• To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:

    Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.

    If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.

    To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.

    The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.

    For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).

    This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.

Illegal, easy to get...but are they really wrong??

Status
Not open for further replies.

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,473
Location
Illinois
Wirelessly posted (Clacking rocks together: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-us; DROID X2 Build/4.5.1A-DTN-150-30) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

This must be the social conscience thread. Using a jammer because we think a Dad isn't paying enough attention to his kids - really? Do you dart in front of someone in traffic if you think they're driving too fast too?
Nope, that's what "highway jax" are for but then this is for another time and thread...
I feel that jammers may serve a legit purpose in certain instances,as long as one takes into account the legal and other ramifications that may come with using one but that's just my take on this subject.

73,
n9zas
 

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,036
The problem with those are that they don't discriminate what 800mhz freq's they jam... With more and more PS Agencies using 800mhz I think you can understand the problem.
Precisely.

I have personally DF'd several cellphone jammers, because they were causing outages of public safety systems. It's becoming a serious problem, and I don't think we're really fully aware of the extent, yet. Reports of intermittently poor coverage in specific areas have eventually been tracked to one individual with a cellphone jammer trying to "help".

The area impacted can be far larger than the user intends. A jammer located in a theater can block public safety service at a nearby intersection, or one located in a teacher's classroom can block service for several city blocks.

Don't think so? I've SEEN IT.
 

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,036
What about the phones on 2 GHz? PCS phones are up in that neighborhood, does this device jam them?:
Some do.

There are a variety of makes and models. Some have a small degree of filtering and will take out 870-986 cellular, and 1.9 GHz PCS in a room. I have seen others that will generate 50 watts of noise power from 800 MHz to 2 GHz. Still others are advertised as capable of jamming Nextel phones. Those are specifically targeted to take out 850-870 Mhz.
 

zz0468

QRT
Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
6,036
Both are excellent examples why one might employ a jammer. :wink: It seems that quite often there can be a thin line between right and wrong here.
There is no thin line. The jammers are illegal, and for a good reason.

Private business and homes have a right to limit cellphone usage on their property. But this has to come in some other manner besides jamming.

In public places, people need to grow a thicker skin and stop worrying about what other people are doing.
 

wlmr

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
415
I often wonder how big a book will be thrown at the first jammer owner who unintentionally blocks a serious 911 phone call all because some rude people talk too loud on their cell phones. For so many people a cell phone is now their only phone. I somehow think the criminal suit would likely be followed by a civil suit aimed at punishing the jammer owner by ensuring he no longer has enough money to buy anything like that for a very long time.
 

N0WEF

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Mpls, MN.
I somehow think the criminal suit would likely be followed by a civil suit aimed at punishing the jammer owner by ensuring he no longer has enough money to buy anything like that for a very long time.
Very good point, Sir.

No matter which side of the argument you fall on, do you really want to be the guy who cost someone their life?
 

Confuzzled

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
704
Well, like I said, if they were made legal, the technology could be tailored to cover more specific situations. Like maybe they could 'always allow' 911 calls?

1. Block only cell frequencies, not others in the 800Mhz range
2. Limit effective range.
3. Optionally limit call times to an adjustable range.
4. Always allow 911.

Signs would have to be posted informing customers they are in use.
 

N0WEF

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Mpls, MN.
These are just my thoughts on that... I'm just hypothesizing, not trying to argue or debate.

Well, like I said, if they were made legal, the technology could be tailored to cover more specific situations. Like maybe they could 'always allow' 911 calls?
I don't know a way that a device emitting massive amounts of RF could distinguish what PH# was being called. Jammers don't have brains, they just blast RF.

Making technology find a work around would increase costs on cell companies and public safety entities. These costs would be passed on to us.

1. Block only cell frequencies, not others in the 800Mhz range
That would eliminate emergency phone calls.

2. Limit effective range.
I don't know an effective way to limit RF 100% of the time other then something like a faraday cage which would stop cell phones. (And business owners would have to do structural changes costing 10's of thousands of dollars.)

3. Optionally limit call times to an adjustable range.
This would cut emergency(or nessesary) phone calls short causing miscommunication. And who would decide what's acceptable? The Gov. already decides enough for us.

4. Always allow 911.
Most store alarms use cell service to "call in" alarms in case phone lines/power supply is cut. This would also eliminate "hold-up" alarms.

These are just a few thoughts... Heck, I could be wrong.
 

James_Bond_007

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
if i ever own a business i will simply insulate the building with the same tech corporations and casinos use in their surveillance rooms. it's a special paint and window coating that blocks RF especially at the 400mhz-6ghz ranges where snooping devices are common. and yes this stuff does exist and does work. problem solved. i think transit operators could employ this stuff to passively jam cell service on subways and buses, restaurants, churches, etc. and it's not illegal. he was stupid in the article and was basically flashing it around. if it was me i would conceal it in a pack of cigarettes and wire a remote switch and not flash the damn thing around.
 

N9NRA

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
850
Okay i have a techy question here, and a thought too. Do these "cell jammers" have some kinda firmware/software in them that runs `em? If so wouldn`t be a real biggie to just update the firmware/software so as to allow emergency calls (to 911) right? I would think this could be done via some kinda DTMF reader or a way to somewhow distinguish when a 911 call is sent (after all, don`t cellphones still send DTMF, albiet on the control channels for the network?). N9NRA P.S. Additional for thought, in the old days of ham radio autopatches, when a club had a "closed" autopatch for just members, the repeater controller had a function that allowed emergency calls via a 9xx speed dial of sorts, invoking this would temporarilly override the regular autopatch and "open" it up for the emergency call (our local repeater had that abaility). Wouldn`t that be somewhow doable with these "jammer" units too? Just some techy thought :).
 

James_Bond_007

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
there is a jammer called a cellular trap. it traps the cell signal in the area and is hooked to a pstn and does just that. only allows 911 calls to be made but blocks all other service. i forgot about them.
 

N9NRA

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
850
there is a jammer called a cellular trap. it traps the cell signal in the area and is hooked to a pstn and does just that. only allows 911 calls to be made but blocks all other service. i forgot about them.
Intresting, and right there would seem to be the solution to this, all that would need to be done is somehow get this made legal (NOT an easy task to be sure). Like i said, intresting. N9NRA
 

N9NRA

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
850
Forgot one more question for ya , ya said this is hooked to a pstn (telephone number). Just curious, but what is that for, so as to allow incomming but not outgoing calls? or is that so the PSAP (911 dispatcher) can see the number and other info on the calling party? N9NRA
 

James_Bond_007

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
if you know what a microcell or femtocell is you can think of it as one of those but only allowing call in/out to a psap.

the veterans administration is starting to installs these nationwide in their hospitals.
 

N0WEF

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Mpls, MN.
I can't wait for the day when I get to decide when/where you get to use your cell phone that you pay for.
 

James_Bond_007

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
29
Location
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
well if people didn't act like rude jerk offs using their cell phones during funerals, church services, movies, on public buses and subways, etc there would be no need for jammer's or traps. guess its ok to restrict the second amendment for the majority because of a few minority but not for rude cell phone users.
 

gewecke

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
7,473
Location
Illinois
Does anyone really think that the FCC would ever in a million years permit these things?
Well if you look at what history has taught us, there are several brain farts that the FCC has shoved into our midst in the form of allocations and proposed rule making! So nothing would surprise me, but illegal or not these little jammers will sneak into our spectrum every now and then. :wink:


73,
n9zas
 

N0WEF

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
601
Location
Mpls, MN.
also banning use of phones from public transit is no big stretch as the government in many places say you can't use a cell phone in a motor vehicle
I believe you mean "While OPERATING a motor vehicle" Since bus riders aren't operating the vehicle I don't see that happening.


Nearly a dozen states and the District of Columbia prohibit driving while holding a phone; currently 14 states and the District of Columbia ban texting while driving.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top