Do these cellular amplifiers work for all cellphones?

[gtr]

Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car

How low?

[nospam]

In article <t2q21p$e73$1...@dont-email.me>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?

no

[Woody]

US market so likely illegal in the UK.

[R.Wieser]

Woody

>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car
>>
>> How low?
>
> US market so likely illegal in the UK.

Are any personal cellular amplifiers legal in the UK?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Lewis]

More accurately, they don't work with ANY cellphones.

--
You know, in a world in which Bush and Blair can be nominated for the
Nobel Peace Prize, "for having dared to take the necessary
decision to launch a war on Iraq without having the support of
the UN" I find myself agreeing with Tom Lehrer: satire is dead. -
Neil Gaiman

[sms]

No.

The other person might have been thinking of cellular jammers.

[nospam]

In article <slrnt518k1....@m1mini.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> >> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>
> > no
>
> More accurately, they don't work with ANY cellphones.

true. the proper solution is a femtocell, which is normally free.

[Wilf]

In UK, Wifi Calling is a good option when signal is poor but there is
access to wifi. Don't know if it is in use in USA.

--
Wilf

[Nil]

On 8 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular,uk.telecom.mobile:

>>>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>>
>>> no
>>
>> More accurately, they don't work with ANY cellphones.
>
> true. the proper solution is a femtocell, which is normally free.

That is a stupid suggestion.

If you can't resolve why it's obvious you are stupid from what you wrote,
then you're even more stupid than what you said says about you being stupid.

[Nil]

On 8 Apr 2022, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular,uk.telecom.mobile:

>> US market so likely illegal in the UK.
>
> In UK, Wifi Calling is a good option when signal is poor but there is
> access to wifi. Don't know if it is in use in USA.

The US market is rife with wifi calling. Almost every person has it at home.

But this guy is asking about in a car.

How are you going to do consistent wifi calling while driving in a car?

[Woody]

That of course assumes your phone is modern enough to have the wi-fi
calling capability.

[Martin Brown]

Hard to say. It will depend on which of the various frequencies the
nearest cellular network is using and what the phone supports. It would
be illegal to use in the UK - but not to sell them to punters :(

What will limit its utility in the end is the time gating on mobile
masts so that they refuse connections from more than ~35 miles away
(that figure for UK networks I don't know what it is in the USA).

I have a pair of passive yagi antennae and a Mifi with external antenna
capability that will let me connect to remote nodes provided that there
is direct line of sight and they are not too far away. No use in a car
since the highly directional antennas need careful pointing.

It was useful to get a fast reliable data link to the mobile network in
an area like mine with poor signal (and even worse wired ADSL service).


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Tweed]

Does that 35 mile limit apply to LTE? I thought it was a GSM thing.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>>
>
> Does that 35 mile limit apply to LTE? I thought it was a GSM thing.
>

I thought it was a GSM thing as well - and only of any practical use on
low capacity 900MHZ systems.

Also, it would only work if the network operator allowed the timing
advance to be set to its maximum value (which may or may not be 63 x 510
metres)


--
random signature text inserted here

[Wilf]

With difficulty?

--
Wilf

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-04-08 15:22, gtr wrote:
> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car

They appear to work and are legal in the US as long as they are FCC
certified. The co. you cite claims FCC compliamce.
https://www.weboost.com/guide-to-cell-phone-signal-boosters about 2/3 down.

Other forums will indicate how well they work by model - and what is
needed to make them practical.


--
"Mr Speaker, I withdraw my statement that half the cabinet are asses -
half the cabinet are not asses."
-Benjamin Disraeli

[gtr]

On 2022-04-09 13:32:06 +0000, Martin Brown said:

> On 08/04/2022 20:22, gtr wrote:
>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car
>>
>> How low?
>
> Hard to say. It will depend on which of the various frequencies the
> nearest cellular network is using and what the phone supports.

I called the company who told me they work with all cellular carriers.
They said their best amplifier/transmitter has a 65dBm maximum boost.
But they said the cellular signal needs to be greater than -115dBm.
That would amplify -115dBm up to -50dBm which is a strong cellular signal.

> It would
> be illegal to use in the UK - but not to sell them to punters :(

Why would it be illegal to listen to ANY signal that is over the air?
That's something only the autocratic repressive regimes do isn't it?

If it's illegal simply to have a basic simple radio in the UK (which is what
this is), then I will change the followup to remove the UK telecom.

Is just having an omni cellular /antenna/ also illegal in the UK?
https://www.wilsonamplifiers.com/wilson-electronics-omnidirectional-cellular-antennas/
700-800 MHz: 2 dB
824-894 MHz: 2 dB
880-960 MHz: 2 dB
1710-1880 MHz: 4 dB
1850-1990 MHz: 4 dB
2110-2170 MHz: 4 dB

A directional Yagi should be legal anywhere in the free west, shouldn't it?
https://www.pssstore.net/products/doorking-1514-014-cellular-directional-antenna-kit

> What will limit its utility in the end is the time gating on mobile
> masts so that they refuse connections from more than ~35 miles away
> (that figure for UK networks I don't know what it is in the USA).

All that is going on is the same thing that happens in the Marconi Radio of
the 1900's (it's just picking up /existing/ signal and then amplifying it).

If a basic radio is illegal in the UK, then I feel sorry for those of you
who are in the UK, but more important, I apologize for asking on the UK
newsgroup and I have set the followup to remove the UK newsgroup. Sorry.

> I have a pair of passive yagi antennae and a Mifi with external antenna
> capability that will let me connect to remote nodes provided that there
> is direct line of sight and they are not too far away. No use in a car
> since the highly directional antennas need careful pointing.

Thank you for mentioning the /passive/ antenna, which is what the front end
of _all_ these devices is. Is at least a passive antenna legal in the UK?

I was looking through this web site which explains how to put an omni
antenna on the roof of your car to passively pick up cellular signal.
https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/cellular-resources

But without the 65dBm amplifier (if it's illegal in the UK), I'm not sure
how the smartphone would interface with the received cellular signal as the
output of the omni cellular antenna above is an N-type female or an F-Type
female and the output of the Yagi above is an RG58.

> It was useful to get a fast reliable data link to the mobile network in
> an area like mine with poor signal (and even worse wired ADSL service).

I find it appalling that anywhere in the free world you're not allowed to
have a radio that simply amplifies the signal that is already legally there
but I have removed u.t.m from the followup.

What I'm looking for is widely available in the US but I am just trying to
find out if they're /practical/ as a lot of things work in theory but not in
practice (often because they're too cumbersome or too fragile or too
complex).

That's really all I wanted to know where I was hoping to find people who
have already added a cellular antenna to their car or camper or home.

[David Woolley]

On 09/04/2022 16:16, gtr wrote:
> Why would it be illegal to listen to ANY signal that is over the air?

In this case, it is because they retransmit the signal in the vehicle.

However there is an also expectation of privacy. The default UK
position is that you need a licence to receive radio transmissions,
although there are some exemptions.

Even the US makes it illegal to listen on cellular frequencies, even
though other frequencies, including the police, were open.

I don't think either country has changed its legislation to reflect that
cellular systems are now encrypted.

[Woody]

The default UK ruling is that you can only (in theory at least) listen
to transmissions intended for public entertainment, information, or
education. How anyone could be traced and/or prosecuted for listening to
anything in open speech on any waveband just shows how little the
establishment understands! Listening to civil aircraft is illegal but
look see how many people you see standing around the perimeter fence at
most major airports with scanners stuck on their ears! Radio amateur
licences gave a much wider brief - they could legally listen to maritime
transmissions for instance which is why in the UK it was necessary to
take a 12wpm morse test so that you could identify marine distress
calls. OfCom recognised some years ago that maritime comms is now
largely VHF for short range and satellite for longer distance so did
away with the morse test requirement: Japan retained the morse test for
a long time but set the speed at 0 wpm.

Always puzzled me why the US barred scanners from listening to cellular
channels but would let you listen to police. The latter have now gone
largely digital (mostly DMR) but with a suitable radio you can still
listen to them even from the UK! Barmy IMO.

For the record digital cellular has had over-the-air encryption from day
one. Orange wanted a much greater level of encryption but OfCom (as
instructed by GCHQ) would not allow it as it meant GCHQ would not be
able to listen in - which was why Orange was so late to market.
Curiously GSM cellular was only encrypted over the air but was decoded
to a standard phone system data stream at the base station and passed
over the carrier network unencrypted. Airwave (the emergency services
radio system) on the other hand is end-to-end encrypted.

[sms]

Oops I meant no, they are not illegal.

[sms]

Yes, in the U.S. Wi-Fi calling can be used when signal quality is poor
and Wi-Fi calling has largely eliminated the need for microcells, at
least in homes.

The amplifiers are for a different use case, to get a cellular signal in
weak signal areas where there is no access to broadband.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-04-09 13:08, Woody wrote:
> On Sat 09/04/2022 17:08, David Woolley wrote:
>> On 09/04/2022 16:16, gtr wrote:
>>> Why would it be illegal to listen to ANY signal that is over the air?
>>
>> In this case, it is because they retransmit the signal in the vehicle.
>>
>> However there is an also expectation of privacy.  The default UK
>> position is that you need a licence to receive radio transmissions,
>> although there are some exemptions.
>>
>> Even the US makes it illegal to listen on cellular frequencies, even
>> though other frequencies, including the police, were open.
>>
>> I don't think either country has changed its legislation to reflect
>> that cellular systems are now encrypted.
>
> The default UK ruling is that you can only (in theory at least) listen
> to transmissions intended for public entertainment, information, or
> education. How anyone could be traced and/or prosecuted for listening to
> anything in open speech on any waveband just shows how little the
> establishment understands! Listening to civil aircraft is illegal but

I seem to recall British government trucks roaming around with apparatus
to listen for non-licensed television. They would pick up
characteristic signals from the television:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van

> look see how many people you see standing around the perimeter fence at
> most major airports with scanners stuck on their ears! Radio amateur
> licences gave a much wider brief - they could legally listen to maritime
> transmissions for instance which is why in the UK it was necessary to
> take a 12wpm morse test so that you could identify marine distress
> calls. OfCom recognised some years ago that maritime comms is now
> largely VHF for short range and satellite for longer distance so did
> away with the morse test requirement: Japan retained the morse test for
> a long time but set the speed at 0 wpm.
>
> Always puzzled me why the US barred scanners from listening to cellular
> channels but would let you listen to police. The latter have now gone
> largely digital (mostly DMR) but with a suitable radio you can still
> listen to them even from the UK! Barmy IMO.

Cell calls, like phone calls are private.
Police is public. (So most police went to encrypted gear to hide).

[Heron]

On 4/9/2022 12:08 PM, Woody wrote:
> Always puzzled me why the US barred scanners from listening to cellular
> channels but would let you listen to police.

Police scanners are dederally legal with state safety/criminal use caveats.
https://www.zipscanners.com/blogs/learn/are-police-scanners-legal

The way I understand how it works in the USA is that the government exists
at the will of the people so anything the government says that isn't
restricted for security reasons is allowed to be seen in disclosure.

The police are paid by the people so the people have every right to listen
to what the police are saying when they're saying it out in the open.

You can take a picture of anything in public that itself isn't illegal,
and specifically you can take pictures of the police doing what they do.

> largely digital (mostly DMR) but with a suitable radio you can still
> listen to them even from the UK! Barmy IMO.

I think in the USA non-commercial drivers can also "listen" to police radar.

You just can't jam those radar frequencies - but you can detect them.
It's interesting that 1/5th of all US states allow laser jammers though.

Somehow Virginia got around the radar detector laws by some legal loophole.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-where-radar-detectors-are-illegal

> The latter have now gone

In the USA, I think it's legal to take a picture of anything in full view in
the public, such as the front of a house (but not the back of the house).

Is it the same with the UK that if it's in the public eye, it's fair game?

> For the record digital cellular has had over-the-air encryption from day
> one. Orange wanted a much greater level of encryption but OfCom (as
> instructed by GCHQ) would not allow it as it meant GCHQ would not be
> able to listen in - which was why Orange was so late to market.
> Curiously GSM cellular was only encrypted over the air but was decoded
> to a standard phone system data stream at the base station and passed
> over the carrier network unencrypted. Airwave (the emergency services
> radio system) on the other hand is end-to-end encrypted.

I wonder how those cellular radio boosters handle that encryption then?

[Woody]

I would argue that comment - in the UK police is most definitely not
public, neither is the ambulance service. As the Fire Service uses the
Airwave digital network which is encrypted then that is now also not public.

[Heron]

On 4/9/2022 3:21 PM, Woody wrote:
> I would argue that comment - in the UK police is most definitely not
> public, neither is the ambulance service. As the Fire Service uses the
> Airwave digital network which is encrypted then that is now also not public.

Does encryption have anything to do with it being public or not?

I just googled and found plenty of hardware & apps for police, fire,
ambulance, marine, & airplane scanners. Just a sampling is shown below.

The 7 Best Police Scanners of 2022
https://www.lifewire.com/best-police-scanners-4132378

The Best Police Scanners for Your Money
https://money.com/best-police-scanner/

What cops need to know about criminals on police frequencies
https://www.police1.com/police-products/communications/radios/articles/theyre-listening-what-cops-need-to-know-about-criminals-on-police-frequencies-sdVy8suWghejoqnN/

https://www.amazon.com/Police-Fire-Scanner/s?k=Police+and+Fire+Scanner
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=police.scanner.radio.broadcastify.citizen&hl=en_GB&gl=GB

[nospam]

In article <t2sb22$9o6$1...@dont-email.me>, David Woolley

<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

> Even the US makes it illegal to listen on cellular frequencies, even
> though other frequencies, including the police, were open.

the ruling was originally a prohibition for selling a radio capable of
receiving analog cellular bands. scanner manufacturers disabled the
cellular bands, but it was trivial for the user to restore it.

> I don't think either country has changed its legislation to reflect that
> cellular systems are now encrypted.

which has been broken.

[nospam]

In article <t2spp9$ekv$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Heron

<McKe...@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> The police are paid by the people so the people have every right to listen
> to what the police are saying when they're saying it out in the open.

yep.

> You can take a picture of anything in public that itself isn't illegal,
> and specifically you can take pictures of the police doing what they do.

technically yes, but cops often think otherwise.

> > largely digital (mostly DMR) but with a suitable radio you can still
> > listen to them even from the UK! Barmy IMO.
>
> I think in the USA non-commercial drivers can also "listen" to police radar.

they can 'listen' to anything to anything they want, including
detecting the existence of a signal that is sent into the vehicle.

decrypting the content, if applicable, is a separate issue.

> You just can't jam those radar frequencies - but you can detect them.

true.

> It's interesting that 1/5th of all US states allow laser jammers though.

laser is not regulated by the fcc. it's just light, so specific laws
must be passed to ban it.

> Somehow Virginia got around the radar detector laws by some legal loophole.

they didn't get around anything. radar detector bans are illegal.

the problem is that challenging that is expensive and nobody (so far)
has been interested in pursuing it, thus it remains.

> > The latter have now gone
>
> In the USA, I think it's legal to take a picture of anything in full view in
> the public, such as the front of a house (but not the back of the house).

it is if the back of the house is visible without trespassing.

[knuttle]

Says it works for the whole world.
https://www.broadcastify.com/

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-04-09 16:21, Woody wrote:

>
> I would argue that comment - in the UK police is most definitely not

I didn't clarify: US, Canada: public.

> public, neither is the ambulance service. As the Fire Service uses the
> Airwave digital network which is encrypted then that is now also not
> public.

Many services have gone encrypted. Indeed police (here) often use
personal cell phones between themselves and themselves and everyone else
other than the dispatcher.

[Tweed]

Why would GCHQ care about over the air encryption? The UK authorities have
remote interception rights at exchange level where they can intercept the
call in the clear from the comfort of their desk. I believe did insist on
weaker encryption for certain export markets.

[gtr]

On 2022-04-09 06:26:34 +0000, notya...@gmail.com said:

> On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 20:22:36 UTC+1, gtr wrote:
>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car
>>
>> How low?
>

> Effectively no for transmit they don't because the base station
> commands the power level of the phone to prevent adjacent and
> co-channel interference. It sets to a as low a level as practicable,
> but still maintain a connection.
>
> They might provide some assistance on receive, but again the phone
> tells the base station it can reduce power if the signal is too strong.
>
> In any event a hands portable is limited to 0.6 - 1W
> (depending on generation), whereas a car has its own transceiver
> and aerial(s) and can put out 6W, so if you are sat in a car using
> hands free you will get a better signal than if you were stood outside.
>
> Obviously MNO's hate them [and they are illegal in the UK] because
> they mess up reception for other users.

I didn't understand most of what you said other than you don't think
they work but I doubt that is true now that I've spoken to them a bit.

I don't doubt that these cell phone amplifiers are illegal in the UK
so I will set the follow up accordingly to remove u.t.m in any response.

I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html

They offer a $400 & $500 USD auto kits which seem to have similar specs.
Boosts: Talk, text & cellular data (4G LTE data & 5G)
Works for: All Phones and All Carriers
Supports: Multiple devices/users
Gain: 50 dB
Power Requirements: DC 6-17V
Max Coverage Area: 6 Foot Radius
Frequency: 700MHz, 800MHz, 1900MHz, 1700/2100MHz
Specific Frequency (Up/Down): 698 - 716 MHz / 728 - 746 MHz, 776 - 787 MHz /
746 - 757 MHz, 824 - 849 MHz / 869 - 894 MHz, 1710 - 1755 MHz / 2110 - 2155
MHz, 1850 - 1915 MHz / 1930 - 1995 MHz
Gain: 50dB / 50dB
Impedance: 50 ohm
Product Manual:
https://www.ubersignal.com/media/wysiwyg/manuals/SureCall/Fusion2Go-Max/Fusion2Go_Max_User_Guide.pdf:
Quick Start Guide:
https://www.ubersignal.com/media/wysiwyg/manuals/SureCall/Fusion2Go-Max/Fusion2Go_Max_Quick_Install_Guide.pdf
Product Specifications: Spec Sheet:
https://www.ubersignal.com/media/wysiwyg/manuals/SureCall/Fusion2Go-Max/Fusion2Go_Max_Data_Sheet.pdf

I don't know why anyone would "hate them" because all they do is make the
signal better and it would seem to me for them to be unrealistic to sell
them
if they didn't work, but that's why I was asking here who already uses them.

[gtr]

On 2022-04-09 09:08:33 +0000, David Woolley said:

> On 09/04/2022 16:16, gtr wrote:
>> Why would it be illegal to listen to ANY signal that is over the air?
>
> In this case, it is because they retransmit the signal in the vehicle.

Thank you for explaining that there is a retransmission inside the vehicle,
where I've subsequently learned they have an effective radius of 2 meters.
https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html

> However there is an also expectation of privacy. The default UK
> position is that you need a licence to receive radio transmissions,
> although there are some exemptions.

I'm not asking for advice to do anything nefarious.
It's a common need to have better cell phone signal while traveling.

Cell phone boosters are widely sold in the US at normal electronic stores.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/mobile-phone-accessories/signal-boosters/pcmcat326300050011.c

I was asking here hoping that someone used them who could give advice.

> Even the US makes it illegal to listen on cellular frequencies, even
> though other frequencies, including the police, were open.

This question isn't about listening to other people but to better reception.

It's a normal need which even PC Magazine covered in this recent review.
The Best Cell Phone Signal Boosters for 2022
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/best-cell-phone-signal-boosters

This is supposed to be a "real world test" of 11 of them done last October.
11 Best Cell Phone Signal Boosters of 2022
https://www.waveform.com/a/b/guides/best-signal-boosters

> I don't think either country has changed its legislation to reflect that
> cellular systems are now encrypted.

I think in the USA they're perfectly legal and seemingly quite common.
https://www.signalboosters.com/blog/best-cell-phone-signal-boosters/

My main question was whether they work well enough to be worth buying one.
I was hoping to find someone who has used one in a car while traveling.

[RJH]

On 9 Apr 2022 at 11:23:00 AM, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 4/8/2022 3:25 PM, Wilf wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 at 20:47, Woody wrote:
>>> On Fri 08/04/2022 20:22, gtr wrote:
>>>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>>>> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car
>>>>
>>>> How low?
>>>
>>>
>>> US market so likely illegal in the UK.
>>
>> In UK, Wifi Calling is a good option when signal is poor but there is
>> access to wifi.' Don't know if it is in use in USA.
>
> Yes, in the U.S. Wi-Fi calling can be used when signal quality is poor
> and Wi-Fi calling has largely eliminated the need for microcells, at
> least in homes.

Wi-Fi calling has its own problems depending on the carrier setup.

PC Magazine said T-Mobile has a "big problem" with Wi-Fi calling for example
where they said there were problems with pictures & group chats over Wi-Fi.

The most convenient booster for a car is the in-cradle type but they only
work while the phone is in the dashboard cradle & they're only 23 dB.

> The amplifiers are for a different use case, to get a cellular signal in
> weak signal areas where there is no access to broadband.

To boost weak cell signal, this is what PC Magazine said about the bands.

Most boosters handle bands 2/4/66, 5, 12, 13, and 17. That includes base
coverage bands for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. The important missing band
is 71, T-Mobile's 600MHz rural coverage band. Because it took a while for TV
stations to get out of that band, the FCC hasn't approved any consumer
boosters for band 71; you're just not going to find one.

While cellular boosters generally can't boost the "good parts" of 5G
networks. AT&T and Verizon carry a small amount of 5G signal on the old
cellular bands 2 and 5. Boosters handle that, so a booster may summon you a
5G icon, but that signal doesn't give you an experience that's different
from 4G. The fastest 5G networks for AT&T and Verizon are currently on bands
n77, n260, and n261, and those aren't supported by any consumer boosters. No
booster can handle any of T-Mobile's current 5G networks, which are on bands
n41 and n71.

There is a sneaky way around this. While there are no powered boosters for
these bands, passive antennas will still improve signal on bands 41 and 71.
They may only get you 10dB to 20dB of gain as opposed to 70dB, but that
isn't insignificant (and even just the fact that the antenna is outside will
help). Waveform's Griddy parabolic antenna and MIMO panel antennas improve
signal on the new 5G band n77. Connecting an outdoor cellular antenna to a
Wi-Fi hotspot that has a TS9 connector, such as the Netgear Nighthawk M5,
can turn an outdoor cell signal into an indoor Wi-Fi signal.

Cheers, Rob

[RJH]

On 9 Apr 2022 at 3:24:46 AM, Wilf <wi...@postingx.uk> wrote:

>> How are you going to do consistent wifi calling while driving in a car?
>
> With difficulty?

Depends on whether there is signal or not from your provider where you are.

A strong signal would be above -90dBm (like -80 or -70) and a weak signal is
when it gets below -110dBm. Below -120dBm and you likely can't use a phone.

This map shows cellular signal coverage for every provider in the world.
https://www.cellmapper.net/map

When you're at the edges of cell coverage it's most often the uplink
connection that goes first. Your phone isn't able to broadcast as much power
as the cell tower which means uplink power is what usually matters most.

The FCC limits single carrier cellular signal boosters to 100 dB maximum.
The multi-carrier boosters can have up to between 63 dB to 72 dB gain.
For vehicles in motion FCC limits reduce to 65 dB & 50 dB respectively.

The FCC allows 4G & 5G bands for AT&T & Verizon but only 4G T-Mobile bands.
If you're on T-Mobile you might have to use a 4G LTE or 5G hotspot instead.

These four companies are the biggest - CelFi, HiBoost, SureCall & WeBoost.

Cheers, Rob

[sms]

On 4/10/2022 12:41 AM, RJH wrote:

<snip>

> Wi-Fi calling has its own problems depending on the carrier setup.
>
> PC Magazine said T-Mobile has a "big problem" with Wi-Fi calling for example
> where they said there were problems with pictures & group chats over Wi-Fi.

True, there are some issues with Wi-Fi calling on some MVNOs.

For, example, in the U.S., Red Pocket doesn't support Wi-Fi calling on
Verizon, and even on AT&T and T-Mobile there is no MMS over Wi-Fi.

Google Fi (T-Mobile and U.S. Cellular) doesn't support Wi-Fi calling for
iPhone, only for Android.

A booster or a microcell is a cleaner solution than Wi-Fi calling but
you're probably not going to carry your microcell or booster around with
you when traveling.

[nospam]

In article <t2tv98$b9t$1...@dont-email.me>, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:

>
> My main question was whether they work well enough to be worth buying one.

the answer is no. they do not work.

[nospam]

In article <t2u5e2$lk0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> A booster or a microcell is a cleaner solution than Wi-Fi calling but
> you're probably not going to carry your microcell or booster around with
> you when traveling.

that won't work since they're geolocked.

[David Woolley]

On 09/04/2022 21:20, Heron wrote:
> I wonder how those cellular radio boosters handle that encryption then?

They will repeat the encrypted signal without understanding it. One
implication is that they won't see the power control signalling,
although they might sense that the mobile has reduced power.

[David Woolley]

On 10/04/2022 07:40, Tweed wrote:
> Why would GCHQ care about over the air encryption?

Because they want to be able to intercept mobile comms in other countries.

[David Woolley]

On 10/04/2022 08:00, gtr wrote:
>>
>> In this case, it is because they retransmit the signal in the vehicle.
>
> Thank you for explaining that there is a retransmission inside the vehicle,
> where I've subsequently learned they have an effective radius of 2 meters.
> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html

My answer was in the context of a question about reception. The devices
will also retransmit outside the vehicle, for the uplink, and the power
will be much greater, and it might not be possible for them to decode
the request from the base station to reduce power.

[Alan Browne]

Various tester reviews say otherwise though 5G is not well covered.

[nospam]

In article <rfB4K.349144$Gojc....@fx99.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >> My main question was whether they work well enough to be worth buying one.
> >
> > the answer is no. they do not work.
>
> Various tester reviews say otherwise though 5G is not well covered.

what tester reviews are those and how did they test it, and more
importantly, are they being paid to shill?

[Nil]

On 10 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular:

>>>> My main question was whether they work well enough to be worth buying one.
>>>
>>> the answer is no. they do not work.
>>
>> Various tester reviews say otherwise though 5G is not well covered.
>
> what tester reviews are those and how did they test it, and more
> importantly, are they being paid to shill?

You are as stupid as Lewis when you respond to a message like Lewis does
that already includes multiple tester reviews that you then deny existing.

[Nil]

On 10 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in

misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular,uk.telecom.mobile:

>> A booster or a microcell is a cleaner solution than Wi-Fi calling but
>> you're probably not going to carry your microcell or booster around with
>> you when traveling.
>
> that won't work since they're geolocked.

You are stupid if you think all those vehicle signal boosters are geolocked.

[nospam]

In article <t2ut4u$ktk$1...@dont-email.me>, Nil

<redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:

> >> A booster or a microcell is a cleaner solution than Wi-Fi calling but
> >> you're probably not going to carry your microcell or booster around with
> >> you when traveling.
> >
> > that won't work since they're geolocked.
>
> You are stupid if you think all those vehicle signal boosters are geolocked.

speaking of stupid, he said microcell, not booster. learn to read
before trolling.

they *are* geolocked, one reason being e911.

[Alan Browne]

Various for both home installations and mobile (car) use.
Seek and ye shall find. No evidence of shilling in the various reviews
that I could see. (I'm sure there are some out there as well).

The one thing that does stick out: If there is at least a little signal
from the cell then the connection is improved appreciably.

If a cell tower is "just out of range" in normal circumstances, then
this won't be able to detect and cannot make the link.

[nospam]

In article <rOC4K.562220$LN2.1...@fx13.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> The one thing that does stick out: If there is at least a little signal
> from the cell then the connection is improved appreciably.

the problem is that these devices must work in *both* directions.
amplifying the signal only one way is not going to work.

[Nil]

On 10 Apr 2022, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular,uk.telecom.mobile:

>>>> A booster or a microcell is a cleaner solution than Wi-Fi calling but
>>>> you're probably not going to carry your microcell or booster around with
>>>> you when traveling.
>>>
>>> that won't work since they're geolocked.
>>
>> You are stupid if you think all those vehicle signal boosters are geolocked.
>
> speaking of stupid, he said microcell, not booster. learn to read
> before trolling.
>
> they *are* geolocked, one reason being e911.

You are wrong. And you are stupid. Any questions?

[Alan Browne]

1) They work because they improve bandwidth which is also a function of
power. The cell tower seeing more bandwidth (and less bad packets) from
the cell phone (which still appears relatively weak at the tower), can
respond more often with packets. Further the cell will increase the
power sent in that direction (as it still appears relatively weak).
More power=more bandwidth.

2) The conditions for how they work are very non-linear. You could be
within working range, but if the cell can't detect the phone or v-v,
then the connect protocol fails to get things going.

3) So when the tower is in range to get nearly the first bar, at least
the protocol gets started, then the benefit of higher bandwidth from the
phone to the tower (more power, more packets, less dropouts), the cell
can respond in kind.

One of the comments on Amazon was from a hunter: "Doesn't work! Don't
bother!" But of course where he was there were no towers at all. No
magic, alas.

Most other comments on Amazon (confirmed buyers) are quite positive with
about 75% 5* for an expensive home unit.

For mobile (and the co. originally cited) it goes to:

44% 5*
19% 4*
12% 3*
9% 2*
16* 1*

User expectations need to be realistic - as in all things. And I would
assume mobile users would be the most frustrated - for good reason.

Another issue with some units is the cell phone has to be
unrealistically close to the "inside" antenna in the car. (I assume
because it has to avoid cross-talk with higher power signal). Many kits
want the high power antenna to be as far as possible from the
cell/indoor unit).

[RJH]

On 10 Apr 2022 at 8:54:09 AM, David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid>
wrote:

> On 09/04/2022 21:20, Heron wrote:
>> I wonder how those cellular radio boosters handle that encryption then?
>
> They will repeat the encrypted signal without understanding it.

I don't have a cellular booster so am not sure if the vehicular cellular
boosters will repeat any signal other than the registered owner's cellphone
signal given they must be registered with a carrier by FCC regulations (even
the multi carrier ones must be registered to all the carriers I think but I
think that registration happens on the selling side, much like how they
collect taxes for you).

I don't know what happens if you use a non registered vehicular cellular
booster but I saw on the FCC site describing legacy devices which were made
prior to the new ruling that they won't go after you unless they receive a
complaint about interference. That implies at least the older vehicular
cellular boosters work on all carriers without needing to register it.

> One implication is that they won't see the power control signalling,
> although they might sense that the mobile has reduced power.

The 2022 PC Magazine vehicle cellular boosters review specifically describes
the "uplink" as the "connection that goes first" when you are at "the edges
of cell coverage" which they defined as somewhere around below -110dBm.

Even the cheapest vehicle cell signal booster which is an on-the-dash device
has 23dB of gain, which should theoretically boost that weak -110dBm signal
into a respectable range in the mid eighties for that uplink (assuming they
were honest in their FCC certification, which we have to believe is true).

The gain for a home is gargantuan at 100dB in single carrier boosters, and
even the multi carrier boosters provide prodigious gains of 63dB to 72dB.

For vehicles the limits are 65dB for single carrier registrations and 50dB
for multi-carrier setups, which is still a massive uplink signal gain.

Assuming the FCC isn't being conned by the makers of these vehicular
cellular signal boosters, I have to assume these more than substantial
uplink gains will enable someone at the fringe of reception to be squarely
in the middle of the good reception range.

Of course nothing will work if the signal is too low to amplify but that PC
Magazine 2022 review said they work good when you have spotty coverage.

Cheers, Rob

[nospam]

In article <8GD4K.16646$O01....@fx33.iad>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> Most other comments on Amazon (confirmed buyers) are quite positive with
> about 75% 5* for an expensive home unit.

amazon reviews are notoriously unreliable nor are they the results of
objective tests.

[RJH]

On 10 Apr 2022 at 1:55:56 PM, David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid>
wrote:

> On 10/04/2022 07:40, Tweed wrote:
>> Why would GCHQ care about over the air encryption?
>
> Because they want to be able to intercept mobile comms in other countries.

I don't know how these vehicular cellular boosters could possibly adversely
affect US cellular carrier encryption since they're registered with all the
US cellular carriers according to what I saw on the FCC web site today.
https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/signal-boosters/signal-boosters-faq

I guess the question you're answering is whether they could still work in a
RHD vehicle if they were smuggled across the pond. Probably not?

Cheers, Rob

[David Woolley]

On 10/04/2022 18:15, RJH wrote:
> he 2022 PC Magazine vehicle cellular boosters review specifically describes
> the "uplink" as the "connection that goes first" when you are at "the edges
> of cell coverage" which they defined as somewhere around below -110dBm.

I'd consider mobile to fixed to be the uplink, but the -110dBm will me
measured at the mobile end of the fixed to mobile direction.

>
> Even the cheapest vehicle cell signal booster which is an on-the-dash device
> has 23dB of gain, which should theoretically boost that weak -110dBm signal
> into a respectable range in the mid eighties for that uplink (assuming they
> were honest in their FCC certification, which we have to believe is true).

The limit on signal quality will be set by signal to noise ratio, and
only indirectly by power level. -110dBm represents the power level at
which the signal to noise level gets to be unacceptable for an antenna
that is in the open. Boosting it by 23dB isn't going to improve SNR,
except to the extent that the booster receiver has lower noise front
end, and, even then, there is probably going to be very little benefit
beyond about 5dB of gain, even for an ideal receiver.

The technical spec of the first product on the web page was silent about
noise figures, so it may well have no better a front end than the mobile
itself, in which case the SNR will be worse.

The main purpose seems to be to compensate for the losses caused by the
car body, reducing the signal, but that is somewhat equivalent to the
old way of feeding an external aerial to a docking unit, allowing the
phone to directly use the external aerial. To some extent this is going
to be an expensive way of compensating for the lack of an antenna socket
on modern phones.

The external antenna will be better than the internal one in the phone,
so that should be a benefit.

A 23dB boost, on the same frequency risks the retransmission being
received on the external antenna, so I can't really see why you would
want to uses so much gain, except as a numbers game.

23dB mobile to fixed would introduce safety problems in terms of jamming
car electronics and exposure to pedestrians (if used when parked).

[RJH]

On 10 Apr 2022 at 6:23:06 PM, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Most other comments on Amazon (confirmed buyers) are quite positive with
>> about 75% 5* for an expensive home unit.
>
> amazon reviews are notoriously unreliable nor are they the results of
> objective tests.

Customer reviews are useful if taken with a grain of salt given consumer
expectations for low cost or high performance car cellphone signal boosters.

Better reviews can be expected for cellular boosters depending on expense.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/reviews/weboost-drive-reach-vehicle-cell-phone-signal-booster-kit-for-car-truck-and-suv-boosts-5g-4g-lte-for-all-u-s-carriers/6346507

This is one of the cheaper name brand boosters intended for vehicles so you
can't expect it to be fantastic in all ways possible given the reviewers are
all over the country with expectations that are just as widely diverse.
https://www.amazon.com/weBoost-Drive-Phone-Signal-Booster/product-reviews/B00RHMFPEU?reviewerType=all_reviews

Even that $200 cellular booster intended for cars has already been updated.
https://www.amazon.com/weBoost-Drive-Sleek-Carriers-T-Mobile-dp-B073V5S3T7/dp/B073V5S3T7/

What you want to look at first are the ratings for the more expensive units.
https://www.amazon.com/weBoost-477154-Booster-Networks-Carriers/dp/B08WYQND57/

And then work your way down into your price range.
https://www.pcmag.com/picks/best-cell-phone-signal-boosters

Cheers, Rob

[Alan Browne]

You're ducking the issue. Of course.

[Nil]

On 10 Apr 2022, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote in
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.cellular:

>> amazon reviews are notoriously unreliable nor are they the results of
>> objective tests.
>
> You're ducking the issue. Of course.

This nospam is ducking the issue because you know what he said was stupid.

[Martin Brown]

On 10/04/2022 07:42, gtr wrote:
> On 2022-04-09 06:26:34 +0000, notya...@gmail.com said:

>
>> On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 20:22:36 UTC+1, gtr wrote:
>>> Do these cellular amplifiers work when your cellular signal is low?
>>> https://www.weboost.com/boosters/vehicle-car
>>> How low?
>>

>> Effectively no for transmit they don't because the base station
>> commands the power level of the phone to prevent adjacent and
>> co-channel interference.  It sets to a as low a level as practicable,
>> but still maintain a connection.
>>
>> They might provide some assistance on receive, but again the phone
>> tells the base station it can reduce power if the signal is too strong.
>>
>> In any event a hands portable is limited to 0.6 - 1W (depending on
>> generation), whereas a car has its own transceiver and aerial(s) and
>> can put out 6W, so if you are sat in a car using hands free you will
>> get a better signal than if you were stood outside.
>>
>> Obviously MNO's hate them [and they are illegal in the UK] because
>> they mess up reception for other users.
>
> I didn't understand most of what you said other than you don't think
> they work but I doubt that is true now that I've spoken to them a bit.
>
> I don't doubt that these cell phone amplifiers are illegal in the UK
> so I will set the follow up accordingly to remove u.t.m in any response.

I doubt if anyone in the UK would be daft enough to buy one. Most newer
vehicles here have a roof antenna and the phone uses bluetooth to bind
to the car for handsfree operation using the vehicles external antenna.

> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html

Well they would, wouldn't they! What they don't say is that it also
messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[gtr]

On 2022-04-11 01:28:52 +0000, Martin Brown said:

>> I don't doubt that these cell phone amplifiers are illegal in the UK
>> so I will set the follow up accordingly to remove u.t.m in any response.
>
> I doubt if anyone in the UK would be daft enough to buy one.

Someone said they were illegal in the UK so if that's the situation, then
the cellular booster wouldn't work even if it came with a new car in the UK.

> Most newer
> vehicles here have a roof antenna and the phone uses bluetooth to bind
> to the car for handsfree operation using the vehicles external antenna.

That can't be correct if it's also correct that they're illegal in the UK.

>> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
>> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html
>
> Well they would, wouldn't they!

All the carriers have certified them so they must work don't you think?

> What they don't say is that it also
> messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
> likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).

The FCC certified them so the interference must be ok don't you think?

[Alan Browne]

Depends on the model options ("trim level"). Lower end optioned cars
tend to not use the car's antenna. (ie: my car).

And a roof antenna has nothing to do with the issue of connecting to a
tower that is further away in a remote area - yes it's better than the
phone inside, but it's not better than these boosters.

>
>> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
>> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html
>
> Well they would, wouldn't they! What they don't say is that it also
> messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
> likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).

This is why the system still has to meet compliance. US has its
standard, the UK its own. Usually manufacturers know and publish what
countries they are compliant to.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 17:06:12, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

>> I doubt if anyone in the UK would be daft enough to buy one. Most newer
>> vehicles here have a roof antenna and the phone uses bluetooth to bind
>> to the car for handsfree operation using the vehicles external antenna.
>
> Depends on the model options ("trim level"). Lower end optioned cars
> tend to not use the car's antenna. (ie: my car).
>
> And a roof antenna has nothing to do with the issue of connecting to a
> tower that is further away in a remote area - yes it's better than the
> phone inside, but it's not better than these boosters.

How could new cars be sold in GB with cellular boosters as Martin Brown said
they were if those cellular boosters are illegal in GB in the first place?

>>> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
>>> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html
>>
>> Well they would, wouldn't they! What they don't say is that it also
>> messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
>> likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).
>
> This is why the system still has to meet compliance. US has its
> standard, the UK its own. Usually manufacturers know and publish what
> countries they are compliant to.

If they messed up reception as much as Martin Brown said they do then how
could they be approved by the FCC and by all the cellular companies then?

[David Woolley]

On 10/04/2022 19:02, David Woolley wrote:
>
> The technical spec of the first product on the web page was silent about
> noise figures, so it may well have no better a front end than the mobile
> itself, in which case the SNR will be worse.

Looking at the user guide, they do give a noise figure, which is 5dB.
That is pretty poor! You can get UHF pre-amplifiers with 0.5dB noise
figures.

There is no mention of a pairing process, so I assume that it is a
simple repeater.

They do say that the power will be reduced if the device detects too
much signal between inside and outside.

Nothing I can see in the FCC Test Report
<https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/PWO460061> suggests any bluetooth capability
or ability to honour power control signalling.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-04-11 20:31, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 at 17:06:12, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> I doubt if anyone in the UK would be daft enough to buy one. Most
>>> newer vehicles here have a roof antenna and the phone uses bluetooth
>>> to bind to the car for handsfree operation using the vehicles
>>> external antenna.
>>
>> Depends on the model options ("trim level").  Lower end optioned cars
>> tend to not use the car's antenna.  (ie: my car).
>>
>> And a roof antenna has nothing to do with the issue of connecting to a
>> tower that is further away in a remote area - yes it's better than the
>> phone inside, but it's not better than these boosters.
>
> How could new cars be sold in GB with cellular boosters as Martin Brown
> said
> they were if those cellular boosters are illegal in GB in the first place?

I never said they were. I was clarifying that just because a car has a
sharkfin on it, and even with the requisite electronics and antenna, it
does not mean the phone in the car is actually using it.

>
>>>> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
>>>> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html
>>>
>>> Well they would, wouldn't they! What they don't say is that it also
>>> messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
>>> likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).
>>
>> This is why the system still has to meet compliance.  US has its
>> standard, the UK its own.  Usually manufacturers know and publish what
>> countries they are compliant to.
>
> If they messed up reception as much as Martin Brown said they do then how
> could they be approved by the FCC and by all the cellular companies then?

Because Martin's assumptions are likely wrong or incomplete.

Facts:
1) They work[1]

2) They are meant for areas where cell towers are sparse - so you're not
going to be interfering - there is no one close by to interfere with.
(Competitor antennas are probably on the same tower). Power output from
the device is likely controlled as commanded by the receiving tower
(reduces saturation at the receiver).

3) They are compliant (at least in the US per FCC rules).

To be clear, Great Britain is less than 1/3 the size of Texas.

There are lots of areas in the US that have sparse, poor or no coverage
at all.

It could be in GB that there is adequate coverage almost everywhere.

Certainly not in the US.

[1] To be sure, user expectations need to be managed, most esp. for the
mobile case.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 21:01:56, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>

wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):

>> How could new cars be sold in GB with cellular boosters as Martin Brown
>> said
>> they were if those cellular boosters are illegal in GB in the first place?
>
> I never said they were. I was clarifying that just because a car has a
> sharkfin on it, and even with the requisite electronics and antenna, it
> does not mean the phone in the car is actually using it.

Right. It could be that you're not connecting to the internal car antenna.

Or it could be a single user booster instead of a multi user booster (if
they make both).

Or even it could be a single carrier booster instead of a multi carrier
booster (I know they make both but I don't know the difference other than
the FCC limits drop in decibels when you go from single carrier boosters to
multi carrier boosters (why? what's the difference?).

>>>>> I called UberSignal who said they work fantastically for all carriers.
>>>>> https://www.ubersignal.com/vehicle-signal-boosters.html
>>>>
>>>> Well they would, wouldn't they! What they don't say is that it also
>>>> messes up phone reception for anyone else in your vicinity (and quite
>>>> likely radiates sidebands into other protected frequency bands).
>>>
>>> This is why the system still has to meet compliance.  US has its
>>> standard, the UK its own.  Usually manufacturers know and publish what
>>> countries they are compliant to.
>>
>> If they messed up reception as much as Martin Brown said they do then how
>> could they be approved by the FCC and by all the cellular companies then?
>
> Because Martin's assumptions are likely wrong or incomplete.
>
> Facts:
> 1) They work[1]

I'm sure they work. Otherwise there would be a lot of unhappy people.

> 2) They are meant for areas where cell towers are sparse - so you're not
> going to be interfering - there is no one close by to interfere with.

The FCC and carriers wouldn't have approved them if they were interfering.

> (Competitor antennas are probably on the same tower). Power output from
> the device is likely controlled as commanded by the receiving tower
> (reduces saturation at the receiver).

The home boosters are allowed 100 decibels but they stay in place.
The mobile boosters are only allowed 65 decibels.
That they move is maybe why mobile is lower?

> 3) They are compliant (at least in the US per FCC rules).
>
> To be clear, Great Britain is less than 1/3 the size of Texas.
> There are lots of areas in the US that have sparse, poor or no coverage
> at all.

Maybe that's why cellular boosters are outlawed in GB.
Because they're not needed in such a small area.

> It could be in GB that there is adequate coverage almost everywhere.
> Certainly not in the US.

I don't know but I think the laws on radios are more free in the US.
But I don't know that for sure.

> [1] To be sure, user expectations need to be managed, most esp. for the
> mobile case.

Even the lower maximum of around 50 decibels for multi carrier mobile
cellular boosters seems indicate that they must work when there is enough
signal to boost.

Would be nice to read a real world test.

[sms]

On 4/12/2022 4:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snip>

> Or even it could be a single carrier booster instead of a multi carrier
> booster (I know they make both but I don't know the difference other
> than the FCC limits drop in decibels when you go from single carrier
> boosters to multi carrier boosters (why? what's the difference?).

Back in the olden days, pre-Bluetooth, there were hands-free car kits
that had to be wired into the vehicles, complete with an antenna on the
outside of the car, a separate speaker, and a separate microphone. There
were different "cups" to fit different phones.

I put a Motorola one into one of my vehicles. This was back in the days
of AMPS analog phones and the range was very good and the coverage was
excellent. There was no amplifier but one wasn't really needed with the
external antenna (but you could buy a 3 watt amplifier). I kind of
became the source for information about the various Motorola models of
these systems and had a web site about them, that's actually still up
<http://www.nordicgroup.us/mphfck/>.

[Alan Browne]

On 2022-04-12 19:17, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 at 21:01:56, Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
> wrote: (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> How could new cars be sold in GB with cellular boosters as Martin
>>> Brown said
>>> they were if those cellular boosters are illegal in GB in the first
>>> place?
>>
>> I never said they were.  I was clarifying that just because a car has
>> a sharkfin on it, and even with the requisite electronics and antenna,
>> it does not mean the phone in the car is actually using it.
>
> Right. It could be that you're not connecting to the internal car antenna.

It's not like you even _can_. The ability to use the electronics in the
sharkfin are defined by what trim level you bought.

Not sure, but more likely to accidentally jam someone or a tower with a
mobile unit which will be varying power output as a function of changing
conditions.

Fixed units won't transmit at max power, they will respond to the tower
instruction on power level. Since that will be a slow changing
parameter (only weather affecting it), there is little risk of jamming
others.

>> 3) They are compliant (at least in the US per FCC rules).
>>
>> To be clear, Great Britain is less than 1/3 the size of Texas. There
>> are lots of areas in the US that have sparse, poor or no coverage at all.
>
> Maybe that's why cellular boosters are outlawed in GB.
> Because they're not needed in such a small area.

It's my assumption. GB is a bit less "adventurous" on rule making too
(except sausage. Anything goes there).

>
>> It could be in GB that there is adequate coverage almost everywhere.
>> Certainly not in the US.
>
> I don't know but I think the laws on radios are more free in the US.
> But I don't know that for sure.

Funny I read that after what I wrote above.

>
>> [1] To be sure, user expectations need to be managed, most esp. for
>> the mobile case.
>
> Even the lower maximum of around 50 decibels for multi carrier mobile
> cellular boosters seems indicate that they must work when there is
> enough signal to boost.
>
> Would be nice to read a real world test.

There are some, Google is your friend. Most are badly done. Likewise
the few YouTube's out there...