Mobile phone jammers

Has anyone here commonly used a radio jammer?  I see a lot of value in this concept against cell phone incessant use.  I see nitwits every day who can't seem to keep themselves from constantly chattering on the cell phone being in line, standing right next to me, sitting right next to me.  Not to mention dangerous distracted driving with it.  Before mobile phones were so hip and fashionable, people seemed to use more sense about how often and where they'd be on the telephone.  Pay telephones were and still are sometimes in corners, hallways, outside, not right next to everyone else or right in the middle of everyone else.

It's more or less a counter-cell phone radio bomb.  It shuts down every mobile phone within up to 15 meters depending on the model and type. They are getting a lot more popular in western counties.

Yes from my understanding it's illegal in the US and the UK.  But so what?  So was having a beer 85 years ago. It ought not to be.  It's just basic counter electronics.  There are a lot of sellers at different web sites, especially Chinese related ones, Red China and Taiwan.

If anyone has had some practical experience with what works in what situations and what doesn't,  and also what seems to have too little power for average situations, let me know.  Also I'd like to know more about what has better quality compared to what just sells more.  Obviously the idea is getting at most cell phones people use, especially the newer ones, more common ones, on the most common frequencies etc., that kind of thing.  But naturally I'd only advocate using something like that for the worst cases.  Sparing use that is.

So, you don't have to agree with me, and it doesn't have to be political.  Mostly I just want some practical info. 

Derek J.

A few years ago we wanted to import some especially for chess tourneys.

But they're illegal in South Africa, so we had to give it up.

it will be hard depending on the size of the area you want to have covered.  i think that is why they are illegal because you may be clocking cell coverage from people out on the street. 

Yes I know all that.  So what?  They'll probably get legal at some point anyway.  I guess I'll add that it makes sense to me that the FCC prohibition stuff is really about protecting TV and radio broadcast transmissons.  Emergency channel, national broadcast, that kind of thing.

D.J.

dang, i tried to change my post in time.  i missed some of your points and caught them after i posted. 

So my impression is that very few have these in regular use or everyone who does is trying to keep a secret.  Well I might just keep it a secret too.--D.J.

This a a super relevant and interesting (London) "Times" article on what I've talked about.  Good for perspective.  This guy was talking about nitwits on the train who can't get off the cell phone!--Derek J.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article2889295.ece

there is something i have never quite understood about the anti-cell phone crowd.  how is it different for someone to be sitting on the train and talking to their companion next to them as opposed to on the cell phone? 

this is ignoring the obvious rudeness of cell phone use during movies or while completely ignoring the person who is filling their latte order.  but in places where silence is not typical and social interaction is not expected, i really don't understand the problem. 

First part: I think the difference is that it's natural and expected for people in the same place to talk to each other. It's abnormal, strange, and new for someone to have a telephone with them all over, anywhere, and to do the same thing remotely.  Traditonally people having phone conversations do them in corners where a phone is, at a front desk(like in a hotel), where a phone is, or in a booth.  There is semi-privacy and for the most part others are kept from having to hear the conversation.  If a telephone is installed somewhere, it's assumed it shall be used.  It's kind of accepted in the place.  Not so with mobile phones. It's often an intrusion, like a screaming child or some moron walking around with a boom box.

2nd part:  Yes of course.  Probably enough said about that already.

DMJ

Interestingly, no one has touched on the civil/national defense aspects of radio jamming techniques.

I can forsee a day when there are posted "dead-zones" to prevent mobiles from being used to remotely detonate explosives, or to "tap" sensitive data networks.  There is significant effort being devoted to researching terrorist tactics.  The latest "print-cartridge bombs" are evidence of why these types of technologies are legitimate.

I would actually be happy to pay extra for goods and services to enterprises that were "mobile free".  I would pay an extra $1USD at the theater, or a % fee at a restaurant to be in a "no mobile" section, and none of these particular uses really create a "nanny-state", if you will... its just that the people need the gear available to them and the legalization of the technology.

Also, plans are readily available on-line to build devices that accomplish this.  They can be constructed in a couple of hours using parts readily available at your nearest electronics parts store (e.g. radio shack.)

Cheers,

-C

@jollyman - i am not sure how much longer cell phones can be considered new.  if anything, the situation may even be better now that cell phones are better and people don't have to shout into them to be heard.  also, text messages are taking the place of some calls.  but i still don't see why it is more annoying to hear half a conversation than it is to hear the whole one, when two or more poeple are talking to each other.  you could just do what i do and fill in the other part of the conversation.  it also makes the people i am with laugh on most occasions. 

@cjsteele - i have no problem with having businesses choose to have cell free zones, just like i have no problem with the restraunt that posted a sign that screaming children will be asked to be taken outside.  if anything it is the opposite of a nanny state because it would be a free market decision. 

as far as the security issues, it will be interesting to see how that plays out.  i see the obvious argument that the cleanup crew in the aftermath of some problem will need to cell phones for the responders.  seems easy enough to turn the machine off in that case. 

my main problem with it is that it seems to easy to thwart.  can't use cell phone detonators, but people were blowing stuff up long before cell phones came along.  it seems like another large expendature to make people feel safer without actually making them any safer.