Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 50 of 50
  1. #46
    GeekBoy
    Guest

    Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking


    "Straydog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, BC wrote:
    >
    >> Hello All,
    >>
    >> Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the
    >> numerous
    >> responses.
    >>
    >> Please allow me to respond to my original post.
    >>
    >> I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
    >> the various manufacturers say they do.

    >
    > You might have a difficult time getting credible reports. After all, many
    > who might use a jammer might not want to self-incriminate themselves or
    > reveal themselves to just everyone.
    >
    >> I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming
    >> various
    >> areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim
    >> 30,
    >> 50 meters and more.
    >> Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
    >> which ones if so?

    >
    > Not firsthand, but one newspaper article I read years ago said some pastor
    > in a church got pissed off with cps going off during services and he put
    > in a jammer, told all of the congregation about it, and nobody came to
    > arrest him and he said no more cp problems. And, I doubt if those
    > irresponsible-inconsiderate members who came to church with their cps
    > turned on actually changed their ways.
    >


    That was, I beleive, in Mexico that happened.

    Very few laws there, and the ones they do have are not enforced very often.


    >> I of course would want this information for educational purposes only,

    >
    > Ohhhhhhh....of course we believe you!
    >
    > as I
    >> understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.

    >
    > The key idea is what are the enforcement patterns like, what are the
    > chances of prosecution, and chances of punishment/penalty/etc/etc/.
    >
    >> If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be
    >> kind
    >> enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it would
    >> be
    >> appreciated.

    >
    > I have a feeling that they really do work, and are being used in many
    > circumstances (eg. anti-industrial spying, anti-cp at classified defense
    > instalations, and to foil IED control in Iraq).
    >
    >> Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
    >> breach of netiquette in advance.

    >
    > No problem as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    >> Sincerely,
    >>
    >> bc
    >>
    >> meters,etc
    >> "Kurt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>> In article <[email protected]>,
    >>> Straydog <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my
    >>>> heart-attack-car-
    >>>> accident-emergency phone.
    >>>>
    >>>> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,
    >>>> nothing
    >>>> unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
    >>>> courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
    >>>>
    >>>> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
    >>>> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
    >>>> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
    >>>
    >>> Straydog,
    >>>
    >>> You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
    >>> you speak of.
    >>>
    >>> I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a line
    >>> in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
    >>> something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes that
    >>> the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the masses of
    >>> former fashion trends that the high fashion industry (she) had created.
    >>>
    >>> So true.
    >>>
    >>> Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
    >>> phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a few
    >>> years ago.
    >>>
    >>> Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
    >>> couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
    >>> market here on board.
    >>>
    >>> If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see in
    >>> back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
    >>> niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and large
    >>> display.
    >>>
    >>> The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
    >>> retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
    >>> recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
    >>> Doors)
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> To reply by email, remove the word "space"

    >>
    >>
    >>






    See More: Cell-Phone signal blocking




  2. #47
    Simon Templar
    Guest

    Re: Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Andreas Wenzel wrote:
    > "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> BC wrote:
    > >>> [...]
    > >>> I of course would want this information for educational
    > >>> purposes only, as I understand they are illegal to
    > >>> operate in my country, the US. [...]

    >
    > BC wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think I would need that much power!
    >> [...]

    >
    > So your educational purposes can be served with less power?


    TOTALLY ILLEGAL in Australia as well. Short of the Military having the
    capability I don't see any reason for the use of blocking!


    --
    The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
    belong to.

    73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
    <http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>



  3. #48
    mark krawczuk
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    hey , they have to catch ya first.. i been jammin cell fones for nearly 2
    years , right in front of the fcc, and they still cant get me ...ha ha


    "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > > Scott wrote:
    >>> Jer <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>> news:[email protected]:
    >>> >> What part of
    >>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or
    >>> the back half?
    >>>

    > While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle and
    > that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you can't
    > operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can't violate a seemingly
    > infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to
    > the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even
    > beyond what the law requires.
    >
    > In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights do
    > not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio
    > transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone
    > jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.
    >
    > The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the first
    > offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you
    > don't pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell it
    > to pay them.
    > See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below for
    > details.
    >
    > Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat a
    > private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner and
    > ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal
    > codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property
    > rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being fought
    > in the courts with varying outcomes.
    >
    > FCC RULE:
    > Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with
    > Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States
    > In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
    > transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of
    > cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal
    > Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make
    > clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is
    > unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to
    > forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.
    >
    > Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications
    > services to the American public for business and personal communications.
    > Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices ---
    > called "cellular jammers" or "cell phone jammers" --- designed to
    > deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications. Inquiries about the
    > use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by comments that the use of
    > wireless phones in public places is disruptive and annoying.
    > Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the devices may be used
    > on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other locations
    > the public frequents.
    >
    > The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit the
    > manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices
    > within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47
    > USC § 302a(b) and Section 2.803(a) of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR § 2.803(a)).
    > In addition, it is unlawful for any person to willfully or maliciously
    > interfere with the radio communications of any station licensed or
    > authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (See Section
    > 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 333). Further, Section 301 of the
    > Act, 47 USC § 301, requires persons operating or using radio transmitters
    > to be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules.
    >
    > Parties violating the provisions of the Communications Act and/or FCC
    > rules mentioned above may be subject to the penalties set forth in 47 USC
    > §§ 501-510. Monetary forfeitures for a first offense can be as much as
    > $11,000 a day for each violation and could subject the offender to
    > criminal prosecution. Equipment may also be seized by the United States
    > Marshals and forfeited to the U.S. Government.
    >
    > For additional information, contact Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement
    > Division, Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1160 or [email protected].
    >
    > By the Enforcement Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and
    > Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    >
    >
    >






  4. #49
    Richard B. Gilbert
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    mark krawczuk wrote:
    > hey , they have to catch ya first.. i been jammin cell fones for nearly 2
    > years , right in front of the fcc, and they still cant get me ...ha ha
    >
    >
    > "BruceR" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>> Scott wrote:
    >>>> Jer <[email protected]> wrote in
    >>>> news:[email protected]:
    >>>>>> What part of
    >>>> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or
    >>>> the back half?
    >>>>

    >> While you might like to think that one's home is his or her castle and
    >> that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you can't
    >> operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can't violate a seemingly
    >> infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to
    >> the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even
    >> beyond what the law requires.
    >>
    >> In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights do
    >> not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio
    >> transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone
    >> jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.
    >>
    >> The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the first
    >> offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you
    >> don't pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell it
    >> to pay them.
    >> See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below for
    >> details.
    >>
    >> Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat a
    >> private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner and
    >> ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal
    >> codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property
    >> rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being fought
    >> in the courts with varying outcomes.
    >>
    >> FCC RULE:
    >> Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with
    >> Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States
    >> In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
    >> transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of
    >> cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal
    >> Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make
    >> clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is
    >> unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to
    >> forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.
    >>
    >> Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications
    >> services to the American public for business and personal communications.
    >> Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices ---
    >> called "cellular jammers" or "cell phone jammers" --- designed to
    >> deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications. Inquiries about the
    >> use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by comments that the use of
    >> wireless phones in public places is disruptive and annoying.
    >> Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the devices may be used
    >> on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other locations
    >> the public frequents.
    >>
    >> The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit the
    >> manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices
    >> within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47
    >> USC § 302a(b) and Section 2.803(a) of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR § 2.803(a)).
    >> In addition, it is unlawful for any person to willfully or maliciously
    >> interfere with the radio communications of any station licensed or
    >> authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (See Section
    >> 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 333). Further, Section 301 of the
    >> Act, 47 USC § 301, requires persons operating or using radio transmitters
    >> to be licensed or authorized under the Commission's rules.
    >>
    >> Parties violating the provisions of the Communications Act and/or FCC
    >> rules mentioned above may be subject to the penalties set forth in 47 USC
    >> §§ 501-510. Monetary forfeitures for a first offense can be as much as
    >> $11,000 a day for each violation and could subject the offender to
    >> criminal prosecution. Equipment may also be seized by the United States
    >> Marshals and forfeited to the U.S. Government.
    >>
    >> For additional information, contact Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement
    >> Division, Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1160 or [email protected].
    >>
    >> By the Enforcement Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and
    >> Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >


    What you CAN do, if you are sufficiently motivated, is to construct a
    Farraday Shield around your premises. This will sharply attenuate or
    completely block the entire RF spectrum. AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to
    do so. You pay the price of losing broadcast radio and television
    reception (small loss considering the programming!).




  5. #50
    Peter Pan
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

    >>
    >>

    >
    > What you CAN do, if you are sufficiently motivated, is to construct a
    > Farraday Shield around your premises. This will sharply attenuate or
    > completely block the entire RF spectrum. AFAIK, it's perfectly legal
    > to do so. You pay the price of losing broadcast radio and television
    > reception (small loss considering the programming!).


    another option (don't know how to do it tho, just happened to legally
    install hem at two places, i love loopholes , you may notice the regs are
    ONLY for us property within the us....
    >>> FCC RULE:
    >>> Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere
    >>> with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States


    note that doesn't apply to embassies (considered foreign soil) or some
    indian reservations (again considered foreign soil)... have no clue how to
    make private property that tho.... Just thought it was interesting that
    there is a loophole......





  • Similar Threads

    1. General Cell Phone Forum
    2. General Cell Phone Forum
    3. Cingular
    4. alt.cellular.verizon



  • Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234