"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Nomen Nescio

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

Mizter T

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <> wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

ChrisM

>
> 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...

Paul Weaver

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <> wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

Dave

"Mizter T" <> wrote in message
news:...

> 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.

Indeed, GSM-R operates within the extended GSM 900 band (see
, so there is potential to
cut communications to the driver and cab signalling.

D

Mizter T

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <> wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

ChrisM

>
> 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...

Paul Weaver

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <> wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

Dave

"Mizter T" <> wrote in message
news:...

> 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.

Indeed, GSM-R operates within the extended GSM 900 band (see
, so there is potential to
cut communications to the driver and cab signalling.

D

MichaelJP

"ChrisM" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >
>> 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.