Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 113
  1. #46
    John Navas
    Guest

    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




  2. #47
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  3. #48
    Steve
    Guest

    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.




  4. #49
    Steve
    Guest

    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.




  5. #50
    Steve
    Guest

    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.



  6. #51
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  7. #52
    Dave
    Guest

    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



  8. #53
    wildhaggis
    Guest

    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]






  9. #54
    jer
    Guest

    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




  10. #55
    John Navas
    Guest

    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>



  11. #56
    G
    Guest

    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
    >
    >






  12. #57
    G
    Guest

    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>






  13. #58
    G
    Guest

    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.
    >






  14. #59
    jer
    Guest

    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




  15. #60
    John Navas
    Guest

    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

    1. LG
    2. alt.cellular.motorola
    3. alt.cellular.verizon
    4. Info: Cell Phones
      General Cell Phone Forum



  • Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast