Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology IT

Build Your Own Cell tower 377

Posted by Hemos from the beam-with-joy dept.
BlakeCaldwell writes "If you're the type who dreads being dragged kicking and screaming into the use of a cell phone, Samsung sells their Long Range Cordless Phone. With an incredible (for landlines) 30-mile range, the set includes a caller ID-capable LCD and is able to communicate with the base-station, acting as an intercom."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Build Your Own Cell tower More

Build Your Own Cell tower

Comments Filter:

  • Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) * <errorNO@SPAMioerror.us> on Monday March 21, 2005 @12:59PM (#12001425) Homepage Journal
    This is just exactly what I've been looking for. I just have to wonder if the sort of power output this thing needs is entirely legal. Oh well, who cares until the FCC shows up. According to this page [goodbyelongdistance.com] though, the range is 130km (80 miles) at sea level! Who needs a cell phone anymore unless you're going waaaay out of town. I suspect that's a typo though.

    It's not so much that I don't want a cell phone, it's more that I don't see any use paying $40-50 a month for something I don't use more than 100 minutes a month. Even if I only got five miles of range out of it, it would easily cover 99% of my needs.

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:02PM (#12001477)
      Please note the "Update:" under the blurb that is linked to from Slashdot...

      The phone might not adhere to FCC regulations. If you can't use a FRS radio for more than a couple miles w/o a license why would you be able to use this cordless phone?

      • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Informative)

        by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 )
        Because it's digital rather than analogue and therefore takes up a tiny amount of spectrum while still being able to use that spectrum for other applications?

        Are you and the mods new here or something?

        • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Informative)

          by Detritus ( 11846 )
          Digital vs. analog is irrelevant. If it causes interference to a licensed radio service, the FCC can seize the equipment, hit the offender with major fines, and in extreme cases, refer it to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

        • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

          by deacon ( 40533 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:33PM (#12002769) Journal
          If you had bothered to read the linked articles you would have seen:

          "Now for the long awaited question. I took the whole setup over to a friends place who is a ham radio operator. He immediately chastised me for importing such contraband into the country and continually tsked tsked me while he checked the frequency on the equipment and salivated over it all wishing he had a set of his own. Well, here's the bad news....the frequency range is indeed 450 transmit from the base and 230 from the handset, reverse for the receive frequencies. This of course puts this outside the GMRS band and in the case of the 230 mhz band into some part of the aircraft communication band of frequencies. I do not have the exact frequencies in front of me at this moment but I have been for warned that by using these new toys of mine I would be infringing upon part of the Private Radio Service in the 450mhz range and, as mentioned, part of the aircraft comm band in the 230mhz range. So things look a little bleak as far as using this stuff in the US is concerned."

          Are you and the mods new here or something?

          Don't even go there.

        • Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)

          by LordMyren ( 15499 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @03:24PM (#12003352) Homepage
          The FCC doesnt care what you are sending or if you interfere. Your rights are of no concern to big media.

          Presenting, The Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy [newamerica.net].

          The first time i read it, it seemed like fluff. But its actually quite educational.
          Myren

        • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

          by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @03:39PM (#12003515) Journal
          It operates in a licensed part of the RF spectrum; if operate this in that portion of the spectrum without a license, the FCC can and has fined people $10,000.00.

          Released: February 26, 2004
          By the District Director, Philadelphia Office, Enforcement Bureau:

          I. INTRODUCTION
          1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find that Best Wok has apparently violated Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act").[1] The violation occurred because Best Wok operated radio transmitting equipment on the frequency 145.8376 MHz without a license issued by the FCC. We conclude that Best Wok is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000). ...

          At 11:30 a.m. on February 28, 2003, the agent entered Best Wok and inspected the radio transmitting equipment in the presence of the restaurant manager, Sae C. Hauwo. The agent found that Best Wok was operating a long-distance cordless telephone system. The system was comprised of a base unit that was located under the counter of the restaurant and a mobile unit that was in Hauwo's vehicle. There were no identifying markings on the mobile unit, but the base unit was marked with the Model Number GSM WLT-988. The FCC agent used frequency-measuring equipment to determine that the base unit actually operated on the frequency 145.8376 MHz and not the frequency 145.835 MHz as specified in the complaints. Hauwo stated that he installed the long-range cordless telephone system so that his employees could answer customers' telephone calls while making deliveries in their vehicles. Hauwo stated that he purchased the long-range cordless telephone system in another country and brought it into the United States to operate at the restaurant.

          You need to be very careful when purchasing RF equipment outside the US; that it's legal inside the US. A mistake can be expensive!

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:02PM (#12001483)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • With Speakeasy, you don't need the landline for DSL anymore.
        • No, but you essentially pay for it anyways for higher cost of their no-phone-line service. At least in my area.

          Its $18 for SBC Phone line, and another $12 for the oneline stuff, so why NOT have a regular phone service?

          Ill pay $4/mo for 911 and pizza delivery. Plus, it gives me a number to give out to pesky people like the landlord.
          • Thats what I get for posting directly and not previewing. I meant $6.
          • I get all that with my cell phone, because I have E911 service, and my local pizza delivery place doesn't go by the address they pull from the whitepages when they bring up my phone number. They always ask what address I want the pizza delivered to.

            I'd still rather have Comcast for internet access than have anything to do with the phone lines, however.
        • Depending on the residence, Verizon may be the only ones authorized to offer DSL.
          • Local telcos were, iirc, shoehorned into allowing other providers access to their network to provide local phone service and xDSL. It's been about five years since I've worked in the industry, so I could be wrong.
            • My friends live in a new apartment building and there is some agreement between the building owners and Verizon which allows Verizon to be the only provider of such services for 5 years.

      • Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nmos ( 25822 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:01PM (#12002360)
        You're not going to get anything close to 30 miles out of 2.4 GHz while still staying within FCC limits AND being mobile.

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      who needs? well, someone who wishes to call cheaper to mobiles than what landlines allow.

      one of the points of why landlines in normal everyday usage between normal people around here is used less and less is that practically every time you would be calling to a cellular phone - and calling to a cellular phone from a landline costs generally more than if you called to it from another cellular phone.

      with this beast i'd worry more about how man of these things can be used at a time in a certain area(because
      • and calling to a cellular phone from a landline costs generally more than if you called to it from another cellular phone.

        Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the United States, it's the recipient of a call to cellular phone who pays the extra charges. Maybe I just don't see the charges because every call I make to anywhere in the US or Canada is covered by my monthly fees... Maybe it's the fact that I'm a Vonage customer. Anyway, I don't ever recall paying extra for this even before my V

        • Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in the United States, it's the recipient of a call to cellular phone who pays the extra charges.

          Generally yes, but Nextel has had no-charge incoming calls on certain plans for a couple of years. I generally use over 1700 minutes a month, but with free incoming 24x7x365 and free nights & weekends (9pm-7am), I rarely use more than 250 "plan" minutes (out of 600).

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Dr Reducto ( 665121 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:09PM (#12001595) Journal
      ...And pair it with VOIP, and you should be able to save the cost of the phone over time, assuming the phone works as advertised. A cell phone that you can call all over the world for "free".
      • not "free". You still have a landline for which you pay 2 fixed monthly fees. Your home phoneline and DSL. I don't know of a provider that will give you DSL without making you pay for the phoneline.

        What you save is the cost of phonecalls made over your phoneline.

        Including the internation calls I make (about 3 hours a month US=>Netherlands) this adds up to a not so whopping $15 a month for me.

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Subgenius ( 95662 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:12PM (#12001650) Homepage
      Think twice folks, these devices are illegal to use in the US (lets not get into the 'rights of the airspace within a Farrady cage in a private club' stuff, ok?). Look for fines ranging from $7,500 to over $10k for 'wilfull and repeated violations' of FCC regulations if you fire one of these up (and your local hams or ANYONE ELSE reports you).

      Most of these types radios use frequencies right in the midle of the the 2 meter band (140Mhz), allocated to gov't/amateur radio.

      Just wait and see what happens when you fire up one of these and step all over coordinated 2m repeater....

      • Re:Sweet! (Score:4, Informative)

        by VAXcat ( 674775 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:23PM (#12001845)
        I concur...and there is no such thing as a frequency where no one will notice you...there is always an amateur radio op or scanner fan checking the spectrum for interesting signals.

      • Re:Sweet! (Score:2, Informative)

        by stridebird ( 594984 )
        OK I don't normally step in to any kind of spelling/grammar thing here but in this case, I will.

        Faraday

        google might help you [google.co.uk]

        Thankyou.

      • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sporktoast ( 246027 )
        Sure, but take it to your vacation spot in a Mexican port town, like the gabbiest folks in these forums [goodbyelongdistance.com] have, and you can use it to your heart's content. Until, of course, too many other folks do and the interference levels start rising....

    • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by poptix_work ( 79063 ) *
      These have been available for years from various companies including Senao (Yes, the popular wifi card maker), they're illegal in the USA, but they're rather popular in Australia.

  • And how soon before they cross frequencies? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NaruVonWilkins ( 844204 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:00PM (#12001442)
    This sounds to me like it'll be short-lived. More than ten people in your neighborhood get one and it's all over.

  • Low speed WiFi (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nharmon ( 97591 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:00PM (#12001455)
    Could these be adapted for slow (modem speed) wifi?
    • Possibly (you'd get a lot more interference and thus a slower connection speed), but I'm more interested than ever in taking my DSL connection and using it for VOIP in combination with this, since I don't have a regular landline right now.

    • Can be converted (Score:5, Informative)

      by elgatozorbas ( 783538 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:24PM (#12002633)
      No doubt this could be converted. HAM radio amateurs use something comparable which is called 'packet radio'. The most common rate (afaik) is 9k6, which is referred to as 'fast packet'. Probably you can do better (using your own modulation scheme), but not very much (assuming the link quality is comparable to normal telephone).

      Something that I find surprising in some slashdotters is the fascination for wireless technology. Charming as it is, wireless is just another type of technology having its own benefits and hurdles. In general it is not the 'being wireless' part that is difficult: transmitters have existed for over 100 years.
      I understand other people's fascination, but anyone can have his own transmitter, given that you can pass the HAM exam (if not you shouldn't be fooling around with wireless equipment anyway). Wireless links can be bought almost off-the-shelf.

      IMHO the communication scheme itself is a lot more difficult. This can be understood easily by looking at the evolution of wireline modems: they started at 150 (or so) bps and worked their way up to 33kbps (higher rates use special tricks). All the time the medium remained the same, only progress was in the digital layers. For the same reason, I don't think it is fair to say 'wireless problem solved, halfway there'.
      Just my 2ct...

  • High-power RF interference (Score:5, Interesting)

    by powdered toast dude ( 800543 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:02PM (#12001476) Journal
    In a neighboorhood where I once lived, someone had a very high-powered (and likely illegal) phone of which this reminds me. It was so powerful, and perhaps poorly designed, that I'd hear his conversations inducted into my own landline as he drove by. Weird but kind of cool.

    $0.02,
    ptd

    • There was some hype where I lived during the mid to late 80s where kids would drive up and down the streets with cordless phones to pick up on your conversations.

      I frequently had issues in the dorms in college with interference from nearby cordless phones. I usually had to change "channels" on the base station several times in order to get out of the range of the people around me.

      Pretty typical of cordless phones.

    • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:5, Interesting)

      by krgallagher ( 743575 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:15PM (#12001680) Homepage
      "It was so powerful, and perhaps poorly designed, that I'd hear his conversations inducted into my own landline as he drove by. "

      In my neighboorhood I have three ham radio operators within about ten blocks of me. I am convinced one of them is running an illegal amplifier. When it is transmitting, I get sine waves on the screen of every television in the house. When he keys the microphone, he broadcasts through my computer speakers even with my computer turned off. I finally got fed up with it and complained to the FCC. They sent me some nice brochures on how to shield my home entertainment equipment from RF interferance.

      • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:27PM (#12001894) Journal
        Yup, the HAM is licensed your not. In fact, if your TV interferes with his transmission he can contact the FCC to have YOU shut down.

        • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:5, Interesting)

          by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:40PM (#12002074) Homepage Journal
          If nothing else, shouldn't the FCC be responsible for managing the spectrum in such a way that these kinds of problems do not happen?

          A licensed operator running an illegal amplifier obviously should be given lower priority than the owner of an FCC-approved consumer device. The other guy has no right to remove your use of the spectrum, while his use is probably considered beyond reasonable.

          I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is Slashdot, after all.

          • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:4, Informative)

            by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:01PM (#12002369) Homepage Journal
            Sure and they probably have already checked his Power output and it was within limits. The FCC and lots of listening gear all around the place.
            But to it into perspective. The Ham operator is licensed to use that block of spectrum if your device is picking it up it is not his problem. Most likely it is your device at fault.

          • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:4, Insightful)

            by pv2b ( 231846 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:08PM (#12002439)
            If he is a licenced ham radio operator, I doubt the amplifier is using is in any way "illegal".

            I'm not sure what the maximum power output is in the United States, but here in Sweden, a licenced radio amateur operator can put out up to 1 kW or so without any additional license.

            And, being a ham radio operator, you don't actually have to use equiment certified by anyone. Part of the reason you have to take an exam to become a ham radio operator, is to demonstrate they you know what you're doing. Amateur radio is the only service I'm aware of (other than possibly the military) that doesn't require its users to use type approved equiment.

            Now CB radio however, that's a completely different story. Any idiot can go to his local electronics store and buy himself a CB rig capable of putting out 5 W of power with a microphone and jabber into it.

            Now if he is a CB radio operator -- if he's using any amplifier at all, it's probably very illegal -- and usually of poor quality with lots of nice harmonics.

            So how can you tell if your friendly neighbour with the amplifier is a licenced radio amateur running QRO on HF, or if he's an illegal CB operator?

            Well. One way to tell is by the way he talks on the radio. You said that you have equipment capable of receiving his transmissions (your computer speakers :-)

            According to regulations, all amateur radio stations must identify with their callsign and the callsign of the other party on a regular basis in their contacts. Listen for callsigns -- usually 5-6 characters long with one or more numbers in it -- my callsign is SM0YUF, somebody in the US would probably have a callsign starting with A, N or W, or maybe some other letter that escapes me at the moment. You can look up who owns a certain callsign on http://www.qrz.com/ [qrz.com].

            If the transmissions contain no callsigns whatsoever, chances are that he's in fact an illegal CB operator, in which case, in theory, you could contact the FCC using the magic word "CB" rather than "ham radio", and hopefully you might make some progress.

            Hope this helps. Oh, and do look into those papers with toroids and ferrites. If he is in fact a licenced radio amateur, he is well within his rights, and your equiment is shoddy. Sorry.

            73 de SM0YUF
          • >If nothing else, shouldn't the FCC be responsible for managing the spectrum in such a way that these kinds of problems do not happen?

            They do manage the spectrum. What they don't manage is the receiving devices...

            There is a curious problem here caused by the "free market" philosophy taken so to heart by the public at large, the government, and the FCC recently.

            The problem is that the TV probably doesn't meet the consumer's needs for keeping out unwanted (and off frequency) RF. The FCC would argue th

      • Did you bother to talk to the ham? Most hams are acutely aware that causing interference is not appreciated, and are more than willing to help mitigate the interference without having to involve the FCC. As you found out, as long as the ham is legal, it's your problem. Remember seeing a sticker or paragraph in your user's manual about undesired interference? YOU, as the part 15 device operator, are required to deal with any interference from any licensed service.

        As far as running an "illegal" amp, hams are

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I am convinced one of them is running an illegal amplifier

        Don't be so sure its illegal. Now if it was on a CB radio, then yes, highly illegal. But if its legitimate amateur radio gear, then its doubtful that its illegal. We can legally crank some pretty high power. Now, separately, did you approach him (in a friendly way) about the interference to your tv? There are specific filters that he could volunteer to put in his lines to reduce/remove your tv interference. Usually when hams operate on specific fre
    • I was working in a Detroit high-rise office building once and there was a similar problem. A local radio station was broadcasting from a nearby building. The FM transmission was being picked up on some PBX-based phones at times and there were complaints.

      Investigation revealed that when the coiled handset cords on the phone was stretched to a certain length, the FM signal from the radio station was resonating its way in. The solution was to get shielded handset cables.

    • It may have been a CB radio with a linear amplifier. Years ago, when I was in high school, a friend had one of these (300W!!!!) and the interference that this thing could generate was insane. When we drove around, we could talk over peoples' landlines (as you mentioned), over fast food drive-thru intercoms, and most memorably, the PA system at the local little league baseball field.

    • Re:High-power RF interference (Score:5, Funny)

      by TomorrowPlusX ( 571956 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:56PM (#12002284)
      When I was a bus driver in college, there was this one neighborhood ( close to downtown Charlottesville, VA ) where somebody's wireless landline would cause massive interference with our CB radios. Massive enough that we could here *complete* conversations, clearly, if we were within a few blocks.

      Once I heard one hell of a yelling match, he threatened to kill somebody and bury him in his garage.

      Those were the days...

  • Wonderful.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:03PM (#12001502) Homepage Journal
    So it's basically a long range phone, not an actual cell phone. Fine if you live on a ranch, but with all the structures and interference in town, I wonder how effective it really is.

    FWIW I avoid cell phones because the cost is just too damn high for what little I need one for. I'd consider pay-as-you-go without some stupid limit placed upon how soon I need to use up my time or artificial wallet robbing schemes

    • I don't see it as being terribly advantageous myself, but for different reasons. If you assume that you can indeed get reception at 30 miles away, what happens when you have to go somewhere that's 31 miles away? Yer screwed.

      I used to think as you -- that cell phones were too darn costly -- then I ripped out my landline and went cell-only. I spend about the same amount of money as I used to on my landline and I can take my phone with me anywhere. I also get free long distance.

      I'm not sure about other pla

  • legal issue in the US (Score:5, Informative)

    by Flying Purple Wombat ( 787087 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:03PM (#12001504)
    Most of these things are illegal in the US. They use frequecies assigned to other services, and power that far exceeds limits in FCC part 15.

    I don't know about other places, but using that in the US risks huge fines ($10,000).

  • I just use my normal cordless (Score:5, Funny)

    by PhraudulentOne ( 217867 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:03PM (#12001507) Homepage Journal
    I live downtown in a *small* rural community. I can take my 900Mhz cordless to the corner store, the parks, and a couple of restaurants without it dropping calls. Plus, I have bonus of looking like Zack Morris [rr.com] as I stroll around with my big-ass phone.

  • Is that really a good idea?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pg110404 ( 836120 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:04PM (#12001515)
    Only friends and family know my cellphone number and perhaps my car garage.

    I've never been bothered by telemarketers on my cell phone yet. With this, you can get harrassed by them all day long.

    With this, you'll need to leave town to get peace and quiet.

  • * excellent * (Score:5, Funny)

    by bizmark22 ( 823743 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:04PM (#12001519)
    now I can have fake "cell phone" conversations with my "girlfriend" on my own network, with no chance of that phone ringing halfway through to give me away...

  • Lost in someone else's couch? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:05PM (#12001520)
    I have a hard enough time finding my portable phone in my house. Now it can get lost within 30 miles? Eep.
  • Anyone have any idea about the security of these things?

    • Anyone have any idea about the security of these things?

      The phone itself can be easily secured with a belt clip. The signals... well, they can not be easily secured with a belt clip.

  • So? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GeekFu ( 166509 )
    These have been around for years. Why is this news? They are not legal for general use in the US.
  • A restaurant was recently cited by the FCC for having one of these that worked in the ham frequencies:

    *Pages 1--4 from Microsoft Word - 45968.doc* Federal Communications Commission DA 05- 336 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Pang Cheng, d/ b as Best Wok 1 Westville, New Jersey File No. EB- 03- PA- 029 NAL/ Acct. No. 200432400001 FRN: 0009- 3455- 62 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: February 7,

  • Stationary cell phone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hinten ( 316240 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:09PM (#12001598)
    So, what I would like to know is: why is there no cell phone specifically designed for home use? If the cellphone companies want us to get rid of landlines why have they not designed phones that can actually be used in a home environment?
    I was a sucker for car phones: much better reception, easier to hold and work with than those tiny cellphones.
    I want a 'stationary' cellphone for the house with an antenna on the roof for excellent reception so I don't have to use my tiny little cell phone.

  • Don't do it in the U.S. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:10PM (#12001617) Homepage Journal
    Here's what FCC did [fcc.gov] to someone who had one of these devices that operated in the ham bands.

    Bruce

  • According to TFA, this is just a cordless phone, which means you would have to carry around both this handset as well as your regular cellphone unless you know you won't be out of range on a given day. You still have to pay for your landline. More appealing to me would be if somebody made a high performance tabletop cellphone (with external antenna) so I could ditch the landline altogether.
  • From TFA:

    Either way, if you want to use your landline anywhere in town (mountains and buildings aside)

    That means it doesn't work inside any building, including your own apartment. Sorry, doesn't work for me.

  • Fake ! (Score:5, Informative)

    by MaxOliver ( 869590 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:17PM (#12001727)
    This is not a Samsung model. In fact it is made by several Chinese factories as fakes of Samsung, SENAO, etc. They normally use HAM radio frequencies or comercial VHF/UHF. Due to the fact that they are only certified in China it is illegal to use in most countries.

    • Re:Fake ! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by javaxman ( 705658 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:30PM (#12001937) Journal
      This is not a Samsung model. In fact it is made by several Chinese factories as fakes of Samsung, SENAO, etc.

      That would explain the results you get when entering "Samsung Super Long Range Phone" into google. It's really a shame we can't convince /. editors to google the subjects of stories before submitting them. I guess that's our job.

      They normally use HAM radio frequencies or comercial VHF/UHF. Due to the fact that they are only certified in China it is illegal to use in most countries.

      This explains why you don't see these for sale in the US anywhere... it's clearly not a new product, and if someone did come up with a way to do this legally ( and in a manner that would allow everyone in town to have such a phone- say a wide-spectrum mesh network device or something ), it'd be big, big news. Too bad this isn't something like that- instead, it's just more crap to clutter HAM frequencies and/or screw up over-the-air broadcasts. Only the stupid and extremely anti-social would even consider purchasing such a thing in most developed countries...

      Me, I'm not to afraid of low-level RF emissions- I think my cell phone probably won't give me cancer... but you do have to wonder what sort of radiation *this* sucker puts out...

      Nothing to look at here, folks, move along...

  • Not a good idea if unlicensed... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jim_deane ( 63059 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:17PM (#12001730) Journal
    If you operate one of these devices in the U.S., and it operates on ANY frequency used by the military, government, business, or amateur radio, you will be hunted down and taken out--by the FCC.

    The price of the unit may be cheaper than cell phone bills, but add on that $10,000 fine and seizure of the equipment and it gets real expensive real quick.

    And in case you think you're safe because it's in an amateur band, you should note that amateur radio operators practice RDF (Radio Direction Finding) or "Foxhunting" for fun. They will hunt you down, and the FCC accepts evidence from licensed operators in cases against violators.

    Jim
  • Does anyone know how many channels this device is capable of?

    What frequencies does it run on?

    I see it highly likely that if this thing gets popular, it will end up similar to the original wireless phones in the early 80's with one antenna on a high tower that covers an entire city. Unfortunately, only 30 people would be able to use it in a city at one time.

  • FCC Fine Letters (Score:5, Informative)

    by Subgenius ( 95662 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:19PM (#12001753) Homepage
    Please read these before buying/using these phones...

    http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-453A1.html [fcc.gov]
    http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/DA-02-2474A1.htm l [fcc.gov]

    4. On July 27, 2001, agents from the Miami Office visited Lightning's retail store located at 231 E. Flagler Street, Unit #1, Miami, Florida. The agents saw several long-range, cordless telephones on display at the store, including a Super Phone CT-9000, a Prolink CT-6000CID, and an Optima OP8810. A salesperson
    offered to sell one of the units to the agents. The long-range cordless telephones displayed at the store were capable of causing serious interference to aviation communications and were
    not approved6 by the Commission for use in the United States.

    • Whoa, the FCC has agents?! Are they anything like the FBI special agents?!

      I think being an FCC agent would be like the FBI, only for geeks. Would I get to carry a gun?
  • Thats your brain cooking from the cordless phone radiation ...

  • Oh, great... (Score:4, Funny)

    by kclittle ( 625128 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:23PM (#12001840)
    now my daughter can loose the cordless phone within a 30 mile radius. Just frick'n wunnerful...

  • If you're the type who dreads being dragged kicking and screaming into the use of a cell phone

    Cmon guys - embrace new technology. You remember what it was like without electricity? :)
    I think a lot of it is to do with the pricing plans in the US - don't you guys sometimes pay for incoming calls? That's just bizarre

  • I saw nothing in the article that specifically states that, but apparently so, by that FCC complaint.

    From TFA:
    Update: Keep in mind, this sort of power may be violating FCC regulation.

    My understanding is that transmitting ANY radiated power in that (2-meter) band (or most other bands) that can be detected by others is illegal without an amateur radio license, and the way this thing operates, I'm not sure it would be legal WITH a license.

    TFA didn't say, but I'd hope this thing is not being sold in the US

  • Countermeasures (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:33PM (#12001977)
    And just in time, as well.

    Some guy invented magnetic paint [apci.asso.fr].

    Although not an intended purpose, I assume it will work just like anti-cellular wood panels [mercola.com].

    And it might even free you from having to wear a tinfoil hat indoors.

  • 240-450Mhz (Score:2, Informative)

    by bobcat7677 ( 561727 )
    I looked a bit farther on the site and found a spec page for the phones. It says they run in the 240-450Mhz range. And it says the transmit power is 1500mA??? That would mean the unit would be in UHF channels and something in the order of 30x more transmit power then the typical "legal" non-licensed deviced in that band. (correct me if I'm wrong on the 30x more powerful part but it's certainly alot more powerful than your typical comsumer or even pro-sumer wireless gear in that range)

    I'm not certain,

    • Re:240-450Mhz (Score:3, Informative)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      The military uses 225-400 MHz for air-to-ground communications and for navigation aids. That's a bright idea, jamming the United States Air Force. It's not like they could make your life miserable or anything.

  • The more I think about it, this will be outlawed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:44PM (#12002129) Journal
    There is no way, even if this works for 30 miles, and they fix interference problems, and it is declared safe for use; there is no way the cell phone companies will alow people to own them. They will use thier lobbys to outlaw cordless phones with a long range. If my phone worked 30 miles from the home, I would not need my cell phone. Cell phone companies will do the same thing telcom companies do, when they lobby to make it illegal for small towns to provide free internet access. Life is all about money, and the big corporations will not allow for anyone to take away from their profits.

  • Another sloppy Slashdot title (Score:3)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @01:58PM (#12002324) Homepage Journal
    It's a cordless phone. An extremely powerful one, but still just a cordless phone. The basestation isn't a "cell tower" just because it's big.

  • Looking at this from a different angle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cprincipe ( 100684 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @02:14PM (#12002497) Homepage
    Yes, I know the phone as currenly configured violates FCC regulations and a bunch of Ham Radio enthusiasts would hunt me down and kill me if I used one.

    However, if one was configured to work within FCC standards, paired with VOIP and a PBX this would be a godsend for a lot of companies and universities that have employees that are far-flung and travel a lot.

    My company has a campus with 5,000 employees served by a large number of desktop support technicians weilding pagers and cell phones. With devices like this, the technicians could call each other or anyone in the company over the radio waves for free instead of using cell phones.

    I imagine such an application would face strong resistance from the cellular providers, who would resist in the form of dollars into the campaign accounts of politicians responsible for oversight of the FCC.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close