Mike Civil  wrote:

> >http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article2889295.ece
> 
> Hopefully the users of these unregulated jamming devices will
> know enough not to use them where it could interfere with the train
> CSR/NRN/IVRS/GSMR/GPS/WLAN......
> 
> Devices strong enough to disrupt reception over the length of a whole
> train could conceivably affect devices outside the train.

Make it legal for people to buy them with very short ranges. That's
all most commuters really need anyway.

tony sayer  wrote:

> Now potential jammer. 
> 
> 
> How would you feel if it was <your> call to whoever possibly the boss, a
> customer if you were self employed, the wife one of your children who
> needed picking up or for whom arrangements had changed at the last
> minute, or a whole host of other calls. 
> 
> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming  .. don't think
> so..

Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I 
had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.

In article , David
Buttery  scribeth thus
>Nomen Nescio  wrote in
>news:a3f3cf18b6a0eb25108ed4df9ac74b59@dizum.com: 
>
>>> OK the prattle may be a real PITA but wholesale jamming  .. don't
>>> think so..
>> 
>> Those calls you talk about aren't prattle, and if I 
>> had a jammer I wouldn't push the button for them.
>
>But how would you know? Recently I heard a man on a train ring someone and 
>spend the first minute so saying that they were on the train and that it 
>was raining a little bit. Prattle, yes. After that, he asked how his 
>daughter was doing, and the implication was that she was quite ill in 
>hospital. Not prattle. I wouldn't have liked to have cut him off because of 
>that unpromising first minute!
>
No lets take what the first poster said about loud chav's and city
types...
-- 
Tony Sayer