|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phone Tech Discussion > July 2007 > Cell-Phone signal blocking
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Cell-Phone signal blocking
|
|
|
| Hello,
I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
comments would be appreciated.
BC
chapbillmanspam@spam
gmail.com
remove spams to reply by email
| |
|
| BC wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
> comments would be appreciated.
>
> BC
A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
effectiveness is spot on.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Notan 2007-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| Jer wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
> effectiveness is spot on.
And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you *BIG* bucks!
--
Notan
| |
|
| Notan wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
> And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
> *BIG* bucks!
>
It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's a
lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny, and
it's freaking ingenious.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Notan 2007-07-07, 10:33 pm |
| Jer wrote:
> Notan wrote:
>
>
> It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's a
> lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
> caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny, and
> it's freaking ingenious.
Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."
--
Notan
| |
|
| Notan wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
> Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."
>
Yes, it's his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn't
share any of it with cell phones. It don't get any simpler than that.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Scott 2007-07-08, 10:33 am |
| Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in news:1391l6bcbabcf17
@corp.supernews.com:
> Notan wrote:
>
>
> Yes, it's his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn't
> share any of it with cell phones. It don't get any simpler than that.
>
Actually, it's not his air.
BTW- if it's his private property, why does he need to worry about cell
phone usage on it in the first place?
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in news:1391l6bcbabcf17
@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> Actually, it's not his air.
>
> BTW- if it's his private property, why does he need to worry about cell
> phone usage on it in the first place?
I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be
disturbed. Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco,
some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some
don't allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me. What part of
"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the
back half?
Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private property.
Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When
they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice. Simple,
straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle
that just fine, but that's just me.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Scott 2007-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
news:1392k4mg1j9k018
@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be
> disturbed. Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco,
> some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some
> don't allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me.
As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A
blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol
on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that
category as well.
> What part of
> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or
> the back half?
>
> Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
> should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private
> property.
Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented
opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously
are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given
situation. Wait- no I don't. Your ego and inability to live by
predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for
advice.
> Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When
> they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.
Or backwoods stupidity.
> Simple,
> straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle
> that just fine, but that's just me.
>
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
> news:1392k4mg1j9k018
@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>
>
> As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A
> blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol
> on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that
> category as well.
>
>
> Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented
> opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously
> are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given
> situation. Wait- no I don't. Your ego and inability to live by
> predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for
> advice.
>
>
>
> Or backwoods stupidity.
>
>
I can see some still don't understand the rights of private property
ownership. I'll admit I don't always agree with them either, but I do
respect them.
<sigh>
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| BruceR 2007-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
[color=darkred]
> Scott wrote:
While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle and
that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you
can't operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can't violate a seemingly
infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to
the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even
beyond what the law requires.
In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights
do not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed
radio transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell
phone jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.
The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the
first offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals.
If you don't pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and
sell it to pay them.
See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below
for details.
Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat
a private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner
and ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal
codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property
rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being
fought in the courts with varying outcomes.
FCC RULE:
Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with
Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States
In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of
cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to
make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of
equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be
subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.
Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications
services to the American public for business and personal
communications. Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest
in devices --- called “cellular jammers” or “cell phone jammers” ---
designed to deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications.
Inquiries about the use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by
comments that the use of wireless phones in public places is disruptive
and annoying. Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the
devices may be used on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants
and other locations the public frequents.
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit
the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these
devices within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the
Communications Act, 47 USC § 302a(b) and Section 2.803(a) of the FCC's
rules, 47 CFR § 2.803(a)). In addition, it is unlawful for any person to
willfully or maliciously interfere with the radio communications of any
station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S.
Government (See Section 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 333).
Further, Section 301 of the Act, 47 USC § 301, requires persons
operating or using radio transmitters to be licensed or authorized under
the Commission's rules.
Parties violating the provisions of the Communications Act and/or FCC
rules mentioned above may be subject to the penalties set forth in 47
USC §§ 501-510. Monetary forfeitures for a first offense can be as much
as $11,000 a day for each violation and could subject the offender to
criminal prosecution. Equipment may also be seized by the United States
Marshals and forfeited to the U.S. Government.
For additional information, contact Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1160 or brian.butler@fcc.gov.
By the Enforcement Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
| |
|
| BruceR wrote:
> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle and
> that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.
Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't even
involve me. Take a break.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| BruceR 2007-07-08, 10:33 pm |
|
Jer wrote:
> BruceR wrote:
>
>
> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
> even involve me. Take a break.
Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
(presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
reply, don't post.
| |
|
| BruceR wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
> Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
> (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
> reply, don't post.
>
>
If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| Scott 2007-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in news:139390famhvpp71
@corp.supernews.com:
>
> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.
Too bad we can't adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of
course, you'd have to find something else to do with your time.
You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to
make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were,
I'd do something about that anger control issue.
> FCC regs
> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
>
Case closed.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in news:139390famhvpp71
@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
>
>
> Too bad we can't adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of
> course, you'd have to find something else to do with your time.
>
> You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to
> make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were,
> I'd do something about that anger control issue.
My my my... aren't we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care for
some cheese to go with that whine?
>
>
>
> Case closed.
ayup.
--Hank Hill
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
| ®©®@®©®.®©® 2007-07-09, 7:33 am |
| I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
pencildick XXX! Run to mommy you XXXXing whiner!
Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
> BruceR wrote:
>
> If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
> I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...
>
> To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
> nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
> mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
> the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
> to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
> and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
--
..
| |
| Prof. Franz Blaha 2007-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| <®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will
> destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
> pencildick XXX! Run to mommy you XXXXing whiner!
>
>
>
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>
Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let me
point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely
wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a technical
question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it
illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread (which I
would also be interested in).
Cheers,
Franz
P.S: Sometimes the law really is an XXX (with compliments to Charles
Dickens)
| |
| BruceR 2007-07-09, 10:33 pm |
|
Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:
>
> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible),
> let me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and
> merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's
> a technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral
> questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could
> start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Franz
>
> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an XXX (with compliments to Charles
> Dickens)
There are jammers that do work. How well, over what distance, and for
how long depend of course on the performance of particular brands of
which I'm sure there are several. The ones that the US Government uses
(exempt form FCC rules) are probably US made, top quality and top cost.
The stuff that comes out of China would be more of a crap shoot as
different factories provide varying quality of design and manufacture.
| |
| Scott 2007-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in
news:1393e4bbulknnd2
@corp.supernews.com:
> Scott wrote:
>
> My my my... aren't we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care
> for some cheese to go with that whine?
Grumpy? Never- you existence and lack of a clue is hardly a reason to get
grumpy. In fact, your choice to be your own lawman is rather entertaining.
After all, you know more than the rest of us.
>
>
> ayup.
> --Hank Hill
>
>
For you, a very appropriate quote source.
| |
| Scott 2007-07-09, 10:33 pm |
| "Prof. Franz Blaha" <fblaha1@uneb.rr.com> wrote in
news:46929d4a$0$3064
5$4c368faf@roadrunne
r.com:
> <®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message
> news:20070709054101.094$hv@newsreader.com...
>
> Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that's possible), let
> me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they
> are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and
> merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It's a
> technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral
> questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could
> start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Franz
>
> P.S: Sometimes the law really is an XXX (with compliments to Charles
> Dickens)
>
>
The legality question is simple- they are illegal because the frequency
ranges they are programmed to operate on have been exclusively leased by
companies that derive income from the uninterrupted use of that spectrum
by their subscribers. Subscribers pay to have access to that exclusive
spectrum. The lease allows the carrier to approve all devices used on
that frequency range and all devices used on that frequency range must
be approved by both the carrier and the FCC. Also to be considered are
the First Amendment implications of selectively targeting specific users
with active jamming based on the whims of a third party. As Jer has
clearly demonstrated, one does not need a cell phone to be a nuisance or
an idiot- what if I were able to jam his internet connection to stop the
noise?
What many people don't realize is that while active jamming is illegal,
passive jamming of a signal (most typically through the use of
architectural materials and applications) is totally legal in the US.
There are countless stories of various businesses building this type of
jamming into their walls, thereby rendering cell phones useless in the
environment without violating the exclusivity of the spectrum lease.
|
|
|
|
|