Were these actually cellular phones I heard

[Chris0381]

from http://www.stupidscannertricks.com/cgi-bin/sst/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*

I was informed to search 902-906 and 925 to 928 and picked up a few calls one at 903.01875 and one at 903.79375 or 903.80000 now are thes actually cellur phone images or something etc.

 

[wmbio]

Yup! these were older analogue cellphone calls. Not many of these around any more! You were listening to an image of the actual transmitted frequency. This image is made inside the radio and can be heard in the 900 mhz band. This trick is not new by a long shot!


Here is the math.
Actual analogue cell tower freq=880.010 MHZ ( this freq is blocked in the radio )
Double the radio's IF freq of 10.7 or 10.8 mhz =21.4 or 21.6 mhz, add this to the actual frequency

880.010mhz
+21.600mhz
-----------
901.610 mhz ( not blocked by the radio ) and you hear the same transmission as was on 880.010

Wmbio

 

[k9swx]

There's also the possibility you were hearing nearby 900mhz cordless phones too. I used to scan this range at college and hear some interesting conversations. Sometimes you can pick up the base on one freq and then the handset on a different freq. Check out the freqs here:

http://www.tech-faq.com/cordless-phone-frequencies.shtml

 

[Chris0381]

Interesting info there guy.

 

[andrew_m]

Oh boy another "I listen to cordless phones" post.

 

[bobmich52]

Here Iz Da Facts

99.9% Of Cell Calls Are BULLCOOKIES, Belong On a soap opera Or are For Losers dat Have No Life But To Listen To other Folks Misery.

If That iz Your Play, You should Get A Job Az A Bartender.

At Least You Might Get a Tip For Listening

 

[mciupa]

from http://www.stupidscannertricks.com/cgi-bin/sst/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*

I was informed to search 902-906 and 925 to 928 and picked up a few calls one at 903.01875 and one at 903.79375 or 903.80000 now are thes actually cellur phone images or something etc.

I know that you are just experimenting to see what the scanner can do, but remember it is illegal to monitor those calls and not wise to publicly state you are doing so .
Keep it to yourself.
If people find out , you'll be stuck with a label that will be hard to get rid of .

 

[Chris0381]

I agree with you fully as you guessed right I was simply putting the scanner thru the acid test as its only a few days old. I simply scanned a frequency range and not actually punched in a list of frequencies planning to monitor any certain one. We used to have a old cordless come over the Fire Department dispatch here and sometime you stumbled onto a phone conversation.

I also see there is a lot of publication of cellular frequencies and maybe thats a place for the law to start.

 

[datainmotion]

from http://www.stupidscannertricks.com/cgi-bin/sst/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&view_records=1&ID=*

Wow! I've never seeen so many posts from half-informed people in one thread from that link! I think I may be dumber now just for looking at it.

 

[Al42]

Here is the math.
Actual analogue cell tower freq=880.010 MHZ ( this freq is blocked in the radio )
Double the radio's IF freq of 10.7 or 10.8 mhz =21.4 or 21.6 mhz, add this to the actual frequency

880.010mhz
+21.600mhz
-----------
901.610 mhz ( not blocked by the radio ) and you hear the same transmission as was on 880.010

A scanner that's only a few days old doesn't have a first IF of 10.7 or 10.8 MHz, so the math is wrong (most likely by a factor of about 60).

 

[wmbio]

Default Were these actually cellular phones I heard
from http://www.stupidscannertricks.com/c...records=1&ID=*

I was informed to search 902-906 and 925 to 928 and picked up a few calls one at 903.01875 and one at 903.79375 or 903.80000 now are thes actually cellur phone images or something etc.

Who said how old the scanner was?

Wmbio

 

[Chris0381]

Well lets let this thread go. I didnt realize I committed such a horrendus act by searching with my scanner and having it stop on a frequency. I have now opened up the brand new scanner and have modified it so as not to be able to do any searches in the 900 mhz range.

 

[k9swx]

Well lets let this thread go. I didnt realize I committed such a horrendus act by searching with my scanner and having it stop on a frequency. I have now opened up the brand new scanner and have modified it so as not to be able to do any searches in the 900 mhz range.

Yeah I hear you man.. Some people here just have nothing else better to do than to play Mr. Policeman with the rest of us. It really irks me that you asked such a simple and decent question, yet it turned into a 'lets bash these guys' topic. People like this make me want to sell my scanner and give up the hobby. Jeesh..

 

[bobmich52]

Responsible Scanner Owners COMPLY With The Law!

It Is Always The Few Buttheads That Choose Not To That are Gonna Ruin The Hobby For The Rest Of Us Responsible Scannists.

YOU MAKE THE CALL!

 

[overlord1]

Yeah I hear you man.. Some people here just have nothing else better to do than to play Mr. Policeman with the rest of us. It really irks me that you asked such a simple and decent question, yet it turned into a 'lets bash these guys' topic. People like this make me want to sell my scanner and give up the hobby. Jeesh..

Amen, brother! I love these "law and order" types that come on with their holier than thou attitude. I bet these guys never drive over the speed limit either, LOL. The original poster was asking a very legit question, imho. I don't believe he was advocating listening to cellular phone calls or breaking the law. I find that people are more receptive to your point of view if you leave out personal attacks and a condescending attitude. Besides, I seriously doubt that the FCC has so little work that they are going to put the full weight of the department to go after a guy who unintentionally receives cellular calls on his scanner.
Ed

 

[PhilJSmith67]

FYI, on most modern scanners you will not hear images from cellular base stations (869-894 MHz) in the 902-928 MHz segment. These most likely analog 900MHz cordless phones, as mentioned earlier. Many of these phones used channels on 0.1 MHz increments (903.1, 903.2, etc.).

Try not to get too upset about people stating the legality of listening to cell or cordless phones. Yes, many people break the speed limit too, but if people starting posting on boards when and where they broke the speed limit and how to do it without getting caught, you can bet that photo radar would be *everywhere* and laws allowing police to read speed data from your car's own computer could be next! That's why it's generally a good idea to keep these topics hushed on public boards, and that's why some people will jump on every topic like this. The less attention we attract, the better.

 

[overlord1]

FYI, on most modern scanners you will not hear images from cellular base stations (869-894 MHz) in the 902-928 MHz segment. These most likely analog 900MHz cordless phones, as mentioned earlier. Many of these phones used channels on 0.1 MHz increments (903.1, 903.2, etc.).

Try not to get too upset about people stating the legality of listening to cell or cordless phones. Yes, many people break the speed limit too, but if people starting posting on boards when and where they broke the speed limit and how to do it without getting caught, you can bet that photo radar would be *everywhere* and laws allowing police to read speed data from your car's own computer could be next! That's why it's generally a good idea to keep these topics hushed on public boards, and that's why some people will jump on every topic like this. The less attention we attract, the better.

PhilJSmith67,
I agree with you and you make a good point. What irks me is the condescending attitude some people displayed in their responses to the original poster. My point about the speed limit was that these same people I bet you have no problem driving 5-10mph or more over the speed limit or breaking other "minor" laws. Is unintentionally listening to a phone conversation on ones scanner in the privacy of their home a more serious "crime" than driving faster than the posted speed limit? I don't believe it is.
Ed

 

[kb2vxa]

Hi all,

"Wow! I've never seeen so many posts from half-informed people in one thread from that link! I think I may be dumber now just for looking at it."

Yup, there are things on the Internet that suck out your brain! It looks like a typical cross section here, in so many threads some broach subjects better kept at home and others make certain comments about them, Dumb And Dumber.

FYI, revealing what you know about some frequencies can easily lead to the demise of the hobby believe it or not! I have seen frequency data published that quickly led to encryption and killed one of the most interesting facets of scanning. A well known example although not directly applicable was how the blocking of cell frequencies came about in the first place. Let's not forget about Lindsay and the military, don't ask, don't tell.

There are countries and I don't mean Communist where scanning is illegal. And you say it can't happen here?

Remember always, when one person knows a secret it remains secret. The moment he tells just ONE it becomes world news!
"The less attention we attract, the better."
Amen brother, amen.

 

[datainmotion]

"Wow! I've never seeen so many posts from half-informed people in one thread from that link! I think I may be dumber now just for looking at it."

Just for clarification, I was not referring to anyone in this thread, rather the posts on the link posted at the start of this thread.

 

[Napalm]

There are countries and I don't mean Communist where scanning is illegal. And you say it can't happen here?

Welcome to the United Kommunist Kingdom of Great Britain

Illegal here, but tolerated.