In news:elmop-BF3FB8.16355926042008@nntp3.usenetserver.com "Elmo P.
Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <uxKQj.23039$%41.3252@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>> > Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these
>> > fines daily.
>>
>> IF..IF there was some sort of FCC law that allowed that. But there
>> isn't and so they aren't.
>
> Sure there is. If the cell companies know damned well they have a
> black hole on the street, and CHOOSE not to fix it, then by definition
> they're interfering with emergency communications AT LEAST to the same
> level as the restaurant owner who installs a jammer.
Presumably then, if a cellphone company KNOWS that I don't have a
cellphone and CHOOSES not to give me one, then by your definition,
they're interfering with emergency communications.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <uxKQj.23039$%41.3252@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>
>>> Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these fines
>>> daily.
>> IF..IF there was some sort of FCC law that allowed that. But there isn't
>> and so they aren't.
>
> Sure there is. If the cell companies know damned well they have a black
> hole on the street, and CHOOSE not to fix it, then by definition they're
> interfering with emergency communications AT LEAST to the same level as
> the restaurant owner who installs a jammer.
There is NO such FCC law. FCC law is applies to radiating an
electromagnetic signal, not inattention.
> It's the INTENT. And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to
> be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right?
Intent has nothing to do with it. Wrong, your ridiculous statement is
beyond any reply that I can think up.
On 2008-04-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> Actually, that was the claim--that no one had the right to jam cell
> phone transmissions because what if there's an emergency!!!! And I need
> to make an emergency call!!!! The yahoo who made that claim is busy
> telling the world that his emergency communications may not be
> interefered with in any way.
You're not talking about me, are you? I hope not (see below).
> And yet, cell phone companies make decisions every day that interfere
> with his right to make said emergency calls (or any calls). Cell phone
> companies decide whether or not to provide service at any given location.
Red herring. This reminds me of my complaint from a few years ago, when
Verizon took six months to fix dropped calls in my area. I got reamed by
another regular Verizon newsgroup poster who started the "you're not
guaranteed coverage everywhere" thing, which was stupid, because I was
complaining about coverage being broken, not coverage being nonexistent. My
position in this thread is similar. I'm not stupid - I know you're not
guaranteed to have coverage in any particular spot.
At 26 Apr 2008 22:25:23 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue
> your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had
> made a deliberate decision to leave (or create!) a black hole of signal
> in that area solely for financial reasons, you'd be pissed.
Perhaps, but I chose my cellphone company, coverage holes and all.
> It's the same thing as the restaurant owner creating a black hole of
> signal in his area.
Not at all- the cellco can legally leave holes of coverage- electronic
jamming is illegal.
> You never had a RIGHT to complete an emergency call
> on a cell phone; you made that up out of whole cloth, just because YOU
> don't like the idea of people not wanting you to use a cell phone in a
> restaurant or wherever.
Perhaps, but if the restaurant has a "no cell" policy, post it and threaten
to eject violators, or have customers check their phones at the door.
Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal. If a restaurant
doesn't want to allow me to quietly check my e-mail or look up a movie
listing during lunch, let me know upfront, so I can eat elsewhere!
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fv0sjs$5da$1@aioe.org:
> At 26 Apr 2008 22:25:23 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to
>> rescue your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone
>> company had made a deliberate decision to leave (or create!) a black
>> hole of signal in that area solely for financial reasons, you'd be
>> pissed.
>
>
> Perhaps, but I chose my cellphone company, coverage holes and all.
>
>> It's the same thing as the restaurant owner creating a black hole of
>> signal in his area.
>
> Not at all- the cellco can legally leave holes of coverage- electronic
> jamming is illegal.
>
>> You never had a RIGHT to complete an emergency call
>> on a cell phone; you made that up out of whole cloth, just because
>> YOU don't like the idea of people not wanting you to use a cell phone
>> in a restaurant or wherever.
>
> Perhaps, but if the restaurant has a "no cell" policy, post it and
> threaten to eject violators, or have customers check their phones at
> the door. Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal. If a
> restaurant doesn't want to allow me to quietly check my e-mail or look
> up a movie listing during lunch, let me know upfront, so I can eat
> elsewhere!
>
>
>
Except that they do have the legal authority to block cell phone signals in
a passive manner. And they are under no obligation to announce it.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <fv0sjs$5da$1@aioe.org>,
> Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
>
>>> Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue
>>> your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had
>>> made a deliberate decision to leave (or create!) a black hole of signal
>>> in that area solely for financial reasons, you'd be pissed.
>>
>> Perhaps, but I chose my cellphone company, coverage holes and all.
>>
>>> It's the same thing as the restaurant owner creating a black hole of
>>> signal in his area.
>> Not at all- the cellco can legally leave holes of coverage- electronic
>> jamming is illegal.
>
> While that's true, it's also true that no one has the right to cellular
> coverage. Given that, your lack of coverage somewhere is just as easily
> (and more likely) explained by cell company incompetence as it is by
> someone jamming the airwaves.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that no one has the RIGHT to make a cell phone
> call.
>
> And if I want to put up a decorative Faraday cage in my restaurant,
> there's not thing one anyone can do about it. And if I put up a
> jammer...well, honestly, who would know?
>
As long as you run your jammer INSIDE your Faraday cage nobody will
care. The minute your Faraday cage springs a leak, you are in trouble!
At 27 Apr 2008 01:11:09 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal.
>
> Including a Faraday cage inside the walls? I don't think so.
True- that's perfectly legal. If a restaurant owner wants to go to all
that trouble, fine. If he wants to actively interfere, that's another
matter.
> No, it's only broadcasting of EMR on certain frequencies without a
> license that's illegal. Interfering with cellphones is not illegal.
> Interfering, of course, includes the owner coming up and saying, "sir,
> you saw the sign, please put your phone down NOW or be prosecuted for
> trespassing."
Again, that's fine with me- I'd have known the rules before I sat down.
Re: Cell Phone Blocker 
Linear Mode
