"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

notbresson

"Big Bird" <> wrote in message
news:fj3sdc$20i2$.uk...
>* 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'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.

So would I

tony sayer

In article <Tod5j.195571$.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
<> scribeth thus
>
>"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.
>
>

Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
--
Tony Sayer

ChrisM

In message CMf5j.59823$.blueyonder.co.uk,
notbresson <.uk> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> "ChrisM" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> In message ,
>> ChrisM <> Proclaimed from the tallest
>> tower:
>>
>>> In message Tod5j.195571$.easynews.com,
>>> MichaelJP <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>
>>> 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)

abigailb@gmail.com

On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <.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

Mario Lanza

On 4 Dec, 16:56, "" <> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <.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).

notbresson

"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...
>
> Blimey. Don't tell the IRA. Just the sort of soft option they like.
>

notbresson

"ChrisM" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In message ,
> ChrisM <> Proclaimed from the tallest
> tower:
>
>> In message Tod5j.195571$.easynews.com,
>> MichaelJP <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> 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?

tony sayer

In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
s.com>, Mizter T <> scribeth thus
>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.

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

notbresson

"Big Bird" <> wrote in message
news:fj3sdc$20i2$.uk...
>* 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'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.

So would I

tony sayer

In article <Tod5j.195571$.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
<> scribeth thus
>
>"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.
>
>

Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
--
Tony Sayer