Cell Phone Blocker

I really doubt that LE and public safety is going to change the way we
do business just because you think that they should change. I would
really like to see you walk up to an officer and tell him that he can't
use his radio because he is invading your space. That would probably
cause him to put those nice shiny braclets on you and place you in the
back of the squad car for a little ride downtown.

--
Mark KS4VT


jer <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Mark Filla wrote:
> > It's not a matter of you calling for public safety, its public safety
> > requesting back-up or assistance from another agency. An officer isn't
> > going to go to a land-line requesting back-up. That isn't the way that
> > we do business.
>
> Maybe they ought to reconsider the way they do business. I won't
> presume to tell anyone how to conduct their business, but I may tell
> them how I intend to conduct my business - maybe not - it depends on
> how I feel at the moment. Personally, I don't care if anyone gets
> their business done, and they're perfectly welcome to feel the same
> way about me. Public safety people have their priorities, I have
> mine. Clearly, we're not together on this, and I'm not posting this
> to mislead anyone into thinking I actually care about those
> differences, because I don't.
>
>
> > As far as my cell phone invading your private space, that won't happen.
> > I happen to be very courteous with my phone, keep it on vibrate almost
> > all the time, and 9 times out of 10 will call the caller back at a later
> > time and the other one time will step away or go outside. Its up to
> > you, me, and other technology savvy individuals to educate the rude,
> > insensitive, or uneducated cell phone users.--
> > Mark KS4VT
>
>
> In that case, you're right, you won't be getting singled out for being
> rude. However, I don't believe it's my lot in life to educate anyone
> about anything, they'll have to deal with their education on their own
> terms. Some folks seem hell bent to learn some things the hard way,
> but they all learn eventually. I've drawn my line in the sand, and
> I'm certain some are foolish enough to step across it thinking nobody
> cares. Trust me, nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>
> --
> 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
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

---

› See More: Cell Phone Blocker

"Mark Filla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No kidding but you don't happen to be up on my previous post that states
> that Public Safety shares the same 800 spectrum. The 10 tower site
> public safety simulcast system that I manage interleaves with NEXTEL on
> 6 of the 28 channels and the other 22 are directly below the 800
> cellular band at 866 and 867 MHz. Case in point, if a cellular blocker
> is deployed in the 800 band, you can and will interfere with any
> existing public safety systems in the 800 MHz spectrum in that same
> area.

Maybe that's true where you are, but here in the UK police and other
emergency services comms are generally somewhere in the 150-170 MHz and
450-470 MHz areas, nowhere near cellular frequencies.

Ivor

That's fine...as I never stating that this is true all over the world,
but you made your point. This was specificially directed towards the US
as the UK has a much different bandplan due to the close proximity of
different countries in a specific geographical area.
--
Mark KS4VT


"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Mark Filla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No kidding but you don't happen to be up on my previous post that states
> > that Public Safety shares the same 800 spectrum. The 10 tower site
> > public safety simulcast system that I manage interleaves with NEXTEL on
> > 6 of the 28 channels and the other 22 are directly below the 800
> > cellular band at 866 and 867 MHz. Case in point, if a cellular blocker
> > is deployed in the 800 band, you can and will interfere with any
> > existing public safety systems in the 800 MHz spectrum in that same
> > area.
>
> Maybe that's true where you are, but here in the UK police and other
> emergency services comms are generally somewhere in the 150-170 MHz and
> 450-470 MHz areas, nowhere near cellular frequencies.
>
> Ivor
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

That's fine...as I never stating that this is true all over the world,
but you made your point. This was specificially directed towards the US
as the UK has a much different bandplan due to the close proximity of
different countries in a specific geographical area.
--
Mark KS4VT


"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
> "Mark Filla" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No kidding but you don't happen to be up on my previous post that states
> > that Public Safety shares the same 800 spectrum. The 10 tower site
> > public safety simulcast system that I manage interleaves with NEXTEL on
> > 6 of the 28 channels and the other 22 are directly below the 800
> > cellular band at 866 and 867 MHz. Case in point, if a cellular blocker
> > is deployed in the 800 band, you can and will interfere with any
> > existing public safety systems in the 800 MHz spectrum in that same
> > area.
>
> Maybe that's true where you are, but here in the UK police and other
> emergency services comms are generally somewhere in the 150-170 MHz and
> 450-470 MHz areas, nowhere near cellular frequencies.
>
> Ivor
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

If anyone is considering utilization of this device in the US, here is
an example of a State Statute (this is Florida's) that you would be
prosecuted with if you interfered with a LE radio system:

843.025 Depriving officer of means of protection or communication--It
is unlawful for any person to deprive a law enforcement officer as
defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional officer as defined in s.
943.10(2), or a correctional probation officer as defined in s.
943.10(3) of her or his weapon or radio or to otherwise deprive the
officer of the means to defend herself or himself or summon assistance.
Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


History.--s. 2, ch. 84-187; s. 2, ch. 92-52; s. 1335, ch. 97-102.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...843/Ch0843.HTM
--
Mark KS4VT


"Cellpoint" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> If you are interested in a device that can block all cellular signals for up
> to 50 Meters, please contact us. This device is for Export Only!!! Not for
> use in the USA.
>
> It is used in applications such as: Theaters, Conferences, Churches,
> Schools, etc...
>
> Samuel Bentolila
> Cellpoint Corporation
> http://www.cellpoint.net
> Toll Free: 877-235-5111
> Outside the US: 954-927-9998
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

If anyone is considering utilization of this device in the US, here is
an example of a State Statute (this is Florida's) that you would be
prosecuted with if you interfered with a LE radio system:

843.025 Depriving officer of means of protection or communication--It
is unlawful for any person to deprive a law enforcement officer as
defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional officer as defined in s.
943.10(2), or a correctional probation officer as defined in s.
943.10(3) of her or his weapon or radio or to otherwise deprive the
officer of the means to defend herself or himself or summon assistance.
Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


History.--s. 2, ch. 84-187; s. 2, ch. 92-52; s. 1335, ch. 97-102.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...843/Ch0843.HTM
--
Mark KS4VT


"Cellpoint" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> If you are interested in a device that can block all cellular signals for up
> to 50 Meters, please contact us. This device is for Export Only!!! Not for
> use in the USA.
>
> It is used in applications such as: Theaters, Conferences, Churches,
> Schools, etc...
>
> Samuel Bentolila
> Cellpoint Corporation
> http://www.cellpoint.net
> Toll Free: 877-235-5111
> Outside the US: 954-927-9998
>
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

" Kate Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| 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??

or is it blocking ALT.CELLULAR.* signals (messages) LOL

" Kate Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| 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??

or is it blocking ALT.CELLULAR.* signals (messages) LOL

Mark Filla wrote:

> I really doubt that LE and public safety is going to change the way we
> do business just because you think that they should change. I would
> really like to see you walk up to an officer and tell him that he can't
> use his radio because he is invading your space. That would probably
> cause him to put those nice shiny braclets on you and place you in the
> back of the squad car for a little ride downtown.
>

I don't expect anyone to change anything just on my say-so, they'll
have to learn why change is a good thing on their own. For the rest
of your post, I've got to ask... where do you get this stuff? it's a
real screamer! ROTFLMAO


--
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

It's in Florida State Statues and we have prosecuted for this offense
(3x) in the past and have won. I get it from past experience
dude...intentional interference is the same as depriving the officer of
his radio as upheld by the courts.

Here is the statute:

843.025 Depriving officer of means of protection or communication--It
is unlawful for any person to deprive a law enforcement officer as
defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional officer as defined in s.
943.10(2), or a correctional probation officer as defined in s.
943.10(3) of her or his weapon or radio or to otherwise deprive the
officer of the means to defend herself or himself or summon assistance.
Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


History.--s. 2, ch. 84-187; s. 2, ch. 92-52; s. 1335, ch. 97-102.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...843/Ch0843.HTM
--

--
Mark KS4VT

For the rest
> of your post, I've got to ask... where do you get this stuff? it's a
> real screamer! ROTFLMAO
>
>
> --
> 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
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

It's in Florida State Statues and we have prosecuted for this offense
(3x) in the past and have won. I get it from past experience
dude...intentional interference is the same as depriving the officer of
his radio as upheld by the courts.

Here is the statute:

843.025 Depriving officer of means of protection or communication--It
is unlawful for any person to deprive a law enforcement officer as
defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional officer as defined in s.
943.10(2), or a correctional probation officer as defined in s.
943.10(3) of her or his weapon or radio or to otherwise deprive the
officer of the means to defend herself or himself or summon assistance.
Any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third
degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


History.--s. 2, ch. 84-187; s. 2, ch. 92-52; s. 1335, ch. 97-102.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...843/Ch0843.HTM
--

--
Mark KS4VT

For the rest
> of your post, I've got to ask... where do you get this stuff? it's a
> real screamer! ROTFLMAO
>
>
> --
> 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
>

[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:16:59 -0000, [email protected] (Mark Filla)
wrote:

>If anyone is considering utilization of this device in the US, here is
>an example of a State Statute (this is Florida's) that you would be
>prosecuted with if you interfered with a LE radio system:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/68/32361.html

Ah, lets prosecute the military then

73's
--
To reply by email please include "usenet" in the subject

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:16:59 -0000, [email protected] (Mark Filla)
wrote:

>If anyone is considering utilization of this device in the US, here is
>an example of a State Statute (this is Florida's) that you would be
>prosecuted with if you interfered with a LE radio system:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/68/32361.html

Ah, lets prosecute the military then

73's
--
To reply by email please include "usenet" in the subject

Mark Filla wrote:

> It's in Florida State Statues and we have prosecuted for this offense
> (3x) in the past and have won. I get it from past experience
> dude...intentional interference is the same as depriving the officer of
> his radio as upheld by the courts.
>
> Here is the statute:
[....]

You can quote all the statutes and histories you want, none of it
matters until you catch someone. Then you gotta prove it. And you
better be quick, I know of at least one that'll be mobile.

--
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

Mark Filla wrote:

> It's in Florida State Statues and we have prosecuted for this offense
> (3x) in the past and have won. I get it from past experience
> dude...intentional interference is the same as depriving the officer of
> his radio as upheld by the courts.
>
> Here is the statute:
[....]

You can quote all the statutes and histories you want, none of it
matters until you catch someone. Then you gotta prove it. And you
better be quick, I know of at least one that'll be mobile.

--
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