1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Cell Phone Blocker

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Gunnr, Sep 8, 2003.

  1. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest




    › See More: Cell Phone Blocker
  2. CellGuy

    CellGuy Guest

    On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:56:55 +0000, Larry wrote:

    > 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!


    Dammit Larry! Stop teasing those of us who can't get Alltel service where
    we live!
  3. CellGuy

    CellGuy Guest

    Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker

    On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:43:32 -0400, Agent_C wrote:

    > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:09:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
    > <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    >
    >>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


    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.
  4. Per CellGuy:
    > 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.


    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.
    --
    PeteCresswell
  5. Larry

    Larry Guest

    CellGuy <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in
    news:1mnk3ovwqrp8.1iovdk1urdodo.dlg@40tude.net:

    > Dammit Larry! Stop teasing those of us who can't get Alltel service
    > where we live!
    >
    >


    Oh, sorry......You could move...(c;
  6. D. Stussy

    D. Stussy Guest

    Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker

    "CellGuy" <cellguy@seemessagebody.com> wrote in message
    news:49129djfbbci.1ibmz11v49py7$.dlg@40tude.net...
    > On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:43:32 -0400, Agent_C wrote:
    > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:09:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
    > > <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
    > >>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

    >
    > 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.


    Actually, interference with emergency communications is a standard $25,000
    fine.
  7. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > In article <fuugpk$3im$1@snarked.org>,
    > "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    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. ยง 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 ... n the case of a device subject to
    certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission."
  8. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > 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.
  9. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > 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?
  10. Bert Hyman

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In news:elmop-BF3FB8.16355926042008@nntp3.usenetserver.com "Elmo P.
    Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

    > In article <uxKQj.23039$%41.3252@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
    > DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
    >
    >> > 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.


    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?

    --
    Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
  11. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > In article <uxKQj.23039$%41.3252@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
    > DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.


    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.
  12. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Earlier Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Jesus Christ. He and the rest of the whiners should get a clue.
    > Cellular service isn't available everywhere. Grow up.>



    Today Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > 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.
  13. Steve Sobol

    Steve Sobol Guest

    On 2008-04-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
    Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol
  14. DTC

    DTC Guest

    Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > 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.
  15. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    At 26 Apr 2008 22:25:23 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > 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!
  16. The Bob

    The Bob Guest

    Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
    following in news:fv0sjs$5da$1@aioe.org:

    > At 26 Apr 2008 22:25:23 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> 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!
    >
    >
    >


    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.
  17. Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
    > In article <fv0sjs$5da$1@aioe.org>,
    > Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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?
    >


    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!
  18. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    At 27 Apr 2008 01:11:09 -0400 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

    > > 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.
  19. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    At 26 Apr 2008 22:45:58 -0500 The Bob wrote:

    > 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.

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?