"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

> Now potential jammer.
>
>
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
> so..

Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

>
>How would you feel if <your> usenet post was completely misrepresented
>by another poster in the same way that you have misrepresented me and
>misrepresented what I wrote.
>
>If you actually read my post you will see that I am in no way
>advocating the use of jamming devices and am certainly not considering
>obtaining or using one myself nor am I condoning or encouraging their
>use.
>
>My whole post had an entirely different tone, and was a series of
>question marks over whether these devices actually have far wider
>consequences than merely jamming mobile signals. I did not raise the
>issue of whether or not it was right for someone to "play god" in the
>selfish and self-satisfied manner of the Midlands commuter the
>reporter spoke to, because I thought someone else could raise that
>issue. But just so you don't misrepresent my view on this issue I
>shall spell it out - no, I don't think it's OK for someone to do that
>either.
>
>*If* your introductory address "Now potential jammer" was not in fact
>aimed at me, but was actually aimed at a hypothetical reader whom may
>have been considering obtaining and using a jamming device, it was a
>dismal linguistic failure -

Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
should have got the drift..

>because it certainly read as if it was
>addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
>urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>
>*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
>wrong.


Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>
>Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
>of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
>speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
>pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
>probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.

Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...

Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
but that ain't gonna happen is it?....

--
Tony Sayer

In article <a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Now potential jammer.
>>
>>
>> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
>> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
>> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
>> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>>
>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
>> so..
>
>Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
>had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>
>
>
>

It seems to me that people do talk louder than what they have to due to
the amount of background noise around them rather than what the caller
hears .. but then again -noise cancelling- is a bit new for mobile
telephony applications...
--
Tony Sayer

John Williamson wrote:

> If these are available, then they can be used by the criminal classes to
> prevent calls for help by, for example, a potential crime victim.

And if they are indiscriminate enough to jam wifi networks then they
could be used to disrupt home security systems too.

ChrisM wrote:

> - Another post suggested that some form of GSM is used for cab-signalling
> systems.

Isn't the use of GSM-R in-cab signalling compulsory for line speeds over
125mph?

On 4 Dec, 13:52, Paul Weaver <use...@isorox.co.uk> wrote:

> Personally I think that anyone with a standard season ticket should
> get a first class upgrade at weekends.

There is no first class at weekends on my line; it becomes chav class.
Let them have their complimentary upgrades (if they have a ticket at
all) if it means they're out of my face!

Jonathan

On 4 Dec, 22:45, Ben <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:

> And if they are indiscriminate enough to jam wifi networks then they
> could be used to disrupt home security systems too.

And large businesses... and even security cameras in towns (some of
Westminster use cameras linked wirelessly).

It's yet another thing the police should be aware of, but will
invariably won't do sod all about until it's far too late.

Jonathan

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in
news:i5jbl3l5tlm8tlqvcd4umpqc4tt4lu5njm@4ax.com:

> Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
> such a jammer.
<snip>

My local trains are 150s - no vestibules! It's also impossible to do this
if your train is as packed as most evening rush-hour services on the
Kidderminster line are.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
news:a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com:

>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't
>> think so..
>
> Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
> had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
that unpromising first minute!

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

On 4 Dec, 22:35, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> >How would you feel if <your> usenet post was completely misrepresented
> >by another poster in the same way that you have misrepresented me and
> >misrepresented what I wrote.
>
> >If you actually read my post you will see that I am in no way
> >advocating the use of jamming devices and am certainly not considering
> >obtaining or using one myself nor am I condoning or encouraging their
> >use.
>
> >My whole post had an entirely different tone, and was a series of
> >question marks over whether these devices actually have far wider
> >consequences than merely jamming mobile signals. I did not raise the
> >issue of whether or not it was right for someone to "play god" in the
> >selfish and self-satisfied manner of the Midlands commuter the
> >reporter spoke to, because I thought someone else could raise that
> >issue. But just so you don't misrepresent my view on this issue I
> >shall spell it out - no, I don't think it's OK for someone to do that
> >either.
>
> >*If* your introductory address "Now potential jammer" was not in fact
> >aimed at me, but was actually aimed at a hypothetical reader whom may
> >have been considering obtaining and using a jamming device, it was a
> >dismal linguistic failure -
>
> Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
> should have got the drift..

OK, you were addressing the hypothetical jammer! Thanks for clearing
that up.

>
> >because it certainly read as if it was
> >addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
> >urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>
> >*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
> >wrong.
>
> Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>

Sorry if my words were harsh - the way you phrased your original post
was open to misinterpretation, hence my comments. Perhaps my reply was
a tad on the heavy side though! :-(

>
> >Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
> >of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
> >speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
> >pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
> >probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.
>
> Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...
>
> Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
> but that ain't gonna happen is it?....
>

Erm...

I have had a horrible thought that at some point Nokia or some other
handset maker might approach the audio manufacturer Bose - who
reputedly work magic when designing small but powerful speakers - and
cross their palms with silver in order to get them to design and
produce some super-small speaker that turns a mobile into a non-tinny
miniature boombox.

Perhaps audio engineers who work on tiny speaker R&D should be
routinely shunned by their peers and cast off into the wilderness of
noise that they were seeking to add to...

On 5 Dec, 00:47, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Dec, 22:35, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > >Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
> > >of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
> > >speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
> > >pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
> > >probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.
>
> > Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...
>
> > Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
> > but that ain't gonna happen is it?....
>
> Erm...
>
> I have had a horrible thought that at some point Nokia or some other
> handset maker might approach the audio manufacturer Bose - who
> reputedly work magic when designing small but powerful speakers - and
> cross their palms with silver in order to get them to design and
> produce some super-small speaker that turns a mobile into a non-tinny
> miniature boombox.
>
> Perhaps audio engineers who work on tiny speaker R&D should be
> routinely shunned by their peers and cast off into the wilderness of
> noise that they were seeking to add to...


Quite off topic, but before someone comes along to correct me of any
misconceptions I might have I'll say that I've just glanced over this
1995 FAQ on Bose, which has disabused me somewhat of my perhaps naive
notion that they were in some way a revolutionary company who were
head and shoulders above all others in the field of audio products. An
interesting read...

http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/stereo/bosefaq.htm

>> Sorry haven't got all day to reply in GR8 detail to usenet posts but you
>> should have got the drift..
>
>OK, you were addressing the hypothetical jammer! Thanks for clearing
>that up.
>
>>
>> >because it certainly read as if it was
>> >addressed directly to me. *If* that is the effect you desire then I'd
>> >urge you to structure your comments more carefully in the future.
>>
>> >*If* however you were addressing me directly then you got it very
>> >wrong.
>>
>> Actually I was agreeing with you!........................more than less..
>>
>
>Sorry if my words were harsh - the way you phrased your original post
>was open to misinterpretation, hence my comments. Perhaps my reply was
>a tad on the heavy side though! :-(

Thats OK .. anyone who can apologise on usenet has got to be a decent
bloke:--))
>
>>
>> >Anyway, the device I'm looking for is not a radio jammer but some kind
>> >of electro-magnetic pulse weapon that would destroy the external
>> >speakers of mobile phones. Unfortunately as it might also destroy
>> >pacemakers and make Li-ion batteries explode again I reckon it
>> >probably wouldn't be a great idea in practice.
>>
>> Now your asking ...That would take a <lot> more energy...
>>
>> Course if people could be a bit more considerate then it wouldn't be a problem
>> but that ain't gonna happen is it?....
>>
>
>Erm...
>
>I have had a horrible thought that at some point Nokia or some other
>handset maker might approach the audio manufacturer Bose - who
>reputedly work magic when designing small but powerful speakers - and
>cross their palms with silver in order to get them to design and
>produce some super-small speaker that turns a mobile into a non-tinny
>miniature boombox.
>
>Perhaps audio engineers who work on tiny speaker R&D should be
>routinely shunned by their peers and cast off into the wilderness of
>noise that they were seeking to add to...

Indeed.. I bet some bu**er somewhere is working on it right now;(..
--
Tony Sayer

>Quite off topic, but before someone comes along to correct me of any
>misconceptions I might have I'll say that I've just glanced over this
>1995 FAQ on Bose, which has disabused me somewhat of my perhaps naive
>notion that they were in some way a revolutionary company who were
>head and shoulders above all others in the field of audio products. An
>interesting read...
>
>http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/stereo/bosefaq.htm

Nah, he was just very good at marketing...
--
Tony Sayer

In article <Xns99FD627AFF89rabbiteergmailcom@216.196.109.145> , David
Buttery <rabbiteer@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in
>news:a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com :
>
>>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't
>>> think so..
>>
>> Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
>> had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
>spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
>was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
>daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
>hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
>that unpromising first minute!
>
No lets take what the first poster said about loud chav's and city
types...
--
Tony Sayer

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:33:57 -0600 someone who may be David Buttery
<rabbiteer@gmail.com> wrote this:-

>My local trains are 150s - no vestibules!

The area between the door is the vestibule. There are screens which
one can stand behind.

>It's also impossible to do this
>if your train is as packed as most evening rush-hour services on the
>Kidderminster line are.

If it is possible to take a telephone out of one's pocket then the
train is not packed:-)


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:33:57 -0600 someone who may be David Buttery
> <rabbiteer@gmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>>My local trains are 150s - no vestibules!
>
> The area between the door is the vestibule. There are screens which
> one can stand behind.

On some 150's, including those that do the Kiddy line, the screens near
the doors only extend full-width to waist height. Thereafter they taper
to the sides, and would not screen phone conversations.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633127.html
(D26 (no TOPS class) at Didcot, Sep 1995)

On 5 Dec, 00:36, David Buttery <rabbit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote innews:a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com:
>
> >> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming �.. don't
> >> think so..
>
> > Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I
> > had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and
> spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it
> was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his
> daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in
> hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of
> that unpromising first minute!
>
> --
> Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.

George

On 4 Dec, 17:07, tony sayer <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a929...@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
> s.com>, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >>http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>
> >> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> >> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> >> turn off that annoying chatter
>
> >The potential for these devices to interfere with important
> >frequencies is dismissed very quickly...
>
> ><quote>
> >Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
> >the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
> >interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
> >users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
> >used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
> >I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
> >that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
> >train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
> >Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
> >the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
> ></quote>
>
> >...which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
> >cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
> >frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
> >likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
> >of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
> >providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.
>
> >The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
> >general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
> >jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
> >knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
> >dismissed out of hand.
>
> Now potential jammer.
>
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls.
>
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming �.. don't think
> so..
>
> And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway GSM anyone?....
> --
> Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If they keep out of the quiet coach with their phones....no problem.

George

tony sayer wrote:

> In article <Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
> <mjp@nospam.com> scribeth thus

>>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of
>>interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical"
>>applications.

> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...

What about it?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:40:57 up 24 days, 10:20, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.09, 0.09
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

In article <1719975.EEnHyutC0g@ale.cx>, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
scribeth thus
>tony sayer wrote:
>
>> In article <Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
>> <mjp@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>
>>>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of
>>>interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical"
>>>applications.
>
>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>
>What about it?
>
Well "mission critical" is it not?..

--
Tony Sayer

furnessvale <furnessvale@aol.com> wrote in
news:1400e400-2e40-4965-b72c-9167cd3eb0a4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring
>> someone and spend the first minute so saying that they were on the
>> train and that it was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that,
>> he asked how his daughter was doing, and the implication was that she
>> was quite ill in hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have
>> cut him off because of that unpromising first minute!

> Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.

I think that's unfair. Not so long ago I had to make a phone call about a
very serious situation involving someone close to me. I found that a bit of
gentle, undemanding chat first was the only way I could settle my mind
enough to do the next bit of the talk, which it was extremely important I
got right. I reckon I spent longer than a minute on the "prattle" phase.

--
Bewdley, Worcs. ~90m asl.

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Eu7S1tKCQyVHFwtM@bancom.co.uk
: : In article <1719975.EEnHyutC0g@ale.cx>, alexd
: : <troffasky@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
: : : tony sayer wrote:
: : :
: : : : In article
: : : : <Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
: : : : MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> scribeth thus
: : :
: : : : : Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
: : : : : to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
: : : : : be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
: : :
: : : : Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
: : :
: : : What about it?
: : :
: : Well "mission critical" is it not?..

<pedant>

It's not a "surface" environment either..!

</pedant>


Ivor

On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "tony sayer" <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:Eu7S1tKCQyVHFwtM@bancom.co.uk
> : : In article <1719975.EEnHyut...@ale.cx>, alexd
> : : <troffa...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
> : : : tony sayer wrote:
> : : :
> : : : : In article
> : : : : <Tod5j.195571$I52.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
> : : : : MichaelJP <m...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
> : : :
> : : : : : Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
> : : : : : to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
> : : : : : be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
> : : :
> : : : : Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
> : : :
> : : : What about it?
> : : :
> : : Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>
> <pedant>
>
> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>
> </pedant>
>
> Ivor

?

I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
environment"?

In article <Xns99FDF257E8F26rabbiteergmailcom@216.196.109.145 >, David
Buttery <rabbiteer@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>furnessvale <furnessvale@aol.com> wrote in
>news:1400e400-2e40-4965-b72c-9167cd3eb0a4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring
>>> someone and spend the first minute so saying that they were on the
>>> train and that it was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that,
>>> he asked how his daughter was doing, and the implication was that she
>>> was quite ill in hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have
>>> cut him off because of that unpromising first minute!
>
>> Sounds like he had decided his priorities for himself.
>
>I think that's unfair. Not so long ago I had to make a phone call about a
>very serious situation involving someone close to me. I found that a bit of
>gentle, undemanding chat first was the only way I could settle my mind
>enough to do the next bit of the talk, which it was extremely important I
>got right. I reckon I spent longer than a minute on the "prattle" phase.
>

Point is that you can make a call on a mobile in a normal voiced
discreet manner, but there are a LOT who can't and have to shout think
their sooo bloody important!....
--
Tony Sayer

In message
19ca30d9-74bc-4c00-8b14-f4c2b5a2f7a7...oglegroups.com,
Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> "tony sayer" <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Eu7S1tKCQyVHFwtM@bancom.co.uk
>>>> In article <1719975.EEnHyut...@ale.cx>, alexd
>>>> <troffa...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
>>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <Tod5j.195571$I52.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
>>>>>> MichaelJP <m...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
>>>>>>> to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
>>>>>>> be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>>>>>
>>>>> What about it?
>>>>>
>>>> Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>>
>> <pedant>
>>
>> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>>
>> </pedant>
>>
>> Ivor
>
> ?
>
> I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
> calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
> environment"?

I think he was refering to aircraft comms... (?)

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

On 6 Dec, 11:24, "ChrisM" <chris_mayersb...@suedeyahoo.com> wrote:
> In message
> 19ca30d9-74bc-4c00-8b14-f4c2b5a2f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>
> > On 6 Dec, 00:16, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> >> "tony sayer" <t...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> In article <1719975.EEnHyut...@ale.cx>, alexd
> >>>> <troffa...@hotmail.com> scribeth thus
> >>>>> tony sayer wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> <Tod5j.195571$I52.2...@fe07.news.easynews.com>,
> >>>>>> MichaelJP <m...@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>
> >>>>>>> Radio comms in a surface environment is subject
> >>>>>>> to all sorts of interference and certainly can't
> >>>>>>> be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>
> >>>>>> Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
>
> >>>>> What about it?
>
> >>>> Well "mission critical" is it not?..
>
> >> <pedant>
>
> >> It's not a "surface" environment either..!
>
> >> </pedant>
>
> >> Ivor
>
> > ?
>
> > I dispute you're pedantry - I can't see what on earth is wrong with
> > calling predominantly non-subterranean railways a "surface
> > environment"?
>
> I think he was refering to aircraft comms... (?)


Yes, looking back on the exchange I think he was too. Oops.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Make it legal for people to buy them with very short ranges. That's
> all most commuters really need anyway.


All most burglars and muggers really need either.

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."

Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
radio equipment to stay on track.

The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

--
Alasdair.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:01:51 +0000, Alasdair <mail@bobaxter.coo.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
>Well, Ofcom would say that, wouldn't they. They are a law enforcement
>organisation inter alia. From what I understand, these jammers have
>extremely low power and only have an effective range of around 30 feet
>max. Buses and trains, unlike aeroplanes, don't rely on sophisticated
>radio equipment to stay on track.
>
>The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.
>
The effective range will be very variable as the devices being
"jammed" will use a wide range of frequencies, transmission powers,
radiation patterns and sensitivities. To cover such a variety of
devices requires a lot of RF rubbish to be radiated with interference
caused to nearby "innocent" devices being far from unlikely.

Alasdair wrote:

> The jammers are illegal but whether for good reason is another matter.

Under article 12 of the human rights charter, there appears to be a
right not to have one's correspondence interefered with. Whether that
right extends to email I dunno, likewise whether it extends to one's
telephonic communications.

However, ISTM that the minor annoyance some people experience due to
their inability to tolerate possibly only one other person using a
mobile phone isn't sufficient justification for indiscriminately and
anonymously terminating other people's connections with the outside
world.

The appropriate response if someone is really being annoying when they
are using a mobile phone is to ask them politely to be more considerate.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633120.html
(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)