 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Verizon / April 2008Cell Phone Blocker
In case this would be useful to anyone GSM/CDMA/3G power:0.5W/h weight: 150g 95mm×45mm×18mm 2-3hour battery 20 to 30 foot radius 1 Unit(s) - $350 USD (Total - shipping included) 2 Unit(s) - $650 USD (Total - shipping included) 3 Unit(s) - $955 USD (Total - shipping included) 4 Unit(s) - $1250 USD (Total - shipping included) 5 Unit(s) - $1545 USD (Total - shipping included) Paypal/DHL shipping ccbsh04@gmail.com That's too expensive. Try this one instead. Works great: 25 meter range, $147: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.7978 Or if you're on a budget, try this one instead: 0.5 to 12 meter range, $43: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355 >In case this would be useful to anyone > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Paypal/DHL shipping >ccbsh04@gmail.com > In case this would be useful to anyone > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Paypal/DHL shipping > ccbsh04@gmail.com Illegal in the US. >Illegal in the US. So? They work! >>Illegal in the US. > > So? They work! You block my effort to call 911, or block an incoming emergency call from my elderly parents and I'll sue your a.s. I would report you to the FCC too, but they would probably ignore me. >>> Illegal in the US. >> So? They work! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I would report you to the FCC too, but they would probably ignore me. But what can we do about the self centered people who just don't have a clue how annoying it is to here a stupid ringtone blaring and have them answer in a movie theater or engage in a loud conversation in a restaurant? I think private businesses should have the right to install jammers and I would patronize those that did so I could enjoy going out. I think about the only requirement should be that they give reasonable notification such as a sign on the entry door etc. >>>> Illegal in the US. >>> So? They work! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > them answer in a movie theater or engage in a loud conversation in a > restaurant? And how is that any more obnoxious than the screaming kids, people talking loudly at a table or the morons that insist on talking through an entire movie? > I think private businesses should have the right to install jammers > and I would patronize those that did so I could enjoy going out. They do have the ability and right to install passive blocking. > I > think about the only requirement should be that they give reasonable > notification such as a sign on the entry door etc. > > I think private businesses should have the right to install jammers > > and I would patronize those that did so I could enjoy going out. > > They do have the ability and right to install passive blocking. And no doubt Steve Sobol would see the decorative metal around the perimeter of the room and immediately go out and sue, because after all he's entitled to cellular service wherever he is, no matter what. Jesus Christ. He and the rest of the whiners should get a clue. Cellular service isn't available everywhere. Grow up. > And how is that any more obnoxious than the screaming kids, people > talking loudly at a table or the morons that insist on talking through > an entire movie? ....or some old phart watching some movie on his Linux tablet that comes out in the theatres 2 weeks from Friday.....(c; "What movie is that?"....(casually mention movie title)...."How did you get that? It doesn't come out in the theatres until a week from Friday!"..."No, it came out last week on Efnet. You musta missed it." (Movie switches scene to noisy space battle going on with the animals who replaced the Klingons. Screen explodes in yellows and oranges as whole planet explodes behind massive new beam weapon ship the size of Pennsylvania.) What's also fun is to leave the Arabic audio running, even though you're reading the subtitles from the .sub and .idx files with the DivX. I gained two kids who wanted to watch the Bugs Bunny cartoons I was having with breakfast. As their parents finished and got up, their mother says, "We're leaving now. Bring them around to (address) after the movie or when you've had enough of them.".....(c; "Is that an Iphone?", the curvy young blonde in the equally-curvy Mudd stretch jeans asks.......as your imagination runs into wild fantasy mode....(c; Who cares..... >>>> Illegal in the US. >>> So? They work! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >clue how annoying it is to here a stupid ringtone blaring and have them >answer in a movie theater or engage in a loud conversation in a restaurant? You have the right to complain to management, and being private property, management has the right to eject them for their behavior. >I think private businesses should have the right to install jammers and >I would patronize those that did so I could enjoy going out. I think >about the only requirement should be that they give reasonable >notification such as a sign on the entry door etc. While I understand the sentiments of those who favor jamming, it gives rise to little airways Nazis running around interfering with what could be urgent and necessary communications for no other reason than they could. Per George: >I think private businesses should have the right to install jammers and >I would patronize those that did so Amen! 'twood be nice to have them in doctor's offices too - anywhere one is hostage to the people around them.  SignaturePeteCresswell >>> Illegal in the US. >> So? They work! > > You block my effort to call 911, or block an incoming emergency call from my > elderly parents and I'll sue your a.s. This already happens in a lot of venues via the use of conductive paint that shields the room. It's really just a question of active versus passive blocking. The former is illegal in the U.S., the latter is not. And of course you'd have no idea who is doing the blocking, or even if blocking is being done at all. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:HIHPj.6218$GO4.4293 @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: > This already happens in a lot of venues via the use of conductive paint > that shields the room. They must have this kind of paint effective on only the A band 800 Mhz at WalMart in the Oakbrook Shopping District of Summerville, SC. When you walk into Walmart with a Verizon phone, about 8 ft inside the front door, the phone searches briefly for Verizon then says NO SERVICE for the whole rest of the time you're in WalMart! Other carriers are unaffected. Sprint on PCS has 4 bars, Alltel on 800 B system is full scale! Only VZW has NO SERVICE. I like to hang out there on Saturdays to pay my Alltel bill if I have nothing better to do. I carry Alltel referral cards from the guys in the office all filled out with my Alltel info on the back as referrer, then when I see someone angry at their NO SERVICE phone, I simply offer to let them make their call to anyone on Alltel over my Z6m. After they've handed my phone back, they usually ask what service it's on and I tell them it's Alltel's 700 minutes for $39/mo. Of course, they pay LOTS more for half as many nationwide minutes they can't use in WalMart and that's my opportunity to press my finder's card into their sweaty hands. "Here. Take this card to the Alltel office by the Coliseum where you turn to go to the other SuperWalmart and they'll make you a good deal on a new phone on Alltel that works around here." If I weren't so lazy, I would be in sales.....(c; I've even met some of my referrees who've offered to let me make a call on THEIR phones to pay me back....(c; Thank you, Verizon! > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:HIHPj.6218$GO4.4293 > @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I like to hang out there on Saturdays to pay my Alltel bill if I have > nothing better to do. Not sure whether to laugh of cry. SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:RdMPj.9566$GE1.9301 @nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com: > Not sure whether to laugh of cry. Raspberry noted.... >> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:HIHPj.6218$GO4.4293 >> @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Not sure whether to laugh of cry. Why not both? And did you catch his bit about the two kids watching cartoons with him while eating breakfast and the parents left them with him to drop off later? If I weren't so sure he was making all of it up, I'd think we'd have a child molester grooming potential victims. > Why not both? And did you catch his bit about the two kids watching > cartoons with him while eating breakfast and the parents left them > with him to drop off later? If I weren't so sure he was making all of > it up, I'd think we'd have a child molester grooming potential > victims. You'd think, the way he talks about ogling curvy teenage girls. :) SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > You'd think, the way he talks about ogling curvy teenage girls. :) I'm the only man who ogles teenage girls..... LIARS....all LIARS! > I'm the only man who ogles teenage girls..... I didn't say that! :) SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:HIHPj.6218$GO4.4293 > @newssvr19.news.prodigy.net: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thank you, Verizon! Dammit Larry! Stop teasing those of us who can't get Alltel service where we live! > Dammit Larry! Stop teasing those of us who can't get Alltel service > where we live! Oh, sorry......You could move...(c; >Illegal in the US. Yes but widely used, especially by restaurant owners in NYC. I frankly like that fact that if someone in a restaurant absolutely has to make a phone call, they must excuse themselves to the bar or go outside. It fosters a desirable form of etiquette. It should be legal in private establishments. A_C >>Illegal in the US. > > Yes but widely used, especially by restaurant owners in NYC. If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or died as a result, I wouldn't be suing, I'd be filing a police report, and hopefully getting people thrown in jail. > I frankly like that fact that if someone in a restaurant absolutely > has to make a phone call, they must excuse themselves to the bar or go > outside. It fosters a desirable form of etiquette. And that's absolutely the wrong way to do it. > It should be legal in private establishments. But it's not. But that's not even the point. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol Per Steve Sobol: >If I had an emergency and >couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or >died as a result, I wouldn't be suing, But who would one sue? i.e. The person using the jammer is most likely concealing it. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Steve Sobol: >>If I had an emergency and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But who would one sue? i.e. The person using the jammer is most > likely concealing it. Good point. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and > couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or > died as a result, I wouldn't be suing, I'd be filing a police report, and > hopefully getting people thrown in jail. Waaaah. What a tired, old argument. 15 years ago if you had an emergency in the restaurant, you'd call 911 from the restaurant's phone. Or, better yet, management would do so for you. Or if you were on the street and had an emergency, you'd what--you'd deal with it. Now, you consider cell service to be available wherever you are? Where did you get THAT idea? Certainly not from the cell companies. What do you do today when you don't have service? Do you sue? >If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and >couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or >died as a result, I wouldn't be suing, I'd be filing a police report, and >hopefully getting people thrown in jail. The police would ignore you and you'd have the weakest legal case imaginable. No way you could prove any of those assertions. And since when does any cellular provider guarantee, or even claim, you'll have service indoors? A_C >>If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and >>couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A_C That's not the point. The issue is if service is available normally at a location but is blocked by a jammer. I would think places of business would put themselves at serious risk if they were caught using them. According to the US 1934 Communications Act, only the federal government has the right to interfere with radio frequency communication (military, etc.). Some jamming manufacturers are challanging this, but at this time it is HIGHLY illegal to jam any radio transmission, whether it be commercial or cell phone. FInes can be up to $10,000 per day of the infraction. Per CellGuy: > I would think places of business >would put themselves at serious risk if they were caught using them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >HIGHLY illegal to jam any radio transmission, whether it be commercial or >cell phone. I guess that it still comes down to active vs passive jamming then. If not, maybe I can call the law down on my employer bc tMob's signal can't make it into their building. SignaturePeteCresswell > >>If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and > >>couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > FInes can be up to $10,000 per day of the infraction. Actually, interference with emergency communications is a standard $25,000 fine. > Actually, interference with emergency communications is a standard $25,000 > fine. Since when is cell phone jamming "interfering with emergency communications"? I would say that the cell phone companies would be paying out hundreds of $25,000 fines daily, based on their inability to make and hold usable connections. >> Actually, interference with emergency communications is a standard $25,000 >> fine. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of $25,000 fines daily, based on their inability to make and hold usable > connections. When it comes to causing interference, the FCC makes no distinction of the type of communications affected. Section 333 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 333, which states that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government.'' "Their inability to make and hold usable connections" would not be considered intentional or willfull (in the sense they fully well knew it was causing interference) or willfull (in the sense that they were notified of causing interference, but failed to remedy the problem). With cellphone jammers, there doesn't even have to be any interference as the mere sale or advertising of such non-certified devices is not legal. "No person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless ... [i]n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission." > > Since when is cell phone jamming "interfering with emergency > > communications"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When it comes to causing interference, the FCC makes no distinction of > the type of communications affected. The FCC has no authority over my shouting out into the air. > In article <3%FQj.654$1b7.299@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, >> When it comes to causing interference, the FCC makes no distinction of >> the type of communications affected. > > The FCC has no authority over my shouting out into the air. Of course not, unless you qualify as a radiator. > > Since when is cell phone jamming "interfering with emergency > > communications"? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > it was causing interference) or willfull (in the sense that they were > notified of causing interference, but failed to remedy the problem). Happens every day. The cell phone companies know damn well where they have signal and where they have problems, and they evaluate the cost of fixing the problems against any resultant revenue increase. Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these fines daily. Maybe I can make that my life's work. What do you suppose would happen if I discovered even one incident where someone died because the phone didn't work, and there was cell company documentation talking about their decision not to fix that particular black hole in their coverage? > Happens every day. The cell phone companies know damn well where they > have signal and where they have problems, and they evaluate the cost of > fixing the problems against any resultant revenue increase. Happens every day. They call it "rate of diminishing return". > Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these fines > daily. IF..IF there was some sort of FCC law that allowed that. But there isn't and so they aren't. > Maybe I can make that my life's work. What do you suppose would happen > if I discovered even one incident where someone died because the phone > didn't work, and there was cell company documentation talking about > their decision not to fix that particular black hole in their coverage? Who mandated that any cellular provider guarantees coverage anywhere? What if that black hole was the result of NIMBY opposition to any towers? > > Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these fines > > daily. > > IF..IF there was some sort of FCC law that allowed that. But there isn't > and so they aren't. Sure there is. If the cell companies know damned well they have a black hole on the street, and CHOOSE not to fix it, then by definition they're interfering with emergency communications AT LEAST to the same level as the restaurant owner who installs a jammer. It's the INTENT. And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right? In news:elmop-BF3FB8.16355926042008@nntp3.usenetserver.com "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote: >> > Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these >> > fines daily. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they're interfering with emergency communications AT LEAST to the same > level as the restaurant owner who installs a jammer. Presumably then, if a cellphone company KNOWS that I don't have a cellphone and CHOOSES not to give me one, then by your definition, they're interfering with emergency communications. Right? SignatureBert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com > Presumably then, if a cellphone company KNOWS that I don't have a > cellphone and CHOOSES not to give me one, then by your definition, > they're interfering with emergency communications. > > Right? Yer catching on to the absurdities that exude from the original poster's claim that he has the right to make emergency phone calls when and where he wants. >>> Like I said, the cell companies would be fined hundreds of these fines >>> daily. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > interfering with emergency communications AT LEAST to the same level as > the restaurant owner who installs a jammer. There is NO such FCC law. FCC law is applies to radiating an electromagnetic signal, not inattention. > It's the INTENT. And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to > be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right? Intent has nothing to do with it. Wrong, your ridiculous statement is beyond any reply that I can think up. > > It's the INTENT. And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to > > be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right? > > Intent has nothing to do with it. Wrong, your ridiculous statement is > beyond any reply that I can think up. Then we agree--the original poster, who claimed that he had the right to make his emergency calls anywhere he chooses, is full of sh.t. He has no right--simply because he has no right to cell signal at all. > Jesus Christ. He and the rest of the whiners should get a clue. > Cellular service isn't available everywhere. Grow up.> > And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to > be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right? Wait a minute...this is a joke, right. > > And the cell phone owner is claiming that he needs to > > be able to make an emergency call anywhere he decides he needs to, right? > > Wait a minute...this is a joke, right. Actually, that was the claim--that no one had the right to jam cell phone transmissions because what if there's an emergency!!!! And I need to make an emergency call!!!! The yahoo who made that claim is busy telling the world that his emergency communications may not be interefered with in any way. And yet, cell phone companies make decisions every day that interfere with his right to make said emergency calls (or any calls). Cell phone companies decide whether or not to provide service at any given location. So, what I said, I said with a sarcastic twang. > Actually, that was the claim--that no one had the right to jam cell > phone transmissions because what if there's an emergency!!!! And I need > to make an emergency call!!!! The yahoo who made that claim is busy > telling the world that his emergency communications may not be > interefered with in any way. You're not talking about me, are you? I hope not (see below). > And yet, cell phone companies make decisions every day that interfere > with his right to make said emergency calls (or any calls). Cell phone > companies decide whether or not to provide service at any given location. Red herring. This reminds me of my complaint from a few years ago, when Verizon took six months to fix dropped calls in my area. I got reamed by another regular Verizon newsgroup poster who started the "you're not guaranteed coverage everywhere" thing, which was stupid, because I was complaining about coverage being broken, not coverage being nonexistent. My position in this thread is similar. I'm not stupid - I know you're not guaranteed to have coverage in any particular spot. SignatureSteve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol > > And yet, cell phone companies make decisions every day that interfere > > with his right to make said emergency calls (or any calls). Cell phone > > companies decide whether or not to provide service at any given location. > > Red herring. Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had made a deliberate decision to leave (or create!) a black hole of signal in that area solely for financial reasons, you'd be pissed. It's the same thing as the restaurant owner creating a black hole of signal in his area. You never had a RIGHT to complete an emergency call on a cell phone; you made that up out of whole cloth, just because YOU don't like the idea of people not wanting you to use a cell phone in a restaurant or wherever. > Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue > your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had > made a deliberate decision to leave (or create!) a black hole of signal > in that area solely for financial reasons, you'd be pissed. Perhaps, but I chose my cellphone company, coverage holes and all. > It's the same thing as the restaurant owner creating a black hole of > signal in his area. Not at all- the cellco can legally leave holes of coverage- electronic jamming is illegal. > You never had a RIGHT to complete an emergency call > on a cell phone; you made that up out of whole cloth, just because YOU > don't like the idea of people not wanting you to use a cell phone in a > restaurant or wherever. Perhaps, but if the restaurant has a "no cell" policy, post it and threaten to eject violators, or have customers check their phones at the door. Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal. If a restaurant doesn't want to allow me to quietly check my e-mail or look up a movie listing during lunch, let me know upfront, so I can eat elsewhere! >> Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to >> rescue your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > up a movie listing during lunch, let me know upfront, so I can eat > elsewhere! Except that they do have the legal authority to block cell phone signals in a passive manner. And they are under no obligation to announce it. > Except that they do have the legal authority to block cell phone signals in > a passive manner. And they are under no obligation to announce it. Understood. I should have specified "electronic" or "active" interference. > > Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue > > your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not at all- the cellco can legally leave holes of coverage- electronic > jamming is illegal. While that's true, it's also true that no one has the right to cellular coverage. Given that, your lack of coverage somewhere is just as easily (and more likely) explained by cell company incompetence as it is by someone jamming the airwaves. Doesn't change the fact that no one has the RIGHT to make a cell phone call. And if I want to put up a decorative Faraday cage in my restaurant, there's not thing one anyone can do about it. And if I put up a jammer...well, honestly, who would know? >>> Not at all. If you found that you couldn't call an ambulance to rescue >>> your ailing mother, then later found out that the cell phone company had [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > there's not thing one anyone can do about it. And if I put up a > jammer...well, honestly, who would know? As long as you run your jammer INSIDE your Faraday cage nobody will care. The minute your Faraday cage springs a leak, you are in trouble! > Perhaps, but if the restaurant has a "no cell" policy, post it and threaten > to eject violators, or have customers check their phones at the door. > Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal. Including a Faraday cage inside the walls? I don't think so. No, it's only broadcasting of EMR on certain frequencies without a license that's illegal. Interfering with cellphones is not illegal. Interfering, of course, includes the owner coming up and saying, "sir, you saw the sign, please put your phone down NOW or be prosecuted for trespassing." > > Surrepititiously interfering with phones is illegal. > > Including a Faraday cage inside the walls? I don't think so. True- that's perfectly legal. If a restaurant owner wants to go to all that trouble, fine. If he wants to actively interfere, that's another matter. > No, it's only broadcasting of EMR on certain frequencies without a > license that's illegal. Interfering with cellphones is not illegal. > Interfering, of course, includes the owner coming up and saying, "sir, > you saw the sign, please put your phone down NOW or be prosecuted for > trespassing." Again, that's fine with me- I'd have known the rules before I sat down. > I'm not stupid - I know you're not > guaranteed to have coverage in any particular spot. Like in a restaurant. So don't come at the world with that bullshit "but if I have to make an emergency call, the world had better accommodate me!" crap. > So, what I said, I said with a sarcastic twang. OK...I knew that it was so unlike you to post in that vein. I knew you knew better than that. My bad. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.