Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: In building coverage: FCC Rule Violation..Answer From FCC!

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 19:04:08 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: Eierman David-CFED01 <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: In building coverage: FCC Rule Violation..Answer From FCC!

 I think FCC meant:47 CFR 90.219 and 47 CFR 22.383 both include the same term to
identify who is eligible to utilize these devices, the licensee.I hope you are
also sending a copy to Andrew.Regards,

David Eierman
Principal Staff Engineer
Motorola, CGISS, Spectrum Strategy
Phone:       410-712-6242
Email:        [email-masked]
Fax:            410-712-6208
Cellular:       443-421-0659

     -----Original Message-----
     From: Mark [mailto:[email-masked]]
     Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 4:56 PM
     To: [email-masked]
     Subject: [800interference] Re: In building coverage: FCC Rule
     Violation..Answer From FCC!

     The FCC's short yet informative answer to the query.

     Jack - it has been crossposted to the other group already.

     Mark

     You are receiving this email in response to your inquiry to the FCC
     on 10/6/2003 12:39:56 PM.

     Thank you for contacting the FCC.

     47 CFR 90.219 and 47 CFR 22.283 both include the same term to
     identify who is eligible to utilize these devices, the licensee.

     Dear FCC Representative,

     I am in search of the clarification of the FCC rule stated above on
     the ability of a private, non-FCC licensed individual, to install a
     signal booster (aka Bi-Directional Amplifier) to amplify signals
     above 150 MHz (specificially 800 and 1.9 GHz) inside of a private
     building.  In my interpretation of the FCC rule as I tried to explain
     to an individual that the said installation of such a system can only
     be authorized and/or installed by a "licensee" holding a Part 90 or
     Part 22 license (or their authorized sub-contractor) and he , as a
     private individual" is not allowed to freely install such a system as
     he is not the "licensee".

     This individual is under the impression that because the signal
     booster (BDA) is an un-regulated device he has the ability to install
     these units without the concurrence of the Cellular/PCS providers
     without their knowledge.  Of course we are at a blockage here as the
     manufacturers of these devices (specificially Andrew Corp.) have also
     advised him that he doesn't need any type of authorization to install
     such a device to amplify someone else's licensed channels.

     For your convenience I have cut and pasted the rule along with my
     contact phone number below if you would like to speak directly with
     me.

     Thank you in advance for your time and assistance.

     Mark