I just might have to buy one of these to thwart the stupid bimbos who>drive right through that yeild sign in my neighborhood because they>have a cell phone plastered up to their ear. My house is close enough>to the intersection that I could set up a directional antenna with a>reflector and make that entire intersection a cellular dead zone...>

Unsuspecting cellphone users may find themselves saying that more>often now that cellphone jammers В— illegal gizmos that interfere with>signals and cut off reception В— are selling like hotcakes on the>streets of New York.>

"I bought one online, and I love it," said one jammer owner fed up>with the din of dumb conversations and rock-and-roll ringtones.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:42:22 -0800, Scott en AztlГЎn> <slothkills@NOyahoo­SPAM.com> wrote:>

Fines for using one start at around $10,000. Something permanent like that> will be real easy to find.

I wanna get a 12V one and wire it to my horn.

nate>

Nate Nagel wrote:>

Great idea! Or just have one in the glove box to aim at other drivers...

http://www.nypost.c­om/news/regionalnews­/40168.htm>

Unsuspecting cellphone users may find themselves saying that more> often now that cellphone jammers - illegal gizmos that interfere with> signals and cut off reception - are selling like hotcakes on the> streets of New York.>

"I bought one online, and I love it," said one jammer owner fed up> with the din of dumb conversations and rock-and-roll ringtones.

There are 2 problems with that jammer:>

* It blocks all cell phone calls, including 911 calls. Anyone trying to >report a crime in progress (including a burglary or robbery in their own >home) would be thwarted. You don't want that, do you?

* People yakking on their cell phone drive into your dead zone and suddenly >their phone cuts out. You think they'll just hang up and forget about their >call? No--they'll take their eyes off the road to start fiddling with their >phone to see what happened. I doubt they'll pull over to check it out >either.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:33:35 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"><skipster@t­eleport.com> wrote:>

Maybe the first time, and maybe even the second, but eventually>they'll figure out that there is a dead zone there and either avoid it>or avoid making phone calls until they are through it.

"New, from the makers of TV-B-Gone!"

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:33:35 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"><skipster@t­eleport.com> wrote:>

Almost no one even attempts to think about the unintended> consequences. >

Almost no one even attempts to think about the unintended> consequences. >

Even the FCC has trouble with this concept - they managed to give cell> phones and 800 mhz emergency band radios the same general area of> radio spectrum, so that emergencies that happen near cell phone towers> sometimes have a dead zone where the 1st responder's radios don't work> because of the high power interference present from the cell phone> towers operating on frequencies very close to the 1st responder's> radios. >

Getting back to cell phone jammers, the problem with jammers of _any_> type is that they are basically vandalism of the radio spectrum. The> FCC absolutely prohibits jammers of any kind for any reason in this> country. Even governments aren't permitted to use jammers - the state> of New Jersey (where else? It figures...) was nailed by the FCC about> 20 years ago for setting up old police radars in an unattended mode> along highways simply to jam radar detectors. The FCC forced them to> cease and desist.

The FCC doesn't chase the cell jammers very hard at present because> they are rare. These things cost about $250 on the low side, and go> up from there, so not many people are all that committed to such a toy> - there's lots more satisfying ways to spend $250. But I think it is> likely that if jammers get to be a frequent problem, they will get> enough complaints, and congressmen will get enough complaints, that> they will suddenly begin a masive enforcement program. That's when> you'll get the $10,000 fines flying around. You won't be wanting to> be found with a jammer of any kind in your possession then. >

Dave Head>

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:43:48 -0800, Scott en Aztlбn><slothkills@­NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:>

Eventually there'll be a 2-way radio tech on a call that notices it,> sets up his service monitor to check out the area, and pinpoint then> problem. Then he'll drop a dime and play birddog for the FCC who will> then show up in your driveway with a whole vanfull of electronic> measuring equipment, and a search warrant.>

Dave Head>

It's called "dial 911 and die";most people do not realize that it takes a> certain amount of time from when you make the call to when police actually> arrie,IF they ever do. A LOT can happen in that time. People also do not> realize that police (or fire/rescue)do not have to come at all.If they are> busy elsewhere,you get to wait.You can't sue them for not coming,either.> Thus,you ought to be prepared as if they didn't even exist.

Besdies,there aren't any guarantees on CP reception.If a CP tower goes > down> for whatever reason,your coverage could be gone without your > knowledge.They> don't have to notify you about it.In natural disasters,CPs are often> inoperative,or have very reduced reception areas.It's not very wise to> solely depend on a CP for communications.

Then they have a cellphone-related crash.Still their own fault.> Heck,it could have been a natural dead zone,or a temporary one caused by a> CP tower being serviced,whatever.

Just Hang up and drive.

If they don't care enough about me to allow me to drive safely, screw> 'em. Darwin works in wondrous ways.

No, but since their phone call is so precious to them, they'd probably> slow down even more to figure out what the hell was going on, and you> could pass them.

What should be done is to have a legal portable (automobile) version> of these things produced, that broadcasts a message to cell phone> users stating that they are in proximity to a jammer. That way, if> they want to continue using their cell phone, they have to arrange for> some distance between themselves and the car containing the jammer.> Sorta like an electronic version of the bumper sticker "Lead, follow,> or get out of th way."

"David W. Poole, Jr." <TedKennedyMurdered­HisMistress.dwpj65@s­pamgourmet.com> >wrote in message news:8bi4219307vr0d­faqbilid8tp5e0l2vghq­@4ax.com...>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:33:35 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman">> <skipster@teleport.­com> was understood to have stated the following:>>

So to people trying to use their cell phones to report a real emergency, >your response is "Screw 'em"?

Or you would rear-end them because you were tailgating. Or they wouldn't >slow down at all. The point is, they would take their eyes off the road, >creating an even bigger hazard than just yakking.

And who's going to design, build, pay for, install, and maintain such >equipment? You, David?

I think these jammers end thge transmission, don't they? But my point >onthis issue is the same in any case--they'd start fiddling with their phone >instead of watch the road, even if it was for a block. Don't you know, that >would be the block where some pet or child would dash into the middle of the >street.

You're assuming a lot by stating that people are using their cell> phones to report emergencies.

However, that being stated, I admit that my opinion is biased, as a> fair number of the "near miss" incidents I've encountered over the> past few years have involved vehicles where the other driver was> operating a cell phone. In the past I've made the counter-point on> some of the "smokers are litterers" threads that not all smokers throw> their butts on the ground, and accused one of the participants of> being a bigot on the issue. I guess the statement about "one bad egg> spoils the bunch" can be made about smokers, cell phoner/drivers, and> a lot of other issues as well. I apologize for my bigotry on the> issue.

Though the same argument about people who use cell phones while> driving (pardon borrowing a term from LBMHBF: "cell phone drivers")> could be applied to people who operate motor vehicles after drinking a> bit. Since the majority of people operating vehicles while intoxicated> don't result in an accident, should we eliminate DWI laws?

What should be done is to have a legal portable (automobile) version> of these things produced, that broadcasts a message to cell phone> users stating that they are in proximity to a jammer.

What about your feelings of privilege that all other drivers accede to you >on "your" road, and any who go about their business deserve to be run off >the road? You know, even if they're trying to call in an emergency, "Screw >'em"?>

I suppose the easy thing to do is to state your case, then invent your >opponent's position, then slam your opponent.

Fines for using one start at around $10,000. Something permanent like that>will be real easy to find.

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.>­ wrote in message > news:Xns960A91D0147­21jyanikkuanet@129.2­50.170.85...>> "Skip Elliott Bowman" <skipster@teleport.­com> wrote in>> news­tgUd.6855$873­.3536@newsread3.news­.pas.earthlink.net:>­>

Tht amay be true in some municipalities, Jim. But if an occupied> house or car is burning, an armed robbery is in progress, or a boat is> sinking, I doubt that dispatch will instruct the respondents to ignore> the call.

Besides, this is beside the point.>

Again, beside the point. Our discussion presumes that an emergency> exists and a cell phone in an otherwise-receptive­ area

is being> deliberately jammed.

Once again, not the point.

I agree with THAT! ­ >

Regardless, no apology necessary. I apologize if I came across as> offensive.

I just might have to buy one of these to thwart the stupid bimbos who>drive right through that yeild sign in my neighborhood because they>have a cell phone plastered up to their ear. My house is close enough>to the intersection that I could set up a directional antenna with a>reflector and make that entire intersection a cellular dead zone...>

Unsuspecting cellphone users may find themselves saying that more>often now that cellphone jammers В— illegal gizmos that interfere with>signals and cut off reception В— are selling like hotcakes on the>streets of New York.>

"I bought one online, and I love it," said one jammer owner fed up>with the din of dumb conversations and rock-and-roll ringtones.

Pretty much. The way I figure it, drivers utilizing cell phones probably> create far more emergencies than they report. Disabling cell phones in> my proximity would most likely improve safety in the area.

What should be done is to have a legal portable (automobile) version of> these things produced, that broadcasts a message to cell phone users> stating that they are in proximity to a jammer. That way, if they want> to continue using their cell phone, they have to arrange for some> distance between themselves and the car containing the jammer. Sorta> like an electronic version of the bumper sticker "Lead, follow, or get> out of th way."

Uh huh. When you were in a traffic jam and saw an accident, car fire,> or crime in progress, did you immediately pull over and go looking for a> phone booth?

I suppose you'll follow this same logic and say that society got along> fine without home and office computers

Wall Street worked fine without the SEC

So you would never use yours nowadays to report an incident if you were> stuck in traffic, would you?

It's the principle of the thing. You don't> even own a cell phone, do you Daniel?

More power to you. I bet if you could, you'd outlaw them outright.

In article <r5r12151fkv9ettt07­e4lpb4u3rs7db6ja@4ax­.com>,>Dave Head <Rally2xs@att.net> wrote:>[about cell phone jammers]>>

The FCCs enforcement budget (as opposed to it's "suck up to cable and>phone companies budget") is small enough not to worry about it.

Well, it's been amusing for me. I noticed you snipped the bulk of my post, >especially the parts addressing your disdain for modern amenities of >society. I don't blame you, Daniel--if I was you, I'd be ashamed too.

Your hypocrisy doesn't bother me one whit.

Now they set up unmammed radar xmitters with a speed display to let

know how fast you're driving,Some are permanently mounted,run

Jim Yanik wrote:>

24/7/365.>

I love those things. I appreciate the opportunity to calibrate my> speedo at various speeds. Ever try to see how fast you can make the> numbers go up, when no one's around? Or practice hiding from it in> traffic?>

I love those things. I appreciate the opportunity to calibrate my> speedo at various speeds. Ever try to see how fast you can make the> numbers go up, when no one's around? Or practice hiding from it in> traffic?

Jim Yanik wrote:>>

I love those things. I appreciate the opportunity to calibrate my> speedo at various speeds. Ever try to see how fast you can make the> numbers go up, when no one's around? Or practice hiding from it in> traffic?>

Biggest problem I have with 'em is they only display two digits ...

Yeah, everybody. But ignorant folks whose position crumbles under a logical >view like to pick fights with me.

In article <42251258.C5FB4BBB@­myrealbox.com>,> The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.­com> wrote:>>Motorhead Lawyer wrote:>>

It should say "14 MPH? PEDAL HARDER, SLOWPOKE!".>

They don't read people on inline skates very reliably. They put one> at the bottom of a hill (of course) near me, and I spend some time> skating down the hill to get it to read over the limit. Managed it,> but unfortunately I didn't have the racing skates with me, so I only> got a little over the 25mph limit. It wouldn't read until I was very> near it, and it would preferentially read cars behind me.