POTUS jammin'

[coderman@gmail.com (coderman)]

On 11/28/14, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
> To clarify on your "complexity" argument, are you saying that the
> POTUS-parade may be employing technology that detects other devices by
> their output signatures, then fires a noise-beam specifically at them to
> maximise power delivery and minimise energy costs/unnecessary interference?

to clarify, the POTUS jammin' described by OP is a simple, and brute
case.  however, there is precedent for "intelligent jamming", where
attempts to avoid the specific DoS using wide band, complex encoding
would be met with a specific wide-band, complex response telling you
to get stuffed. these systems cooperate together, and surely
countermeasures are in place if you evade the trivial measures.

note that avoiding POTUS jammin' is a violation of FCC regs, #include
<std_disclaimer> etc,...



> If that were the case, then a shielded, passive receiver ought to be OK,

a shielded, passive receiver would be overwhelmed by the brute flood.



> For my part, I just doubt they're using intelligent jamming because cost
> isn't really a factor in their requirements, is it? They can just blare
> out on all the frequencies they care about,

yup.



> How much power is needed to jam
> at the frequency band you described? We're talking about a cavalcade
> that could, if they considered it necessary, employ a portable nuke!
> Power ain't a limiting factor! :)

they probably use a few tens of watts EIRP at most, unless they need
to react to a perceived threat to penetrate that barrier. military
systems go to many thousands of watts.

best regards,