Results 46 to 60 of 113
- 08-10-2003, 03:43 PM #46John NavasGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 10 Aug 2003 11:33:20
-0700, [email protected] (Gary) wrote:
>Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
>a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
>rights.
Civil rights applies only to government, not business or private individuals.
>Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
>talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
>uninjured?
You don't have a free speech right on the premises of a business, or in my
house. I'm wouldn't stuff a rag in your mouth (not because of afraid on any
injury -- that's just silly and reckless bravado on your part) -- I'd simply
tell you to leave.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
› See More: Cell Phone Blocker
- 08-10-2003, 03:46 PM #47John NavasGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:59:26 +0100,
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager service
>> coverage is much better than cell service coverage.
>
>From the of "Cingular" in your signature, I'm assuming you're in the USA.
Correct.
>Pager coverage may well be more extensive there, but here in the UK hardly
>anyone uses pagers any more, since cellular coverage is so good.
I think you might be surprised. Pager signals have far better penetration
than cellular. Even where cellular coverage is very good, there will still be
many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work and cellular doesn't.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-10-2003, 04:40 PM #48SteveGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bh5b52$2jh$1
@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
> With respect, if you were on call for an emergency service, I am sure that
> nobody would object, but when it is purely someone blabbing to their
> boy/girlfriend about what they were planning for the weekend, I would
> guess even you might get irritated after a while.
With respect, you clearly have some sort of problem, I have never seen "No
talking" signs on busses/trains/resteraunts. Perhaps your irrational
irritation is because you are just plain nosey and dislike eavesdropping when
you can only hear one side. Why not stop worring about what other people are
planning for their weekends and plan your own.
- 08-10-2003, 04:46 PM #49SteveGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bh60tj$jf9$1
@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
> "Lofty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
>> blocker.
>
> I'm with you there ;-)
>
>> I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic
> rather
>> than acoustic devices,
>> and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which
> if
>> freely available would destroy
>> one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.
>
> I agree, what I was proposing wasn't freely available blockers, but that
> they be fitted to buses, trains and other public places such as cinemas
> where use of a phone would be considered unsocial.
>
Replace phone use with conversation and the only place where it is unsocial
is the cinema, I see no reason to ban conversation in the other places.
As for the cinema, then there are still legitimate used for phones, you can
set silent mode and receive text messages which you may need to be able to
receive.
- 08-10-2003, 04:51 PM #50SteveGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:59:26
> +0100, "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>> A pager is a more practical and more workable solution, since pager
>>> service coverage is much better than cell service coverage.
>>
>>From the of "Cingular" in your signature, I'm assuming you're in the
>>USA.
>
> Correct.
>
>>Pager coverage may well be more extensive there, but here in the UK
>>hardly anyone uses pagers any more, since cellular coverage is so good.
>
> I think you might be surprised. Pager signals have far better
> penetration than cellular. Even where cellular coverage is very good,
> there will still be many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work
> and cellular doesn't.
A short message needs a less stable signal, I often use SMS when the network
is congested, SMS is very popular these days in Europe and Asia, last time I
was in your country the mobile coverage was pretty primitive so sure you
probably still need these legacy devices.
- 08-10-2003, 05:01 PM #51John NavasGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on 10 Aug 2003 22:51:37 GMT,
Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> I think you might be surprised. Pager signals have far better
>> penetration than cellular. Even where cellular coverage is very good,
>> there will still be many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work
>> and cellular doesn't.
>
>A short message needs a less stable signal,
It still needs a signal. No signal; no message.
>I often use SMS when the network
>is congested,
I prefer a network that isn't congested.
>SMS is very popular these days in Europe and Asia,
So I hear. It's becoming more popular here, but still has a long way to go.
>last time I
>was in your country the mobile coverage was pretty primitive so sure you
>probably still need these legacy devices.
As I wrote, even where cellular coverage is very good, there will still be
many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work and cellular [SMS included]
doesn't.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-10-2003, 05:50 PM #52DaveGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
John Navas <[email protected]> writes
>As I wrote, even where cellular coverage is very good, there will still
>be many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work and cellular [SMS
>included] doesn't.
That may be true in your country, it won't necessarily be the case
elsewhere.
Here in the UK, paging never really gained mass-market appeal, the
networks There's now only one nationwide paging company (Page One) who
claim about 500,000 customers and their coverage is 98% of the UK
population.
Compare that to Orange which is one of the 4 nationwide GSM networks
that cover more than 99% of the population [1]. They have 13.3 million
customers - that's more than a fifth of the population connected to that
network alone.
As you lot say... go figure.
[1] Covering that extra 1% of the population requires a big increase in
landmass coverage.
--
Dave
- 08-10-2003, 08:02 PM #53wildhaggisGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
Be careful buying signal blockers - they are ILLEGAL in ALL EC countries.
We sold them for a while - until one day a couple of "chaps" arrived from
the Radiological Protection Agency - a UK Government body - part of the
DTi - took our stock away and threatened to prosecute.
In the end we settled with then that they could keep the blockers / destroy
them and no prosecution would proceed.
In fairess once they explained why they were taking what seemed to be a
draconian line - it no longer appeared so. Firstly, in the UK / EC some
Emergency services are licensed to use the GSM frequencies - therefore
blocking signals has life threatening potential. In addition, they have been
used in major robberies where they blocked Police & security signals.
Although the blockers we sold were only rated at about 0.5 watts, they were
powerful enough to completely block main cell-links up to about 30 metres
away!
www.activemobiles.com
"m thaler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Couldn't find such an item on the web site posted.
>
> ...mike
>
> "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]
- 08-11-2003, 12:04 AM #54jerGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
Richard Colton wrote:
> "jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Steven J Sobol wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>We don't care if it's illegal.
>>
>
>
> No, you got that one totally wrong, the words you were looking for would
> mean that YOU don't care - some of us do, so don't presume to speak for me
> in future.
>
No, I was right in the first place, I meant 'we' as in a dozen or so
of my mates, none of whom has participated in this silly thread. So,
sorry to bust your bubble Richey, but you were the last thing on my
mind when I posted my comment.
But, I should get one of those things, I can hear Sheri now, "Is THAT
a cell blocker in your pants or are you happy to see me?" A million
laughs. But at least I'll be able to actually hear the punchline
instead of some silly ringtone, or the blather of mom trying to
convince her 8 y/o to go potty before picking them up for soccer
practice. A million laughs I tell ya, and they're all mine.
--
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
- 08-11-2003, 12:20 AM #55John NavasGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:50:16 +0100,
Dave <${news.reply.0803}[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas <[email protected]> writes
>>As I wrote, even where cellular coverage is very good, there will still
>>be many places (e.g., in buildings) where pagers work and cellular [SMS
>>included] doesn't.
>
>That may be true in your country, it won't necessarily be the case
>elsewhere.
I didn't mean to suggest that.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-11-2003, 02:23 AM #56GGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
Is people talking, coughing etc. dangerous to the bus or driver? Silence on
the bus!
Maybe buses should be run without passengers to keep them *ultra* safe.
And you're dead right. Buses are not in the same category as aircraft. And
bus drivers are not in the same category as aircraft pilots. And phones *do
not* interfere with bus drivers any more than normal speech does. If they
did, they would be as illegal as using a phone on a plane is. I think you'll
find that the whole civil rights thing is a fine balance of rights of the
individual versus (in this case) safety of the majority, which is why phones
are disallowed on planes (i.e. there is a *real* reason they're dangerous).
I doubt its because the pilot claims "oooh, they're too loud and I might
crash the plane".
Just because they're a "petty hate" of yours does not make them dangerous.
And when was the last time you heard a mobile phone blasting out as loud as
a stereo? Yes, you will get the occasional person yelling into the phone,
just as you'll get the occasional person yelling at his friend/partner (with
no phone involved), or being a drunken fool. In that instance, yes they may
constitute a tangible distraction, and yes they should be removed from the
vehicle, as is your right and indeed your responsibility.
And that little thing flying way over your head;
> > May I humbly suggest a high-tech solution for the bus driver with the
> > mobile phone problem, which will also cure irritation arising from
> > people conversing to actual people sitting next to them as well:
> >
> > http://www.pep-earplugs.co.uk/
>
> Unsafe and probably not legal as it would prevent hearing of traffic
> noise.
was what some may refer to as firmly tongue-in-cheek, but I guess you missed
that (do not the noisy ickle cars and lorries disturb your concentration
too???). And I doubt they're illegal as the website itself advertises them
for use by motorcyclists to lower background noise and improve ability to
hear traffic warning signals, which I assume is what you're listening for
when those pesky phone users are distracting you.
"Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Gary" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
> > a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
> > rights. Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
> > talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
> > uninjured?
>
> Is it an infringement of civil rights not to be allowed use of phones
> aboard aircraft..? Perhaps the small matter of interference with avionics
> is unimportant..?
>
> Whilst I would be the first to admit a bus is not in the same category and
> a phone is unlikely to interfere with the vehicle's systems, if it
> distracts the driver then it *is* a safety concern. There is a large
> notice displayed in most if not all buses, next to the driver, which
> states that the conditions of carriage prohibit the use of radios,
> cassettes etc. and that passengers must not distract the driver. I would
> humbly suggest that a very loud conversation, whether on the phone or not,
> constitutes distraction and therefore a threat to safety.
>
> > May I humbly suggest a high-tech solution for the bus driver with the
> > mobile phone problem, which will also cure irritation arising from
> > people conversing to actual people sitting next to them as well:
> >
> > http://www.pep-earplugs.co.uk/
>
> Unsafe and probably not legal as it would prevent hearing of traffic
> noise.
>
> Ivor
>
>
- 08-11-2003, 02:39 AM #57GGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
> You don't have a free speech right
Erm, yes I do. Just as you'd have the right to ask me to leave if you didn't
like it.
> reckless bravado on your part
Erm, no. Just making the point that this is not what you'd do, or indeed
what I'd do either. And the bus driving gentleman is perfectly entitled to
ask people to step off his bus for whatever reason he sees fit, I was not
stating that he wasn't; I just don't see how phone use is any different from
talking. Or how busy the bus would be if he asked everyone to step off for
talking.
> or in my house.
I doubt your house would ever be a public service or a mode of transport.
Hence I wouldn't see any reason to be there. And do your house guests have
to ask for your permission before speaking or using their phones?
"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:I%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on 10 Aug 2003
11:33:20
> -0700, [email protected] (Gary) wrote:
>
> >Hmmm, the whole idea of preventing use of cell phones other than with
> >a "can you turn it off, please" smacks of an infringment of civil
> >rights.
>
> Civil rights applies only to government, not business or private
individuals.
>
> >Would anyone go and stuff a rag in someones mouth if they're
> >talking (as much as they may want to ;-) ) and stay free and/or
> >uninjured?
>
> You don't have a free speech right on the premises of a business, or in my
> house. I'm wouldn't stuff a rag in your mouth (not because of afraid on
any
> injury -- that's just silly and reckless bravado on your part) -- I'd
simply
> tell you to leave.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 08-11-2003, 02:47 AM #58GGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
Agreed. I've been in the cinema with friends on call from several
professions, and the phone has lit up, they've left, and no-one else has
been any the wiser. Enables them to do other things while being on call,
that they'd otherwise not be able to do. Put in a signal blocker and there's
a rash of places they can't do it anymore, as currently there are very few
places around without a reasonable signal.
When used reasonably and considerately, there's nothing wrong with mobile
phone use anywhere.
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ivor Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bh60tj$jf9$1
> @news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > "Lofty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Sounds like what we all need is a Loud Person Gag rather than a signal
> >> blocker.
> >
> > I'm with you there ;-)
> >
> >> I'm sure the majority of phone users realise that they are electronic
> > rather
> >> than acoustic devices,
> >> and we perhaps need to eductae the shouters rather than a device which
> > if
> >> freely available would destroy
> >> one of the best inventions of the late 20th century.
> >
> > I agree, what I was proposing wasn't freely available blockers, but that
> > they be fitted to buses, trains and other public places such as cinemas
> > where use of a phone would be considered unsocial.
> >
>
> Replace phone use with conversation and the only place where it is
unsocial
> is the cinema, I see no reason to ban conversation in the other places.
>
> As for the cinema, then there are still legitimate used for phones, you
can
> set silent mode and receive text messages which you may need to be able to
> receive.
>
- 08-11-2003, 05:31 AM #59jerGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
G wrote:
> Agreed. I've been in the cinema with friends on call from several
> professions, and the phone has lit up, they've left, and no-one else has
> been any the wiser. Enables them to do other things while being on call,
> that they'd otherwise not be able to do. Put in a signal blocker and there's
> a rash of places they can't do it anymore, as currently there are very few
> places around without a reasonable signal.
>
> When used reasonably and considerately, there's nothing wrong with mobile
> phone use anywhere.
According to my experience, your mates would be the few exceptions
around here. I actually met a reasonable and considerate bloke a few
months ago, killed a coupla brain cells with him at the pub, he's been
a regular there ever since. Inconsiderate blokes get the same from me
in return, and there's enough of those to fill several pubs.
--
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
- 08-11-2003, 09:26 AM #60John NavasGuest
Re: Cell Phone Blocker
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
09:39:20 +0100, "G" <cool_and_funky@*-nospamthanks_*yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You don't have a free speech right
>
>Erm, yes I do. Just as you'd have the right to ask me to leave if you didn't
>like it.
Erm, no you don't. The Constitution just says, "Congress shall make no
law..." That doesn't apply to non-governmental entities. Hence, in their
own venues, individuals and businesses can and do limit what people can say.
>... I just don't see how phone use is any different from
>talking. ...
Because cellular is often hard to understand, particularly in noisy
environments, people tend to talk much louder on a cell phone than when
talking privately to someone sitting next to them. As a result, cellular
tends to be more like a broadcast than a private conversation. Only one side
of the conversation is being broadcast, which increases the annoyance factor.
And the content of a cellular call is often more personal than a typical
conversation -- people that wouldn't normally (say) argue together in public,
will (loudly) argue over cellular. So while it is possible for cellular to be
used unobtrusively, it gets a bad rap because so many people don't use it that
way. In other words, this is about behavior and common courtesy, not
technology, but banning the technology is an effective way to control the
behavior.
>> or in my house.
>
>I doubt your house would ever be a public service or a mode of transport.
>Hence I wouldn't see any reason to be there. And do your house guests have
>to ask for your permission before speaking or using their phones?
When people persist in being rude in my house, I advise them to leave, and
they do. Doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. Smoking has been the
most common reason, but I wouldn't tolerate rude cellular behavior either.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Similar Threads
- LG
- alt.cellular.motorola
- alt.cellular.verizon
-
Info: Cell Phones
General Cell Phone Forum
¿Quién edita la foto?
in Chit Chat