16 Jul
2012
16 Jul
'12
7:07 p.m.
Hello,
Am I right in thinking that a nanoBTS supports only one band and this
cannot be changed, so a 165B version would be no use in Europe?
Regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Back
http://carrierdetect.com
16 Jul
16 Jul
8:24 p.m.
On 16-Jul-12 19:07, Andrew Back wrote:
Hello,
Hello Andrew,
Am I right in thinking that a nanoBTS supports only
one band and this
cannot be changed, so a 165B version would be no use in Europe?
I would say that
any version is ok if you want to play and learn using
it with OpenBSC software.
Considering that all phones that were released in the last years are
quad-band capable you will be fine.
Another thing is that if you use a nanoBTS on DCS1900 for example will
be much better in Europe because you will not interfere with any
operator. I am not sure if 850 and 1900 is even used in EU. Maybe
somebody on the list can clarify this.
Regards,
Andrew
Regards,
R.
8:48 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Labs <rp.labs(a)gmx.ch> wrote:
Another thing is that if you use a nanoBTS on DCS1900
for example will be
much better in Europe because you will not interfere with any operator. I am
not sure if 850 and 1900 is even used in EU. Maybe somebody on the list can
clarify this.
Part of DCS1800 (downlink) and PCS1900 (uplink) do overlap.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
Thanks,
Gus
8:56 p.m.
On 7/16/12 8:48 PM, Gus Bourg wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Labs
<rp.labs(a)gmx.ch> wrote:
So, it would be possible to configure a nanoBTS for uses in Europe by
only using certain ARFCN allocation, avoiding overlapping frequency with
Telco's assigned frequency?
-naif
Another thing is that if you use a nanoBTS on
DCS1900 for example will be
much better in Europe because you will not interfere with any operator. I am
not sure if 850 and 1900 is even used in EU. Maybe somebody on the list can
clarify this.
Part of DCS1800 (downlink) and PCS1900 (uplink) do overlap.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
11 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
<lists(a)infosecurity.ch> wrote:
So, it would be possible to configure a nanoBTS for
uses in Europe by
only using certain ARFCN allocation, avoiding overlapping frequency with
Telco's assigned frequency?
-naif
Looks possible, but take into account that PCS1900 (downlink) also
overlaps with IMT2100 (uplink).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands
Also, just because the band might not be used for GSM applications,
doesn't mean it's not licensed for other use in your country.
Certainly the best way to be sure that you're not interfering is to
have a test license and/or run your gear in an appropriate cage.
17 Jul
17 Jul
12:06 a.m.
On 16 July 2012 22:00, Gus Bourg <gus(a)bourg.net> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Fabio Pietrosanti
(naif)
<lists(a)infosecurity.ch> wrote:
Indeed, hence my question about whether they are permanently fixed to
one band. I don't intend to radiate unless I'm licensed or the
band/use is exempt.
Thank you all for the replies.
Regards,
Andrew
--
Andrew Back
http://carrierdetect.com
So, it would be possible to configure a nanoBTS
for uses in Europe by
only using certain ARFCN allocation, avoiding overlapping frequency with
Telco's assigned frequency?
-naif
Looks possible, but take into account that PCS1900 (downlink) also
overlaps with IMT2100 (uplink).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMTS_frequency_bands
Also, just because the band might not be used for GSM applications,
doesn't mean it's not licensed for other use in your country.
Certainly the best way to be sure that you're not interfering is to
have a test license and/or run your gear in an appropriate cage.
4312
days inactive
4312
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrew Back -
Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) -
Gus Bourg -
Labs