Recommendation for cell extender

Post #440,457 by crazy 12/8/21 11:55:01 AM 12/8/21 11:55:01 AM Reply	Recommendation for cell extender My in-house cell reception sucks. Outside sucks too but at least I can usually get a bar or 2. It's T-Mobile but I'm told they all suck here. My Android Pixel does better than my wife's Apple. I see a variety of extenders for sale that go from $200 to $500 for what looks like the functionality I want but can't be sure of course. Some say they handle only specific channels and others say they handle everything so I'm going for the everything. Then it's a matter of the distance they rebroadcast to, whether it's a small single room, half the house, the whole house. If it only supplies my top floor I'd be fine. Any pointers?
Post #440,461 by drook 12/8/21 12:41:42 PM 12/8/21 12:41:42 PM Reply	Google Fi connects over WiFi, is that an option? Doesn't solve the problem when you're away from home, but then the cell extender doesn't help with that either. -- Drew
Post #440,467 by crazy 12/8/21 5:18:55 PM 12/8/21 5:18:55 PM Reply	Our internet is worse than the phone I can't trust the phone to hold a call. I can't trust M's phone far worse. While it seems that we may have connectivity at any given moment it will pause. Websurfing is rarely affected since 90% my time is reading. But you can tell for videos. YouTube Music seems to stream just fine so something tells me it is caching well. My phone seems to handle the Wi-Fi fall back usage a bit better than M's but M can have 20 minutes of absolutely no voice and no texts. Emails may or may not go through the same time. My phone will work at that time. She's got a 3-year-old apple, I have a 2-year-old pixel. I'm not going down the Apple support hole and she's not touching an Android device. We are a mixed couple. But she just ordered a Chromebook for her usage so I have an opening. It'll be a year or two before I move her if ever. They claim to be laying fiber between us and the main road but I have no idea if it'll make it any better or how long it will take. For all I know they're patching a 10-ft cable somewhere. I have minimal ground-based alternatives at this location. I'd love to take Comcast right now if I could. I will probably end up with a satellite connection. But they want multi-year commitments, cap usage and have seriously expensive data price points. I'd give Musk my money but it's not available here, and you have to give them money to be put on a waiting list. Not going to happen.
Post #440,472 by pwhysall 12/9/21 3:11:04 AM 12/9/21 3:11:04 AM Reply	Does your phone support wifi calling? Might need carrier support for this.
Post #440,478 by crazy 12/9/21 6:46:38 PM 12/9/21 6:46:39 PM Reply	Yes but it doesn't help with the crappy internet We will get a pause for anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 minutes at least every hour. It is obvious when watching Netflix or Hulu or HBO or prime. It rarely affects my web surfing so I get to ignore it. I can handle an occasional entertainment pause. But it destroys the phone's ability to maintain a Wi-Fi call. In my phone I might be able to make use of it 5 minutes later. In M's phone it causes some internal crap that flips out her networking and pretty much everything else for a while and she's not going to be getting any phone calls at that point. Mine works while I'm sitting next to her and hers doesn't. Sometime later hers will start working, maybe it got rebooted and maybe it didn't. And even if we can do fallback Wi-Fi for the voice call, texts really require a cell connection. I'm sure I could come up with some forwarding juggling situation but I'm not going to do that. That comes down to me going insane trying to support an Apple specific problem, at least Apple specific here. And I don't do Apple. Not that I'm angry with them, I've just crossed the point of being unable to flip back and forth between the Apple and Android interface seamlessly and I'm sticking with the Android rather than being confused by the Apple. The moment I attempt to do anything that alters M's current phone configuration, add software, forces her to click one button, I own 100% support of every interaction with that phone from that moment forward. Not going to do it.
Post #440,479 by Another Scott 12/9/21 7:02:47 PM 12/9/21 7:02:47 PM Reply	T-Mobile used to have such things. It doesn't look like they do any more though, in my quick searches. But maybe I missed it. There are various antennas and amplifiers that exist for situations like yours, but you might need to climb up on the roof and/or put up a pole to get a decent signal. If you've got lots of trees, as I think you do, the pole might need to be very high indeed... I'd start with your cell service provider and see what they say. Chat might be less aggravating than sitting on hold for 30+ minutes, or fighting with their web page to find a support e-mail address... Good luck! Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,556 by crazy 12/15/21 8:47:13 PM 12/15/21 8:47:13 PM Reply	And M decided to do something She called T-Mobile and said what should she do. We have T-Mobile. They said buy this $250 device that connects to your internet connection and provides a local cell signal. It took a couple of hours sitting there while it did everything it needed to do and then gave me all green lights. So as long as I have internet I have full bars. Voice conversations are perfectly clear. We shall see what happens when the internet flakes out.
Post #440,560 by Another Scott 12/16/21 12:13:42 AM 12/16/21 12:13:42 AM Reply	👍
Post #440,562 by pwhysall 12/16/21 5:53:23 AM 12/16/21 5:53:23 AM Reply	Heh My previous mobile provider (three.co.uk) gave me one of those for free. But then, if I were to climb on my roof, I'd be able to see two cell towers, so I had no need for it.
Post #440,564 by drook 12/16/21 10:10:46 AM 12/16/21 10:10:46 AM Reply	I was given one with my very first cell phone I'm betting that the idea was to reduce volume on their at-the-time new cell network. -- Drew
Post #440,565 by crazy 12/16/21 10:27:48 AM 12/16/21 10:27:48 AM Reply	Yeah it's a different value equation depending if they have the cell towers and the bandwidth versus using somebody else's internet connection. And in my case I'm not sure I like this. If it gives me five bars in my building doesn't that mean it's probably giving my neighbor two bars. And those two bars are probably better than the one bar she's getting from the real tower so when she makes a phone call she's going to be calling through my connection because I think I have a generic device that broadcasts generic signals. But I'm not sure. I have to do some research now. My wife ordered it and it might actually be tagged to our phones. Or it could be a generic device just broadcasting T-Mobile access. To start off with I'll walk the property and see which tower my phone connects to. If it's the internal box there is a problem when I get to the edges. On the other other hand, an occasional phone conversation from a neighbor over my line won't kill me and if it makes their life better I should merely smile and accept. But I never want to be accused of intercepting. If this thing extends past my property I'm going to have to talk to them about it. I already talked to one neighbor about possibly putting a cell tower in and he almost had a heart attack. A cell tower is radiation will kill him as far as he's concerned. How about this little device? Interesting times.
Post #440,567 by boxley 12/16/21 9:40:20 PM 12/16/21 9:40:20 PM Reply	buy the neighbor a 5g tshirt "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Post #440,569 by a6l6e6x 12/16/21 10:44:35 PM 12/16/21 10:44:35 PM Reply	Well, it reduces how strong a signal your phone has to send out. So you get less radiation from the phone and your phone battery isn't run down as much. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #440,571 by crazy 12/16/21 10:59:47 PM 12/16/21 10:59:47 PM Reply	While my phone power signal requirement is low, I'm bathed in the frequencies It's a toss-up. If I put a tower in my backyard my individual phone signal will be minimal. But that means there's a tower constantly talking all around to all the neighbors with a variety of power levels. And those signals are omnidirectional. They go everywhere. I have no idea how powerful this local access point is. It only goes up to 4G which is fine when it's right next to you. Five bars at all times. My neighbor is not a crazy 5G paranoid person. He is an engineering professor at the local college and he has deep knowledge. And he does not want any towers around him. So I should probably pay attention to him.
Post #440,576 by Another Scott 12/17/21 8:20:15 AM 12/17/21 8:20:15 AM Reply	The frequencies and power levels aren't bio-active People have had vague concerns about radiation from electrical things since Edison's day. Remember when these new-fangled cell phones were going to give everyone brain cancer because they were being held against their head all the time? It didn't happen. We know a decent amount about how various radio frequencies interact with cells. They put giant TV transmitter towers in residential neighborhoods. They've put 5G "microcell" towers throughout our area. (They go on power poles and apparently need to be within 500 feet of their neighbor.) https://spectrum.ieee.org/will-5g-be-bad-for-our-health Beware that, speaking as an engineer, engineers are often too confident of their particular understanding and discount actual experts. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,580 by crazy 12/17/21 2:04:27 PM 12/17/21 2:04:27 PM Reply	I'm imprinted by thank you for smoking Incredible movie. And it ends up with the smoking lobbyist moving on to lobby for cell phone towers. Which then triggered me to do the research. And there is definitely a connection between high cell phone usage and brain tumors. I'm going to die of lung cancer so that won't affect me, at least in the time frame that is required to fry your brain and create the tumors.
Post #440,585 by Another Scott 12/17/21 6:34:44 PM 12/17/21 6:34:44 PM Reply	Good movie. But... https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html We had a Sprint PCS (digital) cell phone in the late '90s (introduced in 1996). The iPhone was released in June 2007. I'm not seeing any increase in brain cancer rates, myself. Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,586 by pwhysall 12/18/21 4:19:05 AM 12/18/21 4:19:05 AM Reply	" And there is definitely a connection between high cell phone usage and brain tumors." There is not. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11577482/ https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01732556/full?highlightAbstract=cancer%7Cphon%7Cphone%7Ccellular https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phones.html#:~:text=The%20main%20concerns%20have%20focused%20on%20whether%20cell,on%20a%20call.%20How%20do%20cell%20phones%20work%3F From the last link: What do expert agencies say? The American Cancer Society (ACS) does not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell phones, cell phone towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer. ACS generally looks to other expert organizations to determine if something causes cancer (that is, if it is a carcinogen), including: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) The US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is formed from parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Other major organizations also sometimes comment on the ability of certain exposures (such as cell phone use) to cause cancer. Based on a review of studies published up until 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans, based on limited evidence of a possible increase in risk for brain tumors among cell phone users, and inadequate evidence for other types of cancer. (For more information on the IARC classification system, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) More recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a technical report based on studies published between 2008 and 2018, as well as national trends in cancer rates. The report concluded: Based on the studies that are described in detail in this report, there is insufficient evidence to support a causal association between radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure and [tumor formation]. So far, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has not included RF radiation in its Report on Carcinogens, which lists exposures that are known to be or reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens. (For more on this report, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.) According to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC): [C]urrently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses. Those evaluating the potential risks of using wireless devices agree that more and longer-term studies should explore whether there is a better basis for RF safety standards than is currently used. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): At this time we do not have the science to link health problems to cell phone use. Scientific studies are underway to determine whether cell phone use may cause health effects.
Post #440,587 by crazy 12/18/21 9:15:01 AM 12/18/21 9:15:01 AM Reply	It doesn't have to be ionizing radiation to trigger cellular changes. We are sensitive in many areas to the energy. They just found out about photo receptors in our skin which then trigger all kinds of internal processes on exposure to light. We are sensitive to magnetic waves and can use them to orient ourselves. We thought it was just turtles and birds for many years but then realized mammals have it too, we are just not that aware of it. Sticking a radio transmitter up to your ear next to your brain on an ongoing basis is f****** insane. And if the bars are low that means it's upping its transmission power to speak to the tower far away. While the specific damage is next to impossible to predict I'd rather not take that chance. I take enough chances, this one's in unnecessary one.
Post #440,588 by Another Scott 12/18/21 10:26:24 AM 12/18/21 10:26:24 AM Reply	Changes =/= Disease. Don't move the goal posts. First it was brain cancer. Now bodies are sensitive to stuff. We're sensitive to changes in shadows. It probably evolved as a consequence of not getting eaten by big cats. That doesn't mean that vampire movies are dangerous. Life is too short to worry about nanoscopic-probability stuff. :-) The people making these claims about hazards of low-level RF/mm-wave radiation need to come up with a mechanism. It's chemistry and biology. It takes energy for things to change in a destructive way (atom displacement, etc.) in DNA and in cells - there isn't enough energy in cell-phone radiation to cause the effect that they're claiming. There are real dangers from cosmic rays - charged particles with monstrous energies (up to 10^+20 eV) - compared to 2.5 x 10^-6 eV for 6 GHz RF radiation in some 5G bands. HTH a little. Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,589 by crazy 12/18/21 10:45:32 AM 12/18/21 10:45:32 AM Reply	Accepted But it's perfectly reasonable to be worried about nano size stuff. Nano plastic and nano metal scare the s*** out of me. https://particleandfibretoxicology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12989-020-00358-y Not that I can do anything about it.
Post #440,590 by Another Scott 12/18/21 11:01:27 AM 12/18/21 11:01:27 AM Reply	Yup. Nothing you can do about it. Also... Currently, a systematic comparison of the neurotoxic effects of different particle types, shapes, sizes at different exposure concentrations and durations is lacking, but urgently needed to further elucidate the neurotoxic hazard and risk of exposure to micro- and nanoplastics. IOW, there's no evidence of a problem, but there might be a problem. I get it - society and technology are changing rapidly and we really don't know all the implications. But there are big problems now that we already know that are causing huge health and safety issues in the US - the pandemic; lead; maternal healthcare and abortion restrictions; climate change; etc. Yes, research the new stuff, but don't get distracted. Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,592 by pwhysall 12/19/21 4:05:08 AM 12/19/21 4:05:08 AM Reply	I just gave you the science If you're gonna reject it, there's not much more I can say to convince you.
Post #440,595 by crazy 12/20/21 7:59:04 AM 12/20/21 7:59:04 AM Reply	Yeah but you were an a**** at the moment. Another Scott is never an a****. I accepted the science from him. Don't worry, I still like you.
Post #440,591 by Another Scott 12/18/21 5:48:02 PM 12/18/21 5:48:02 PM Reply	Meanwhile, ... Ars Technica - Anti-5G Pendants are Radioactive. :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #440,593 by a6l6e6x 12/19/21 10:49:15 PM 12/19/21 10:49:15 PM Reply	So, you've never cooked meat with a kitchen microwave? :) Navy radars are known to hurt sailors and definitely kill birds. But, of course, these are high power transmitters. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #440,594 by Another Scott 12/19/21 11:40:38 PM 12/19/21 11:40:38 PM Reply	Yup. Microwave ovens operate around 2.45 GHz where water molecules have strong absorption. Of course, microwave ovens are closed metal boxes with standing waves - when working properly, they don't leak radiation. And they often have 1200W of power. An X-band Radar: FCC.gov: Transmit Power The radar will transmit a waveform with a peak power of 4 kW. Factoring in the antenna gain, the peak ERP (effective radiated power; transmit power multiplied by antenna gain) is 1.26 MW (61 dBW). The radar will operate at a maximum of 10% duty factor, so the maximum average power emitted by the radar is 400 W, with an equivalent maximum average ERP of 126 kW (51 dBW). Lots of power for short periods of time, but not so much on average. (Big AM radio stations are typically 50,000 watts (some used to be 500,000 watts, IIRC).) In contrast, a cell phone towers typically radiate 5-10 watts, and 1/r^2 is always your friend. ;-) Things are different at high power - even intense visible light is bad at high enough intensity. And, naturally, there's been lots of research on using high intensity light for countermeasures... Interesting stuff! Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!