Cell phone jammer wanted!!
 

In anticipation of the future allowance of cell phone conversations on transoceanic airliners, I've been looking into jamming equipment. I find that they are 1)expensive and 2)illegal in the USA (violation of the Federal Communications Commission regula-tions).
Are they also illegal in Europe?
Does anyone know of any schematics for one?

I dread the prospect of a nine hour flight to Europe, trying to sleep, despite the chatty fellow in the adjacent seat, saying,"Can you hear me now?"

Another question: Would its use over the ocean be subject to US, European, maritime, or some other kind of law, or none?

I don't know if you're serious or just spamming but in any event the day will never come for one simple reason...there are no cells in the ocean so regular cell phone conversation will not be possible on a trans atlantic or trans pacific flight (at least to the best of my knowledge).

I'm with you, tomboy.

You are seriously considering jamming communications on a commercial airline? If that interfered with flight systems you would be putting yourself and every other passenger in peril. This has got to be a troll - surely no one would be that irresponsible.

I don't know which airlines you fly with but calling from your seat is already widely available on most airlines.

Have I seen anyone make a call, at $5 or $10 per minute, never.

It would be similar pricing with mobile telephony.

Geordie

xyz123, I'm not so sure that's technically impossible. The whole airplane could be a pico cell.
I wish I know which airlines tomboy flyes to avoid being in the same flight.

I personally don't think it is "irresponsible" to want to block out someone else's cellphone call, especially since you only get to hear half of the conversation AND it does seem as if they are always shouting, etc., but doing so would be illegal.

Get real: this ability to make cellphone calls on the plane is another potential revenue generator for the airlines but I suppose THE problem might be from which group do you want that revenue to come from...

You could charge MORE for seats in the "cellphone friendly" section OR you could charge MORE for people to sit in the "cellphone unfriendly" section...so what to do?

Believe me, it will happen if the regulations allow it. And just imagine the kinds of conversations you'll hear...and I mean <b>important</b> ones such as, &quot;Hi, Honey..I just went to the bathroom and everything came out OK...&quot; or, &quot;We just took off and I'll be there soon&quot; (Yeah, like who cares, Man?) and so forth...

WHICH airline will be the first to try it?

Tomboy,

I am with you.

A more local problem here in NYC is the subways. The babblers want to be able to &quot;chat&quot; on crowded subway cars. They presently stare wanly at their pagers or blackberries unable to emit loud, inane and stultifying messages like:

&quot;I am now passing 34th Street&quot;
&quot;Did you buy the blue or the red hat?&quot;

It is not surprising that babblers seldom are in possession of a book. They do not read, they babble, and their task in life is to disrupt the privacy of the civilized minority who might be reading on a train or now, yerks, even a plane!

The Luddites weren't all wrong.

Lufthansa and some other long-haul airlines now offer wifi connections on board, for a reasonable price (around $20 for the entire flight). If you sign up with Skype or other VoIP telephony service, you can make phone conversation on board (though you need to be discreet not to annoy other passengers). Jamming such signal with a device is a serious breach of airline safety and you will risk arrest and imprisonment.
Airlines are considering introducing cell (mobile) phone use on board with a satellite hook-up.

I hate to tell you, but there has certainly been discussion about creating access to mobile services on the London Underground. I don't know if, let alone when, it's going to happen.

And I confess I did once use a phone on an airliner, when I first became aware it was possible. I just wanted to be able to say to someone &quot;I'm just over the Gobi Desert&quot;. I didn't get a very appreciative reply, though.

I have a better idea. If they OP sees someone talking on the phone, go over there, beat the crap out of the person, and smash the phone. Who needs a jammer?

I'm with you Tomboy.

No need for violence, just lean over their shoulder and say something that really embarrasses/compromises them with whoever's on the other end.

What would be so terrible about mobile phones working in the London Underground...they work now, at least they seem to work, on the Metro in Paris (I've gotten calls there)...

If only everyone would remember: no matter how noisy it is where you are, you don't have to shout for the person on the other end to hear you. Just speak at normal volume as if you were in your living room and the electronics will do the rest.

And we don't care how important you are, so bruiting that about doesn't gain the respect you so desperately crave. What matters to us is how <u>quiet</u> you are.

This is something that remote TV correspondents would do well to understand as well. <b>YES, MARTY, THE WIND IS NOW ABOUT 130 MILES PER HOUR...</b>

We have mobile access in the Washington, DC Metro as well.

What is &quot;so terrible&quot; about it is/are the same &quot;terrible&quot; things about the airliner situation:

Listening to half a conversation you couldn't care less about but since they seem to be shouting you are forced to &quot;listen&quot; to it;

Getting even more pissed off when you find out the subject of the conversation is about as trivial as it gets and on and on.

I honestly believe that there are many times when it is more than just convenient to have, and use, a cell/mobile phone and it can save time, money, grief, suffering, and all those other things normally attributed to religious relics and icons...

BUT there has to be a less annoying way for them to be used in close quarters IMO.

Intrepid1

How about a huge soundproof helmet that a babbler can don and chat to his/her delight? This would protect their right to free speech and my right to privacy.

The helmet might contain a recording device so that if the babbler can not reach his counterpart he can replay past fascinating cellular telephone conversations all within his helmeted world.

Powell..I think your ship just came in and if you don't act fast you'll end up with the rest of us in a few months or years saying, &quot;I could have invented <b>that</b>.&quot;

Better yet, get it marketed on TV by somebody like Cathy Mitchell (Super-Snacker, TurboCooker, etc.) and, of course, it would reatil for $19.95 like just about everything else &quot;as seen on TV.&quot;

And cramped quarters where a lot of people are trying to catch some sleep so the next day won't be a total washout, while one person makes sleep impossible by killing time with idle loud chatter. Such people are immune to angry glares. The jammer is a pleasant fantasy.

PatrickLondon, do you have suggestions for compromising things to say? &quot;Are you coming to bed soon, Doll?&quot; is good, but limited.

I took Amtrak from L.A to San Diego not too long ago, and the passengers in my car had the misfortune to hear (very loudly) all about the upcoming high school graduation of this cell-phone lady's daughter. By the time I reached Oceandise, the first movie that came to my mind was , &quot;Throw Mama From The Train!&quot;

((H))

Try some good noise-isolating headphones, like the Shure E series. Not only does it block people's conversation, they also cut ambient (engine) noise. I don't travel without mine.

Maybe wonder why the underground in the UK want to keep phones jammed underground. In Madrid it was cell phones which detonated the bombs-jamming some of these phones might have saved some people. Also, didn't the cell phone be involved with the London bombs?

A positive use of the cell phones on-board on airplanes if you remember 9/11 and the people who used these telephones telling people what is happening. That day it would have been better if everyone had telephones.

Like it says in England, there are turns and roundabouts.

Blackduff

Many people seem to be missing the point here. Would you seriously want another passenger on your flight to be operating a jamming device? What if it interferes with inflight systems or communications with air traffic control?

I sympathize with those of you who don't like listening to half a cellphone conversation (would it be better if you heard the other half as well?). My answer to inflight noise is Bose QuietComfort2 noise cancelling headphones.

Heimdal, you hit the point. In fact I find strange to see so many simpathizing with somebody with a behaviour comparable to a terrorist.

I don't even like the idea of picocells in airplanes. I know they <i>think</i> they're safe. But no one can know what interactions between RF devices and onboard systems were left out of their test protocol.

But I agree with Heimdall: if you want quiet, bring your own. I think my Sennheisers (good German engineering) are better than the overpriced Bose in any event. Bose seems to spend more than should be necessary on advertising, and not enough on development.

Getting back on topic:
ASSUMING it would not interfere with aircraft electronics in any way (one would certainly want to verify this first), would its use over the ocean be subject to US, European, maritime, or other law, or none?
The noise-cancelling earphones sound like a viable option: Not being an audiophile, my primary interest would be anti-sound, rather than sound quality. There seems a surfeit of models available. Could you recommend one noise-blocking/cancelling model number that would fit my needs?

tomboy - I agree with Robespierre here (which is a rare occassion! :) ) that Bose is overpriced. If you want a regular over-the-ear headphones, go with the Sennheisers' noise cancellation models.

I like in-ear buds myself, and Shure makes some nice ones. They are noise-isolating, not cancelling, but work just as fine. The E2c model goes for under $100. There are also E3c, E4c and E5c. My E4cs are the smallest of all, and I found a good deal for about $170. Shure makes professional ear-pieces for musicians - they don't have the strongest bass, but overall sound quality is very good. They also come with a variety of sleeves of different sizes, so one should be able to find one that fit well.

I agree the Bose are expensive, but in addition to their noise cancelling ability provide hifi quality sound when used with an MP3, DVD player, and even many inflight entertainment systems. I didn't want their first version (QuietComfort) because it was too bulky to carry, but jumped at the QuietComfort2 as soon as it came on the market.

Bose was the market leader, but as with many products, other companies followed with cheaper, and in some cases, perhaps, better imitations. Robespierre's Sennheisers may indeed be a better buy - only a side-by-side comparison would tell.

Robespierre,

Which Sennheisers do you use and recommend??? Thanks.

The model I have isn't made any more, but what matters more than my opinion is your ears. Try some different brands in a hi-fi store, and compare specifications.

(Oh, except on the Bose, because they don't publish specifications. This is the equivalent of a hair dryer manufacturer not revealing how many watts his device consumes.)

Robespierre,

Thanks...that makes sense.

RKKWAN:
What's the difference between noise
-cancelling and -isolating?

Technically, if cellphones are safe on the aircraft, so are cellphone jammers. They necessarily both transmit at the same frequencies.

In any case, cellphones are not hugely dangerous, despite folk mythology to the contrary. They are, however, transmitters, and are thus potentially more of a hazard to avionics than passive receivers (such as GPS) and non-transmitters (such as wristwatches), which are harmless.

What worries me is not people jamming cellphones, but the violent impulses of people who are ready to kill someone for doing so without even bothering to learn if their own beliefs have any basis in fact.

I'm also surprised that so many people seem to have difficulty ignoring others around them. Perhaps they all live in the countryside where there is no one else to ignore; but in big cities, there are always people around, and they are always talking, so anyone bothered by that must be going crazy from the stress after a fairly short time.

I guess that explains these episodes I've been having!!

&quot;Technically, if cellphones are safe on the aircraft, so are cellphone jammers. They necessarily both transmit at the same frequencies.&quot;

Not exactly. Phones use spread-spectrum signaling that uses a whole band of frequencies. For jamming to be effective, it would have to be broadband noise that covered that band. Now you get into sum-and-difference frequencies aliasing into navigational and/or digital signaling channels within the airplane. This is not a Good Thing.

tomboy - Noise cancelling headphones have tiny microphones on the outside that detects noise in the environment. It then creates an opposite soundwave that cancels out that noise. So, there's a circuitry involved and it uses a small battery for power, which lasts for a while. Most designs only cancel out the lower frequencies - which are very effective against engine noise, but you can still hear others if they're calling you.

Noise isolating ear-buds have no extra circuitry. It simply works by forming a tight seal in your ear canal. It isolates all frequencies.

I used to have the Sony MDR-NC10 ear buds that are both noise cancelling and isolating. They sound great, but look hideous (especially for men, as I look like wearing ugly ear rings). The newer version MDR-NC11 look better, but the sound quality is totally crap. I do not recommend them.

The Sennheisers are cheaper than Bose, but are they really better? I don't know, but CNET did a review, and to find their results go to http://reviews.cnet.com/Headphones/4...5120625-3.html.

Have some fun! Use a recorder to copy the conversation. Suggest you are either writing a book or doing sociology research. Play the conversation back, take notes.

Yes, I think Sennheisers are vastly superior. I don't know what criteria the CNET reviewer(s) applied, but <u>my</u> review would use terms like <i>definition</i> and <i>transparency</i>. Sennheisers have both in abundance; Bose have none of either. I think most consumers (and 20-something reviewers) are fooled into thinking that deep bass is the end-all of high fidelity (it has ever been thus: Magnavox made a reputation in the '30s with over-accentuated low frequency response), when actually the flatter the response curve, the better.

Speaking of terminology used in the reviews, the only significant word I see in the Bose review is &quot;ante,&quot; while &quot;featherweight&quot; and &quot;supercomfy&quot; are applied to Sennheiser. Translation: wow, are those Bose things <i>heavy</i>, or what?