"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Iain

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.

Alasdair

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

Charles Ellson

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

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

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)

Chris Tolley

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.
--

(66 011 at Harrogate, 29 May 1999)