That would be true of an RF transciever but, as for the legalities, I would have thought that the manufacturers of such things could get their products 'type-licensed' to use such frequencies- just as (I presume) the manufacturers of mobile phones do, couldn't they?
No, because they qwould be transmitting on frequencies licensed to the network operator(s) without a licence from the operator(s). See below ...
However, for the OP's situation, I was thinking of hardwiring it to his GSM modem/whatever, which would not involve any re-transmission.
Indeed, but I was answering your specific comment that "presumably mobile repeaters must exist" - and I assumed you meant the sort of device I was talking about. Something hardwired to the OPs router would not be a "mobile repeater".
If I understand what the OP wants, I'm not seeing any difference in operation between it and MIFI - Mobile (w)ifi. A mobile sim in a gadget which provides a wifi access point ...
Correct. They are all pretty much the same in basic principles - it's just the specifics (e.g. presence of ethernet ports) that differs between models.
Effectively the 'repeater' acts just like a phone but instead of having a microphone and loudspeaker [and all the other bits/facilities] it has another base station attached to it which then talks to the users phone to negotiate a working frequency.
That's not how the ones I've experienced work. They did no conversion - simply repeated the RF signal as-is between inside and outside.
One of the companies I worked for owned a fully licenced portable mobile phone 'repeater' as much of our work was in basements where phone coverage was non existant. All we had to do was get a NOV for each deployment.
Our phones had to be registered to it to prevent it being used and therefore monopolised by other users, it confused the hell out of them as they saw full signal but had no service, whereas we did.
Ah, different type of device. As I say, the ones I have come across were in an emergency planning office - and the idea of only working for registered phones would not have been acceptable. Just consider the complications when "something happens", and various services all pile into the EPU (emergency planning unit) to do their co-ordinated response - and everyone has to wait while their phones are registered.
I have now had a reply from the manufacturer about the Ground Screw.... It needs wiring up to a ground spike to protect the equipment and me from a lightning strike.
It wouldn't protect either the equipment or you
It would help by discharging some of the charge in the cloud (that's the primary function of lightning rods), but a direct strike would leave the equipment (and anyone close by) looking a bit frazzled.
My understanding is that all such devices require a licence to use, however i believe that the end user, me, you and everybody else are automatically licenced when agreeing to T&C'c with a product service provider.
That is correct. When you sign up for a service, it is the mobile network operator that's granting you permission to use the frequencies for which they hold an exclusive licence.
Anyway, it would presumably still be possible to claim that, although one has a TV, one does not use it for accessing any broadcast material or any BBC on-demand service (i.e. only for non-BBC internet-based material or for legitimate recordings) - indeed in this day and age that would probably be a more credible (more commonly true) attempt at a 'get out' than was the case when there was only BBC and ITV to consider, wouldn't it?
Correct, if your TV is not connected to an aerial then no licence needed - subject to the new bit about watching live streaming.
At my last employer, we bought a number of large TVs for a customer to use as displays in their shops. Not long afterwards we started getting the snottygrams from TV Licensing.
In any event, as I wrote earlier, I think that the whole concept of a 'TV licence' has become outdated - and that remains the case regardless of what the revenue is being used for (if not only to fund the BBC).
That's a whole new discussion, but I respectfully disagree. If we want to see what TV would be like without the BBC funded by a licence as it is now - just look across to the USA. Once all channels have to compete for advertising, then it comes down to a "bums on seats" numbers game, and a race to the bottom in terms of cheap popular rubbish.
By having at least one channel not forced to chase the bums on seats as the sole definition of "success", it holds the standards up such that the other channels have to compete.
Just my 2d worth.