Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cell Phone jamming in your area?

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 8:02:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
of years now. Just wondering how widespread these jammers have
become.

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm

The reason I ask is because a thread in alt.cellular is debating the
use of these jamming devices.

There are six restaurants I've visited recently that jam the Verizon
signal. The jammers also wipe out Sprint PCS and AT&T GSM signals.

I guess you can't depend on wireless in case of emergencies. Oh well,
back to giving the babysitter the wired number of the restaurant in
case something goes bad.

- Sandy
October 6, 2004 8:02:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I thought that the FCC outlawed devices that wil block cell phone
signals (in the USA)?

And after checking out the fine print at the bottom, it states that it
is illegal in some countries.


On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:02:43 GMT, Sandy A. Nicolaysen
<sandynic@verizon.net> wrote:

>These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
>of years now. Just wondering how widespread these jammers have
>become.
>
>http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm
>
>The reason I ask is because a thread in alt.cellular is debating the
>use of these jamming devices.
>
>There are six restaurants I've visited recently that jam the Verizon
>signal. The jammers also wipe out Sprint PCS and AT&T GSM signals.
>
>I guess you can't depend on wireless in case of emergencies. Oh well,
>back to giving the babysitter the wired number of the restaurant in
>case something goes bad.
>
>- Sandy
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 8:02:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
> These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
> of years now. Just wondering how widespread these jammers have
> become.
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm
>
> The reason I ask is because a thread in alt.cellular is debating the
> use of these jamming devices.
>
> There are six restaurants I've visited recently that jam the Verizon
> signal. The jammers also wipe out Sprint PCS and AT&T GSM signals.

They're breaking federal law. They can get spanked hard by the FCC if they
continue to operate the jammers. You might want to mention that fact to them.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Related resources
October 6, 2004 9:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Sandy A. Nicolaysen" <sandynic@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p vq6m0hc2hn88sqj5on0k1072all0u0kaq@4ax.com...
> These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
> of years now. Just wondering how widespread these jammers have
> become.
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm
>
> The reason I ask is because a thread in alt.cellular is debating the
> use of these jamming devices.
>
> There are six restaurants I've visited recently that jam the Verizon
> signal. The jammers also wipe out Sprint PCS and AT&T GSM signals.
>
> I guess you can't depend on wireless in case of emergencies. Oh well,
> back to giving the babysitter the wired number of the restaurant in
> case something goes bad.
>
> - Sandy
>
I would bet that if we were to poll people in the restaurant they would vote
to not hear blasting cutsy ringtones and people yelling into phones while
eating their dinner. As usual a few rude people ruin it for everyone. Phones
have silent modes and voicemail and I don't understand why people don't use
them when in a restaurant/movie etc..
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 6:40:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

If I discovered a business intentionally "jamming" ANY wireless signal,
they would be IMMEDIATELY reported to the FCC. It is flat out ILLEGAL
here in the USA.


"Sandy A. Nicolaysen" <sandynic@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p vq6m0hc2hn88sqj5on0k1072all0u0kaq@4ax.com...
> These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
> of years now. Just wondering how widespread these jammers have
> become.
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/cell-phone-jammers.htm
>
> The reason I ask is because a thread in alt.cellular is debating the
> use of these jamming devices.
>
> There are six restaurants I've visited recently that jam the Verizon
> signal. The jammers also wipe out Sprint PCS and AT&T GSM signals.
>
> I guess you can't depend on wireless in case of emergencies. Oh well,
> back to giving the babysitter the wired number of the restaurant in
> case something goes bad.
>
> - Sandy
>
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 12:40:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

George wrote:
> I would bet that if we were to poll people in the restaurant they would vote
> to not hear blasting cutsy ringtones and people yelling into phones while
> eating their dinner. As usual a few rude people ruin it for everyone. Phones
> have silent modes and voicemail and I don't understand why people don't use
> them when in a restaurant/movie etc..

Making rules against cell phone use and kicking people out when they violate
those rules is OK. Installing a device that jams wireless phone signals is a
blatant violation of federal law.



--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 3:49:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

It's important to note that not all "jamming" is illegal. There are two
types, active and passive. The website you listed refers to active jamming
which is illegal as you are operating a device in a frequency for which you
do not hold a license.

However, some businesses (mostly new movie theaters) are using passive
jamming. This can be established with a thin metal mesh that is place in the
walls of the building when it is being built. This mesh prevents the signal
from penetrating. This type of "jamming" is legal as there is no
unauthorized use of the specturm to do this.

Just food for thought.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 4:02:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:49:15 GMT, "Luchini" <none@dontmailme.com>
wrote:

>It's important to note that not all "jamming" is illegal. There are two
>types, active and passive. The website you listed refers to active jamming
>which is illegal as you are operating a device in a frequency for which you
>do not hold a license.
>
>However, some businesses (mostly new movie theaters) are using passive
>jamming. This can be established with a thin metal mesh that is place in the
>walls of the building when it is being built. This mesh prevents the signal
>from penetrating. This type of "jamming" is legal as there is no
>unauthorized use of the specturm to do this.
>
>Just food for thought.
>
Thanks for the info. I believe that technology is called a "Faraday
Cage". A lot of government buildings are constructed this way for
security reasons.

- Sandy
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 4:02:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:

> Thanks for the info. I believe that technology is called a "Faraday
> Cage". A lot of government buildings are constructed this way for
> security reasons.

Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same thing as jamming.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 8:01:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:33:57 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I believe that technology is called a "Faraday
>> Cage". A lot of government buildings are constructed this way for
>> security reasons.
>
>Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same thing as jamming.

....which is exactly what "Luchini" was pointing out!

- Sandy
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 8:01:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:

>>Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same thing as jamming.
>
> ...which is exactly what "Luchini" was pointing out!

But he called it jamming, which it isn't, which is what my point was. ;) 


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 8:06:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:34:41 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>
>>>Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same thing as jamming.
>>
>> ...which is exactly what "Luchini" was pointing out!
>
>But he called it jamming, which it isn't, which is what my point was. ;) 

My church has an active jammer. There isn't a cell phone in the world
that can get a signal on a Sunday within those walls.
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 12:44:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Is there a way to detect active jamming without using a spectrum
analyzer or other special devices?

BTW One establishment I regularly visit would love to have
cell service available and would be willing to provide a
free tower site.

--
Chuck Forsberg caf@omen.com www.omen.com 503-614-0430
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(Tm) for Embedded Applications
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
10255 NW Old Cornelius Pass Portland OR 97231 FAX 629-0665
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 12:57:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

They are NOT the same....
"Jamming" is done with an active device and is illegal. Key word - active...

"Shielding" is NOT jamming and you are right, there is no law against it.
Because it is passive.


"Luchini" <none@dontmailme.com> wrote in message news:%v%8d.133860$wV.120878@attbi_s54...
> It's important to note that not all "jamming" is illegal. There are two types, active and passive. The website you listed refers
> to active jamming which is illegal as you are operating a device in a frequency for which you do not hold a license.
>
> However, some businesses (mostly new movie theaters) are using passive jamming. This can be established with a thin metal mesh
> that is place in the walls of the building when it is being built. This mesh prevents the signal from penetrating. This type of
> "jamming" is legal as there is no unauthorized use of the specturm to do this.
>
> Just food for thought.
>
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 5:59:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

singha_lvr wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:34:41 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>>
>>>> Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same
>>>> thing as jamming.
>>>
>>> ...which is exactly what "Luchini" was pointing out!
>>
>> But he called it jamming, which it isn't, which is what my point
>> was. ;) 
>
> My church has an active jammer. There isn't a cell phone in the world
> that can get a signal on a Sunday within those walls.


AS it should be. Amen.
--

-Philip
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:06:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:00:25 -0400, RichC wrote:

> You forgot unlicensed use of GMRS radios.

Another re-birth of the CB band.
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 5:21:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 04:33:08 GMT, Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:

> BTW, Non-compliance of FFC rules dominates here in NJ. You can buy a
> radar jammer at any truck stop. Commuters use a "garage door opener"
> like device to freeze traffic lights the same as emergency vehicles.
> I have yet to read about a bust for any of these infractions. This is
> like the NJ law "wipers on - lights on". What officer wants to get
> out in the rain to issue a ticket? It's a law with no enforcement.

The enforcement is there, it's just that the FCC is more interested in
fining broadcast stations where they can get more money. The Howard Stern
issue comes to mind.

FWIW, radar jammers are very ineffective.

http://www.radar-detectors.com/products/jammers/default...
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 8:27:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
> These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
> of years now.


Really? I live near Princeton. Can you tell me which restaurants use
these cell phone jammers? That way I can verify this for myself and
file the appropriate complaints with the FCC, seeing as such jammers are
illegal and all. I also know a few amateur radio folks in the area too
who have been noticing some interference issues lately, and I imagine
they'd be plenty peeved by this sort of thing.


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 4:29:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:27:41 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>> These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
>> of years now.
>
>
>Really? I live near Princeton. Can you tell me which restaurants use
>these cell phone jammers? That way I can verify this for myself and
>file the appropriate complaints with the FCC, seeing as such jammers are
>illegal and all. I also know a few amateur radio folks in the area too
>who have been noticing some interference issues lately, and I imagine
>they'd be plenty peeved by this sort of thing.

Isaiah: I couldn't decipher a way to reply to you directly because
the headers of your post are too obscure. But I'll try to explain the
"big picture" of cellular service in Princeton.

Let's put jamming aside for now and address that later. To begin
with, the cellar coverage is poor to begin with.

The center of town is Princeton Borough and is surrounded by Princeton
Township. Several cellular providers have tried to bring service to
Princeton Borough in the past and to date have failed. Verizon,
Spring PCS, Cingular, etc have tried to get permission to install
antennas on top of Princeton University's Holder Hall, a natural
because it is the highest point along Nassau Street. The town fathers
will not allow any antennas installed because they fear anything
visible on top of Holder Hall will "be a detriment to the town
character". The fact is the antennas would be completely invisible to
those at street level.

Princeton Township has taken the cellular antenna ban to a new level.
One property owner was approched about installing a cellular tower on
his property at the top of "the Princeton ridge", an elevation about
300 feet avove the center of Princeton Borough off Cherry Hill Road.
He too was turned down because nobody in his neighborhood wanted a
tower built there. And that's a shame because that tower could have
covered the entire town with service.

Still, most spots in Princeton have cellular service, albiet weak,
from nearby towers. There are two natural terrain obstacles that
interfere with cellular service. One is the Princeton ridge itself,
which blocks signals from Ewing Street @ RT-206 to Hillside Ave @
RT-206. The other obstacle is the low lying area around Carnegie
Lake. This is simply an elevation problem.

Now, with all of that in mind, let address the jamming. This is where
it gets interesting.

Several restaurants in the center of town jam cellular signals. My
personal opinion is that the restaurants that jam cellular service
should at least have a sign that makes you aware that you might miss
an important call. But one thing that really pisses me off is a
restaurant on Witherspoon St near Nassau St that allows their jamming
signal to infringe on my cellular service while I'm on the sidewalk,
across the street. They should not let their jamming signal affect
people outside their four walls. Another restaurant/hotel on Palmer
Square also jams cellular signals to point that guests on the 3rd
floor rooms can't get cellular coverage, never mind that the jamming
transmitter is in the bar area, which happens to be below grade.

The worst offender is a restaurant that straddles Witherspoon St and
Palmer Square. So, you get the picture, nobody in the neighborhood
gets cellular service. Your amatuer radio buddies are not just
"blowing smoke". They also know there is a problem in that area.

Just to give you a comparision, The Annex restaurant on Nassau Street
is 20 feet below grade, yet the Verizon signal is still usable if only
one bar of signal strength. Conte's restaurant is probably the lowest
elevation north of town. No problems there either. Ivy Inn is east
of the center of town, and lower elevation, with no problems
whatsoever with signal.

Sorry for the long rant.
Good luck on your hunt! :) 

Regards, - Sandy
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 1:46:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap...

David R. Goyer

--
All email is scanned and deemed virus free by Norton Anti-Virus 2003.
"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:3pWbd.20954$cU2.6107@fe35.usenetserver.com...
> Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
> > These things have been in use in Princeton NJ restaurants for a couple
> > of years now.
>
>
> Really? I live near Princeton. Can you tell me which restaurants use
> these cell phone jammers? That way I can verify this for myself and
> file the appropriate complaints with the FCC, seeing as such jammers are
> illegal and all. I also know a few amateur radio folks in the area too
> who have been noticing some interference issues lately, and I imagine
> they'd be plenty peeved by this sort of thing.
>
>
> --
> E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
> Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
>
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 12:56:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>
> The worst offender is a restaurant that straddles Witherspoon St and
> Palmer Square. So, you get the picture, nobody in the neighborhood
> gets cellular service. Your amatuer radio buddies are not just
> "blowing smoke". They also know there is a problem in that area.
>
> Just to give you a comparision, The Annex restaurant on Nassau Street
> is 20 feet below grade, yet the Verizon signal is still usable if only
> one bar of signal strength. Conte's restaurant is probably the lowest
> elevation north of town. No problems there either. Ivy Inn is east
> of the center of town, and lower elevation, with no problems
> whatsoever with signal.

So you said that the restaurants *are* jamming.
He asked you to name them so he could verify himself and file a complaint.
You are willing to name a restaurant with a good signal but will
only generalize about those that you know to be jamming?

Is this "black helicopters", a troll, or would you like to get specific.

-Quick
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 3:43:51 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:46:51 -0500, "David R. Goyer"
<davgo@comcast.net> wrote:

>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041016/ap...
>
>David R. Goyer

David: Thanks for posting that article. Cell phone jamming has been
in place for about 3 years here in Princeton NJ. They are becoming
like radar jammers...everyone using one knows they are illegal, but
still use them anyway. :-/

- Sandy
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 3:43:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:

> David: Thanks for posting that article. Cell phone jamming has been
> in place for about 3 years here in Princeton NJ. They are becoming
> like radar jammers...everyone using one knows they are illegal, but
> still use them anyway. :-/

The solution is to complain to the FCC and get the idiots fined.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 7:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:11:48 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>
>> David: Thanks for posting that article. Cell phone jamming has been
>> in place for about 3 years here in Princeton NJ. They are becoming
>> like radar jammers...everyone using one knows they are illegal, but
>> still use them anyway. :-/
>
>The solution is to complain to the FCC and get the idiots fined.

Steve: If only it were that simple.

The FCC doesn't investigate interference problems unless some major
safety issues are at risk.

Just an example:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/011121-whitepaper_fina...

I doubt the FCC would send black helicopters to bust a restaurant.

- Sandy
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:27:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:56:10 -0700, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>>
>> The worst offender is a restaurant that straddles Witherspoon St and
>> Palmer Square. So, you get the picture, nobody in the neighborhood
>> gets cellular service. Your amatuer radio buddies are not just
>> "blowing smoke". They also know there is a problem in that area.
>>
>> Just to give you a comparision, The Annex restaurant on Nassau Street
>> is 20 feet below grade, yet the Verizon signal is still usable if only
>> one bar of signal strength. Conte's restaurant is probably the lowest
>> elevation north of town. No problems there either. Ivy Inn is east
>> of the center of town, and lower elevation, with no problems
>> whatsoever with signal.
>
>So you said that the restaurants *are* jamming.
>He asked you to name them so he could verify himself and file a complaint.
>You are willing to name a restaurant with a good signal but will
>only generalize about those that you know to be jamming?
>
>Is this "black helicopters", a troll, or would you like to get specific.
>
>-Quick
>
If you know the neighborhood, you can easily determine the restaurants
I'm referring to based upon the facts in my original post. Isaiah
clearly stated he lives near Princeton and I assumed he knows the
territory. Personally, I don't want to get involved. The whole idea
of busting a restaurant for jamming would be way too much effort with
little promise of results.

That's just my 2ยข.

- Sandy
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:27:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:56:10 -0700, "Quick"
> <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>>>
>>> The worst offender is a restaurant that straddles Witherspoon St and
>>> Palmer Square. So, you get the picture, nobody in the neighborhood
>>> gets cellular service. Your amatuer radio buddies are not just
>>> "blowing smoke". They also know there is a problem in that area.
>>>
>>> Just to give you a comparision, The Annex restaurant on Nassau
>>> Street is 20 feet below grade, yet the Verizon signal is still
>>> usable if only one bar of signal strength. Conte's restaurant is
>>> probably the lowest elevation north of town. No problems there
>>> either. Ivy Inn is east of the center of town, and lower
>>> elevation, with no problems whatsoever with signal.
>>
>> So you said that the restaurants *are* jamming.
>> He asked you to name them so he could verify himself and file a
>> complaint. You are willing to name a restaurant with a good signal
>> but will
>> only generalize about those that you know to be jamming?
>>
>> Is this "black helicopters", a troll, or would you like to get
>> specific.
>>
>> -Quick
>>
> If you know the neighborhood, you can easily determine the restaurants
> I'm referring to based upon the facts in my original post. Isaiah
> clearly stated he lives near Princeton and I assumed he knows the
> territory. Personally, I don't want to get involved. The whole idea
> of busting a restaurant for jamming would be way too much effort with
> little promise of results.

Uhhhhh, he said he would do that for you. No effort on your part
at all. You can say "I suspect" if you are worried that the town
elders might sue you for slander or some such. Isaiah said he would
do the verification. What's the problem?

-Quick
Anonymous
October 18, 2004 8:53:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:40:15 -0700, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:56:10 -0700, "Quick"
>> <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The worst offender is a restaurant that straddles Witherspoon St and
>>>> Palmer Square. So, you get the picture, nobody in the neighborhood
>>>> gets cellular service. Your amatuer radio buddies are not just
>>>> "blowing smoke". They also know there is a problem in that area.
>>>>
>>>> Just to give you a comparision, The Annex restaurant on Nassau
>>>> Street is 20 feet below grade, yet the Verizon signal is still
>>>> usable if only one bar of signal strength. Conte's restaurant is
>>>> probably the lowest elevation north of town. No problems there
>>>> either. Ivy Inn is east of the center of town, and lower
>>>> elevation, with no problems whatsoever with signal.
>>>
>>> So you said that the restaurants *are* jamming.
>>> He asked you to name them so he could verify himself and file a
>>> complaint. You are willing to name a restaurant with a good signal
>>> but will
>>> only generalize about those that you know to be jamming?
>>>
>>> Is this "black helicopters", a troll, or would you like to get
>>> specific.
>>>
>>> -Quick
>>>
>> If you know the neighborhood, you can easily determine the restaurants
>> I'm referring to based upon the facts in my original post. Isaiah
>> clearly stated he lives near Princeton and I assumed he knows the
>> territory. Personally, I don't want to get involved. The whole idea
>> of busting a restaurant for jamming would be way too much effort with
>> little promise of results.
>
>Uhhhhh, he said he would do that for you. No effort on your part
>at all. You can say "I suspect" if you are worried that the town
>elders might sue you for slander or some such. Isaiah said he would
>do the verification. What's the problem?
>
>-Quick
>
No problem at all. Go get 'em Isaiah! :) 

- Sandy
(Still waiting on this Yankee game outcome)
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 2:15:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

singha_lvr wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:34:41 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sandy A. Nicolaysen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Building a structure that doesn't let signals in isn't the same thing as jamming.
>>>
>>>...which is exactly what "Luchini" was pointing out!
>>
>>But he called it jamming, which it isn't, which is what my point was. ;) 
>
>
> My church has an active jammer. There isn't a cell phone in the world
> that can get a signal on a Sunday within those walls.

Typical christian control... Keep sending that money, God still hates you.

Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
will be done again.

JS

JS
Anonymous
October 20, 2004 7:09:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
wrote:

>Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>will be done again.

The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not jam.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 4:31:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:09:34 -0400, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>>civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>>will be done again.
>
>The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not jam.


<air guitar>
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 4:33:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
wrote:

>Typical christian control... Keep sending that money, God still hates you.
>
>Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>will be done again.

Do you have this urge to make phone calls during a church service?
Wouldn't going outside be more appropriate?
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:20:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Someone has a heart attack in the church, you reach for your cell
phone...too bad! He's dead!

Many other scenarios possible.


"singha_lvr" <singha_lvr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6gd3p01cvo1js5i41g24s1e11g9nh80rlr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Typical christian control... Keep sending that money, God still hates
>>you.
>>
>>Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>>civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>>will be done again.
>
> Do you have this urge to make phone calls during a church service?
> Wouldn't going outside be more appropriate?
>
>
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 3:09:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I put my phone in silent mode during church, concerts,
meeting/conventions, while my wife is sleeping, but I can still e-mail
and IM.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 8:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

singha_lvr <singha_lvr@nospam.net> wrote:

>Do you have this urge to make phone calls during a church service?
>Wouldn't going outside be more appropriate?

Outgoing calls aren't the problem. Incoming ringers and ringtones are.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

wouldn't giving me the option be more appropriate. If my phone rings, peer
pressure, will make me put it on silent or vibrate. I guess you could
encourage them to just not go to church; or like in some states, you can
leave it on, but if it goes off, pay a FINE. ph

"singha_lvr" <singha_lvr@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:6gd3p01cvo1js5i41g24s1e11g9nh80rlr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Typical christian control... Keep sending that money, God still hates
>>you.
>>
>>Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>>civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>>will be done again.
>
> Do you have this urge to make phone calls during a church service?
> Wouldn't going outside be more appropriate?
>
>
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:18:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

When I go to church, I leave my phone in my car :-) but I do leave it on so
I can see if I've missed a call or received a message. Do as your heart
dictates. ph

"Jerome Zelinske" <jeromez1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gxnkd.10292$O11.2211@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I put my phone in silent mode during church, concerts,
> meeting/conventions, while my wife is sleeping, but I can still e-mail and
> IM.
November 11, 2004 11:10:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." <spamtrap100@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hrd5p0losqom95mlam6jl978dir1gloea9@4ax.com...
> singha_lvr <singha_lvr@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >Do you have this urge to make phone calls during a church service?
> >Wouldn't going outside be more appropriate?
>
> Outgoing calls aren't the problem. Incoming ringers and ringtones are.

And I can't believe how rude people can be. I was recently at a funeral and
a phone started ringing loudly and the women answered and started yacking. I
can understand that there can be times when people need to be in contact but
at least learn how to use vibrate and then discretely remove yourself and go
about your business in another place.
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 8:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>> wouldn't giving me the option be more appropriate. If my phone
>> rings, peer pressure, will make me put it on silent or vibrate.

dee...doo...dee...doo... twilight zone image comes to mind.
Setting: church sermon
cell phone goes off.
"John! how the hell are you? Did you get the car for next weekend?"
patrons in surrounding pews pile on and silently beat the user to death.
sermon giver never misses a beat.

Now that would be peer (or pew) pressure.
-Quick
Anonymous
December 12, 2004 4:05:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

the 12 commandment is anyone that lets a cell phone ring during church goes
straight to hell. do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars, straight to
hell.
what idots that let it happen.
"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:9o3cn0h7te628gausohrjulg5j60chv1og@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
> >civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
> >will be done again.
>
> The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not jam.
>
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 7:59:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:05:13 GMT, "mark devoll" <mark@devoll.org> chose to
add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>the 12 commandment is anyone that lets a cell phone ring during church goes
>straight to hell. do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars, straight to
>hell.
>what idots that let it happen.
>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:9o3cn0h7te628gausohrjulg5j60chv1og@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:15:16 -0500, Jacob Suter <jsuter@intrastar.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing like handing a well funded church a $25k fine and a handful of
>> >civil suits from various local wireless carriers. Its been done, and
>> >will be done again.
>>
>> The 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not jam.

Not to restart a tired, old, off-topic thread, but... The 13th Commandment:
When responding to a post from two months earlier, thou shalt damn well
bottom post because NO ONE will remember what the hell was said earlier to
which thou art responding.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"I bet the Lithuanian gross national product is less than what the U.S.
men's basketball team spends per week on sneakers. This is embarrassing,
people! We're America! The most powerful nation on Earth! The entire world
hates us anyway! We should at least be able to derive some athletic benefit
from this, in the form of stomping the juice out of Lithuania." - Dave
Barry, during the 2004 Olympics
!