TechTalkz.com Logo Ask the Experts!

Go Back   TechTalkz.com Technology & Computer Troubleshooting Forums > Tech Support Archives > Mobile Phones & Operators

"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Mobile Phones & Operators

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:51 PM   #11
Christopher A.Lee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

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


Sponsored Links
 
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:51 PM   #12
ChrisM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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)


 
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:52 PM   #13
ChrisM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

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)


 
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:52 PM   #14
Dave
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.

D

 
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:52 PM   #15
Mike Civil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

In article <0b46a9d1abe4c3107d77d98a58f5963d@dizum.com>,
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> 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.

Mike
 
Unread 04-12-2007, 03:52 PM   #16
Big Bird
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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
>


I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.
 
Unread 04-12-2007, 04:54 PM   #17
MichaelJP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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.


 
Unread 04-12-2007, 04:54 PM   #18
Christopher A.Lee
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

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

 
Unread 04-12-2007, 04:55 PM   #19
ChrisM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
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)


 
Unread 04-12-2007, 04:55 PM   #20
ChrisM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Sponsored Links
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)



Sponsored Links
 
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes



< Home - Windows Help - MS Office Help - Hardware Support >


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:41 PM.


vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2016, TechTalkz.com. All Rights Reserved - Privacy Policy
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional