Cell Phone Blocker

> When in the USA you're subject to US law, including the Constitution, just
as
> I'm subject to UK law when in the UK.

Obviously. I reiterate, I'm not. What is your point?

> The First Amendment precludes...

Uninterested. See above. And where did I mention anything about a
"demonstration"? I think your interpretation of my use of the term "free
speech" is confused. To clarify, my use of "free speech" equates to "saying
what I like when I like". I have no desire to investigate the US
constitution adequately enough to argue the point further, but feel free to
point out where it denies one the right to freely express opinions in a
non-demonstrative manner.

> >but you may ask me to
> >leave or remove me from your "venue" if you don't like it.
>
> That too

Not disputed.

> Guns are in fact controlled in many ways, and prohibited in many venues.

Ineffectually. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_11.pdf

> I don't use or advocate blockers. Whatever made you think that? I was
mostly
> interested in the bogus free speech issue, although I do support banning
the
> non-silent use of cell phones in certain places (e.g., libraries, during
> performances), and the complete use of cell phones where appropriate
(e.g.,
> near equipment that could be disrupted).

Fair enough, follow the thread and see what made me think it. I don't agree
the free speech issue is bogus however, despite governmental differences.
Your use of a "demonstration" related case I find to be irrelevant, as a
demonstration is not in discussion. I agree with the banning of cell-phones
in the manner you speak of, as that's a combination of common courtesy and
common sense (of which there appears to be a vast shortage of in general); I
don't agree with the use of devices such as that in discussion to enforce it
though.

Either way, its been an enjoyable thread


"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
> 19:08:11 +0100, "G" <cool_and_funky@*-nospamthanks_*yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Please don't assume everyone on the internet is a Yank.
>
> I don't.
>
> >I'm not.
>
> OK.
>
> >Therefore
> >am not covered by your "constitution".
>
> When in the USA you're subject to US law, including the Constitution, just
as
> I'm subject to UK law when in the UK.
>
> >Besides, you cannot and do not have
> >the right to prevent me from exercising free speech wherever I may be,
> >despite your _interpretation_ of your constitution,
>
> My "interpretation" is actually legal scholarship and court rulings.
> You don't have an "free speech" right in a private venue.
>
> See "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION--SPEECH AND PRESS"
> <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment01/06.html>:
>
> The First Amendment by its terms applies only to laws enacted by
Congress,
> and not to the actions of private persons.
>
> And "Speech Plus--The Constitutional Law of Leafleting, Picketing, and
> Demonstrating "
> <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment01/20.html>:
>
> The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and
> IT DOES NOT REQUIRE INDIVIDUALS TO TURN OVER THEIR HOMES, BUSINESSES
> OR OTHER PROPERTY TO THOSE WISHING TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT A PARTICULAR
> TOPIC. [emphasis added]
>
> In Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 185 , 201-07 (1961), Justice
> Harlan, concurring, would have reversed breach of the peace
> convictions of ''sit-in'' demonstrators who conducted their
> ''sit-in'' at lunch counters of department stores. He asserted that
> the protesters were sitting at the lunch counters where they knew
> they would not be served in order to demonstrate that segregation at
> such counters existed. ''Such a demonstration . . . is as much a part
> of the 'free trade in ideas' . . . as is verbal expression, more
> commonly thought of as 'speech.''' Conviction for breach of peace was
> void in the absence of a clear and present danger of disorder. THE
> JUSTICE WOULD NOT, HOWEVER PROTECT ''DEMONSTRATIONS CONDUCTED ON
> PRIVATE PROPERTY OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE OWNER . . . , JUST AS IT
> WOULD SURELY NOT ENCOMPASS VERBAL EXPRESSION IN A PRIVATE HOME IF THE
> OWNER HAS NOT CONSENTED.'' He had read the record to indicate that
> the demonstrators were invitees in the stores and that they had never
> been asked to leave by the owners or managers. See also Frisby v.
> Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) (government may protect residential
> privacy by prohibiting altogether picketing that targets a single
> residence). [emphasis added]
>
> >but you may ask me to
> >leave or remove me from your "venue" if you don't like it.
>
> That too.
>
> >> banning the technology is an effective way to control the
> >> behavior.
> >
> >Erm, yet again I am dumbfounded to see such short foresight and such a
> >high-handed approach to what you correctly point out to be a problem with
> >"behaviour and common courtesy" rather than with the technology.
>
> Just I'm "dumbfounded" by your misunderstanding of free speech, and
> exaggeration of this issue.
>
> >... There would
> >be a significantly lower number of murders in the USA if certain
> >technologies (guns) were less easy to obtain,
>
> Guns are in fact controlled in many ways, and prohibited in many venues.
>
> >and yet a surprising number of
> >people maintain that one has the right to own a firearm.
>
> The US Constitution again.
>
> >... The fact that a technological subversion such as that marketed at
> >the beginning of this thread has been banned, is a well thought out move
to
> >avoid such bullish approaches.
>
> No, it's actually just a matter of spectrum licensing -- such devices
> (essentially jammers, as I understand them) would be unlicensed
transmitters
> on spectrum licenced to a cellular carrier.
>
> >By all means ask those inconsiderate phone
> >users to talk quietly on the phone if it bugs you that much,
>
> I do.
>
> >just don't feel
> >the need to punish the rest of us if you don't have the bottle to do it
and
> >need a technological crutch to help you.
>
> I don't use or advocate blockers. Whatever made you think that? I was
mostly
> interested in the bogus free speech issue, although I do support banning
the
> non-silent use of cell phones in certain places (e.g., libraries, during
> performances), and the complete use of cell phones where appropriate
(e.g.,
> near equipment that could be disrupted).
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

---

› See More: Cell Phone Blocker

Quote from the FCC website:

Operations
Blocking & Jamming
The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless
communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act
prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the
radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act
or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The
manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising,
of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is
prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these
provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections
501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each
violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may
also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.

http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cel...ngjamming.html

And on top of that a number of public safety officers utilize 800 MHz
for radio communications. You attempt to block cellular you you will
also block their lifeline back to their dispatchers and fellow officers.

That is more important that worrying about someone's rudeness in a movie
or out to eat IMHO.

--
Mark KS4VT




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

MArk Filla wrote:
> Quote from the FCC website:
[....]

> That is more important that worrying about someone's rudeness in a movie
> or out to eat IMHO.
>

In your opinion.... and we all know how much an opinion is worth.


--
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

Only because you never cover your jingoistic noses.:-)

He was Scottish, however it wouldn't work until he gave up the ideals of his
roots and stopped trying to reverse the charges.

When someone is having a heartattack or on officer is attempting to
arrest a felon it is still more important for them to have reliable
communications and I'm sure you will have difficult time trying to mount
a credible defense otherwise.
--
Mark KS4VT


jer <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> MArk Filla wrote:
> > Quote from the FCC website:
> [....]
>
> > That is more important that worrying about someone's rudeness in a movie
> > or out to eat IMHO.
> >
>
> In your opinion.... and we all know how much an opinion is worth.
>
>
> --
> 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]

Mark Filla wrote:

> When someone is having a heartattack or on officer is attempting to
> arrest a felon it is still more important for them to have reliable
> communications and I'm sure you will have difficult time trying to mount
> a credible defense otherwise.


big flash, Buckwheat.... public safety officers don't use cellular -
they have their own communications network with their own radios. 10-4?


--
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:

[....]

> You can't mess with the master. :-P
>


I can mess with whatever master I please, since I am the master of my
domain. If your cell phone interferes with my private use of my
private space, I'll ask you once to remedy the situation about ten
seconds before I find my own remedy. (Hint: Most don't like it) And
if a public safety responce is necessary, we can summon them with any
one of several landlines.

Or I can activate my cell blocker and dispatch stupid ringtones and
basless blather to the netherworld permanently.

The choice is yours. :-P

--
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 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.

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


jer <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Mark Filla wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > You can't mess with the master. :-P
> >
>
>
> I can mess with whatever master I please, since I am the master of my
> domain. If your cell phone interferes with my private use of my
> private space, I'll ask you once to remedy the situation about ten
> seconds before I find my own remedy. (Hint: Most don't like it) And
> if a public safety responce is necessary, we can summon them with any
> one of several landlines.
>
> Or I can activate my cell blocker and dispatch stupid ringtones and
> basless blather to the netherworld permanently.
>
> The choice is yours. :-P
>
> --
> 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]

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

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]

"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]

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