Subject: [NEXTEL-1] New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:51:11 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.

You know what I hate about this answer from the FCC?  It came from 
"Donna", probably a person in Consumer's Assistance.  Unfortunately, it 
cannot be relied upon as "legal advice" for two reasons: (1) from a practical 
standpoint, the Consumer's Assistance people, as much as they may try hard,
often 
get something wrong; and (2) these types of private "opinions" may not be 
relied on as definitive responses on an issue (I can cite a LONG series of cases
on 
that issue).  Plus, she refers to a Part 22 rule, so arguably this "opinion" 
doesn't apply to other radio services (including the Nextel issue which your 
request relates to).

What I'd like to see, and you ought to push for, is a letter from the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau itself, which is formally published in the 
Commission's Public Notice, which says something similar to this.  THAT would be
the 
holy grail.  I would suggest that the best way to do that is to bring the 
issue to the attention of the right person in WTB.  My suggestion, based upon 
position at the Commission as well as being a receptive people, would be Kathy 
Harris and/or Roger Noel, both in the "Mobility Division."

An excellent start, Jack, but there's more work to be done!

Alan T.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 20:02:54 -0500

------- Original Message --------
From: Eierman David-CFED01 <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE:  New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.
Mr Tilles, 

I don't understand why you are confusing this matter further.

I think the FCC was very clear in the R&O below that signal boosters were
intended to be used by 'licensees' to fill in coverage within their area of
license, whether it is under Part 22, 90, 94, or even 24 or 27.  Since they
are transmitters, they must be type accepted and must be covered under an
existing license (either site licensed or geographically licensed) to
operate on specific frequencies over a pre-defined coverage area.  The
licensee is responsible to control both coverage and interference from them.

Rather than Jack investigating this issue further, I challenge you provide
us examples of where the general public can legally buy a signal booster and
install it without it being licensed, and operate on frequencies licensed to
someone else without their consent, and cite the FCC rules that support that
example.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FCC 96-223                                            June 5, 1996

In the Matter of                                       )

                                                                )    WT
Docket No. 95-70

Amendment of Parts 22, 90, and 94       )    RM-8200

of the Commission's Rules to Permit     )

Routine Use of Signal Boosters             )

                               REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: May 16, 1996                   Released: June 5, 1996

Regards, 

David Eierman  
Principal Staff Engineer 
Motorola, CGISS, Spectrum Strategy 
Phone:       410-712-6242 
Email:        [email-masked] 

 -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.

You know what I hate about this answer from the FCC?  It came from 
"Donna", probably a person in Consumer's Assistance.  Unfortunately, it 
cannot be relied upon as "legal advice" for two reasons: (1) from a
practical 
standpoint, the Consumer's Assistance people, as much as they may try hard,
often 
get something wrong; and (2) these types of private "opinions" may not be 
relied on as definitive responses on an issue (I can cite a LONG series of
cases on 
that issue).  Plus, she refers to a Part 22 rule, so arguably this "opinion"

request relates to).

What I'd like to see, and you ought to push for, is a letter from the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau itself, which is formally published in
the 
Commission's Public Notice, which says something similar to this.  THAT
would be the 
holy grail.  I would suggest that the best way to do that is to bring the 
issue to the attention of the right person in WTB.  My suggestion, based
upon 
position at the Commission as well as being a receptive people, would be
Kathy 
Harris and/or Roger Noel, both in the "Mobility Division."

Alan T.

In a message dated 12/9/2003 2:57:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:
There has been debates in several groups over the last year as to
whether BDA USERS needed licenses or not.

Some manufacturers, importers and distributors have been telling BDA
customers they do not need a license to USE BDA's.   

Those who are familiar with the rules say the FCC requires signal
booster USERS to have a FCC license for the channels they want the
signal booster to amplify, or legal approval from the appropriate FCC
licensee.

The proper term the FCC used for BDA's is "signal boosters" and there
are very specific rules concerning the USE of them to booster cellular,
Nextel, public safety or other signals.

Today I received a statement from the FCC that should end this debate.
It is posted below. It is very clear.

So there would be no additional incorrect 'interpretations' of the FCC
rules,
I posed my questions as a typical BDA user who wants to but and install
a BDA to be used with their cellular or Nextel handsets.

PLEASE re-post this in any group where this issue has been discussed.
PLEASE forward this to the manufacturers, importers, distributors and
dealers who have been giving bad advice to their customers.

Maybe the unlicensed end users who are now at risk of being fined by the
FCC will get their money back?

Jack Daniel
=======================================================

Subject: FCC Consumer Center response from representative TSR15
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:09:50 -0500 (EST)
From: FCCInfo <[email-masked]>
Organization: FCC
To:  [email-masked]

You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC on
12/9/2003 8:09:45 AM.

Hello Mr. Daniels,

Signal Boosters Bi-Directional Amplifiers or BDA's are only permitted
for use by licensee's only. 

Please see the FCC Rules and Regulations CFR 47 Part 22.527.
http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html <http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules.html> 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=22&SECTIO
N=5> &PART=22&SECTION=5
27&YEAR=2002&TYPE=TEXT

Best Regards,
Donna
GCC15
-------------------------------

Subject: Do I need a license ?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:46:40 -0700
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] 

I want to buy two signal boosters (also called Bi-Directional Amplifiers
or BDA's) and install them in office buildings.

One signal booster will be used for cellular system handsets.

One signal booster will be used for Nextel handsets.

These signal boosters will not be used for any other purpose.

Someone told me I needed a license (or permission from the cellular
company and Nextel) to operate these signal boosters on cellular and
Nextel channels.

Some manufacturers say I don't have to have a license.

Do I need a license (or the licensees permission) to operate signal
boosters on cellular and Nextel channels?

If I'm supposed to have a license, what is the penalty if I don't get a
license (or the licensee's permission) to operate a signal booster on
cellular or Nextel channels?

Since I own handsets on both these systems doesn't that also give me the
right to amplify these signals as much as I want without a license of
any kind?

Thanks,
Jack Daniel
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:17:44 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: "A10382" <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.

Real Life experience...

Motorola itself was an early adopter of the iDen technology.  In quite a few
divisions (including the one I was consulting for), /\/\-iDen and local Nextel
folks visited each local office to help them create a 'loyal' user base.. No
coercion - just some inside-the-company loyalty appeals.

One division had taken on 50+ NexTel HTs in 1997 for use by local HQ
sales/marketing, IT support, receiving/shipping, facilities management, and a
few execs.  Outside coverage in the local area was very good due to the flat
terrain.  In-building coverage, however, tended to be abysmal once you got away
from the windows.  Nextel quoted an install of their version of a BDA - and with
4 units it was promised to provide in-building coverage to 95% of all areas of
the 5 building mini-campus (including the below grade areas and manufacturing). 
Quoted cost was $2500 per unit (ouch) plus installation, antennae, maintenance.
and a monthly license fee (double ouch).  Total quote was for slightly over
$25,000 + 800 per month (ouch-ouch-ouch).

One unit was brought in for a short trial... results were OK but not
spectacular.  /\/\ never did execute the purchase as most of the NexTel users
preferred switch to another cell phone rather than pay their share of the total.
About 10 units remained - those able to use the eval on that one side of the
campus.  NexTel then seemed to just 'forget' about the 'no-charge' trial unit
for quite a while.... at least until late 98 when a local cell carrier started
complaining about interference which they tracked to the mot building with the
unit installed.  Some finger pointing ensued -- until the cell carrier got an
FCC agent to visit the /\/\ site where he did indicate that the unit was:
    a) the source of the interference
    b) unlicensed (and needed a license & siting eval)
    c) the responsibility of NexTel (because it was an eval)
    d) had to be shut down and/or removed because it was interfering with other
already sited carrier.  Seems the BDA was re-radiating out the windows on the
opposite side of the upper floors and interfering with a low-profile cell tower
mounted on a nearby supermarket roof.  The BDA was a rather broadband unit that
covered 800 and a rather slim slice of 900.  I believe it was the interference
on the 900 side (PCS?) that caused the grief.

/\/\ immediately pulled the plug (end of problem with the FCC and other
carrier), mothballed the unit, and moved the remaining users to a combo of
another carrier's cell phones (using /\/\ handsets, which provided more than
adequate on-campus and in-building coverage) along with use of the existing
corporate owned repeaters with a few HTs for the facilities group.  No paper
work, no declaratory ruling, no violation letters, no notices, no forfeitures..
just a gentlemanly resolution....
=======

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:18:07 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: New Notice: FCC requires BDA >> USERS<< to have licenses.

WOW, I go off-line for a few hours and have a full inbox on this
subject.

Lets re-group and allow me to summarize what's happened here and in some
other groups where I posted my original message.

There's some action items at the end of this post.

I posted the FCC response without reviewing it and Roger Madden
correctly pointed out the rule section the FCC cited was not applicable
and they has not answered any of my questions.

Here's my response to Roger;

When you're right your right. 

Just like you, I didn't read the FCC reply carefully and fired this off
thinking I had an answer.

Well, I was wrong!

Just like the three telephone conversations I've has with FCC (one
almost 2 hours long) they don't listen to the questions and have little
understanding of their own rules. One FCC guy was even advising me to
get an experimental license or a waiver to use a signal booster.
Geeze...  

90.219 is clear to me about Nextel BDA's, but people who sell Nextel
signal boosters to the public don't pay any attention to it.

Thanks to Roger, I went back and re-read the original R&O (FCC 96-223)
and the various deliberations and found the FCC's comments about
cellular signal boosters in paragraph 3 very interesting;

"Under Part 22, a form of signal booster, generally called a cellular
repeater, may be employed by cellular licensees without separate
licensing provided that the repeater does not extend the licensee's
signal beyond the authorized cellular service area. " (22.165 cited) 

Part 22 definitions say, " Cellular repeater. In the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service, a stationary transmitter or device that
automatically re-radiates the transmissions of base transmitters at a
particular cell site and mobile stations communicating with those base
transmitters, with or without channel translation." Since these devices
are used at a "cell site", they apparently aren't for typical
in-building installations. 

Part 22 does define 'signal boosters' as a different device than a
'cellular repeater' and within Part 22 says signal boosters must be FCC
approved (22.377) and can be used by PAGING licensees (22.527) but
nothing about cellular licensees.

Does this mean the FCC - NEVER - approved the use of any "signal
boosters" for cellular and PCS services, even by the licensees?  

On what grounds did the FCC grant cellular and PCS "signal booster"
equipment certifications? (maybe they thought they were all for paging?) 

Maybe landmobilelawyer or someone can help me out here. I'm too ignorant
to understand all this.

I guess I need to change my way of thinking to be in sync with everyone
else; The FCC isn't going to enforce the rules anyway, so why should I
be sweating rules even the FCC themselves don't understand.

Jack Daniel