Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 96
  1. #1
    Nomen Nescio
    Guest
    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




    See More: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times




  2. #2
    Mizter T
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> 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.



  3. #3
    ChrisM
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    >
    > 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...






  4. #4
    Paul Weaver
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> 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.



  5. #5
    Dave
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times



    "Mizter T" <[email protected]> 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





  6. #6
    Christopher A.Lee
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:40:52 -0800 (PST), Mizter T <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> 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.




  7. #7
    ChrisM
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    In message [email protected],
    MichaelJP <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> 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)





  8. #8
    ChrisM
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    In message [email protected],
    ChrisM <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > In message [email protected],
    > MichaelJP <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >
    >> "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>> 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)





  9. #9
    Dave
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >>>> 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




  10. #10
    Big Bird
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    * 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.



  11. #11

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    On Dec 4, 4:44 pm, Mario Lanza <[email protected]> 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



  12. #12
    notbresson
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times


    "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >
    >> 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.
    >






  13. #13
    notbresson
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times


    "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In message [email protected],
    > ChrisM <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest
    > tower:
    >
    >> In message [email protected],
    >> MichaelJP <[email protected]> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >>
    >>> "ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 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?






  14. #14
    tony sayer
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    In article <[email protected]
    s.com>, Mizter T <[email protected]> scribeth thus
    >On 4 Dec, 13:00, Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> 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






  15. #15
    tony sayer
    Guest

    Re: "the jammers revenge on mobile prattlers" in the Times

    In article <[email protected]>, MichaelJP
    <[email protected]> scribeth thus
    >
    >"ChrisM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> >
    >>> 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





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast