Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

Nomen Nescio

Alasdair <.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:44:03 +0000 (UTC), Mike Civil
> <> wrote:
>
> >I suspect the devices are pretty indiscriminate. After all they're
> >unregulated and presumably designed to be multi-frequency so that they
> >can affect any mobile phone in any country regardless of what frequency
> >band(s) they happen to be using.

> I wonder what the penalty is if one is found using one of those
> jammers?

How stupidly would you have to use it to get caught?

You're in a moving train, switching it on for a second or two at a
time, and the prattlers just think it's a network problem when they
get cut off. There's no way the "authorities" would pin it down.

Trust No One®

"Nomen Nescio" <> wrote in message
news:...
..
>
>> I wonder what the penalty is if one is found using one of those
>> jammers?
>
> How stupidly would you have to use it to get caught?
>
> You're in a moving train, switching it on for a second or two at a
> time, and the prattlers just think it's a network problem when they
> get cut off. There's no way the "authorities" would pin it down.
>

Can anyone advise whether these devices are legal to possess? I know they
are illegal to use but am unsure about possession.

From what I understand the range of these devices is rather limited - only
around a radius of 5 metres or so, and are not always reliable against some
phones/networks. You'd need one of the more powerful mains powered ones to
silence an entire train carriage I would have thought.

The tempation to use these devices to silence the inane babblers on the
train or bus is rather strong I admit. I notice with horror that they are
looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!

--
Peter <X-Files fan>

Alasdair

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
<> wrote:

> I notice with horror that they are
>looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!

If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.

The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.

--
Alasdair.

Christopher A.Lee

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:19:41 +0000, Alasdair <.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
><> wrote:
>
>> I notice with horror that they are
>>looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!
>
>If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
>supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.

They've already got those.

>The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
>been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
>aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
>been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.

Alasdair

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
<> wrote:

> I notice with horror that they are
>looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!

If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.

The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.

--
Alasdair.

Christopher A.Lee

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:19:41 +0000, Alasdair <.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
><> wrote:
>
>> I notice with horror that they are
>>looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!
>
>If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
>supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.

They've already got those.

>The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
>been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
>aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
>been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.

John Williamson

Christopher A.Lee wrote:

>> The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
>> been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
>> aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
>> been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.

The plan involves a very low powered base station actually inside the
aircraft, linked to a satellite channel to allow calls while in flight.
There will, naturally, be a premium rate charged for calls. This will be
turned on when the plane is at cruising height, & turned off when landing.

The problem has been that cellphones don't work inside aircraft without
cranking the transmit power up all the way, which can potentially
interfere with the signals used for glidepath control while landing, as
well as GPS signals, especially when you have a couple of hundred phones
all shouting as loud as they can to find a cell to use. They also stop
working on flights over water once you get more than a few miles from
land. Another problem is that they can't lock onto the channel if
they're moving at more than about 300 mph relative to the base station
due to the doppler effect.

The proposed system means that the transmit power on the phones will be
minimal & under the control of the aircrew. They could also potentially
transmit a "System not working" signal to stop phones from transmitting
at dangerous points of the flight.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Graeme Wall

In message <>
Alasdair <.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
> <> wrote:
>
> > I notice with horror that they are
> >looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!
>
> If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
> supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.

They've existed for some years now, and yes they do cost an arm and a leg.

>
> The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
> been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
> aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
> been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.
>

The ones fitted are properly screened.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

tony sayer

In article <>, Alasdair
<.uk> scribeth thus
>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 19:51:22 -0000, "Trust No One®"
><> wrote:
>
>> I notice with horror that they are
>>looking at introducing the use of mobile phones on aircraft - Sheesh!
>
>If this does happen, I imagine the phones will be special ones
>supplied by the airline and calls will cost an arm and a leg.
>
>The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
>been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
>aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
>been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.
>

No give them their due the aircraft environment is a very sensitive one
and is very safety conscious. If there was the slightest risk then they
should not be allowed but its taken some time to get that far.

--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer

In article <fjdbd6$6vl$1@stable.tornevall.net>, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> scribeth thus
>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>
>>> The argument for prohibiting the use of mobiles in aircraft has always
>>> been that the radio transmissions could affect the electronics of the
>>> aircraft and could be dangerous. Are they now saying that we have
>>> been conned all along and mobiles are quite safe if used in flight.
>
>The plan involves a very low powered base station actually inside the
>aircraft, linked to a satellite channel to allow calls while in flight.
>There will, naturally, be a premium rate charged for calls. This will be
>turned on when the plane is at cruising height, & turned off when landing.
>
>The problem has been that cellphones don't work inside aircraft without
>cranking the transmit power up all the way, which can potentially
>interfere with the signals used for glidepath control while landing, as
>well as GPS signals, especially when you have a couple of hundred phones
>all shouting as loud as they can to find a cell to use. They also stop
>working on flights over water once you get more than a few miles from
>land. Another problem is that they can't lock onto the channel if
>they're moving at more than about 300 mph relative to the base station
>due to the doppler effect.

Not quite true.. If your sideways on to a BST the relative speed will be
much less...

However you will also interfere with a lot of base stations using the
same channel..
>
>The proposed system means that the transmit power on the phones will be
>minimal & under the control of the aircrew. They could also potentially
>transmit a "System not working" signal to stop phones from transmitting
>at dangerous points of the flight.
>
Or if it gets too noisy)
--
Tony Sayer