Neat little bi-directional Amp...

This forum is for discussions regarding System Infrastructure and Related Equipment. This includes but is not limited to repeaters, base stations, consoles, voters, Voice over IP, system design and implementation, and other related topics.

Moderator: Queue Moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
wavetar
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 4:00 pm

Neat little bi-directional Amp...

Post by wavetar »

Anybody used these before?

http://www.emswireless.com/english/pdf/ ... ochure.pdf

Our local telco has apparently used these in a few places to enhance in-building SMR coverage. We may be installing one for them in the near future. I hadn't heard of them before now. They look like a cool product. I'm curious to know approximate pricing of them.

Todd
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message...however an extraordinarily large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

Welcome to the /\/\achine.
tvsjr
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:46 am

Post by tvsjr »

I've seen similar devices used before... they worked well, but none were FCC type-accepted. I'd check the type acceptance closely...
User avatar
d119
Posts: 3538
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 4:00 pm

Post by d119 »

tvsjr wrote:I've seen similar devices used before... they worked well, but none were FCC type-accepted. I'd check the type acceptance closely...
FCC type acceptance doesn't apply in Canada. I believe the CRTC is the responsible agency.
tvsjr
Posts: 4118
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:46 am

Post by tvsjr »

d119 wrote:
tvsjr wrote:I've seen similar devices used before... they worked well, but none were FCC type-accepted. I'd check the type acceptance closely...
FCC type acceptance doesn't apply in Canada. I believe the CRTC is the responsible agency.
What's your problem, dude?

I stated that the units I've seen used were not FCC type-accepted. The FCC would be the accepting body for the US. I then told Todd to check the type acceptance closely... note I didn't say FCC?

Also, last I heard, IC does Canada's type acceptance, not CRTC. CRTC regulates broadcast (radio/television) and telecom, as far as I know.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the topic at hand, simply don't post.
User avatar
escomm
Queue Moderator
Posts: 5170
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 8:24 pm

Post by escomm »

d119 wrote:
tvsjr wrote:I've seen similar devices used before... they worked well, but none were FCC type-accepted. I'd check the type acceptance closely...
FCC type acceptance doesn't apply in Canada. I believe the CRTC is the responsible agency.
I see on their PDF that they are silent on type acceptance. And they are located in Georgia.
User avatar
N4DES
was KS4VT
Posts: 1234
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2003 7:59 am
What radios do you own?: APX,XTS2500,XTL2500,XTL1500

Post by N4DES »

Going to the companies website it seems that they were absorbed by Andrew Corp. I'm sure Andrew will do the right thing if it exists or pull it from distribution.

100mW isn't much power, I can't see it covering 75,000 square feet like advertised unless it is an open area like a warehouse.
Add a few walls to the equation and I doubt it will work very well.
User avatar
wavetar
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 4:00 pm

Post by wavetar »

Well, it's the telco's ass on the line, not ours, but I'll definitely check the type acceptance if we install it for them.

I'd like to assume their engineering group checked that out beforehand, but past experience tells me otherwise.
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message...however an extraordinarily large number of electrons were horribly inconvenienced.

Welcome to the /\/\achine.
Post Reply

Return to “Base Stations, Repeaters, General Infrastructure”