Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!netsys!vector!nobody From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Message-ID: Date: 1 Feb 89 16:03:29 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 26 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 41, message 2 In article ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 40, message 4 > >Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why. Just because they pass a law >doesn't mean people will stop doing it. Actually, in all likely hood >if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the >cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range. Real >Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range. Very few scanners actually >cover this. A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like >the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to >get them back). > Actually, when I picked up phone conversations over the police scanner before the call was initiated I heard a series of tones, beeps, and rings. The call was made and I heard the conversations. I know it was from mobile phones, nothing can convince me other wise. I know all this since particular conversations said theat they were in their car, or wherever. if this is all true? then there is a possible dangers that these tones could be recorded and broadcasted over the same band width with a little electronic experience and high quality recording equipment. That can't be right that would be too simple.