Wayne.B wrote in
:

Any recommendations on type or vendor?



http://www.cellantenna.com/

I have the DA4000 dual band (800-1900 Mhz) bi-directional amp and an 11-
element DB Products 800 Mhz paging system beam a friend in paging gave me.

http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4000.htm

I wouldn't try to use a beam in marine applications. I use mine from atop
a long telescoping pool cleaning handle up 30' out in the country from
fixed locations. Cell antenna has high gain, omni-directional antennas,
like:
http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/...cellular_9.htm
They also have the patch cords to connect your toyphones to the amps:
(pick your phones in the click panel under the amp pages).

Cell Antenna has made a wireless repeater model of my amp:
http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4kmr.htm
But, please take note that there MUST be good separation between the
antennas and there MUST BE A ROOF/WALL/BULKHEAD STRUCTURE BETWEEN INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE ANTENNAS. This would be fine if you have the patch antenna
inside the cabin and the outside link antenna up the mast fed with a high
quality, low loss, foil shielded 50 ohm cable for the 800 or 1900 Mhz.

Not sure how the wireless repeater would work. The DA4000 does what it
says it will do.....

Now for the negative part.................................

Cellphone companies have reduced cell antenna heights from 500' to 100' and
have gone from long-range systems on AMPS (analog) to various digital
schemes running tiny 150mw-300mw phones only capable of 2 mile ranges.
This is to increase their available channels per square mile (what they
tell the customers) and to increase their revenue-per-square-mile (what
they tell the board of directors and the stockholders). Antennas once
pointed outward to achieve horizon line-of-sight range to 3W AMPS carphones
hooked to decent high-gain car antennas have been dropped to low levels and
POINTED DOWN towards very localized toyphones incapable of going far, so
the minicells don't hear cellular phones at any range, like we are looking
for. They keep lowering the toyphone power levels so your toyphone only
hits one, or at max, two towers (actually sectors as each tower has three
120 degree systems on them). (Notice each cellphone tower you see has
three sets of antennas around them....each independently operated.)

This money decision results in the 3W stations having no such range as they
used to have under the old AMPS (analog) systems that would go 10 miles to
a bagphone and 50 miles to a nicely installed, high gain antenna running 3W
of power. It's simply not going to happen any more, especially around
populated areas where the new tiny toyphone systems are built out....no
matter what you put up. Systems in the "country" are still, until they
need to upgrade to the new toyphone digital systems, up at high altitudes.
If your adjacent landfall is one of the old systems, yes, you'll get AMPS
range out of a 3W amp and decent high gain antenna on the mast......

So, is it worth it? Depends on where you cruise. Florida....nope.
Alaska...probably a great idea. California...nope. Rural
states....probably great.

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
Wayne.B wrote in
:

Any recommendations on type or vendor?



http://www.cellantenna.com/

I have the DA4000 dual band (800-1900 Mhz) bi-directional amp and an 11-
element DB Products 800 Mhz paging system beam a friend in paging gave me.

http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4000.htm

I wouldn't try to use a beam in marine applications. I use mine from atop
a long telescoping pool cleaning handle up 30' out in the country from
fixed locations. Cell antenna has high gain, omni-directional antennas,
like:
http://www.cellantenna.com/Antennas/...cellular_9.htm
They also have the patch cords to connect your toyphones to the amps:
(pick your phones in the click panel under the amp pages).

Cell Antenna has made a wireless repeater model of my amp:
http://www.cellantenna.com/Boosters/da4kmr.htm
But, please take note that there MUST be good separation between the
antennas and there MUST BE A ROOF/WALL/BULKHEAD STRUCTURE BETWEEN INSIDE
AND OUTSIDE ANTENNAS. This would be fine if you have the patch antenna
inside the cabin and the outside link antenna up the mast fed with a high
quality, low loss, foil shielded 50 ohm cable for the 800 or 1900 Mhz.

Not sure how the wireless repeater would work. The DA4000 does what it
says it will do.....

Now for the negative part.................................

Cellphone companies have reduced cell antenna heights from 500' to 100'
and
have gone from long-range systems on AMPS (analog) to various digital
schemes running tiny 150mw-300mw phones only capable of 2 mile ranges.
This is to increase their available channels per square mile (what they
tell the customers) and to increase their revenue-per-square-mile (what
they tell the board of directors and the stockholders). Antennas once
pointed outward to achieve horizon line-of-sight range to 3W AMPS
carphones
hooked to decent high-gain car antennas have been dropped to low levels
and
POINTED DOWN towards very localized toyphones incapable of going far, so
the minicells don't hear cellular phones at any range, like we are looking
for. They keep lowering the toyphone power levels so your toyphone only
hits one, or at max, two towers (actually sectors as each tower has three
120 degree systems on them). (Notice each cellphone tower you see has
three sets of antennas around them....each independently operated.)

This money decision results in the 3W stations having no such range as
they
used to have under the old AMPS (analog) systems that would go 10 miles to
a bagphone and 50 miles to a nicely installed, high gain antenna running
3W
of power. It's simply not going to happen any more, especially around
populated areas where the new tiny toyphone systems are built out....no
matter what you put up. Systems in the "country" are still, until they
need to upgrade to the new toyphone digital systems, up at high altitudes.
If your adjacent landfall is one of the old systems, yes, you'll get AMPS
range out of a 3W amp and decent high gain antenna on the mast......

So, is it worth it? Depends on where you cruise. Florida....nope.
Alaska...probably a great idea. California...nope. Rural
states....probably great.


Thanks Larry for the informative update on cell system operations.

You also did a good job in this thread of explaining the shift of HF guard
frequencies from duplex to simplex. I suspect there could be some confusion
with operators of marine transceivers that may have difficult to override
default duplex operation. The new guard frequencies were originally set up
by IMO to be duplex, and making new policy is easier than changing default
settings on radios.

Jack

"Jack Painter" wrote in
news:6h25e.215$rg1.186@lakeread01:

Thanks Larry for the informative update on cell system operations.

You also did a good job in this thread of explaining the shift of HF
guard frequencies from duplex to simplex. I suspect there could be
some confusion with operators of marine transceivers that may have
difficult to override default duplex operation. The new guard
frequencies were originally set up by IMO to be duplex, and making new
policy is easier than changing default settings on radios.

Jack



I think in the near future the HF marine bands will just be dead, except
maybe for the Coasties who survive the next round of budget cuts from
bankrupt governments....like ours.

The commercial traffic, except for a few third world shipping, is all on
Marisat or the other global LEO satellite birds. Simply put, it just works
better, especially in really lousy weather when HF is so damned noisy you
can't even hear yourself....

I think the ham bands are going to get BIGGER as commercial and government
interests move off HF to better classes of services. Noone wants more HF
spectrum any more.

In article ,
Larry W4CSC wrote:

Noone wants more HF spectrum any more.

except the BPL folks.......

Bruce in alaska BPL...another idea who's time has already expired....
--
add a 2 before @

Lines: 23
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace: npbhgpngjbkmjfegdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbold dfedijgmjpfplcfbcgpepmajljakaobifnbmaflgaifkaebnkc pmgondmkijeljbaohfbofmmmkjljafdlgahbdkphagnbhdfggd meadfgnaln
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:09:50 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Service
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 01:09:50 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.boats.electronics:59644


On 2005-04-07 said:
Larry W4CSC wrote:
Noone wants more HF spectrum any more.
except the BPL folks.......
Bruce in alaska BPL...another idea who's time has already
expired.... --
Hey just follow the money. WE're going to get BPl rammed down our
throats whether we want it or not. The money's behind it, and we've
got the best government that money can buy.



Richard Webb, amateur radio callsign nf5b
active on the Maritime Mobile service network, 14.300 mhz
REplace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real email

--



A rollercoaster goes nowhere, but it's judged WHOLLY on
how AMAZING it feels taking you there.