I do the in-building coverage tests in my city that determine whether or not an in-building coverage system is required. Our ordinance went into effect a couple of years ago and new buildings that fall under the ordinance and just starting to approach completion. So far, we've done a 2000 student 3-story high school, a 14-story office building, and a 15-story mixed hotel/condo. The cost is running $30,000 to $50,000 per installation. We have an 800mhz trunked radio system.
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
Bi-directional amplifiers
- Thread starter ofd8001
- Start date
- Status
I do the in-building coverage tests in my city that determine whether or not an in-building coverage system is required. Our ordinance went into effect a couple of years ago and new buildings that fall under the ordinance and just starting to approach completion. So far, we've done a 2000 student 3-story high school, a 14-story office building, and a 15-story mixed hotel/condo. The cost is running $30,000 to $50,000 per installation. We have an 800mhz trunked radio system.
rfradioconsult
Member
The equipment/instalation costs will pale in comparsion to the engineering and optimization costs; you will need to use a channelized BDA as opposed to a wide-band unit.
The $30,000 to $50,000 price tag has included everything. Wide-band BDAs have been going into all of our installations without a problem. We are just 16 square miles with four radio sites so getting a signal to and from the roof of these buildings has not been a problem. We use low-gain yagis for directivity and frequently can choose to which site we point the antenna.
Also, I say "we", but our building owners can go to the vendor of their choice for installation and the couple of vendors that have done installations in the city have used the above basic configuration. I had someone from another local government express surprise that we were using wide-band, and not channelized, BDAs but we're easily getting the gain we need. Another benefit is that there is a lot of interoperability in our area and I can frequently utilize a neighboring jurisdiction's radio system inside these buildings. It's not a requirement but it's a nice benefit of the wide-band BDAs.
I'm interested in your experience.
Because its those same people who build these building that are not RF friendly that will sue the city and be on TV complaining their system didn't work.
We pay fuel tax at the pump, and yet I still have to pay a tax when they do a bond to repair major roadways. Why? I already paid once. Why do I have to pay sales tax when I buy a tire? I already paid road tax. That's a weird way of putting it. Just because you paid once doesn't mean its done.
And yup, you pay for that radio system, but you also pay for that city lawn mower and plow, doesn't mean you get to use those.
Like mentioned before, wide band might be a better consideration with Mutual Aid agreements in place, etc. Plus it makes for better cellphone reception.
Yep, debating whether the developer or city ought to pay for the installation is off topic, but a fair topic of debate.
When buildings are built, someone is making some money. It isn't fair to me as a taxpayer and the other taxpayers to underwrite some of the infrastructure costs associated with building the building just so someone else can make money. I'm not on the receiving end of the profit, so why should I be on the paying of the construction and related costs?
The city doesn't pave the road up to the building. The city doesn't pay for the additional fire hydrants that will be necessary. Chances are most governments don't have that kind of money laying around. A greater impact on the system should mean coughing up for whatever that impact is.
When buildings are built, someone is making some money. It isn't fair to me as a taxpayer and the other taxpayers to underwrite some of the infrastructure costs associated with building the building just so someone else can make money. I'm not on the receiving end of the profit, so why should I be on the paying of the construction and related costs?
The city doesn't pave the road up to the building. The city doesn't pay for the additional fire hydrants that will be necessary. Chances are most governments don't have that kind of money laying around. A greater impact on the system should mean coughing up for whatever that impact is.
rfradioconsult
Member
Like mentioned before, wide band might be a better consideration with Mutual Aid agreements in place, etc. Plus it makes for better cellphone reception.
Cellular use is covered by FCC part 22; not part 90. You are required to get written permission from the cellular licensee to utilize a signal booster on their network.
Its just like hard-wired smoke alarms. There is an ordinance in place for this stating new construction must have them. No where does it say how much they are, you just have to have them. Its up to the builder to absorb those costs. People should think about this and consult their contractor and attorney when deciding to build so there are no hidden surprises that just jump out at people like this. And if you can afford to build a huge building, a BDA isn't going to be one of your bigger expenses anyways.
Well mine is 1.9Ghz, but I'm saying if you get a wide enough one for 800Mhz its just incidental that your cell phone reception will improve in areas with a BDA.
And as always, this is not a guarantee of coverage and may contain areas with no service. Coverage areas do not guarantee service availability, and may include locations with limited or no coverage. Even within a coverage area, there are many factors, including a customer's equipment, terrain, and proximity to buildings, foliage, and weather that may impact service. An all-digital device will not operate or be able to make 911 calls when digital service is not available. Some of the coverage area includes networks run by other carriers; some of the coverage depicted is based on their information and public sources and we cannot ensure its accuracy.
N
N_Jay
Guest
(Again), I think the issue was being (appropriately) prepared for the obvious questions, instead of looking like a dear in the headlights as Bush would do or spouting off some nonsensical BS like Biden would do.
I called it an "ordinance" for convenience but in our city it's actually included in a "Special Use Permit". I don't know the exact details but basically the property owner can build a building "by right" as long as it meets existing zoning requirements but what usually happens is that the city and the building owner negotiate what can be built, with compromises on both sides. For example, the property owner might be allowed to build to 15 stories in an area zoned for 12 if they agree to include several "low rent" units. This is just an example but this is where the BDA requirement comes from in my city, so, in a sense, the builder could get something out of it if they negotiate well. This seems to work OK so long as the city isn't corrupt and allows my neighbor to build a skyscraper on their lot zoned for a single family home.
Another thing to be aware of with BDAs is maintenance. Who makes sure it is working and what happens if the BDA breaks and starts saturating the radio site with RF? I'm supposed to test every building that falls under the special use permit every year to make sure that either the BDA is working or, for buildings where a BDA was not needed, that it is still not needed. I'm doing this, but I'm not sure it will continue to get done if I get hit by a truck this afternoon.
Back in the day
I'm so tickled when I see the cost involved here for building coverage.
How many old timers remember simplex? For all you "kids" who think that ALL communications just HAVE to go thru a repeater, simplex is when the radio transmits and recieves on the same frequency. I know it's archaic and old fashioned. But seriously, the root cause for in-building communication lapses is because 4 watt handhelds sometimes can't make a tower 10 miles away when you are inside a building, or worse, in a basement. Firefighters have actually been hurt because they couldn't communicate with someone they were looking at because the powers-to-be insisted that all radio traffic has to go to a tower and back.
Dear Mr. Fire Chief:
Start by insisting that your radio vendor program a simplex fireground frequency into your radios. And then do radio tests in the buildings you are worried about. Switch back and forth between the simplex freq and the repeater channel you were using before. You are going to be pleasently suprised at how much clearer the simplex freq is, compared to trying to use the repeater freq.
I'm so tickled when I see the cost involved here for building coverage.
How many old timers remember simplex? For all you "kids" who think that ALL communications just HAVE to go thru a repeater, simplex is when the radio transmits and recieves on the same frequency. I know it's archaic and old fashioned. But seriously, the root cause for in-building communication lapses is because 4 watt handhelds sometimes can't make a tower 10 miles away when you are inside a building, or worse, in a basement. Firefighters have actually been hurt because they couldn't communicate with someone they were looking at because the powers-to-be insisted that all radio traffic has to go to a tower and back.
Dear Mr. Fire Chief:
Start by insisting that your radio vendor program a simplex fireground frequency into your radios. And then do radio tests in the buildings you are worried about. Switch back and forth between the simplex freq and the repeater channel you were using before. You are going to be pleasently suprised at how much clearer the simplex freq is, compared to trying to use the repeater freq.
One of the problems with using simplex is the inability to record the incident should something go bad. In these days of a lawsuit happy public and unions that have literally stripped the ability for some agencies to get the job done, management wants everything recorded for liability reasons.
Our County fire inspectors have calibrated digital signal level meters that they use as part of the final CO and yearly Fire inspection processes.
radioman2001
Member
Bda
It is interesting to see both sides of an argument that reflects our need for safety and security and as for who should pay. I personally install a large number of BDA sytems for every one, not just Public Safety. I had a building owner who came to me and said I need to make Nex Crap work in his building because he had tennants that need it. What he didnt say was that they were the local school district office and an undercover operations office for the State Police. Now here was the owner willing to pay for the setup for his tennants, both had to do with Public Safety and the landlord paid for it. Now the SP could have said we will only rent from you if we have service in the building but that would require another agency or vendor to get involved in lease aggreements. It can get very complicated.
Now to my understanding, and I could be wrong and I would like to see it in writing, but cell phone companies are only required to provide service to the street, not inside buildings or tunnels. If they choose to pay the extra costs and install it, thats on them. Also I havn't found it anywhere that says you need permission to install a BDA on anyones system, the manufacturerers have designed their product to not interfere and the cell companies are very happy to have someone else pay to extend their system.
When it comes to large buildings and this type of installation, it's best to do the installation while the building is going up. Costs a lot less for you have the electrical contractor just cable the building and then the radio shop come in later and finish it. As far as who pays, most jurisdictions have a 911 tax for equipment for the 911 systems and in some cases the radio systems too. This would be no different, you can ennact a law that assess a corporate tax based on the square footage of the building, have a contract engineer design it, have the building owner install it, then have your radio people maintain it like the rest of your radio system. Thats one way to ensure it will work. Other wise you get into to a he said she said if it doesn't work. Also the liabilty goes to the agency not the building owner.
It is interesting to see both sides of an argument that reflects our need for safety and security and as for who should pay. I personally install a large number of BDA sytems for every one, not just Public Safety. I had a building owner who came to me and said I need to make Nex Crap work in his building because he had tennants that need it. What he didnt say was that they were the local school district office and an undercover operations office for the State Police. Now here was the owner willing to pay for the setup for his tennants, both had to do with Public Safety and the landlord paid for it. Now the SP could have said we will only rent from you if we have service in the building but that would require another agency or vendor to get involved in lease aggreements. It can get very complicated.
Now to my understanding, and I could be wrong and I would like to see it in writing, but cell phone companies are only required to provide service to the street, not inside buildings or tunnels. If they choose to pay the extra costs and install it, thats on them. Also I havn't found it anywhere that says you need permission to install a BDA on anyones system, the manufacturerers have designed their product to not interfere and the cell companies are very happy to have someone else pay to extend their system.
When it comes to large buildings and this type of installation, it's best to do the installation while the building is going up. Costs a lot less for you have the electrical contractor just cable the building and then the radio shop come in later and finish it. As far as who pays, most jurisdictions have a 911 tax for equipment for the 911 systems and in some cases the radio systems too. This would be no different, you can ennact a law that assess a corporate tax based on the square footage of the building, have a contract engineer design it, have the building owner install it, then have your radio people maintain it like the rest of your radio system. Thats one way to ensure it will work. Other wise you get into to a he said she said if it doesn't work. Also the liabilty goes to the agency not the building owner.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Cell providers are not "required" to provide any particular grade of service anywhere, inside or outside.
You have not looked very hard. It is CLEARLY illegal to put an amplifier on ANY frequency, that you are not the LICENSEE of, without the LICENSEE"S permission.
http://www.rfsolutions.com/fcc.htm
and
http://www.rfsolutions.com/consumers.pdf
(There are lots of other sources, but Jack keeps it all up to date and in one place)
Only when installed properly. And even when installed properly it can have loading and other negative effects on the system.
It gets even worse with 911 location, as the CARRIER is responsible for the accuracy of the location data that your BDA can be screwing up.
Show me where they are??
Very true.
Creating Tax Districts is not that easy. I would doubt very much such a tax could be created. You might get it is a "Impact Fee", but not without serious challenges.
It is an interesting thought though. (This is stuff varies greatly by state, and in some locals it might work.)
With all that said, this is the part that bothers me a little bit;
Exactly, and this is pretty much our configuration. I'm a radio tech in one department and Code Enforcement is under our Fire Department. We're still working on integrating the two so that my group does the inspections and we report our findings to them, and they track when annual reinspections are due. I did talk to one inspector who used to do coverage tests for broadcast radio and he was really interested in learning how to do the inspections himself, then training other inspectors, so we're making progress.
All our radios have multiple simplex "talkaround" channels programmed into them and using one of these channels is standard procedure when working inside a building with limited coverage to the radio system.
I do a good bit of work on in-building coverage, as I've expressed here, but I'm actually not convinced that BDAs are the way to go. For the 2000-student high school it was absolutely a great solution. There are two police officers permanently assigned there and when the school was built and personnel realized their old two-way simplex radios wouldn't reach from one end of the campus to the other, we provided them with city radios. This system gets used every day. It's the office buildings with the $50,000 system that rarely gets utilized that makes me wonder if that $50,000 couldn't have been spent more effectively.
radioman2001
Member
Bda
Quote me title and section about a PROHIBITION on putting a BDA on a system, you are not transmitting with another transmitter, you are merely boosting (usually no more than -70 to -90 db) an already transmitted signal inside a building (AKA TV antenna boosters). From the info links you provided I see no restriction for in building boosters(BDA) other than they meet type acceptance and non-interfenece to the original carrier. BTW if the FCC found these BDA's to be so troubling, why havn't they gone after the manufacturers. As far as others paying for extensions of existing services, all the tunnels in NYC are now provided with service by a private, non-phone company provider(they taggged it on with standard AM/FM broadcast antenna's), also same goes for the subways and MTA. Ma-Bell didn't pay a penny for it. GCT was done if not mistaken by the MTA themselves. ALL the buildings I have done provide no service outside of their respective buildings, so in essence you are not transmitting a signal outside to cause any harm.
Now to 911 taxes, it's probaly a lot easier to asses a tax on a building for emergency services, than most other taxes. It's not a tax district (unless you state has specific prohibitions to it) all our Fire services are paid for by a Fire tax, all Police services are paid by a Police tax, even the Library has a tax. I don't know who thought that one up, and believe me I hate taxes, but it is nice to know exactly how much is spent by the respective agency. Makes it a lot easier to challenge at reassement time.
As far as you unsettled feeling for my installation of BDA, you havn't seen the worst of it. There are company's on the internet that talk to you for about 5 min and send you a PACKAGE which you then install yourself. The best I heard was a house wife installing one in her home because she couldn't get service.
I spend most of my time correcting those type of installs. I also verify that no service is provided outside the building by switching the service on/off a taking readings. Most installs provide service in buildings that the cell providers will not, and or refuse to do anything about. Unless the FCC does something to change that attitude of the cell providers, I see this as necessary, and when done correctly, there is no reason for concern.
Quote me title and section about a PROHIBITION on putting a BDA on a system, you are not transmitting with another transmitter, you are merely boosting (usually no more than -70 to -90 db) an already transmitted signal inside a building (AKA TV antenna boosters). From the info links you provided I see no restriction for in building boosters(BDA) other than they meet type acceptance and non-interfenece to the original carrier. BTW if the FCC found these BDA's to be so troubling, why havn't they gone after the manufacturers. As far as others paying for extensions of existing services, all the tunnels in NYC are now provided with service by a private, non-phone company provider(they taggged it on with standard AM/FM broadcast antenna's), also same goes for the subways and MTA. Ma-Bell didn't pay a penny for it. GCT was done if not mistaken by the MTA themselves. ALL the buildings I have done provide no service outside of their respective buildings, so in essence you are not transmitting a signal outside to cause any harm.
Now to 911 taxes, it's probaly a lot easier to asses a tax on a building for emergency services, than most other taxes. It's not a tax district (unless you state has specific prohibitions to it) all our Fire services are paid for by a Fire tax, all Police services are paid by a Police tax, even the Library has a tax. I don't know who thought that one up, and believe me I hate taxes, but it is nice to know exactly how much is spent by the respective agency. Makes it a lot easier to challenge at reassement time.
As far as you unsettled feeling for my installation of BDA, you havn't seen the worst of it. There are company's on the internet that talk to you for about 5 min and send you a PACKAGE which you then install yourself. The best I heard was a house wife installing one in her home because she couldn't get service.
I spend most of my time correcting those type of installs. I also verify that no service is provided outside the building by switching the service on/off a taking readings. Most installs provide service in buildings that the cell providers will not, and or refuse to do anything about. Unless the FCC does something to change that attitude of the cell providers, I see this as necessary, and when done correctly, there is no reason for concern.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
