watts*, often using a directional antenna mounted somewhere outside - like the roof.
T
Re: (Score:2)
I helped oversee the installation of a repeater for the Nextel service about 7 years ago. (I ran the RF cabling and we hired a radio company to install the device and antennas.) My understanding is that it takes a portion of the frequency spectrum used by the cell tower and amplifies it locally, shifted up or down. It does the same for a local corresponding frequency block, shifting it and amplifying it toward the tower.
This places the repeater coverage in a frequency range outside of that of the tower, and
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a very large metropolitan a
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - Not for at least the two years I've used it (and I don't even have a physical landline connection, much less actual phone service).
That said, good luck trying to do VOIP over a connection with literally half second ping times... If I had any alternatives, I'd drop satellite in a heartbeat. I pay twice as much for a tenth the throughput, with insane latency and a pitifully small daily cap that I could (and have) hit before I even leave for work in the morning.
Re: (Score:2)
(Hey, how about you just deliver the service you are charging me for instead?)
Did you even bother to read the contract you signed? There isn't a wireless company in the United States (and quite probably the World for that matter) that guarantees service indoors. There are too many variables in building construction and material for them to make any sort of promise about indoor reception.
If you aren't happy with your indoor wireless service there are other options available to you. One has been around for over a hundred years, perhaps you've heard of it? [wikipedia.org]
So we're not just obligated to put up with crap, we have to like it too? Because I checked my contract and it doesn't have a "no bitching" clause in it. Guess the cell phone company should have checked for that before they offered it to me.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even bother to read the contract you signed?
You make it sound like reading through a contract is trivial, and what is written is reasonable because it is written. The things are ubiquitous and intentionally incomprehensible. Every time I've tried to read such service contracts, what I've come away with is "We reserve the right to do whatever we want, and by buying a cell phone you agree to this."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much.
We can't force the cell phone company to give us good service indoors at our work, but you're always free to threaten to go to their competitor. Would they rather lose a $150/month customer on a multi-year contract, or send you a repeater which likely costs not a lot more than that but keeps you as a satisfied customer?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm a "dick" when people complain about shit they agreed to while being too lazy to understand what they were agreeing to.
Do you have any understanding of RF engineering at all? Do you have any understanding of how building materials can interact with and degrade RF signals? No? Then STFU.
And this complaining hurts you how, exactly?
And I take it that your vast RF expertise has allowed you to rule out the possibility that the original complainer's problem was due solely to building construction, and was in no way due to poor coverage in the area as a result of terrain, tower placement, etc.?
Also, if it requires an EE degree with specialization in radio propagation to own and operate a cell phone, I was unaware of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not "legalese"
Correct, it is technically "weasel words" that basically allow the cell phone company to write off any and all problems with service as something out of their control, thus increasing their profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your house is built with a special alloy of Zirconium and Iridium, and designed by an architect who was a deacon in the church of worshippers of Goser, the traveler. Your place not only kills electromagnetic radiation, it is also spook central.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, welcome the impending delivery of marshmallows in the form of my new tasty s'moverlord.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fine as long as you buy the carriers' respective rip-off box products [techcrunch.com], microcells that utilize your internet connection, and relieve their towers of actually having to provide you the wireless service you paid for.
All while still billing you the same rate for "wireless" air time and cell phone data, even though your own wired internet connection has to be used to feed the backhaul for these microsite devices.
So you pay up front for the privilege of running a microsite, to make up for the carriers
Re: Nope... (Score:2)
The feature is called UMA, and they sell phones (mostly Blackberries) that feature it. They supposedly will have an app that will allow UMA on Android soon. One cool advanta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)