A mobile phone forum. Mobile-Forum

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Mobile-Forum forum » General mobile phone forums » GSM
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cell Phone Blocker



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 11th 03, 09:23 AM
G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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" wrote in message
...

"Gary" wrote in message
om...
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




  #22  
Old August 11th 03, 09:39 AM
G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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" wrote in message
...
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on 10 Aug 2003

11:33:20
-0700, (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



  #23  
Old August 11th 03, 09:47 AM
G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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" wrote in message
...
"Ivor Jones" wrote in news:bh60tj$jf9$1
@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:

"Lofty" wrote in message
...


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.



  #24  
Old August 11th 03, 01:59 PM
John S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You can't do that, and it's illegal to jam ANY cell signals.

We don't care if it's illegal.


Then call the FBI and the local FCC office and they will see to it that you do
care!

Talk about terrorist activities, even the new homeland security group might get
involved.

Luet us ....... never mind, you won't be able to let us know from behind bars!


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  #25  
Old August 11th 03, 02:07 PM
John S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Is it an infringement of civil rights not to be allowed use of phones
aboard aircraft..?


Nope, that too is against the law.

Perhaps the small matter of interference with avionics
is unimportant..?


There is not and interference. If there was an airpplane would be grounded
because of all the ambient cellular traffic on the ground and in and around
airports. Think about it a moment.

It is an issue of the fact that cellular service is designed for ground level
operation. Once airborne (the law reads 100' in the air) your cell phone "sees"
literally hundreds of sites and can cause problems for the carriers on the
ground.

So the FCC has made it illegal to operate a cell phone over 100'.

I know that there are buildings that are taller than that but they too
sometimes don't even have service on the upper floors

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net
  #26  
Old August 11th 03, 04:26 PM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
09:39:20 +0100, "G" 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
  #27  
Old August 11th 03, 07:08 PM
G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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'm not. Therefore
am not covered by your "constitution". 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, but you may ask me to
leave or remove me from your "venue" if you don't like it.

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. There would
be a significantly lower number of murders in the USA if certain
technologies (guns) were less easy to obtain, and yet a surprising number of
people maintain that one has the right to own a firearm. This goes for cars
(drink driving) and many other things besides that have the potential to be
abused. 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. By all means ask those inconsiderate phone
users to talk quietly on the phone if it bugs you that much, 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.

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 behaviour

either.

I wouldn't ever suggest that you should allow people to maintain
inconsiderate behaviour in your own home. I wouldn't accept people shouting,
using a cell phone inconsiderately or smoking in my own house, and the
people I associate with accept that, as I do with others. Neither would I
install gags, signal blockers, or squirt fire extinguishers at them though.

Education is always preferable to dictation.


"John Navas" wrote in message
...
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
09:39:20 +0100, "G" 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



  #28  
Old August 11th 03, 08:31 PM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on Mon, 11 Aug 2003
19:08:11 +0100, "G" 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/constitution/amendment01/06.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/constitution/amendment01/20.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
  #29  
Old August 11th 03, 08:57 PM
John Navas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on 11 Aug 2003 13:07:17 GMT,
pamfree (John S.) wrote:

It is an issue of the fact that cellular service is designed for ground level
operation. Once airborne (the law reads 100' in the air) your cell phone "sees"
literally hundreds of sites and can cause problems for the carriers on the
ground.


AirCell has overcome this problem -- see http://www.aircell.com/.

So the FCC has made it illegal to operate a cell phone over 100'.

I know that there are buildings that are taller than that but they too
sometimes don't even have service on the upper floors


So where do you get the 100 feet? I know of such tower regulations, but not
handset use regulations:

"47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any
other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne
(not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular
telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice
must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft.
‘The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited
by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of
service and / or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is
on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.’"

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular
  #30  
Old August 12th 03, 02:10 AM
jer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Navas wrote:

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.gsm - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In on 11 Aug 2003 13:07:17 GMT,
pamfree (John S.) wrote:


It is an issue of the fact that cellular service is designed for ground level
operation. Once airborne (the law reads 100' in the air) your cell phone "sees"
literally hundreds of sites and can cause problems for the carriers on the
ground.



AirCell has overcome this problem -- see http://www.aircell.com/.


AirCell's equipment is specially designed and certified by the FAA and
FCC for commercial aircraft installations, thereby significantly
reducing the odd chance for interference from their transmitters.
Besides, the AirCell system uses a combination of specially-fitted
"upward-looking" terrestrial cell sites (over land) and the Iridium
satellite network (over oceans and polar regions). This combo system
is reserved for airborne aircraft only, and not available for
terrestrial cell users. More info is available from their website by
clicking on the Whitepaper link, a .pdf file.





So the FCC has made it illegal to operate a cell phone over 100'.

I know that there are buildings that are taller than that but they too
sometimes don't even have service on the upper floors



So where do you get the 100 feet? I know of such tower regulations, but not
handset use regulations:

"47 CFR 22.925: Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any
other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne
(not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular
telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice
must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft.
‘The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited
by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of
service and / or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is
on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.’"



--
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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oxygen Phone Manager II for Symbian OS phones v2.3 is released Oxygen Software Ericsson 3 November 15th 04 09:56 AM
Energy Cells? Rev. 11D Meow! © ® General 1 November 16th 03 08:07 PM
Trying to decide on cell phone plan...please help wildwestcats General 7 November 3rd 03 03:04 AM
Oxygen Phone Manager II for Symbian OS phones v2.0.2 supports SonyEricsson P800 Oxygen Software Ericsson 0 October 17th 03 02:39 PM
Cell Phone Blocker Lofty GSM 4 August 10th 03 01:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 Mobile-Forum.
The comments are property of their posters.