 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / November 2005Personal cell tower?
G'day all; I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower? Let me explain. We're going to be moving pretty far off the "beaten track". Each of us has a cell phone, and would like to be able to use them amongst ourselves. So I was wondering if one can get one of those call dispatchers and related XR unit... Anybody know? Dusty >G'day all; > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Anybody know? Possible to get your own tower? Sure. How deep are your pockets? How long do you have to battle local ordnances and pay the FCC? You're better off looking for a cellular repeater. Smallish (the size of a computer) device you put in the house, point an outside antenna at the nearest cell site, and mount a small antenna somewhere inside the house.  SignatureTo reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address. Thanks for the tip, Evan. ... > Possible to get your own tower? Sure. How deep are your pockets? How > long do you have to battle local ordnances and pay the FCC? For a "locally" connected device? > You're better off looking for a cellular repeater. Smallish (the size > of a computer) device you put in the house, point an outside antenna Hmmm. Good point. > at the nearest cell site, and mount a small antenna somewhere inside > the house. There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to allow us to connect each other around the property. Later I was thinking of seeing about a 2-way satellite link along with the web & TV. It looks like this will be more difficult than I thought. Thanks to those that replied. Dusty ... > Thanks for the tip, Evan. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Dusty > ... A hundred miles? Not even. Get a coupla FRS walkie talkies and forget cellular. Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's > approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to > allow us to connect each other around the property. Later I was thinking of > seeing about a 2-way satellite link along with the web & TV. Ok...first...what are you trying to achieve? A telephone connection to the rest of the world or communicate with other people on the property? Visit www.direcway.com for a satellite link and sign up for Vonnage, Skype or any other application that allows telephone calls over the internet. Vonnage has partnered with Linksys for a router that you can connect a cordless phone to. For communications just around the property, you can try FRS for a half mile or less range. Don't believe the "12 mile range" numbers. They won't get that, besides that requires a $70 per family GMRS license. Consider a MURS band VHF radio. Now if you REALLY want coverage, go with the GMRS and a mountain top repeater. >> There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's >> approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ok...first...what are you trying to achieve? A telephone connection to > the rest of the world or communicate with other people on the property? First to communicate around the area. Later, hopefully, to connect to the rest of the world. > Visit www.direcway.com for a satellite link and sign up for Vonnage, Skype > or any other application that allows telephone calls over the That's what we tried out here, already. As others on this thread have pointed out, on my DSL line, it sounds like a hard-wired line. Great quality (well, suitable at least). But on the 2-way satellite link, it's definitely as others have pointed out, like an 80's overseas call... It's gonna take some to repeal that pesky SoL law...(:-o)! > internet. Vonnage has partnered with Linksys for a router that you can > connect a cordless phone to. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get that, besides that requires a $70 per family GMRS license. Consider a > MURS band VHF radio. That's what we do at the moment. But we have enough gear to carry around that we'd like to consolidate it to a single, thin phone (if possible) like my V3. > Now if you REALLY want coverage, go with the GMRS and a mountain top > repeater. Now that's the BIG dawg! (:-o)! And, that may be our next interim solution. Thanks all, Dusty > There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's > approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to > allow us to connect each other around the property. Later I was thinking of > seeing about a 2-way satellite link along with the web & TV. Sounds like a pair of full power 5 watt GMRS Walke Talies would do the job that you are speaking of.... > Sounds like a pair of full power 5 watt GMRS Walke Talies would do the > job that you are speaking of.... Very likely would, but a few things to keep in mind. I've heard stories that hunters in heavily wooded or forested areas get better results using VHF, such as MURS. Side by side comparisons of public safety portables on VHF and UHF (in direct talk-around mode, not going through the repeater) appears to show the same results in wooded areas in my county. It has to be a "real" GMRS walkie talkie, not one of those GMRS/FRS bubble pack radios. Each user would need his own $80 license (good for five years). Unless all users were within the same immdeiate family. > I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower? Let me > explain. We're going to be moving pretty far off the "beaten track". Each > of us has a cell phone, and would like to be able to use them amongst > ourselves. So I was wondering if one can get one of those call dispatchers > and related XR unit... They have repeaters that you can install in a car that allows all users to access the car's repeater. I'll find the link to the company. I had to use that to get coverage out of a below grade rock quarry. >> I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower? Let me >> explain. We're going to be moving pretty far off the "beaten track". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > access the car's repeater. I'll find the link to the company. I had to use > that to get coverage out of a below grade rock quarry. Now *THAT* sounds like exactly what I wanted. Either a link or the "handle" to use for Googling would be most appreciated. Thanks, "DecTxCowboy"! Dusty >>They have repeaters that you can install in a car that allows all users to >>access the car's repeater. I'll find the link to the company. I had to use [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dusty LOL...well guess what Dusty, I just installed one for a Dusty this afternoon. Go to www.digitalantenna.com for a product list. Also, Wilson Electronics carries something like that too. But keep in mind, if the nearest cellular tower is too far away, it may not work. If you are deep down in a valley, it is VERY doubtful it will work. See if Cingular can tell you where their nearest tower is. If its within 20 or 30 miles and a line of sight shot, it might work. Though you might need a directional Yagi antenna instead of the omni antenna they include. Call Digital Antenna and ask them. ... >> Now *THAT* sounds like exactly what I wanted. Either a link or the >> "handle" to use for Googling would be most appreciated. Thanks, >> "DecTxCowboy"! ... > LOL...well guess what Dusty, I just installed one for a Dusty this > afternoon. Go to www.digitalantenna.com for a product list. Also, Wilson > Electronics carries something like that too. OUTSTANDING! That was what I wanted. Didn't know what it was called. Now I have it. > But keep in mind, if the nearest cellular tower is too far away, it may > not work. If you are deep down in a valley, it is VERY doubtful it will > work. See if Cingular can tell you where their nearest tower is. If its > within 20 or 30 miles and a line of sight shot, it might work. Though you > might need a directional Yagi antenna instead of the omni antenna they > include. Call Digital Antenna and ask them. No problem. At least with a repeater/amp, I have a chance. I had intended only to ensure local access to each other. But if I can tie into the regular network, that would be a real plus. Thanks again, "DecTxCowboy!" Your help was much appreciated... Dusty Sure! Just call Cingular in the morning and they should have one up and running on your property by the end of the day. Sure hope that's quick enough for ya... Every Cingular customer can have their own tower. Just gotta call and ask. That's common knowledge... surprised you didn't already know that. > G'day all; > > I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower? > Every Cingular customer can have their own tower. Just gotta call and ask. > That's common knowledge... surprised you didn't already know that. Isn't that your own "Personal Jesus" you're thinking about? <snicker> Thanks for taking the time to post some useful information. > Sure! Just call Cingular in the morning and they should have one up and > running on your property by the end of the day. Sure hope that's quick [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> I was wondering...is it possible to get your own cell tower? > There would be no cell sites within a hundred miles or so (well, that's approximate). No phone lines either. It's primary purpose would be to allow us to connect each other around the property. Later I was thinking of seeing about a 2-way satellite link along with the web & TV. Ok...first...what are you trying to achieve? A telephone connection to the rest of the world or communicate with other people on the property? Visit www.direcway.com for a satellite link and sign up for Vonnage, Skype or any other application that allows telephone calls over the internet. Vonnage has partnered with Linksys for a router that you can connect a cordless phone to. For communications just around the property, you can try FRS for a half mile or less range. Don't believe the "12 mile range" numbers. They won't get that, besides that requires a $70 per family GMRS license. Consider a MURS band VHF radio. Now if you REALLY want coverage, go with the GMRS and a mountain top repeater. >Visit www.direcway.com for a satellite link and sign up for Vonnage, >Skype or any other application that allows telephone calls over the >internet. Vonnage has partnered with Linksys for a router that you can >connect a cordless phone to. The latency would be horrible. >For communications just around the property, you can try FRS for a half >mile or less range. Don't believe the "12 mile range" numbers. They >won't get that, besides that requires a $70 per family GMRS license. The current fee for a new GMRS license is $80. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > The latency would be horrible. Horrible? As in like not good? Do you know this as a fact? VoIP is used on oil rigs all the time. I've personally used it myself from the rigs and the latency it not as bad as you would think. When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? > The current fee for a new GMRS license is $80. My bad...typo error. Meant $80. : > The latency would be horrible. : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig : superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? Last time I talked to people via VoIP over sat, it was similar to overseas calling in the 80s. Long enough delay to accidently interrupt the other person, and the voices sounded like they were using tin cans. This was to co-workers in Iraq, about 18 months ago. SignatureDoes the name Pavlov ring a bell? > Last time I talked to people via VoIP over sat, it was similar to > overseas calling in the 80s. Long enough delay to accidently interrupt > the other person, and the voices sounded like they were using tin cans. > > This was to co-workers in Iraq, about 18 months ago. It's not how well the pig sings, it's that he sings at all. > It's not how well the pig sings, it's that he sings at all. Yup...if its the way to get communications, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. > It's not how well the pig sings, it's that he sings at all. Yup...if its the ONLY way to get communications, ya gotta do what ya gotta do. > Last time I talked to people via VoIP over sat, it was similar to > overseas calling in the 80s. Long enough delay to accidently interrupt > the other person, and the voices sounded like they were using tin cans. We noticed a big difference between VoIP providers. Yahoo Messenger as like talking on an analog cellphone in the boonies. Skype was as good as a wired call. Dingo Tel...can we say robot? >> The latency would be horrible. > >Horrible? As in like not good? Do you know this as a fact? Yes (on all counts). >VoIP is used on oil rigs all the time. I've personally used it myself >from the rigs and the latency it not as bad as you would think. The latency issue is from the satellite link you recommended, not VoIP per se. >When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig >superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? Not relevant. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig >>superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? > > Not relevant. Ok...so dozens of user that have had success is not relevant compared to your own singular experience. Just wanted to make sure. > >>When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig > >>superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ok...so dozens of user that have had success is not relevant compared to > your own singular experience. Just wanted to make sure. NOW you get it. > NOW you get it. I'm a professional in the communications industry...I like to make sure I understand what non-professional posters contribute. >>>When is the last time you sat down for coffee with dozens of rig >>>superintendents, tool pushers, rig managers or drillers? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ok...so dozens of user that have had success is not relevant compared to >your own singular experience. Just wanted to make sure. Your childish sarcasm notwithstanding, it is indeed irrelevant -- nobody needs to do that to know how much latency there is with VoIP over satellite. That's because the latency is pretty much the same anywhere on the planet thanks to the round-trip distance to the satellite. I didn't say it wouldn't work -- I just said that latency over geosync satellite is horrible, as it is. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>Ok...so dozens of user that have had success is not relevant compared to >>your own singular experience. Just wanted to make sure. > > Your childish sarcasm notwithstanding I ponder where professional statements cross the line to childish sarcasm. >>>Ok...so dozens of user that have had success is not relevant compared to >>>your own singular experience. Just wanted to make sure. >> >> Your childish sarcasm notwithstanding > >I ponder where professional statements cross the line to childish sarcasm. "Assumes facts not in evidence." SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> This is like arguing with a sibling...he/she just NEEDS to get the last word in. John...I give you the opportunity to get the last word in. There, happy? > The latency issue is from the satellite link you recommended, not VoIP per se. Not sure just how I worded it, but the latency is from the satellite link. I think most of us understood I meant that. How far off the beat and path are we talking? I don't know if you can get you OWN cell tower however I know you can get you own repeater. They mount on you house (or whatever) and point at the towers. This then amplifies the signal to you location. You can find them for about $700.00 or so. Dave > G'day all; > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dusty > How far off the beat and path are we talking? Hard to say where the final destination will be. At the moment, it looks like about 130 mi. from the nearest "major" highway. When I get something more concrete I'll let you know. > I don't know if you can get you OWN cell tower however I know you can get > you own repeater. Yep. That's what it's beginning to look like... > They mount on you house (or whatever) and point at the towers. This then > amplifies the signal to you location. You can find them for about $700.00 > or so. Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive? Tnx again y'all, Dusty > Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive? > > Tnx again y'all, > Dusty No, sorry...they ARE expensive, but very well worth it. Basically three models. * Repeater you connect directly to you phone. * Repeater that you install in your car with an inside antenna to catch the phones' signal (all occupants in that car can use the repeater). * Repeater you install in a building with 2 ft. long 1/2" diameter external antenna. The middle one works in a small office. >> Thanks. Got any links for equipment that inexpensive? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >* Repeater you connect directly to you phone. That's actually a signal booster (uni amp), not a repeater. >* Repeater that you install in your car with an inside antenna to catch >the phones' signal (all occupants in that car can use the repeater). >* Repeater you install in a building with 2 ft. long 1/2" diameter >external antenna. > >The middle one works in a small office. Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal, and one for the coverage area of the repeater. It's very important that the two antennas be well isolated, or Really Bad Things(tm) can result, and that no other kind of interference be caused (per FCC rules). SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > of > interference be caused (per FCC rules). Or use a duplexer. .. bamp Ok, stop splitting hairs. For that matter NONE of the three products are repeaters as defined by the FCC where a base station receives on one frequency and retransmits on another frequency. * First unit requires a direct connection to the cellphone and connects to a small car mounted antenna. * Second unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and connects to a small car mounted antenna. * Third unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and connects to a high gain building mounted antenna. > It's very important that the two antennas be well isolated Instructions recommend at least 3' separation from other receiving devices, but I've seen it leak in to the front end of some satellite gear and at least 20' separation was needed. > Really Bad Things(tm) can result Not so, all that will happen is you'll get some desense of the FM receiver. Its not going to blow up the receiver. No worse than another transmitter antenna mounted ten feet on another leg of the tower. May I ask how many repeaters you've installed? More than fifty? > Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal, > and one for the coverage area of the repeater. I have NEVER installed ANY repeater that needed two antennas...we use DUPLEXERS. But these units aren't repeaters, rather bi-directional amplifiers that require two antennas. May I ask how many repeaters you've installed with two antennas? Get in touch with Rural Cellular Corporation (www.rccwireless.com). They own a lot of the non-metro cell towers in the US and lease-back time and capability to the major cell operators. Tell them that you've got an isolated property and that you'd like to open negotiations for them to site a tower on your property. It costs a lot of $$ and effort to add cell coverage to a remote area. If all you want is local handset to handset comms with some outside world connection, you may be able to barter the price of your service against what RCC might usually pay for site and operations rights/easements and thusly make the transaction attractive to them. Generally it costs $3k-$10k per month for a cell tower company to obtain local siting and operations rights from a property owner. If you barter this down to say, unlimited personal cell use with maybe the convienence of a DSL-equivalent internet data line, you might be lowering the cost of entry enough to make it reasonable for RCC. I'm just using RCC as an example here. If RCCs 'coverage area' isn't in your area, then do some research to find out who is and work on establishing similar relationships with them. One reliable local-service alternative to this would be to get a 2 meter ham license and install one or more coded repeaters on your property. Cost of that would be about $3k including handsets and the repeater hardware. > It costs a lot of $$ and effort to add cell coverage to a remote area. If an attactive ROI was there, there would already be a tower most likely. > One reliable local-service alternative to this would be to get a 2 > meter ham license and install one or more coded repeaters on your > property. I don't think that would be viable solution in terms of usage and implimentation. If they were ALREADY hams, then it has potential to a degree. Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones. John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with that number. Geostationary orbit is 22,500 miles up. That a two tenths second round trip for a radio signal. >Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some >Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones. > >John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with >that number. Me either, since I made no such claim. You do get confused easily. ;) >Geostationary orbit is 22,500 miles up. That a two tenths >second round trip for a radio signal. Geosat latency is actually in the range of 240-280 ms for a single hop, or 480-560 ms round trip. It can be much worse than that when there is more than one hop, and additional latency comes from the landline connection. Even at the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most long distance calls are carried by microwave and (land or marine) cable, not satellite. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >>Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some >>Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones. >> >>John Navis claims a whole second in latency. No idea how he came up with >>that number. John Navas replied: > Me either, since I made no such claim. You do get confused easily. ;) http://navasgrp.home.att.net/ Follow the link for Three Myths of Satellite Internet (April 25, 2001) Take you to page 2 of: http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/29961/Three_Myths_of_Satellite_Internet _pg2.html 2. Watch out for latency. It takes a long time, in Internet time, for a signal to travel up to a satellite and back down to the ground. This increases latency -- particularly when the satellite is used for upstream as well as downstream transmission (where total latency approaches a full second). > and additional latency comes from the landline connection. But that's not part of the comparitive equation. Even at > the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most > long distance calls are carried by microwave and (land or marine) cable, not > satellite. If Dusty had a microwave or fiber optic connection , that would be great. But he doesn't so its not. >>>Satellite dish might be the best way to go and use VoIP with some >>>Engenius www.engeniustech.com phones. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >particularly when the satellite is used for upstream as well as >downstream transmission (where total latency approaches a full second). That's approximate ("approaches"), a different context, and not a part of this thread. >> and additional latency comes from the landline connection. > >But that's not part of the comparitive equation. Actually it is, since landline for Internet is different from the PSTN, both in terms of routing and in terms of QoS, and additional latency is more of an issue when overall latency is already a problem. > Even at >> the low end that's more than enough to be quite annoying, which is why most [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If Dusty had a microwave or fiber optic connection , that would be >great. But he doesn't so its not. Another option is LEO communications. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > this > thread. It is now a part of this thread, and even in a different context quite on point. Does your a.s get chapped from getting caught with your pants down so much? >Ok, stop splitting hairs. For that matter NONE of the three products are >repeaters as defined by the FCC where a base station receives on one >frequency and retransmits on another frequency. In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency. You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>. See also "FCC PROPOSES TO AMEND PARTS 22, 90, AND 94 OF THE RULES TO PERMIT ROUTINE USE OF SIGNAL BOOSTERS" <http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/News_Releases/1995/nrwl5024.txt> A signal booster is a device that receives an incoming signal, amplifies it and retransmits it on the same frequency. Such devices are used to improve communications in locations within the normal coverage area of a radio system where the signal is blocked or shielded due to natural terrain or man-made obstacles. For example, a signal booster may be used in such locations as valleys, tunnels, below-ground parking facilities, or inside cargo vessels and aircraft hangers. Currently, under Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service rules, signal boosters may be used only on 10 Business Radio Service frequency pairs in the 450-470 MHz band for communications related to the servicing and supplying of aircraft at certain specified airports. Under Part 22 Public Mobile Service rules, a form of signal booster, generally called a cellular repeater, may be used by cellular licensees without separate licensing provided that the repeater does not extend the licensee's signal beyond the authorized cellular service area. >* First unit requires a direct connection to the cellphone and connects >to a small car mounted antenna. That's usually just a transmit power booster. >* Second unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and >connects to a small car mounted antenna. >* Third unit has a small antenna instead of a direct connection and >connects to a high gain building mounted antenna. With two antennas, connected by a bidirectional amplifier, those would be true repeater systems. > > It's very important that the two antennas be well isolated > >Instructions recommend at least 3' separation from other receiving >devices, but I've seen it leak in to the front end of some satellite >gear and at least 20' separation was needed. What's needed is *signal* isolation, not distance per se. > > Really Bad Things(tm) can result > >Not so, all that will happen is you'll get some desense of the FM >receiver. Its not going to blow up the receiver. No worse than another >transmitter antenna mounted ten feet on another leg of the tower. What actually happens when the two antennas aren't sufficiently isolated is feedback interference, which can affect areas outside of the intended coverage area, which is prohibited by FCC rules. >May I >ask how many repeaters you've installed? More than fifty? Enough to know how to do it properly. :) > > Any repeater needs two antennas, one for the external signal, > > and one for the coverage area of the repeater. > >I have NEVER installed ANY repeater that needed two antennas... Your examples two and three appear to be two-antenna repeaters. ;) >we use >DUPLEXERS. But these units aren't repeaters, rather bi-directional >amplifiers that require two antennas. A duplexer isn't a repeater -- a duplexer is a device which allows a transmitter operating on one frequency and a receiver operating on a *different* frequency to share one common antenna. >May I ask how many repeaters >you've installed with two antennas? Enough to know that's what a repeater system actually is. See <http://www.cellantenna.com/repeater/building_repeater.htm>. Note the two antennas, one on the roof that communicates with the base station, and one (or more) inside to communicate with cell phones, connected by the repeater bidirectional amplifier. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency. > You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see > <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>. Not relevant - Those definitions apply commercial broadcasters, not the same definitions for two-way radio. > Enough to know how to do it properly. :) Uh huh....... >>May I ask how many repeaters >>you've installed with two antennas? Uh huh....... >> In fact a "repeater" is simply a booster (amplifier) on the *same* frequency. >> You're apparently thinking of a "translator". For the distinction, see >> <http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/translator.html>. > >Not relevant - Those definitions apply commercial broadcasters, not the >same definitions for two-way radio. Really? Citation? Or must we take your personal word for it? SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Or must we take your personal word for it? Seems to work with you alot... >> Or must we take your personal word for it? > >Seems to work with you alot... In other words, you don't really have anything to back up that claim. SignatureBest regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In other words, you don't really have anything to back up that claim. Actually, it would appear that he has one thing to back up his claim that you don't- professional experience. I know how you try to cloud that with your personal 'opinions'- I don't think it will work here. You'll have to do better than that. > In other words, you don't really have anything to back up that claim. Nope, but then...you appear to get a lot of mileage doing the same thing. Don't make me sort all my NG posts by Sender > Navis. You might get caught with yer pants down. Dusty... Call Cingular and find your nearest tower. Email me with that location and about where you will be transmitting from and I'll do an RF propagation plot to see if it will work. dfwrampREMOVE-THIS@yahoo.com > Dusty... > > Call Cingular and find your nearest tower. > > Email me with that location and about where you will be transmitting from > and I'll do an RF propagation plot to see if it will work. Will do. Thanks. Dusty > dfwrampREMOVE-THIS@yahoo.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.