Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50
  1. #1
    BC
    Guest
    Hello,

    I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
    signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
    are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
    Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
    comments would be appreciated.

    BC

    [email protected]

    remove spams to reply by email







    See More: Cell-Phone signal blocking




  2. #2
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    BC wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
    > signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
    > are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
    > Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
    > comments would be appreciated.
    >
    > BC



    A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    effectiveness is spot on.


    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  3. #3
    Notan
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Jer wrote:
    > BC wrote:
    >> Hello,
    >>
    >> I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
    >> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
    >> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe
    >> etc.
    >> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
    >> comments would be appreciated.
    >>
    >> BC

    >
    >
    > A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    > strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    > effectiveness is spot on.


    And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you *BIG* bucks!

    --
    Notan



  4. #4
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Notan wrote:
    > Jer wrote:
    >> BC wrote:
    >>> Hello,
    >>>
    >>> I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking
    >>> cell
    >>> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand
    >>> they
    >>> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England,
    >>> Europe etc.
    >>> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
    >>> comments would be appreciated.
    >>>
    >>> BC

    >>
    >>
    >> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    >> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    >> effectiveness is spot on.

    >
    > And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
    > *BIG* bucks!
    >



    It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's a
    lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
    caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny, and
    it's freaking ingenious.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  5. #5
    Notan
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Jer wrote:
    > Notan wrote:
    >> Jer wrote:
    >>> BC wrote:
    >>>> Hello,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking
    >>>> cell
    >>>> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand
    >>>> they
    >>>> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England,
    >>>> Europe etc.
    >>>> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
    >>>> comments would be appreciated.
    >>>>
    >>>> BC
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    >>> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    >>> effectiveness is spot on.

    >>
    >> And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
    >> *BIG* bucks!
    >>

    >
    >
    > It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's a
    > lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
    > caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny, and
    > it's freaking ingenious.


    Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."

    --
    Notan



  6. #6
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Notan wrote:
    > Jer wrote:
    >> Notan wrote:
    >>> Jer wrote:
    >>>> BC wrote:
    >>>>> Hello,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have been reading about the various devices available for
    >>>>> blocking cell
    >>>>> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I
    >>>>> understand they
    >>>>> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England,
    >>>>> Europe etc.
    >>>>> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work?
    >>>>> Any
    >>>>> comments would be appreciated.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> BC
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    >>>> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    >>>> effectiveness is spot on.
    >>>
    >>> And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
    >>> *BIG* bucks!
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's
    >> a lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
    >> caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny,
    >> and it's freaking ingenious.

    >
    > Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."
    >



    Yes, it's his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn't
    share any of it with cell phones. It don't get any simpler than that.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  7. #7
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Jer <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Notan wrote:
    >> Jer wrote:
    >>> Notan wrote:
    >>>> Jer wrote:
    >>>>> BC wrote:
    >>>>>> Hello,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have been reading about the various devices available for
    >>>>>> blocking cell
    >>>>>> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I
    >>>>>> understand they
    >>>>>> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England,
    >>>>>> Europe etc.
    >>>>>> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work?
    >>>>>> Any
    >>>>>> comments would be appreciated.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> BC
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    >>>>> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    >>>>> effectiveness is spot on.
    >>>>
    >>>> And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
    >>>> *BIG* bucks!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's
    >>> a lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
    >>> caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny,
    >>> and it's freaking ingenious.

    >>
    >> Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."
    >>

    >
    >
    > Yes, it's his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn't
    > share any of it with cell phones. It don't get any simpler than that.
    >


    Actually, it's not his air.

    BTW- if it's his private property, why does he need to worry about cell
    phone usage on it in the first place?



  8. #8
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Scott wrote:
    > Jer <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Notan wrote:
    >>> Jer wrote:
    >>>> Notan wrote:
    >>>>> Jer wrote:
    >>>>>> BC wrote:
    >>>>>>> Hello,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I have been reading about the various devices available for
    >>>>>>> blocking cell
    >>>>>>> signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I
    >>>>>>> understand they
    >>>>>>> are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England,
    >>>>>>> Europe etc.
    >>>>>>> Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work?
    >>>>>>> Any
    >>>>>>> comments would be appreciated.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> BC
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in
    >>>>>> strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their
    >>>>>> effectiveness is spot on.
    >>>>> And if you're caught without the proper authorization, it'll cost you
    >>>>> *BIG* bucks!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's his private property, so I don't think he cares. He figures he's
    >>>> a lot like the U.S. government - he does whatever he wants - getting
    >>>> caught is someone else's problem. I've seen how he avoids scrutiny,
    >>>> and it's freaking ingenious.
    >>> Unless he owns the air, and he doesn't, it's not "his private property."
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes, it's his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn't
    >> share any of it with cell phones. It don't get any simpler than that.
    >>

    >
    > Actually, it's not his air.
    >
    > BTW- if it's his private property, why does he need to worry about cell
    > phone usage on it in the first place?



    I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be
    disturbed. Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco,
    some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some
    don't allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me. What part of
    "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the
    back half?

    Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
    should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private property.
    Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When
    they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice. Simple,
    straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle
    that just fine, but that's just me.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  9. #9
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Jer <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:


    >
    >
    > I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be
    > disturbed. Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco,
    > some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some
    > don't allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me.



    As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A
    blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol
    on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that
    category as well.

    > What part of
    > "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or
    > the back half?
    >
    > Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
    > should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private
    > property.


    Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented
    opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously
    are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given
    situation. Wait- no I don't. Your ego and inability to live by
    predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for
    advice.


    > Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When
    > they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.


    Or backwoods stupidity.

    > Simple,
    > straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle
    > that just fine, but that's just me.
    >





  10. #10
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Scott wrote:
    > Jer <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> I presume it has something to do with visitors who don't want to be
    >> disturbed. Some people don't allow photos, some don't allow tobacco,
    >> some don't allow alcohol, some don't allow personal fragrances, some
    >> don't allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me.

    >
    >
    > As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A
    > blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol
    > on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that
    > category as well.
    >
    >> What part of
    >> "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or
    >> the back half?
    >>
    >> Look, I'm not going to engage in any debate here about what activities
    >> should or shouldn't be allowed when visiting someone's private
    >> property.

    >
    > Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented
    > opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously
    > are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given
    > situation. Wait- no I don't. Your ego and inability to live by
    > predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for
    > advice.
    >
    >
    >> Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When
    >> they don't, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.

    >
    > Or backwoods stupidity.
    >
    >> Simple,
    >> straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle
    >> that just fine, but that's just me.
    >>

    >


    I can see some still don't understand the rights of private property
    ownership. I'll admit I don't always agree with them either, but I do
    respect them.

    <sigh>


    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  11. #11
    BruceR
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking



    > 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.






  12. #12
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    BruceR wrote:
    > > 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.



    Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
    familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't even
    involve me. Take a break.


    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  13. #13
    BruceR
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking



    Jer wrote:
    > BruceR wrote:
    >> > 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.

    >
    >
    > Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
    > familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
    > even involve me. Take a break.


    Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
    (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
    reply, don't post.





  14. #14
    Jer
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    BruceR wrote:
    > Jer wrote:
    >> BruceR wrote:
    >>> > 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.

    >>
    >> Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I'm somewhat
    >> familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don't
    >> even involve me. Take a break.

    >
    > Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal
    > (presumably in the US). It's not. If you can't stand a challenging
    > reply, don't post.
    >
    >



    If you can't keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge,
    I'd offer the same recommendation. So, to help you...

    To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
    nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
    mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
    the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
    to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs
    and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'



  15. #15
    Scott
    Guest

    Re: Cell-Phone signal blocking

    Jer <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:


    >
    > To the OP: These folks say it's illegal, I've already said I don't know
    > nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I've already
    > mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats
    > the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can't seem
    > to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.



    Too bad we can't adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of
    course, you'd have to find something else to do with your time.

    You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to
    make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were,
    I'd do something about that anger control issue.


    > FCC regs
    > and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.
    >


    Case closed.



  • Similar Threads

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



  • Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast