Cell Phone Blocker

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:07:36 -0500,
> jer
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >John Henderson wrote:
> >
> > >> As someone who has spent many years on-call for emergency
> > >> services (marine search and rescue), I can hazard a guess at what
> > >> a Coroner would say about your "legitimate reason" for stopping
> > >> me being contactable when I was needed.
> >
> > >Get a two-way radio designed for that purpose and learn how to use it.
> >
> > A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager
> service
> > coverage is much better than cell service coverage.
>
> From the of "Cingular" in your signature, I'm assuming you're in the USA.
> Pager coverage may well be more extensive there, but here in the UK hardly
> anyone uses pagers any more, since cellular coverage is so good.
>
> Ivor
>


Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
blocker.

I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic rather
than acoustic devices,
and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which if
freely available would destroy
one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.

---

› See More: Cell Phone Blocker

"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:07:36 -0500,
> jer
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >John Henderson wrote:
> >
> > >> As someone who has spent many years on-call for emergency
> > >> services (marine search and rescue), I can hazard a guess at what
> > >> a Coroner would say about your "legitimate reason" for stopping
> > >> me being contactable when I was needed.
> >
> > >Get a two-way radio designed for that purpose and learn how to use it.
> >
> > A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager
> service
> > coverage is much better than cell service coverage.
>
> From the of "Cingular" in your signature, I'm assuming you're in the USA.
> Pager coverage may well be more extensive there, but here in the UK hardly
> anyone uses pagers any more, since cellular coverage is so good.
>
> Ivor
>


Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
blocker.

I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic rather
than acoustic devices,
and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which if
freely available would destroy
one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.

"Lofty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
> blocker.

I'm with you there ;-)

> I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic
rather
> than acoustic devices,
> and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which
if
> freely available would destroy
> one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.

I agree, what I was proposing wasn't freely available blockers, but that
they be fitted to buses, trains and other public places such as cinemas
where use of a phone would be considered unsocial.

Ivor

"Lofty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
> blocker.

I'm with you there ;-)

> I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic
rather
> than acoustic devices,
> and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which
if
> freely available would destroy
> one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.

I agree, what I was proposing wasn't freely available blockers, but that
they be fitted to buses, trains and other public places such as cinemas
where use of a phone would be considered unsocial.

Ivor

Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
rights. Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
uninjured?

May I humbly suggest a high-tech solution for the bus driver with the
mobile phone problem, which will also cure irritation arising from
people conversing to actual people sitting next to them as well:

http://www.pep-earplugs.co.uk/

Alle hageln meinen Führer!!



"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Richard Colton" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:7TsZa.128381$B%[email protected]...
> >
> > "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > <snip>
> > > To the person who thought I should not be driving if I get distracted
> by
> > > people on the phone
> >
> > That'd be me.
> >
> > > , have you never been distracted by someone doing
> > > something in a car when you've been driving..?
> >
> > Yes, of course I have, but you very quickly learn to tune anything out
> that
> > does not infringe on the safety of the vehicle.
> >
> > > Maybe you told them to stop
> > > and they did; if I tried that with some of my passengers I'd probably
> get
> > > a punch on the nose, which *would* result in an accident..!
> >
> > Look, at the end of the day, I have a great deal of sympathy for bus
> > drivers, who do (on the whole) a great job, under difficult
> circumstances
> > for very little pay. But, If you are saying that you get distracted by
> any
> > muppet using a mobile phone, then in all honesty, it's time to pack it
> in
> > and find a new career.
> >
>
> Hmm, well it's obvious you are never going to see my point, so I won't
> labour it. But next time you are on a bus and someone is on the phone in a
> very loud voice six feet from you, don't tell me you won't be distracted
> by it.
>
> Ivor

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> In alt.cellular.verizon Kate Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>ive seen it in movies, but i think its pointless for you what you are
>>trying to do. The device that he is talking about blocks all cellular
>>signals, what you are trying to do is just block the one call that is
>>coming in right??
>
>
> You can't do that, and it's illegal to jam ANY cell signals.


We don't care if it's illegal.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

Steven J Sobol wrote:

> In alt.cellular.verizon Kate Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>ive seen it in movies, but i think its pointless for you what you are
>>trying to do. The device that he is talking about blocks all cellular
>>signals, what you are trying to do is just block the one call that is
>>coming in right??
>
>
> You can't do that, and it's illegal to jam ANY cell signals.


We don't care if it's illegal.


--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

John Navas wrote:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 07:07:36 -0500, jer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Henderson wrote:
>
>
>>>As someone who has spent many years on-call for emergency
>>>services (marine search and rescue), I can hazard a guess at what
>>>a Coroner would say about your "legitimate reason" for stopping
>>>me being contactable when I was needed.
>
>
>>Get a two-way radio designed for that purpose and learn how to use it.
>
>
> A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager service
> coverage is much better than cell service coverage.
>


Since I don't carry one of those rat-fxxckers anymore, I'd forgot
about that alternative (out of sight, out of mind) - but seems a
plausible solution. My recommendation about a two-way radio was
predicated on the other poster's apparent need to actually speak to
whomever was attempting to contact him/her. If simple notification
was sufficient, an im-pager or SMS should be acceptable, as both offer
confirmed message delivery. If cell phones were always acceptable for
emergency services, then police, ambulance, and fire responders would
stop spending huge sums of dinero on their own two-way radio networks
and sign up for two-year Family Plan contracts including their choice
of colours. Since they don't, it would be my presumption they expect
cellular networks will continue to become overwhelmed with public
blather the instant any widespread disaster occurs.

So, my recommendation for the other poster continues - get a two-way
radio and learn to speak only when spoken to.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

John Navas <[email protected]> writes
>A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager
>service coverage is much better than cell service coverage.

That, of course, depends where in the world you are.

--
Dave

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
> a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
> rights. Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
> talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
> uninjured?

Is it an infringement of civil rights not to be allowed use of phones
aboard aircraft..? Perhaps the small matter of interference with avionics
is unimportant..?

Whilst I would be the first to admit a bus is not in the same category and
a phone is unlikely to interfere with the vehicle's systems, if it
distracts the driver then it *is* a safety concern. There is a large
notice displayed in most if not all buses, next to the driver, which
states that the conditions of carriage prohibit the use of radios,
cassettes etc. and that passengers must not distract the driver. I would
humbly suggest that a very loud conversation, whether on the phone or not,
constitutes distraction and therefore a threat to safety.

> May I humbly suggest a high-tech solution for the bus driver with the
> mobile phone problem, which will also cure irritation arising from
> people conversing to actual people sitting next to them as well:
>
> http://www.pep-earplugs.co.uk/

Unsafe and probably not legal as it would prevent hearing of traffic
noise.

Ivor

"Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
> a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
> rights. Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
> talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
> uninjured?

Is it an infringement of civil rights not to be allowed use of phones
aboard aircraft..? Perhaps the small matter of interference with avionics
is unimportant..?

Whilst I would be the first to admit a bus is not in the same category and
a phone is unlikely to interfere with the vehicle's systems, if it
distracts the driver then it *is* a safety concern. There is a large
notice displayed in most if not all buses, next to the driver, which
states that the conditions of carriage prohibit the use of radios,
cassettes etc. and that passengers must not distract the driver. I would
humbly suggest that a very loud conversation, whether on the phone or not,
constitutes distraction and therefore a threat to safety.

> May I humbly suggest a high-tech solution for the bus driver with the
> mobile phone problem, which will also cure irritation arising from
> people conversing to actual people sitting next to them as well:
>
> http://www.pep-earplugs.co.uk/

Unsafe and probably not legal as it would prevent hearing of traffic
noise.

Ivor

"John Navas" wrote:

> A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since
> pager service coverage is much better than cell service
> coverage.

I relied on a pager for about 5 years before the advent of
cellular phones. Then for the next 5 years, I carried both.
It's much easier to have to remember and carry only one device -
I was glad when I could get rid of the pager. These days, the
phone beats the pager for coverage in more areas. And the phone
gives you an visible indication that you don't have coverage,
whereas the pager does not.

John

"John Navas" wrote:

> A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since
> pager service coverage is much better than cell service
> coverage.

I relied on a pager for about 5 years before the advent of
cellular phones. Then for the next 5 years, I carried both.
It's much easier to have to remember and carry only one device -
I was glad when I could get rid of the pager. These days, the
phone beats the pager for coverage in more areas. And the phone
gives you an visible indication that you don't have coverage,
whereas the pager does not.

John

"Ivor Jones" wrote:

> What if you were in another area of no coverage, such as inside
> a large building where signals do not penetrate..? Would you
> blame the building's owners or the architect..?

Not at all. There's no blame to be attributed, and I'm perfectly
happy to take full responsibility for my own actions. I simply
need to monitor the signal strength, and get back into coverage
ASAP. Otherwise, it's ring the control centre and tell them
exactly where I can be found - the police will do that if
necessary. But as long as I stay within Timing Advance range of
a BTS (35 km), I do need the showing of a good signal to be truly
indicative that I can be contacted.

> With respect, if you were on call for an emergency service, I
> am sure that nobody would object, but when it is purely someone
> blabbing to their boy/girlfriend about what they were planning
> for the weekend, I would guess even you might get irritated
> after a while.

I understand what you're saying, and sympathise. But, however
annoying, this really is the lesser of two evils.

John

"Ivor Jones" wrote:

> What if you were in another area of no coverage, such as inside
> a large building where signals do not penetrate..? Would you
> blame the building's owners or the architect..?

Not at all. There's no blame to be attributed, and I'm perfectly
happy to take full responsibility for my own actions. I simply
need to monitor the signal strength, and get back into coverage
ASAP. Otherwise, it's ring the control centre and tell them
exactly where I can be found - the police will do that if
necessary. But as long as I stay within Timing Advance range of
a BTS (35 km), I do need the showing of a good signal to be truly
indicative that I can be contacted.

> With respect, if you were on call for an emergency service, I
> am sure that nobody would object, but when it is purely someone
> blabbing to their boy/girlfriend about what they were planning
> for the weekend, I would guess even you might get irritated
> after a while.

I understand what you're saying, and sympathise. But, however
annoying, this really is the lesser of two evils.

John