"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Mike Civil

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

Nomen Nescio

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.

tony sayer

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
>

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

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

Mizter T

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.

Mike Civil

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

Nomen Nescio

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.

tony sayer

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
>

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

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

Mizter T

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.