Re: short range, directional mobile phone jammer?

JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:

> alexd wrote:
> > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >
> >> Not only that but you would get nicked.
> >
> > ...and probably on trumped up terrorism charges, at that. Best make sure you
> > look good in an orange jumpsuit before you turn on that GSM jammer, sonny!
> >
>
> Pressing buttons on suspicious-looking gadgets might provoke
> a more immediate response from fellow passengers.

This one looks like a phone.
http://starportuk.com/91.htm

paranoid bob <paranoid.bob@example.com> wrote in
news:d1632181bc1701c14cb60e8e07e43876@pseudo.borke d.net:

> JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> alexd wrote:
>> > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not only that but you would get nicked.
>> >
>> > ...and probably on trumped up terrorism charges, at that. Best make
>> > sure you look good in an orange jumpsuit before you turn on that
>> > GSM jammer, sonny!
>> >
>>
>> Pressing buttons on suspicious-looking gadgets might provoke
>> a more immediate response from fellow passengers.
>
> This one looks like a phone.
> http://starportuk.com/91.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Spec: Jams GSM phones only. Suitable for use throughout Europe, The
Middle East & Africa. Not suitable for North America."

.....before the Americans and Canadians reading this have their orgasms
and waste their money.....(c;

Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of the
scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across the planet
without paying exhorbitant amounts.





These bastards keep calling me so I'm feeding them to the spambots.
--
Sunrise Communications
1374 E. Republic Rd.
Springfield, MO 65804
866-483-1228
417-886-7091
http://www.sunrisecommunicationsinc.com/
877-842-3210
866-842-3278
United Healthcare
http://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/

there once was an idea to jam the main stations so as to generate more BT
phone revenue


"paranoid bob" <paranoid.bob@example.com> wrote in message
news:d1632181bc1701c14cb60e8e07e43876@pseudo.borke d.net...
> JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> alexd wrote:
>> > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not only that but you would get nicked.
>> >
>> > ...and probably on trumped up terrorism charges, at that. Best make
>> > sure you
>> > look good in an orange jumpsuit before you turn on that GSM jammer,
>> > sonny!
>> >
>>
>> Pressing buttons on suspicious-looking gadgets might provoke
>> a more immediate response from fellow passengers.
>
> This one looks like a phone.
> http://starportuk.com/91.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>

Larry schrieb:
> [...]
> Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of the
> scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across the planet
> without paying exhorbitant amounts.

You haven't noticed that about 90% of all phones are quadband, these days?

paranoid bob (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<d1632181bc1701c14cb60e8e07e43876@pseudo.borked.ne t>:

>> Pressing buttons on suspicious-looking gadgets might provoke
>> a more immediate response from fellow passengers.
>
> This one looks like a phone.
> http://starportuk.com/91.htm

That only makes it even more suspicious.
--
ξ Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in
news:f9hqco$bl5$1@online.de:

> Larry schrieb:
>> [...]
>> Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of
>> the scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across
>> the planet without paying exhorbitant amounts.
>
> You haven't noticed that about 90% of all phones are quadband, these
> days?
>

You haven't noticed that about 100% of the calls made in the US are not
made on all four of those bands these days?

Scott schrieb:
> Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in
> news:f9hqco$bl5$1@online.de:
>
>> Larry schrieb:
>>> [...]
>>> Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of
>>> the scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across
>>> the planet without paying exhorbitant amounts.
>> You haven't noticed that about 90% of all phones are quadband, these
>> days?
>>
>
> You haven't noticed that about 100% of the calls made in the US are not
> made on all four of those bands these days?

And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what? And
don't you say "exorbitant" ;-)

My guess is that this price is even a negative one because the
manufacturers no longer need to feed two production lines for NA and the
rest of the world.

Andreas

Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in news:f9igi7$fom$1@online.de:

> Scott schrieb:
>> Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in
>> news:f9hqco$bl5$1@online.de:
>>
>>> Larry schrieb:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of
>>>> the scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across
>>>> the planet without paying exhorbitant amounts.
>>> You haven't noticed that about 90% of all phones are quadband, these
>>> days?
>>>
>>
>> You haven't noticed that about 100% of the calls made in the US are not
>> made on all four of those bands these days?
>
> And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what?


To allow the user to take the phone overseas and use it on other networks-
any user with even minimal knowledge of the technology knows that. So your
implied claim that the overseas jammers would work on a US quad-band phone
simply because the ability to make calls on those frequencies exists on the
phone demonstrates a deficiency ion your knowledge base.

Scott schrieb:
> Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in news:f9igi7$fom$1@online.de:
>
>> Scott schrieb:
>>> Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in
>>> news:f9hqco$bl5$1@online.de:
>>>
>>>> Larry schrieb:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Europe is on different frequencies than North America....all part of
>>>>> the scheme to prevent us from having a phone that will work across
>>>>> the planet without paying exhorbitant amounts.
>>>> You haven't noticed that about 90% of all phones are quadband, these
>>>> days?
>>>>
>>> You haven't noticed that about 100% of the calls made in the US are not
>>> made on all four of those bands these days?
>> And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what?
>
>
> To allow the user to take the phone overseas and use it on other networks-
> any user with even minimal knowledge of the technology knows that. So your
> implied claim that the overseas jammers would work on a US quad-band phone
> simply because the ability to make calls on those frequencies exists on the
> phone demonstrates a deficiency ion your knowledge base.

I argued Larry's assumption that the sole reason for North America using
other frequencies than Europe is the phone manufacturers intention to
charge "exorbitant amounts" for phones that work across the planet.

Where do you see me talking about jammers in this subthread?

Andreas

At 10 Aug 2007 22:20:10 +0200 Andreas Wenzel wrote:

> And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what? And
don't you say "exorbitant" ;-)


Depends on your definition of exhorbitant. Most low-end phones are still
dual or tri-band, because those chipsets are cheaper. On a smartphone
that costs $300 to manufacture a $10-20 increase in cost for quad-band
Vs. tri-band is justifiable- on a phone made for emerging markets like
China or India, where the phone needs to be manufactured for less than $40,
$10-20 is exhorbitant.


> My guess is that this price is even a negative one because the
> manufacturers no longer need to feed two production lines for NA and
> the rest of the world.

Not really- as I indicated above, the cost is still positive, hence low-
end phones still having fewer bands or market-specfic models (i.e. the
Nokia 1100 and 6030 are 850/1900-only for the North American market,
900/1800-only for Europe.)


--

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Todd Allcock schrieb:
> At 10 Aug 2007 22:20:10 +0200 Andreas Wenzel wrote:
>
>> And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what? And
> don't you say "exorbitant" ;-)
>
>
> Depends on your definition of exhorbitant. Most low-end phones are still
> dual or tri-band, because those chipsets are cheaper. On a smartphone
> that costs $300 to manufacture a $10-20 increase in cost for quad-band
> Vs. tri-band is justifiable- on a phone made for emerging markets like
> China or India, where the phone needs to be manufactured for less than $40,
> $10-20 is exhorbitant. [...]

If you put those $10-20 in relation to the cost of trans atlantic
travel, you can hardly call that exorbitant. People buying 40$ phones
are hardly world travellers.

However, I still think it is redicilous to belive that the current
frequency regulations have been designed to rip off travellers by asking
a surcharge of 20$ per phone for global coverage. If you are looking for
a ripoff scheme, you should rather take a look at roaming charges...

Andreas

Andreas Wenzel <awspambucket@gmx.de> wrote in
news:f9jr9o$eif$1@online.de:

> Todd Allcock schrieb:
>> At 10 Aug 2007 22:20:10 +0200 Andreas Wenzel wrote:
>>
>>> And the added price for making a phone quadband is exactly what? And
>> don't you say "exorbitant" ;-)
>>
>>
>> Depends on your definition of exhorbitant. Most low-end phones are
>> still dual or tri-band, because those chipsets are cheaper. On a
>> smartphone that costs $300 to manufacture a $10-20 increase in cost
>> for quad-band Vs. tri-band is justifiable- on a phone made for
>> emerging markets like China or India, where the phone needs to be
>> manufactured for less than $40, $10-20 is exhorbitant. [...]
>
> If you put those $10-20 in relation to the cost of trans atlantic
> travel, you can hardly call that exorbitant. People buying 40$ phones
> are hardly world travellers.
>
> However, I still think it is redicilous to belive that the current
> frequency regulations have been designed to rip off travellers by
> asking a surcharge of 20$ per phone for global coverage. If you are
> looking for a ripoff scheme, you should rather take a look at roaming
> charges...
>

People complaining about a $20 difference in price are hardly world
travelers.