Scanner? Cell Phone?
 

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:55:43 -0400, Brent wrote:

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

If it receives in the 800 Mhz section allocated to cell phones.
FYI, these days 90% of cell phones are digital so scanners are
useless that can receive those frequencies.



--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/ NW Oregon Radio Page
Tried of Virus, Spyware, Adware and Popups? Switch To Mozilla Web
Browser and Email http://mozilla.org/ Recommended by the US
Government Computer Security Team http://www.cert.gov/

"Brent" wrote in message ...
How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

All the scanners I ever used, had the frequency range they could
recieve, on a plate on the bottom, or back of the unit. Another way
to find out is to program a cell phone frequency and see if you get an
error message.
Fred Burgess

FYI most cell-phones switch from analogue to digital depending on signal
strength and how busy the sight is. I still pickup hundreds of cell-phones
with my scanner and even more when I go down to the states. The reason for
that is that the US cell companies believe that they are protected by the US
laws and don't bother to upgrade so plenty of cell-phones to listen to in
the US.

"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:55:43 -0400, Brent wrote:

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell
phones?

If it receives in the 800 Mhz section allocated to cell phones.
FYI, these days 90% of cell phones are digital so scanners are
useless that can receive those frequencies.



--
Best Regards, Keith http://kilowatt-radio.org/ NW Oregon Radio Page
Tried of Virus, Spyware, Adware and Popups? Switch To Mozilla Web
Browser and Email http://mozilla.org/ Recommended by the US
Government Computer Security Team http://www.cert.gov/

Fred Burgess wrote:
"Brent" wrote in message ...

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

Yep, Try scanning between 869 to around 880 mhz WFM . I would never
consider doing this myself, but thats just what I have heard that other
really bad people have done. It takes all kinds really.

Good Luck

Mike Burch K8MB
Apache Junction AZ

To each their own, but I'm not so sure I can understand the big deal behind
the cell phone scanning. WHY? Because:

1. you don't know who they are - I'd say 99.999% of the time, nor what the
hell most are referring to. So, it serves no useful purpose.
2. you wouldn't want someone tapping into your calls - would you?
3. it is not legal to act on or report any thing you may hear, even if it
were a murder plot being discussed.
4. if you collect private information which anyone with a cell phone or
cordless for that matter would be dumb to give out over such, then the
question begs to be answered - just what do you plan to do with it? Would
you want someone collecting yours?

Listening to local cordless phones, if that is your thing - would provide
better listening. At least you have a snow ball's chance in hell of knowing
who they are, and the things they speak of will be more localized. Hell, ya
might even hear them talk about YOU.

Lou

"Mike Burch" wrote in message
news:V2zEc.4012$Oq2.2725@attbi_s52...


Fred Burgess wrote:
"Brent" wrote in message
...

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell
phones?

Yep, Try scanning between 869 to around 880 mhz WFM . I would never
consider doing this myself, but thats just what I have heard that other
really bad people have done. It takes all kinds really.

Good Luck

Mike Burch K8MB
Apache Junction AZ

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:55:43 -0400, "Brent"
wrote:

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

Why bother? Does anyone use a analog cell phone anymore?
--
To reply, remove TheObvious from my e-mail address.

Evan Platt wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:55:43 -0400, "Brent"
wrote:

How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell phones?

Why bother? Does anyone use a analog cell phone anymore?
--




Of course not.
The whole world uses digital cell phones, digital Television, wideband
high-speed internet.

Although I understand that Mainland China is going fully digital TV by
2006, wonder how long it will take us to do that?

Dave

I don't know what world you live in but in the US the cell companies have
been hiding behind that stupid law and not fully changing over to digital. I
can always find someone to listen to on the US cell bands.

It was the FCC in the US that put that law into effect and all TV signals in
the US will have to be digital by 2006. That means that if you don't have a
digital ready TV now you will have to have a set top box. That is also why
the TV manufactures are dumping the analogue TVs with some giving them away
to clear the stock. The good point to this is that they can stack 4 or 5
channels on one signal taking up less band width also less or no
interference. Also better clarity and sound that is not do-able with
analogue. Satellite TV is already digital with the set top box so they are
years ahead of many of the rest.

Of course not.
The whole world uses digital cell phones, digital Television, wideband
high-speed internet.

Although I understand that Mainland China is going fully digital TV by
2006, wonder how long it will take us to do that?

Dave

Run it under hot water for about 3 minutes, then try turning it on. If it
works, it can receive cell phones.

--
73! de Andy KC2SSB
http://shorecogs.tripod.com
AIM: shorecogs
"Brent" wrote in message
...
How does a person tell if a scanner is capable of listening to cell
phones?

"WG" wrote in message
news:96%Fc.104250$E84.53040@edtnps89...
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 22:00:37 GMT

... It was the FCC in the US that put that law into effect and all
TV signals in the US will have to be digital by 2006. That means
that if you don't have a digital ready TV now you will have to have
a set top box. That is also why the TV manufactures are dumping the
analogue TVs with some giving them away to clear the stock. The
good point to this is that they can stack 4 or 5 channels on one
signal taking up less band width also less or no interference. Also
better clarity and sound that is not do-able with analogue.
Satellite TV is already digital with the set top box so they are
years ahead of many of the rest.

Well here are my thoughts on this. First, I don't believe that the FCC
has any power to regulate any laws. As they can only make
recommendations for the lawmakers to do so.

Second, High Definition TV was supposed to kick in a little while ago
(same thing as digital TV perhaps?). Well this was cancelled because
most consumers didn't even own one yet.

Third, you know companies are going to sell digital TV tuner boxes that
will work with analog TV sets anyway, if something like this gets past.
Plus they will still work with game machines, VCRs, and DVD players
anyway.


Cheers!


______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Well here are my thoughts on this. First, I don't believe that the FCC
has any power to regulate any laws

the original poster was either mistaken or misinformed. The FCC did not pass
that law. Congress did.

And Congress does have the power to pass that law.

Yep, Try scanning between 869 to around 880 mhz WFM

interesting because people told me that my scanner which does not cover the
cell phone band was picking up images of cell phone calls in the 990 mhz
aircraft band.

Yet the signals of these "images of cell phone calls" were in narrow FM mode
and also AM mode.

That is, some were NFM and some were AM.

None were in wide FM mode.

They did all frequency hop.

There were some (a couple) of cordless phones in wide fm in the 900 mhz ham
band (one of them our own cordless phone), but most of these were only in
narrow fm mode and did not frequency hop. none in AM mode as I recall. These
were on the correct frequency however, instead of images.

I wasn't listening to cordless phones. I was listening for ham radio operators.
I don't know why the government assigned phone calls that are illegal to listen
to to the legal to listen to ham bands where you can't but help hear them when
you're listening for hams.

It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

and in the 990 mhz band, I was listening for airband signals, not cell phones.

phone calls are very boring, anyways.

Listening to local cordless phones, if that is your thing - would provide
better listening. At least you have a snow ball's chance in hell of knowing
who they are, and the things they speak of will be more localized. Hell, ya
might even hear them talk about YOU.

I'm not sure if this is funny or sad. I'm going to have to go for "sad".

Our neighbor was complaining to us becaue relatives of hers somehow found out
information that she didn't want them to know.

And she was telling us we better not talk to anyone else at all about her.
(this wasn't anything to do with cordless, cell, or scanner. She meant verbally
in person).

She thought we told them.

Well, what she doesn't know is that she herself is broadcasting the information
right in the 900 mhz ham radio band.

Ham radio operators could have heard her. And scaner listeners could also have
heard her.

I listen to the 900 mhz band for ham radio, not for phone calls.

Why bother? Does anyone use a analog cell phone anymore?
--

yes. I supposedly pick up plenty of 800 mhz band images of analog cell phone
calls in the 900 mhz aircraft band (around 990 mhz).

Yet these are not wide fm mode that I pick up there. Plenty are narrow fm and
some are AM. And they all frequency hop.

and I don't hear any tone on them like people say there are on cell phone calls
when they switch frequency.

so I'm kind of baffled.

It was the FCC in the US that put that law into effect and all TV signals in
the US will have to be digital by 2006.

correction. It was Congress that put that law into effect, not the FCC.

People assume it was the FCC since they know that the FCC reggulates radio and
TV.

But in this particular case, it was Congress that passed the law.