Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
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.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
>
> 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>
Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to control
signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an electronic
radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
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
I don't have problems with people, the ringtones are annoying
sometimes, but so is smelly food and inane chatter, and I don't want
food banned.
I do have a problem with people thinking earphones are unneccersary.
It strikes me that people complaining about mobile phones only travel
at peak, where thats the only sound. Travel offpeak in cattle class
and you pine for the peace of peak.
Personally I think that anyone with a standard season ticket should
get a first class upgrade at weekends.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"Mizter T" <mizter.t@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
Hopefully the users of these unregulated jamming devices will
know enough not to use them where it could interfere with the train
CSR/NRN/IVRS/GSMR/GPS/WLAN......
Devices strong enough to disrupt reception over the length of a whole
train could conceivably affect devices outside the train.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
>> 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>
>
> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an
> electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering decision.
Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of interference
and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
wrote:
>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."
They said the same in the late 1950s when people were building RF
oscillators to make the new fangled transistor radios people played
where they weren't appreciated, squeal. And the answer was the same
then as it is now - they ain't got the range.
>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.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>>> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to
>>> ruin Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to
>>> bring the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
> critical" applications.
No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
somewhere...
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> 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>
>>>
>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>
>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>> critical" applications.
>
> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
> somewhere...
Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio" and
although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links properly,
it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to some degree
within the railway networks...
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>
>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>> critical" applications.
>>
>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>> somewhere...
>
> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio"
> and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links
> properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to
> some degree within the railway networks...
>
Yes one such system is called GSM-R, which can be used for cab signaling and
voice - see my other post.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
* Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> 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
>
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On 4 Dec, 14:19, Mike Civil <m...@duncodin.org> wrote:
> In article <0b46a9d1abe4c3107d77d98a58f59...@dizum.com>,
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> >http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>
> Hopefully the users of these unregulated jamming devices will
> know enough not to use them where it could interfere with the train
> CSR/NRN/IVRS/GSMR/GPS/WLAN......
>
> Devices strong enough to disrupt reception over the length of a whole
> train could conceivably affect devices outside the train.
>
> Mike
I think Midland Main Line used them all the time, I can't get a signal
for more than 10 seconds anywhere between Leicester and St P. Will be
interesting to see if Stage Coach/East Midlands Trains (or whatever
they are called now) have inherited them :-)
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <jon.lamb...@accessplus.co.uk> wrote:
> I think Midland Main Line used them all the time, I can't get a signal
> for more than 10 seconds anywhere between Leicester and St P. Will be
> interesting to see if Stage Coach/East Midlands Trains (or whatever
> they are called now) have inherited them :-)
This is believed to be something in the windows, and not an active
jamming device (which would get them in serious trouble).
Also blocks DAB, which is annoying, and I've had difficulty with GPS
on the class 222s, even.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On 4 Dec, 16:56, "abiga...@gmail.com" <abiga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <jon.lamb...@accessplus.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think Midland Main Line used them all the time, I can't get a signal
> > for more than 10 seconds anywhere between Leicester and St P. Will be
> > interesting to see if Stage Coach/East Midlands Trains (or whatever
> > they are called now) have inherited them :-)
>
> This is believed to be something in the windows, and not an active
> jamming device (which would get them in serious trouble).
>
> Also blocks DAB, which is annoying, and I've had difficulty with GPS
> on the class 222s, even.
>
> --
> Abi
Interesting, I'm getting a HST both ways tomorrow (hopefully) so my
phone might work (not that anyone ever calls me).
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
>> 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>
>
> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an
> electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
> Blimey. Don't tell the IRA. Just the sort of soft option they like.
>
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
> In message U9SdnRgXyY23-MjanZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com,
> ChrisM <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> Proclaimed from the tallest
> tower:
>
>> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
>> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>
>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>
>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>> critical" applications.
>>
>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>> somewhere...
>
> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio"
> and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links
> properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to
> some degree within the railway networks...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Chris.
> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>To talk maybe?
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
s.com>, Mizter T <mizter.t@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
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In article <Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
<mjp@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>
>"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >
>>> 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>
>>
>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an
>> electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
>Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering decision.
>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of interference
>and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>
>
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"Big Bird" <big.bird@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fj3sdc$20i2$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk...
>* Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>>
>> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>>
>> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
>> turn off that annoying chatter
>>
>
> I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In message CMf5j.59823$EU1.46786@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
notbresson <jw001t8336@blueyonder.co.uk> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
>> In message U9SdnRgXyY23-MjanZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com,
>> ChrisM <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> Proclaimed from the tallest
>> tower:
>>
>>> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
>>> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>>
>>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links
>>>>> to control signals and points at least some of the time. In which
>>>>> case, an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>>> critical" applications.
>>>
>>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>>> somewhere...
>>
>> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling
>> radio" and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of
>> the links properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used
>> at least to some degree within the railway networks...
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Chris.
>> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>> To talk maybe?
Even if you are only jamming the drivers voice communication with the
signalman, you are creating a potentially hazardous situation...
- Another post suggested that some form of GSM is used for cab-signalling
systems.
--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On Dec 4, 2:49 pm, "Dave" <d...@p.com> wrote:
> Yes one such system is called GSM-R, which can be used for cab signaling and
> voice - see my other post.
There are signs at Oxford station saying "Cotswold Line Services -
switch on GSM". It is popularly believed to refer to the "Go Slow
Motor".
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:R2vXzsARlYVHFwu$@bancom.co.uk
[snip]
: : 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
*Nobody's* approving them, that's the whole point..!
Although I could do with one on the bus sometimes ;-)
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
Mike Civil <mike@duncodin.org> wrote:
> >http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> Hopefully the users of these unregulated jamming devices will
> know enough not to use them where it could interfere with the train
> CSR/NRN/IVRS/GSMR/GPS/WLAN......
>
> Devices strong enough to disrupt reception over the length of a whole
> train could conceivably affect devices outside the train.
Make it legal for people to buy them with very short ranges. That's
all most commuters really need anyway.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In article <5rllppF15fffvU1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> scribeth thus
>"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:R2vXzsARlYVHFwu$@bancom.co.uk
>
>[snip]
>
>: : OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming
>: : .. don't think so..
>: :
>: : And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway
>: : GSM anyone?.... --
>: : Tony Sayer
>
>*Nobody's* approving them, that's the whole point..!
That is the point!..
A company called Zetron make a cellphone detector which is rather useful
in some environments.
>
>Although I could do with one on the bus sometimes ;-)
Yep Joe pillock is loose on there as well;!...
>
>Ivor
>
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
In article <fj46s7$h8a$2@lucy.duncodin.org>, Mike Civil
<mike@duncodin.org> scribeth thus
>In article <fj3sdc$20i2$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk>,
>Big Bird <big.bird@aol.com> wrote:
>>I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.
>
>A bit more Googling shows unverified reports of some jammers being
>indiscriminate enough to disrupt WLAN and Bluetooth traffic as well.
>
>Mike
Isn't wi-fi shaky enough as it is anyway?..
--
Tony Sayer
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
tony sayer wrote:
> In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
> s.com>, Mizter T <mizter.t@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
Now potential idiot.
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 - 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.
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.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:07:29 +0000 someone who may be tony sayer
<tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote this:-
>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.
Move to the vestibule and one will presumably be out of the range of
such a jammer.
Of course if one was polite then one would have done so anyway, so
these jammers are only likely to affect the impolite.
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> 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
>
One thought strikes me.
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.
Is this a price worth paying for a bit of peace?
Leaving aside all the other (Generally agreed to be necessary) uses
which could be disrupted.
"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times 
Linear Mode
