Stop Cell Phones Without Stopping Pacemakers... 552
metoikos writes "A company based in Fairfax, Virginia, has come up with a subtler method of
preventing cell-phone addicts from using the world as a phone booth than a faraday cage or even those little hand-held jammers.
Cell Block Technologies (that name must go over well with law enforcement) is developing a smoke-detector sized device which sends signals of 'no service' to cellphone frequencies, prompting phone to send calls directly to voicemail.
Admittedly this is better than messing with everything that uses the same frequencies cellphones do . "
it's too bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:it's too bad... (Score:2, Funny)
Thump thumb... (Score:2, Funny)
I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:4, Insightful)
But are people really annoyed by cell phones so much? Also, what's with these draconian laws with driving and cell phones? They say it's because you'll get distracted. But then again, shouldn't they outlaw radios...and talking to others in your car?
Just wondering.
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:5, Insightful)
Logically, using a cellphone and driving isn't any more distracting than using one one hand to steer and talking to passengers.
I suppose the only difference is that if you're holding something, it's slightly harder to go to two hands. I could easily see that someone in the half second before a crash would have a harder time of dropping the phone and then grabbing the wheel than a person who is only using one hand, but the other hand is not holding something.
I think the reason why the laws have been enacted though, is that it's visible to other drivers. If a driver is distracted and cuts you off because of the radio or their passengers, you might not be able to tell that because it's not obvious and you'll just chalk it up to their being a jerk or a woman driver(just kidding folks). But if they have a phone in their hand, you say AH-HAH! Cellphones! Somebody should make a law! etc...
Wrong!! (Score:3, Informative)
Read the Study! [njsafety.org]
Re:Wrong!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is whatever you have to say really more important than the safety of other road users?
Try it for yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Demonstrably, it IS more distracting, though.
Try this test for yourself (which has been used in several studies).
Crank up any task-intensive video game. Driving sim, FPS or similar. Get the best score you can. Now try that game while having a phone conversation. You can even use your fancy hands free thingy. Do you get a lower score? Do you get killed out faster? br>I'm betti
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Informative)
The uproar about it is caused by the experience that 9 of the last 10 near accidents i've been in have all been the fault of a person talking on a cell phone, and in about half the cases that person see
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw LOTR: Two Towers and some guy kept getting that chirping tone from the two-way walkie talkie feature. Every thirty seconds or so. Enough people were pissed off... we asked him to stop, but he was a jerk about it. I knew the manager, so we had him formally warned - next time, we'll have the police officer escort you out of the theatr
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Informative)
Two different things. The parent was referring to someone in the theater actually using the two-way radio, and you read it as someone actually ignoring their message waiting indicator throughout the movie. Just as annoying but a whole new level of stupid.
Hey Nextel owners, PLEASE hit the black speaker button to turn off your loudspeaker! No, you are not required to use the speakerphone function with the 2-way radio
RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
By SAM LUBELL
Published: April 8, 2004
T could happen on a train, in a restaurant or during an awe-inspiring aria at a performance of "Carmen": a neighbor's cellphone starts bleating the theme song from "Friends," disrupting the mood and setting nerves on edge. Wouldn't it be great, you think to yourself, if this couldn't happen?
Others are thinking likewise, including companies and researchers developing or already selling devices that render cellphones inoperable in certain locations. Methods include jammers that interfere with cellphone frequencies, routing systems that mute phones' ringers in specific places, sensors that detect active cellphones and building materials that block cellphone waves.
Proponents say that such measures are more effective than "no cellphone" signs, "quiet cars" on trains or even legal restrictions (like a law prohibiting cellphone use during performances, enacted by the New York City Council last year).
The concerns go beyond mere annoyance: casinos are seeking to stop phone-based cheating; prison authorities want to guard against phone use by inmates for drug deals or other forms of wrongdoing. With the rise of camera cellphones have come privacy concerns that have made locker rooms and other areas no-phone zones.
"At some point the American public will become so frustrated with the abuse of cellphones that it will rise up and yell that something must be done," said Dave Derosier, chief executive of Cell Block Technologies, based in Fairfax, Va., which is developing a transmitter the size of a smoke detector that relays signals of "no service" to cellphone frequencies, prompting them to send calls to voice mail.
Cell Block's products are slightly more sophisticated versions of what is probably the most widespread method of stopping cellphone use, called jamming, which renders phones inoperable by disrupting the connection between cellphone towers and cellphones. Jamming devices overpower phones' frequencies with especially strong signals and often with loud noise. Such devices can be found on eBay and at Web sites like globalgadgetuk.com.
That site says it has sold thousands of devices to theaters, businesses, military users and individuals. The jammers range from $200 for a rudimentary hand-held model to nearly $10,000 for suitcase-sized gear sold to governments and the military, with the price usually based on the signal range and the likelihood of disrupting cellular activity.
Other means are also in development, from devices that merely detect cellphone use (and prompt users to desist) to construction methods that render cellphones inoperable.
But not everyone finds this trend encouraging. Cellphone industry experts and federal regulators deride jammers in particular as unlawful, unethical and even dangerous.
"You're not allowed to barricade the street in front of your house because you don't like hearing an ambulance," said Travis Larson, a spokesman for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, who asserts that blocking systems inhibit customers' rights and can block emergency calls. "Just like roads, the airwaves are public property."
The Federal Communications Commission points specifically to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which says that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications" licensed by the government.
"It is the F.C.C.'s authority and obligation to determine which transmissions are lawful," said Lauren Patrich, a spokeswoman for the commission's wireless bureau. "If the F.C.C. doesn't have that authority, then what's its point?" Fines for violations can reach $11,000 for a single offense.
Mr. Derosier said that devices like Cell Block's are "questionably legal" in the United States, but he added that with proper disclosure and provisions made for emergencies, there is no reason that they should not be used. The devices are legal in Japan, France and Eastern Europe, and in most of
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If I put forth the expectation that all guests are treated equally, then I should have a right to have your cell phone not work. Why? Because people all around you paid for a show. They did not pay to hear you scream in to your cell phone at Dell about how they missed their latest shipment of PC's to your company.
I may be stopping your right to receive a call, but if your phone is licensed in the US under our FCC laws, your phone must accept any interference, which may cause undesired operation.
Hah.
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Also my wife and I would like to go to that fancy resturant too. But with an infant at home with a babysitter, I would appreciate you NOT blocking my cell phone in case of emergency.
You should not control rude people by punishing all!!
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
How did your parents ever survive without a cell phone?
The fact is that you don't NEED the phone to work everywhere, you just WANT it to. There's a big difference.
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right. It's not like the human female has evolved over thousands of years to easily squeeze out a pup or two without much intervention.
If you were her doctor/ob/gyn in addition to being her husband, I'd appreciate your point. If you're *that* concerned about the delivery -- and if you're not the doc, there's not much you'd be able to do an
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
I get so much amusement out of those evening local news segments when some woman gives birth in a car on the way to the hospital or on an elevator.
Whoop. Dee. Freakin. Doo.
It's not like the baby needs two nurses and a doctor (who arrives for the last 10 minutes and catches the kid), an IV drip, an
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the first argument that I've heard that makes me think that maybe blocking all cell phones in restaurants and theaters might not be such a good idea. I agree with you that responsible/thoughtful cell users should not be penalized just because some self-absorbed folks have to have their bizarre ring-tone and conversations disturb my dining.
How about this: What if that fancy restaurant posted a sign, saying "We reserve the right to block cell phone use - Your cell may not operate within the confine
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:4, Funny)
Your second child in 3 days?! I've heard of having "one in the oven" but your wife must have a microwave.
(early congrats btw)
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't your airspace. It's a public place.
If I put forth the expectation that all guests are treated equally,
First of all, there is notthing inherently "equal" about preventing cell phone signals. Second of all, your "expectation" isn't binding on anyone else. I expect my cellphone to work when I am in a restaurant or theatre. I pay for it to work there. Tough beans for your expectations.
Why? Because people all around you paid for a show.
There is nothing in the silent vibration of my cellphone that anyone around me will notice. If they notice me pull it out of my pocket and look at the screen, then it wasn't a very interesting show and you owe them their money back.
I may be stopping your right to receive a call, but if your phone is licensed in the US under our FCC laws, your phone must accept any interference, which may cause undesired operation.
This is the reason I bothered to respond to your selfish little rant. You are patently wrong. Primary licensees do not have to put up with any interference, they have the primary right to the frequency, and deliberate interference is illegal and can subject the interferer to heavy fines.
What you are probably thinking of are Part 15 unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi or cordless phones and baby monitors. Those devices are not licensed any they do have to put up with interference from licensed users of the spectrum and each other. For example, as an amateur radio operator, I am a primary licensee in the 2.4GHz Wi-Fi band. If I decide to put up a station on one of those frequencies, I can do so, at a much higher power than you can ever hope to override, and YOUR use of the spectrum goes POOF!
I am a SAR volunteer, and my cellphone may be how I am notified that there is a lost child that needs to be found. I'm sorry if you think that your right to silence overrides the life of another human being, but get over it. If my cellphone vibrating in my pocket annoys you, then get your fucking hand out of my pocket and mind your own damn business.
Private -vs- public space (Score:4, Interesting)
> It isn't your airspace. It's a public place.
Not true. Public place is a park or the sidewalk, basically anything maintained by the government (local, state, federal). A restaurant is a private place. Ever seen those signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"? A public place can't do that, because they aren't allowed to discriminate. Private places can do so. I can well imagine a restaurant (mine, if I had one), to automatically take away all food and drinks and bring the check the moment the customer's phone rings. As the ovner of that particular private place, I may feel like refusing service to those who wish to keep their cell phones on.
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
I Have Mine of Vibrate (Score:4, Funny)
I'm waiting for a device that logs frequencies nearby that have recently received calls. If the ringer was loud and annoying, you can change their ringer to a loud, annoying song with lyrics to the effect of "I'm an asshole with a stupid ringer and I want everyone to hear my stupid little ringer song when they're trying to eat a pleasant dinner with their girlfriend. Somebody please punch me in the face."
No collateral damage this way.
-Lucas
Re:RTFA! (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Um... (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
Legality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Legality (Score:2)
Lawsuit time (Score:3, Insightful)
What about business people, doctors, police, etc. who need these devices to work?
And talk about lawsuit material. Someone gets hurt, but can't call 911 on their cell phone because it is being jammed by this (or a similar) device.
Hell, aren't devices like these illegal anyways?
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, it is illegal to deliberately block radio transmissions as you point out. Jamming
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2)
OTOH, a movie theater or opera or whatever is not an acceptable place to have your ringer on. I'm not going to "relax" and let some jackass answer his annoying ringer and chat it up. I'm a lot more likely to pluck it from his hand and crush the thing. Better the phone than his face, I say.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:3, Insightful)
Move to Tucson, where there is no smoking in any restaurant, and many classy restaurants will ask you to step outside if your baby is crying.
If you need to have your cellphone with you at all times, eat at home.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:5, Interesting)
I finally figured out why people find cell phones so much more annoying in restaurants than say, other people talking and clinking dishes. First, in the case of a screaming kid or dropped plates, the noise is typically brief, which cannot be said for cell phone conversations.
The second problem is that people always talk louder on cell phones. I personally do not understand this, however, IDNHACP (I do not have a cell phone.) So, the restaurant is already loud, and people are trying to talk over the din, which leads to point 3.
It's only one side of the conversation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not evesdropping, but it is jarring for me (and many others) to hear half of a conversation in my perhipheral hearing. It's easy to block out people talking back and forth, even if they're being loud; however, blocking out someone who is loudly seemingly talking to themselves is much more jarring to your brains white noise filter.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know, either, but it's a fact. Not logical, but it's a fact. There are few things more annoying, and don't bother telling me it's illogical; emotions are BY DEFINITION illogical.
I think it may be a Pavlovian response. Nine time out of ten, in the past, whenever I've seen somebody yakking it up in a restaurant, it was at the top of their voice, talking bullshit (and don't EVEN get me started on those yahoos who do it walkie-talkie style at Starbucks). So we get used to it - "cell phone in public" = "rude behaviour". This expectation becomes ingraned. People become so used to equating "cell phone in public" with "rude person" that the response becomes automatic. What happens, then, is even though a person may be politely using a cell phone, because of past experiences, the immediate knee-jerk response is "rude SOB".
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2)
I'm thinking the same thing. Doesn't FCC certification (formerly known as type acceptance) prohibit a device from interfering with other electronic devices?
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2, Insightful)
I must admit, that is my answer after a lot of yoga-like deep breathing. My initial response is that all we need are more
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2)
Maybe we'll try reading this straight from the article. What a novel thought!:
The Federal Communications Commission points specifically to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which says that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications" licensed by the government.
"It is the F.C.C.'s authority and obligation to determine which transmissions are lawful," said Lauren Patrich, a spokeswoman fo
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, whatever did these people do before the cellular telephone? I can't possibly imagine. Heaven forbid that someone in these professions should have to use a telephone with WIRES, or tell someone where they're going to be for the next couple of hours.
Besides, doctors still use pagers, policemen aren't typically "on-call" when they're at the movies, and "business people" who "need these devices to work" can go conduct their business somewhere else, thank you very much. You wouldn't bring your laptop to the movies to work on a bit of code during boring parts, so why should it be OK to conduct disruptive business on your cell fone?
And talk about lawsuit material. Someone gets hurt, but can't call 911 on their cell phone because it is being jammed by this (or a similar) device.
Gimme a break. Anyone who needs to call 911 on his cell but can't because he's in a "no service" area inside of a movie theatre, concert hall, etc. is going to have approximately 200 people in the immediate vicinity who can come to his aid and/or go fetch the paramedics USING A LANDLINE.
p
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2)
A doctor very well may, as many are frequently called at almost any time of day. People just need to turn their cells/pagers to vibrate.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if you're at home, your automatically closer to where you work?
Interesting thought, all doctors should be at home. You don't even know how doctors typically operate, do you?
Hell, lets take my uncle for example. He's a psychiatrist that deals with a lot of really really wacked out people. He lives about 1-1.5 hours from the city he works in (depending on traffic). When he goes to a play or out to eat he's actually a lot closer to the hospitals he works at than if he's at home. When he gets a call/page and has to leave the play (no, he doesn't answer them during the play, just waits for the intermission) or restaurant, his wife just takes a cab home (if he's not back in time to pick her up). Even though he typically carries 2-3 pagers and/or cell phones, I have never heard any of them go off.
Kind of sucks really, but he's committed to helping people.
No Service (Score:2, Funny)
Does this mean my pacemaker will get 'no service' messages as well? That can't be good.
Department (Score:4, Funny)
I guess somebody is having a bad day.
Better idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now this is interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
What if an emergency call is blocked, or a call about something incredibly good?
What if it were Darl's call to Linus apologizing for the lawsuit that was blocked? (Hey, we can dream.)
This shouldn't be used except in controlled circumstances, although personal-sized models of this will be fun to play with.
Re:Now this is interesting. (Score:2)
Personally, these should be installed in movie theaters. Depending on price and portability, I'd buy one just for personal use, and keep it in my backpack. Nothing is more obnoxious than someone on the bus with an annoying atonal nasal whine bitching out their kids or their mother or their whatever on a cel while you'r
Re:Now this is interesting. (Score:2)
If you're a doctor on call, or a businessman expecting a call about the deal of a lifetime, don't go into places like theaters where you are expected to muster the courtesy of turning your phone off. It is that simple.
That is why the phone companies invented voicemail. Use it.
Re:Now this is interesting. (Score:2)
If it's important you be reached, put your phone in silent mode, or get a pager (with a silent mode).
It'd be the best of all worlds if the phones could be remotely PUT into silent mode while in theatres, restaurants, etc. Then all this nonsense could be done away with, and people truly in NEED of being reached anywhere still could. It's in the hands of the phone companies. You k
Praise be! (Score:2, Funny)
~D
Wow, bet doctors will love this one... (Score:5, Funny)
"That doesn't matter, nurse, the ring was destroyed and Sauron defeated!"
I truly hope folk don't use this on the sly. Should be law that where they're in use, HUGE signs in obvious-to-see places let you know you won't be getting any calls.
Re:Wow, bet doctors will love this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's not implicit that a cell phone is going to work anywhere at all, anyway. They are completely unreliable unreliable communication mediums, no matter what Verizon says.
If one is really stupid to have someone's life depend on their bloody cellphone, they'd better be diligent enough to notice when there's no service. And if they think they're too busy to notice, then their phone calls are plainly not very important to them.
Why do we need more signs to limit people's liability for other people's inattentiveness? Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough yet?
ObLink (Score:5, Informative)
In Soviet Russia, link follows you!
Send Incoming Calls directly to voicemail? (Score:2, Insightful)
Only blocks GSM (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting notes:
* Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile [t-mobile.com] customers. No more Catherine Zeta-Jones hollering "Stop!" in the middle of your bowling tournament. I hate it when that happens.
* The company is Canada-based, so they're outside the reach of Ashcroft & co. The NYT article quotes the company's founder as saying that the technology is useful in mosques... if the founder is indeed Muslim, he's probably wary of landing on Ashcroft's little Enemies List. Heck, I'm worried myself, 'cause I'm not sure what he thinks of Methodists [nwsource.com] these days!
Manufacturer's web site (Score:2)
The NYT article (available here [nytimes.com] reg-free (thanks, guys [blogspace.com]!)) is short on details, but the manufacturer's web site [cell-block-r.com] has much more detail.
Some interesting notes:
* Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile [t-mobile.com] customers. No more Catherine Zeta-Jones hollering "Stop!" in the middle of your bowling tournament. I hate it when that happens.
* The company is Canada-based, so
Re:Only blocks GSM (Score:3, Informative)
And AT&T, and Cingular.
Re:Only blocks GSM (Score:3, Informative)
...or AT&T customers (except those with old analog phones), or Cingular customers (except those with old analog phones), or Pac Bell customers, or Powertel customers, or BellSouth customers.
In case you hadn't noticed, everyone's switching to GSM except Verizon and Sprint.
but... (Score:4, Funny)
... what if I want to stop pacemakers?
Re:but... (Score:2)
http://knifecraft.freeservers.com/CowboyHolster
Re:but... (Score:3, Funny)
There's clear precedent--you have to stop before you break my heart. Did The Supremes teach us nothing?
prisons (Score:2)
WTF? I've been to prison (class trip for a criminal justice class). We were required to leave just about everything on the bus - money, credit cards, pack of smokes, car keys, etc. Cell phones were included on the list. (It would've been easier to list what we were allowed to bring)
Inmates are already prohibited from having a cellphone
phone companies (Score:3, Interesting)
DOS? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:DOS? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd use one in the theater right before the show starts.
Cell phone users (Score:2)
I for one welcome our new cell phone jamming overlords
I like it... (Score:2)
This is a bad idea... (Score:2)
The proper way to regulate cell phones is for buisnesses and private properties to develop policies, and post them. Most theaters I go to have signs that
No lawsuit needed, just a complaint will work... (Score:3, Insightful)
The FCC will crack down hard on people using this device. All it takes is one complaint from a cell customer or provider to the FCC, you don't have to file a lawsuit.
The fines for transmitting in unauthorized bands are pretty hefty and I doubt that anyone who is attempting to block cell traffic would be willing to put up with repeated large fines and/or jail time for not complying.
Doctors (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, cellphones disrupting public events are definately a growing problem, but you know what: the last movie I saw was more interupted by the girls talking/swearing a few rows up than by cellphones. The solution to either problem: kick 'em out.
Disruption is not the solution to disruption... especially if this device were to become to everyone who has a grudge against cellphones.
Re:Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly the same way that on-call doctors worked prior to the advent of pagers and cellphones; they let the hospital know "I will be at the theater from 9 to midnight" and if the call was for them, the house manager would (quietly) find them and tell them.
Sorry to shout, but isn't it bleedingly obvious?
Re:Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
What privacy issues? The usher answers the phone "theater for john doe, would you like to leave a message or should I get him?" (Or something to that effect) Sure it is a private call, but that doesn't mean the phone answerer needs to be told anything more than "This is an urgent matter than needs his attention now". In any case all the people around the doctor will hear a lot of private information if he answers, while the usher can be assumed to be a little more discrete, if only cause it is just one
Re:Doctors (Score:3, Interesting)
And I have, in fact, asked ushers to do this for me, when I was on call for something.
The reminder works great for people who don't need to take calls; the ushers work for those who do.
Re:Doctors (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had movies interrupted probably 20-30 times in the last year or 2 and it has NEVER been a doctor. Nor has the conversation EVER been important on the scale that everyone talks about in these discussions. Over half of the conversations have started something like this,
"Oh, nothing much, just watching a movie.".
"Yeah, we can bring the beer."
"No, it's no big deal. Some a**hole is telling me to get off the phone, so I'll have to call you later."
Most doctors carry pagers as their notification devices for medical emergencies. It allows them to be notified, but not have to drop what they're doing to know what's going on. Same with on-call ambulance drivers, firemen, etc. In almost every single emergency profession, all they really look for is notification that they need to get to the hospital/ambulance shed/firehouse immediately. They don't need to have an actual conversation.
Re:Doctors (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, presumably the girl wasn't dying when the doctor left the hospital.
I've had movies interrupted probably 20-30 times in the last year or 2 and it has NEVER been a doctor.
So does that mean doctors never receive emergency phonecalls at the movies, or that they keep their phones on vibrate, talk quietly, and leave the theater if have an important call without you ever k
what about the reverse? (Score:2)
Re:what about the reverse? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're phone is saying "no service" then outgoing calls probably won't go through. Depends on the phone, maybe.
I agree, though, this is a dumb solution. It's a social problem, not a technical one. Make it unacceptable to disturb somebody. I can't speak for the entire country, but in the last couple of years, cell phone obnoxiousness has gone down. I have witnessed a number of people pull their cell phones out when a movie starts to turn them off. So if all these people are doing that, why punish them by killing service to their phone?
Frankly, I think a better solution could be developed. Cell phones are digital now. Down the road, I can imagine that service will be set up where phones automatically go into silent mode depending on the building you are in. I like this solution. It removes some of the accidental bs from happening.
The most insulting part is that these places think they're more important than a call you might recieve. Imagine a guy leaving the theater, getting out of range of the jammer, and then getting a voicemail that his father's been in an accident. "Oh man! I could have left the theater an hour ago!! nO!!"
I don't mind finding a way to make the audible phone ring go away, it's the "no service for you" attitude that is just the wrong way to solve that problem.
An alternative idea (Score:3, Insightful)
dubious legality... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway... the way I see it is this:
This is a device which transmits on the same frequencies as cell phones. Now, Cell phones are FCC licensed devices licensed to transmit in that range (800MHz range). This device, AFAICT is NOT licensed... which means, that If I were a cell user, the cell company's FCC license rights extend to me in one form or another, I could, under part 15 rules, require that the restaurant using such a device turn it off due to its direct interference with my licensed device. Failure to comply could be met with a complaint to the FCC, followed by an investigation, fines, etc etc.
SO, I guess the question is, since technically any jamming device is illegal (which is why true radar jammers are illegal in your car) AND having this device, or any cell-phone jamming device is against part 15 rules unless licensed by the FCC, what is to stop cell phone companies from suing restaurants, movie theaters, etc who employ these devices. After all, if the FCC finds that the device is not licensed AND caused harmful interference, the people using the device could face severe fines, and jail time even, AND would be open to civil litigation...
it seems like a big can of worms, but I just wonder about the legality of these things, AND whether or not they can be sued for any interference to the licensed cell signals...
Answers to many questions... (Score:4, Informative)
Safety: Yes, they will prevent emergency phone calls from being received or made. With well posted signs this could be mitigated (ie, you can't be held liable if the doctor or liver transplant candidate were aware of the cell phone blocking upon entering the establishment) However, I wouldn't want to be the owner when the place is taken hostage, landlines cut, and no one from inside can use their cell phone.
Ideally such a technology would allow ring signals to get through, but would disable call initiations (answering or dialing). This is not impossible, but technically expensive (snoop on all frequencies, short jamming bursts on specific activity types)
This is a social problem which can really only be taken care of in a social manner. Theaters, restaurants should alert guests to turn off or silence their phones. If they must use them they should leave to a cell-phone allowed area (near pay phones, for instance) or be escorted out if they forget to do so. They should not be allowed to re-enter if it will prove an interruption to other guests (ie, during intermission only, if one is available). If there are no penalties and immediate actions taken against anti-social guests, then they will assume their behavior is allowed in that establishment.
Very short text messages and pages would work very well for many emergency situations. One-way text pager coverage in the US exceeds cell phone coverage significantly, and those who have to deal with unexpected emergencies know this and use it, relying on the cell phone as a contact and status device only.
-Adam
but the real questions is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
There could even be a "no conversation" signal to instruct the phone to not allow the user to converse. You could set it up so that the "jammer" would be able to recognize emergency cell phones (eg. doctor, fire fighter, etc) or calls to emergency numbers (eg. 911, local police, etc) and allow those but block all others. Of course, that might lead to privacy issues..
Oh wait. Nevermind what I just said. I'm off to the patent office.
Re:it should be illegal (Score:2)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that "free speech" meant interfering with those around you. I seriously suggest you rethink what you said about being "self-centered".
Letting your cell phone ring when I am eating
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
If so, you are right, since I do understand every part of "public", and using your analogy, I can blast what ever frequencies I like and disregard any "bothering" they do along the way...
Thanks, man. That needed clarification...
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:3, Interesting)
They are also used for on call personal like plumbers, system admins, fire fighters, and meidcal staff. You know that nice doctor that helps out during a baby's delivery? They aren't standing by in the waiting room, they are out and about and get called in when they are needed.
That's the biggest argument that should settle the whole issue right there. This "I want it NOW" society has little business complaining about that which makes people reachable. Or would they like to pay two or three times as much
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
Now I understand why people get frustrated with people talking loudly on cell phones, so the better question is, why haven't the mic's improved?
The microphones on most modern phones work perfectly fine if you speak into them it a conversational level or even below what you'd normally use. They adjust to too-loud shouting, or you adjust by moving your ear away from the phone at the other end or by turning your own phone's volume down so low that they have to shout to be heard in future calls. In the latte
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:2)
Also, I find it interesting that plumbers, fire fighters and medical staff were able to do their jobs before the invention of the cellphone.
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:4, Informative)
You are claiming that the airwaves are public, so people can transmit if they want. Well, what if I feel like transmitting "no service" signals? Also, this is a bad analogy, as a person's mouth is not public.
Anyway, I don't think the cell-phone specific airwaves are public anyway - this portion of the frequency spectrum is sold by the government to private entities.
LS
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Emergencies? (Score:2)
The problem is, those things don't work. I didn't pay around $10 for a movie ticket to listen to some idiot's cellphone ringing, much less them picking up to tell the person they're in a movie and can't talk now, etc.
If I'm in a theatre I want to be called if someone at home got stung by a bee and can't find an Epi-pen, or what about a hostage taking in a restaura
Re:iirc (Score:2)
--Stephen