"the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece

Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers

Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
turn off that annoying chatter

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter


The potential for these devices to interfere with important
frequencies is dismissed very quickly...

<quote>
Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."

I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
</quote>


....which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.

The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
dismissed out of hand.

>
> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
> Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
> the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
> </quote>

Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to control
signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an electronic
radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...

On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter

I don't have problems with people, the ringtones are annoying
sometimes, but so is smelly food and inane chatter, and I don't want
food banned.

I do have a problem with people thinking earphones are unneccersary.

It strikes me that people complaining about mobile phones only travel
at peak, where thats the only sound. Travel offpeak in cattle class
and you pine for the peace of peak.

Personally I think that anyone with a standard season ticket should
get a first class upgrade at weekends.

"Mizter T" <mizter.t@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> The potential for these devices to interfere with important
> frequencies is dismissed very quickly...
>
> <quote>
> Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
> the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
> interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
> users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
> used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
> Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
> the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
> </quote>
>
>
> ...which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
> cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
> frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
> likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
> of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
> providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.
>
> The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
> general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
> jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
> knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
> dismissed out of hand.

Indeed, GSM-R operates within the extended GSM 900 band (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands), so there is potential to
cut communications to the driver and cab signalling.

D

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>>
>> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>>
>> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
>> turn off that annoying chatter
>
>
>The potential for these devices to interfere with important
>frequencies is dismissed very quickly...
>
><quote>
>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."

They said the same in the late 1950s when people were building RF
oscillators to make the new fangled transistor radios people played
where they weren't appreciated, squeal. And the answer was the same
then as it is now - they ain't got the range.

>I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
>Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
>the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
></quote>
>
>
>...which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
>cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
>frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
>likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
>of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
>providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.
>
>The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
>general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
>jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
>knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
>dismissed out of hand.

In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>>> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to
>>> ruin Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to
>>> bring the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
> critical" applications.

No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
somewhere...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In message U9SdnRgXyY23-MjanZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com,
ChrisM <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>>>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on
>>>> a train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to
>>>> ruin Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to
>>>> bring the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>>> </quote>
>>>
>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>
>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>> critical" applications.
>
> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
> somewhere...

Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio" and
although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links properly,
it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to some degree
within the railway networks...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>
>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>> critical" applications.
>>
>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>> somewhere...
>
> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio"
> and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links
> properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to
> some degree within the railway networks...
>

Yes one such system is called GSM-R, which can be used for cab signaling and
voice - see my other post.

D

* Nomen Nescio wrote:
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle2889295.ece
>
> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>
> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
> turn off that annoying chatter
>

I'd like to see them jam my WiFi phone.

On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <jon.lamb...@accessplus.co.uk> wrote:
> I think Midland Main Line used them all the time, I can't get a signal
> for more than 10 seconds anywhere between Leicester and St P. Will be
> interesting to see if Stage Coach/East Midlands Trains (or whatever
> they are called now) have inherited them :-)

This is believed to be something in the windows, and not an active
jamming device (which would get them in serious trouble).

Also blocks DAB, which is annoying, and I've had difficulty with GPS
on the class 222s, even.

--
Abi

"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
> >
>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
>> Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
>> the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>> </quote>
>
> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an
> electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
> Blimey. Don't tell the IRA. Just the sort of soft option they like.
>

"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:X-CdnTAAuo0o-8jaRVnytAA@bt.com...
> In message U9SdnRgXyY23-MjanZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com,
> ChrisM <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> Proclaimed from the tallest
> tower:
>
>> In message Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com,
>> MichaelJP <mjp@nospam.com> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>>
>>> "ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>>>>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on
>>>>> a train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to
>>>>> ruin Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to
>>>>> bring the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>>>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case,
>>>> an electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>>>
>>> Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering
>>> decision. Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all
>>> sorts of interference and certainly can't be relied on for "mission
>>> critical" applications.
>>
>> No, I'm not at all sure, just I thought I'd read something about it
>> somewhere...
>
> Having said that, I just did a quick Google for "rail signalling radio"
> and although I don't have time at the moment to read any of the links
> properly, it does seem that (secure?) radio links are used at least to
> some degree within the railway networks...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Chris.
> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>To talk maybe?

In article <b3842569-a505-416f-8190-a3640a92967b@e25g2000prg.googlegroup
s.com>, Mizter T <mizter.t@gmail.com> scribeth thus
>On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...eb/gadgets_and...
>>
>> Silent but deadly, the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers
>>
>> Suffering commuter Matt Rudd discovers there are a daring few who can
>> turn off that annoying chatter
>
>
>The potential for these devices to interfere with important
>frequencies is dismissed very quickly...
>
><quote>
>Ofcom, the UK's communications regulator, is quick to point out that
>the jammers are illegal for good reason: "They cause deliberate
>interference to the radio spectrum which can cause a nuisance to other
>users and at worst are dangerous - potentially jamming the frequencies
>used by the emergency and safety-of-life services."
>
>I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
>Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
>the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
></quote>
>
>
>...which hardly constitutes an analysis of whether these devices could
>cause wider problems. I'd be very interested to know how tightly the
>frequency jamming is drawn on these devices, and whether they are
>likely to disturb more critical radio communications - not just that
>of the emergency services, but also the radio networks of transport
>providers such as Network Rail and the various bus companies.
>
>The author of the Times piece would appear to subscribe to the more
>general cynicism about warnings from the powers that be that mobile
>jamming devices might affect critical radio communications. Without
>knowing the details, I'm far from happy for these warnings to be
>dismissed out of hand.

Now potential jammer.


How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
minute, or a whole host of other calls.

OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming .. don't think
so..

And who's approving these devices anyway .. and railway GSM anyone?....
--
Tony Sayer

In article <Tod5j.195571$I52.2843@fe07.news.easynews.com>, MichaelJP
<mjp@nospam.com> scribeth thus
>
>"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6padnbMS_Jhqx8janZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >
>>> I like the bit about causing a nuisance - an eye for an eye and all
>>> that. But the risk to safety-of-life services? Oh, come on. I'm on a
>>> train. I'm going to switch the thing on for only a few seconds to ruin
>>> Derek's blow-the-bonus-in-Barbados chat. It's hardly going to bring
>>> the London Ambulance Service to its knees.
>>> </quote>
>>
>> Am I not right in thinking that the rail services use radio links to
>> control signals and points at least some of the time. In which case, an
>> electronic radio jammer could be seriously dangerous...
>
>Are you sure?? If so, that seems an extremely rash engineering decision.
>Radio comms in a surface environment is subject to all sorts of interference
>and certainly can't be relied on for "mission critical" applications.
>
>

Umm...Aircraft comms anyone?...
--
Tony Sayer