Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: CellGuy <cellguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:46:34 GMT
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:43:32 -0400, Agent_C wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:09:07 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you post that you're blocking calls, fine. If I had an emergency and
couldn't call 911 from my cell phone, and someone got seriously hurt or
died as a result, I wouldn't be suing, I'd be filing a police report, and
hopefully getting people thrown in jail.
The police would ignore you and you'd have the weakest legal case
imaginable. No way you could prove any of those assertions.
And since when does any cellular provider guarantee, or even claim,
you'll have service indoors?
A_C
That's not the point. The issue is if service is available normally at a
location but is blocked by a jammer. I would think places of business
would put themselves at serious risk if they were caught using them.
According to the US 1934 Communications Act, only the federal government has
the right to interfere with radio frequency communication (military, etc.).
Some jamming manufacturers are challanging this, but at this time it is
HIGHLY illegal to jam any radio transmission, whether it be commercial or
cell phone.
FInes can be up to $10,000 per day of the infraction.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: D. Stussy
- Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: (PeteCresswell)
- Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- References:
- Cell Phone Blocker
- From: ccbsh04
- Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: Strongbox
- Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: Agent_C
- Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: Steve Sobol
- Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- From: Agent_C
- Cell Phone Blocker
- Prev by Date: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- Next by Date: Re: Sorry for the multiple posts, was: cellular in Japan
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- Next by thread: Re: Cell Phone Blocker
- Index(es):