Slashdot Mirror
Stop Cell Phones Without Stopping Pacemakers...
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 nobody's developed first-post blocking technologies.
My pacemaker just vibrated - I think I have a voice mail.
Block That Ringtone!
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
This is definitely a good idea, but can I get one shaped like a cell phone?
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
Just a thought, but wouldn't this be illegal somehow?
It would seem this has legal ramifications, but it seems like a genious idea. If only I could shut up all those damn chirping phones that go off in accounting class!!!
What is the legality of these devices? Isn't this sort of like wireless DOS?
with a subtler method of preventing cell-phone addicts from using the world as a phone booth
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?
Casual Games/Downloads
wasn't there a broadway actor who once took a brief timeout from his performance to ask an audience member to "shut off that fscking phone"
...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 .
Does this mean my pacemaker will get 'no service' messages as well? That can't be good.
>> from the ass-hole-arms-race-escalates dept.
I guess somebody is having a bad day.
Can someone make one of these so that I can stop checking Slashdot every 5 minutes all day long? Thanks.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
I can see churches and assembly halls getting them, as well as theaters and restaurants, just to lower the asshole quotient, but this raises issues.
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.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
I've wanted one of these for a long time. Put them in classrooms, lecture halls, airplanes and movie theaters, PLEASE!!! I've long said we should have something like this.
It would be even better if this feature was built into GSM, PCS or whatever standard, so that you could further tell the phone to turn off. This would be useful on airplanes and in other environments where cellphone use is restricted or prohibited.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
So how soon can my movie theater get these things installed???
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
No kidding. Slashdot should automatically append the google partner arg when a nytimes article is submitted. Very annoying.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
"Doctor, he could've been saved if only you'd have gotten the phone call!"
"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.
In Soviet Russia, link follows you!
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Would this also stop the cell phone from telling you there is a voice mail? I know when I am in my basement, I appear to have no signal, but I still get voice mails. I could be way off on this one, but then if you have a little chirpy message to tell you have a voice mail, you may still disturb people.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
This is a good idea if its only for incoming calls. By only blocking incoming calls people can still make their emergency phone calls. And if someone is making an outgoing phone call at the Opera then that is an offense punishable by castration. So I say block the incoming calls.
IAALS.
Public airwaves. What part of public is so hard to understand? You have no more right to shut off someone else's phone for bothering you than you do duct tape someone who's talking too loud at the mall. This is incredibily self centered, and blatantly disregards other people who also have a right to free speech.
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 a $100 dinner or watching a $10 movie is inexcusable. You know it's rude and you know how to disable it.
The NYT article (available here reg-free (thanks, guys!)) is short on details, but the manufacturer's web site 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 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 these days!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
... what if I want to stop pacemakers?
Trolling is a art,
The problem with ever blocking cell-phone signals is that it will block emergency phone calls too, the kind that some people buy cell phones to recieve. 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 restaurant? And I don't think anyone else in the theatre/restaurant would mind my cell going off in such a case (just so that I could leave the room afterwards to carry the acutal conversation). In emergencies VoiceMail is NOT an option. The only place this might have any legitimate use is high security military type situations. In everyday life the only things that works is public shaming of assholes and the teaching of tact and courtesy (such as vibrate mode only).
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Sweet mama! I've been waiting a long time for these!
"Admittedly this is better than messing with everything that uses the same frequencies cellphones do . "
I seriously doubt there are any other publicly available devices that operate in the same band as cell phones. Sure, maybe a personal computer, but that does not "transmit or receive", i.e. it is shielded (uh oh lexan cases!) and doesn't transmit (FCC regs). So, while the person who submitted this headline made his/her final sentence "sound good", it is in fact meaningless.
Although I agree that there should be places where one should not use a phone, what right do you have to take away any of my legal rights? There are no laws that state I cannot place or receive a cell phone call out on the street or in a theatre for that matter. The ban on smoking here in NYC is different (whether or not I agree with it is another matter). This is analogous to someone walking up to you, taking your lit cigarrette from your lips and grinding it dead with their shoe. If I am paying for cellular service, you better not be denying me of what I paid for.
http://www.rayn.net . Funny. Stuff.
Breakfast served all day!
I'm no expert on cells, but... if a cell can't establish a connection with its network won't it continue to send a signal out anyway in search of a new one?
Free speech often means interfering / annoying those around you, just ask any protestor. Why should only people who can afford $100 dinners be able to eat dinner without cell phones? Sounds pretty discrimanatory to me. If someone is rude during a movie, they can always be asked to leave - the cell phone is a moot point.
From the article:The concerns go beyond mere annoyance [snip] prison authorities want to guard against phone use by inmates for drug deals or other forms of wrongdoing.
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 while locked up and while it might be possible to smuggle one in, it's damn near impossible to keep it hidden for an extended period of time. Why would prison authorities be concerned about phones?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Using your analogy, wouldn't your statement that we don't have the right to "duct tape someone who's talking too loud in the mall" be similar to we not having the right to prevent some 'gizmo' from 'talking to loud in the mall' such that it "bothers" cell phones?
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...
As you go into a high-class opera house, you check your phone at the desk, give them your seat number, and relax and enjoy(?) the show. Partway through, an usher comes to your seat, and quietly tells you that a Darl McBride is on the line. You then walk to the desk, and take the call there.
It would probably be possible to temporarily reroute your phone number, too.
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
how long until phone companies start paying off contractors to use these special anti cell phone materials so they can sell more land lines?
Can't believe I forgot to link the manufacturer's web site in my post! Here it is again:
The NYT article (available here reg-free (thanks, guys!)) is short on details, but the manufacturer's web site 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 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 these days!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Also, I wonder if it works on all the major cellular (800mhz SMR [Nextel], 850mhz cellular) and PCS (1900mhz) frequency bands, or just a single one?
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 for service X to have technician Y standing by at all times ON SITE? Didn't think so.
I had a sucky sig.
You know someone will use this as some sort of Denial Of Service gadget.... Walk down Wall Street with one and watch the craziness begin.
I see lots of people (mostly women) walking, driving and shopping with their cell phone glued to their ear. Not only do I think this is rude, but distracted users could easily walk into oncomming traffic. WTF is so important that you cannot put down that stupid phone and pay attention to what you are doing?
I for one welcome our new cell phone jamming overlords
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
What I like best about these jamming/countersignaling devices is that the person with the cell phone, unless told otherwise, really has no idea that he/she is near one of these devices and thus has no way of retaliating. One of the posters below insists rather vehemently that we "better not take away my rights [to use cell phones]". Well, we can take it away, and he won't know about it, and there is nothing he can do about it either.
Mics have improved, people are just stupid. They're also trying to make sure they can be heard over the music or soundtrack that everyone else is trying to listen to.
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 say "turn off cell phones". If someone does not, they get thrown out. It is simple. Or, if you want to be savvy, you can set your cell phone to vibrate, when it goes off you can quickly see the caller id, and if it is important you leave and go to a washroom or step outside. What's the problem?
What will happen one day if your mom/sister/brother gets sick, and they try to call you to come to the hospital, but you are out at some fancy resturant or theater that uses this device?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"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."
What a great idea..now calls to 911 won't work...pages to doctors won't work, meeting with long lost relatives won't happen. Lets see the twin towers gets hit a despreate husband tries to call his wife but no he just gets her voice mail. What a friggen great idea. anyway people talking on the phone in public places annoy me buts nazis telling me that all jews should be killed annoy me even more. But they should still have that right. The alternative is far worse.
cops *everywhere* in the US use cellphones as 1.) a backup to the radio systems, which increasingly have issues as they switch to trunked systems and 2.) a way to have more secure communications than the radio systems which, even trunked, many of which can be listened to by anyone with a scanner and 3.) quite frankly, a way to say certain non-politically-correct things that might get them in hot water back at HQ
its simple... the first time a cop can't make a cell call and realizes its because of one of these devices, 1.) somebody's going to get a trip downtown and 2.) national legislation will be made against them
This device would be illegal in the US (unless they've somehow received FCC aproval).
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.
-- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
Public airwaves. What part of public is so hard to understand?
Seeing as how many public places are located on/in private property, it is probably well within the rights of the owner of that property to do something like jam cell signals.
And as for 'the public good,' the public is a roomful of people who paid $8.25 to hear the dialogue of the movie, not some asshole talking on his cell phone.
If you're going to get angry, get angry at the discourteous fucks whose insistence on using their cell phones in inappropriate places have caused people to create devices to enforce courtesy.
As long as the movie theater prominently displays warning signs to all that enter. However, the airwaves are still public. Why is that so hard to understand? That's like saying a movie theater should be able to prevent airplanes from flying in the airspace above it. If someone is being rude on the phone the theater can just ask them to leave. I have no problem with that, but they have no right to shut off access to public airwaves.
it's a business. It's not a public place. I would choose to have you removed.
I wish symphony halls would just treat the cell phone as precisely as inappropriate as a handgun.
I wish that the responsibility was placed on the venue to prevent their clientele from bringing one of these things into the hall.
I wish that when it did happen (which is pretty much *always*) that patrons would become irate and ask the venue for a refund because the performance was ruined (due not only to the cell phone, but to the riot, and the unfortunate killing that ensued.)
I attended a performance of La Bohème. During the intermission, some woman was sitting there in the auditorium talking on the phone. I'm thinking "how can you even bring that thing in here?"
Sure enough, towards the end of the show, I hear some fancy ringtone. I really, truly, literally, wanted to kill the person responsible.
And what about the doctor, who is always on call, but had his pager/cellphone on "vibrate" to avoid disturbing those around him. Is he not allowed to go in these areas, or perhaps he will just miss the call that a 12-year-old-girl is dying at the hospital while waiting for a transplant.
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.
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 latter case it's a self-reinforcing feedback loop: stupid, inconsiderate phone behavior produces more of the same.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Ok, so they are developing something that can be seen as acceptable in an otherwise unacceptable field of technology: a device that makes cell phones not recieve calls so they don't ring. So, what stands to question, is can the cell phones still make outgoing calls? Remember, from the description in the article, it's not a normal jammer, although those are mentioned.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
While this does have some bad implications, "free speech" has nothing to do with being able to use a phone.
Also, I find it interesting that plumbers, fire fighters and medical staff were able to do their jobs before the invention of the cellphone.
oh and it is in violation of FCC regulation to interfear with radio communication. And they do have specific regulations applicable to cellular technology.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
The mics have improved. They're good enough that you can whisper and the other person can here you fine. The problem is, people are such "incredibily self centered" that the rest of the world melts away when they're on a cell phone. But it's not just that. There's no reason why a phone should ring in the middle of a lecture or a concert. There's no reason to talk on your phone during a movie. You're right, you do have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be disruptive. And since most places that would impliment this are PRIVATE institutions, you have no right to free speech in their building anyway.
If emergency medical people are on the scene, I'm sure the system will be turned off. As for doctors, well they need to get a pager or find a non disruptive way of being notified. As for hotels, well that's too fucking bad isnt it.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
This is incredibily self centered
If we're going to talk about "self centered", then why don't we talk about the jerk whose cellphone interrupts crucial parts of a movie?
Leaving your cell phone on in a movie theater is rude. Talking on it while you are driving is dangerous. Jamming rude, dangerous a-holes is fun. What's the problem?
"sends signals of no service"??
That's crap. Jamming is jamming. There is no such thing as a "signal of no service".
Moderators, please mark the parent as overrated.
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
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
or two!
yay! peace and quiet!
Of course we wouldn't be talking about this if people would just turn off their cell phones when appopriate. But we've become a much too self-centered, rude society for that.......
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
I've yet to be disturbed or annoyed by someone using their cell phone. I take mine with me everywhere, but then again, I turn off the ringer and just use the vibrate function when I'm in some place with a lot of people. Of course, I don't disturb anyone because no one really calls me...ever....(sob)
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.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
So does that mean they can refuse black people, or women? Of course not, it may be a business, but they are still subject to laws regarding the public. As you said, someone can always be removed, thus jammers are unneccasary.
So, it's going to cover 850mhz, 1900mhz, TDMA, CDMA, GSM, etc?
Isn't it likely that this thing will whack more than cell phones?
It's probably easier to just give theatre patrons a big stick. That way they can just beat the shit out of any moron that whips out a cell during the movie.
One partial solution would be to have all cellphone manufacturers agree to make ringless vibrating cellphones.
Sure it'll take a few years before existing ringing phones are phased/worn out... then you only have to worry about the loud talkers.
Then again, it's difficult to control hardcore antisocial behavior. Take smoking for example. In most non-smoking places, no one smokes, except the occasional fscktard who needs to have his/her fix.
Yes, that call was concerning the bid that came in from India to replace your job.
"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."
Yes it is.
Anyway, if someone gets hurt where there's a jammer installed, you'd think this would be apublic place, right?
Amazing that humanity managed to survive without cell phones until now, isn't it? What with doctors not being able to be called during a movie or a play, and LInux coders not hearing news about lawsuits IMMEDIATELY.
I can just see it now here in Minnesota*.
.
.
.
At the entrance to a building:
We block cellphone calls.
Guns are not allowed.
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service
* In Minnesota, we have a conceal/carry law that allows businesses, churches, etc. to not allow guns in the building when the sign is posted at the entrance.
Dude, why are you taking an important conference call in the middle of a movie theatre?
(This is not to say that I actually believe that the OP is an executive of any kind.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
As soon as a story is posted about blocking cell phones, everyone chimes in with reasons why you just can't take away the precious cell phones. So here's my new low-tech, royalty-free method to stop people from using cell phones in movie theaters.
1. Post a sign saying that use of cell phones in the movie theater is prohibited and cause for removal.
2. When you notice someone on a cell phone, or get a complaint about someone on a cell phone, remove the offender.
3. Do not refund their money.
If you think your right to transmit voice communications over cellular phone frequencies takes priority over a movie theater's right to broadcast data packets, it sounds like you have a good case to petition for a license from the FCC. Once you have that, you'll be able to sue the bastards. Until then, like you keep repeating -- public airwaves. Deal with it.
Breakfast served all day!
- if you are in an area where you can't lock onto any cellular control channel, either due to there being insufficient signal from any cellsite basestations, or
- due to jamming from an interfering signal on the same frequencies, or
- if someone installed a bogus cellsite emulator that would act as a honeypot for all the cellphones in a particular area, by broadcasting control-channel data at a high signal strength. The cellphones would then be blind to any traffic happening on the real network.
It is unlikely, though, that you could get an FCC license to do any of the above, and if you really want to kill all the cellular traffic, you need to do one of the above to both the 800 and 1900 MHz bands (in North America). It is probably easier to just ask people to be polite and shut the damn things off.
Less is more.
If it's typical there must be examples.
This is all assuming that you're actually working for a Fortune 50 company and you are who you say you are.
In any place where one of these blockers is in use, it should be required that anyone entering the "zone" be a) notified that the blocker is in place, and b) given the option of disabling it for their device if they sign a usage agreement dictating that they will not annoy others with it. That way you get the best of both worlds, and you make those who really really want to be assholes legally responsible for being assholes.
Same with the use of items. If you drive on my parking lot I set the speed limit. Nobody else. If I tell you you can't park motorcycles in my car park then that is the law.
AND if I tell you NO PHONE then you better not use the phone or you will be kicked out by my bouncers and they are insured against breakages. Hope you are.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I keep my phone on vibrate all the time...in my front pocket.
So does that mean they can refuse black people, or women?
Do you honestly think that that's the same thing? If I'm in the theater trying to enjoy a movie or a play TURN OFF YOUR GODDAMNED PHONE. Why can't the MORONS of the world understand that?! Oh wait, sorry--it's because they're MORONS, thus the phones have to be turned off FOR them. My bad.
I really don't think this is a free speech issue, but you make excellent points regarding the potential commercial abuses of this technology. Just like Visa, MC, Amex, Coke and Pepsi make exclusive deals with malls and theaters, I can definately see Verizon, T-Mobile, etc making similar deals to establish "Verizon only" zones where only competitive signals are blocked or other such nonsense.
"Sure enough, towards the end of the show, I hear some fancy ringtone. I really, truly, literally, wanted to kill the person responsible."
Well, then, it's really a good thing they dont let handguns in the symphony hall.
Sorry, but you are not as important as you make yourself out to be, and that "important call" you're waiting for is 99% crap. If something is going on in your life that is truly urgent, perhaps you need to be in a place where you won't be a danger to others (e.g., off the road) or inconsiderate to people who have better things to do than listen to your stupid conversation (e.g., away from any public place where talking loudly is not a norm).
In all interest of fairness, I say let businesses who care about decorum and style have placards or signs that say, "Cell Phone Blockers in Use" and all the people like you can belly up to the trough at a place more suited to your lifestyle, like McDonalds or Ryan's Family Steakhouse; with all the people screaming into their cell phones about those "highly important" things, you'll be right at home.
Yeah, right.
They're not shutting off access to the public airwaves -- they're just using them as they see fit. If you think that you should be able to broadcast anything you want, but somebody else can't, you need to reexamine your double standard.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
There is no "no signal" message.
But, if you are in my airspace (mr anonymous coward... top it exec... right) and I own the place... Let's say it's a fancy restaurant. Or better yet, an opera house.
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.
Karnal
"Well, what if I feel like transmitting "no service" signals?"
That's called jamming, and the FCC doesn't think too highly of it.
"Derp de derp."
Here, impoliteness is in restaurants met with patience and over-politeness. If you tell off the waiter for asking you to keep your voice down, odds are for that they will apologize.
If you politely ask people to tirn off their cell phone where it shouldn't be on (theatre, quiet areas, etc.), however, they will very likely feel offended and talk back.
Too bad Tucson is in a capitalist country, since I don't mind paying 50% taxes.
I keep my cell phone on vibrate all the time anyway (I like the feeling) but this would really piss me off. My phone works twice as hard when it is trying to find a signal and drains the battery like nobodys business.
well let's take it a bit further, what if everyone had one of these devices, in his suitcase, because he hated how people talked to the phone in a bus?
funnily enough cellphones are not a problem here in movie theatres(usually), nor in most other places, even though practically everyone has one. then again from what I've managed to gather the whole culture of going to the movies is different, it's considered very rude and idiotic to talk(or make any noise at all) during the movie, so it's kinda weird to hear from american talkshows how people cheer for some hero's on screen while the movie is on - how fuckin annoying would that be..
.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I think most people wouldn't want thier phones to ring during an opera or a funeral and such. Why not a transmitter that says to the phone, "please do not ring". This would be optional. Users could override this behavior so people like doctors, or police could get emergency calls. But most people would be more than happy to turn off thier phone they just forget to.
... take a chance on broadcasting something that I am sure is not even remotely legal in a public space, it's gonna be something that will make consumer products RFID tags scan as 2CENTS no matter what you plop on the checkout counter. Nice stroll around chinamart, TWO CENTS the whole store. heh heh heh Enough people do that, they might think thrice about that stuff.....
How about toll road smart cards? Make everyone pay 1000$, they'd get rid of that, too. How about replacing TV signals, say, during "the big game" or "secret days of our stormy lives" a signal appears YOU IDJIT, AIN'T YA GOT ANYTHING IMPORTANT TO DO? LOOK AROUND, STUFF IS MESSED UP, POLITICIANS AND MEGACORPS ARE BRAINWASHIN YA AND RIPPIN YA OFF!!
or EVERYBODY WALKS DAY, broadcast a signal that shuts down all the new whizzbang cars with computer controled everything, including NeoConStar. ZAP, it's WALK day!
Back to the phones, don't shut them off, just replace any call with YOU ARE SERIOUSLY ANNOYING, TURN THE DANG PHONE OFF FOR AWHILE AND ENJOY SOME LIFE!
electronic activism, gotta luv it!
of course, I would never do anything like that...
err.. where's the URL for the sourceforge project for this device, umm, just for "educational and research purposes".
I think movie theaters are already using cell-blocking technology. I saw a movie at the discount theater the other day and noticed that my cell reception went completely dead inside the movie but was at full strength in the theater lobby.
In the discount theater! You know the technology has to be cheap and pervasive if the $1.50 theaters are using it...
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?
I think most of the time people speak loudly into phones because of the noise around them... many newer phones I've used sound much better then older ones, but that doesn't stop people from yelling when they're in a loud environment.
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.
Get a pager, the older 1-way models use different parts of the spectrum... leave it on vibrate. Or, excuse yourself every 30 minutes or so and check your voicemail in a public area. If you're so damn important that you can't be out of the loop for 30 minutes then you probably shouldn't be wherever it is that you are at that moment.
Let's look at the bad sides. Public events like fairs would use jammers to get people to pay exhorbitant payphone rates, hotels would use them to force people to use room phone, and on and on
Agreed... so any hotel that jams/blocks calls outside of in-use conference rooms, or in "public" areas will have to accept that the business world, which needs cell phones like they need oxygen at this point, will not go there...
Any other places, like fairs etc, will also have to deal with the repercusions of not allowing cell phone use in their area.
These legal jamming devices would need to have a fairly limited range, so chances are that walking for a minute or two would put you in a cell-phone ok area.
Public airwaves. What part of public is so hard to understand?
We're not talking about blocking people driving down the road (which is public areas), we're talking blocking inside resteraunt dining rooms, in theaters, inside hospital rooms, etc... I agree, the idea of blocking cell phones in "public" areas is very bad.
You have no more right to shut off someone else's phone for bothering you than you do duct tape someone who's talking too loud at the mall. This is incredibily self centered, and blatantly disregards other people who also have a right to free speech.
Actually... it's incredibly self centered for people to talk on their f*cking phone during a movie!
Also, please, please, please, please, please do not start this shiat about "you're violating my right to free speech by preventing me from talking on the phone"... that's complete bullsh*t
Now that've bitched... wouldn't it be great to have a standard in the US (and the rest of the world maybe?) where if you're within a certain proxmity to a beacon your phone knows to force itself into vibrate mode and not allow incoming or outgoing calls (except 911)? This would allow people receive notification of new calls/voicemails... still use their 2-way messaging... still allow 911 calls to be made... but solve the problem of people making or receiving calls while they're inappropriate locations.
The apostrophe is used to indicate either possessive ("Onyxruby's brain hurts") or contraction ("Isn't it sad how American education sucks ass?"), not plurality ("You look good in them tight's!")
Private property. What part of private is so hard to understand? You wanna use a cellphone instead of the hotel room phone? Go outside.
Manufacturers could be encouraged to build technology in phones which detects when the user is in a 'quiet-zone' (by a particularly encoded low-power radio signal). The owner could then have the option to pre-set the phone to be silent, or vibrate, or even just to ring as normal when in a quiet zone (meaning the user still has full control).
My right to use the cell phone frequencies does take priority, because Verizon has purchased those frequencies for their customers (me) to use. My carrier DOES have a licence; the movie theaters do not. I doubt cell phone users have the rights to sue theaters that use blocking devices, but I would bet that cell providers have both the right and resources to sue them for violating the licenses the cell companies pay for.
I agree and disagree. I think if you don't have the balls to yell "SHUT THAT FUCKING THING OFF" at someone, then you're shit outta luck. This way, people get the message, and nobody dies not being able to call 911. I yell at people in movie theatres all the time. Most of my teachers will rain fire on your grades (participation and others) if your phone goes off. It works well. The shithead bubblegum girls get the hint when a teacher bombs their next test for them.
I like to be able to recieve calls whenever and wherever I want, but its important to know that sometimes its not appropriate, why not let me recieve my call and send out a signal that makes it vibrate or something instead of having no service. What if I am awaiting an important call. I hate those loud ass polyphonic ringtones as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean we should block cell phones out completely. Silence is not a right, my freedom to speak is a right however.
People are always whining and yammering on about their rights--but never a word about responsibilities.
I live in los angeles, a place where one finds many cell phones, and I have yet to be bothered by their use. I've very rarely had one bother me. Where is it that cell phones are being so abused? The only place that i can think of is in class, where they seem to go off once every couple of weeks, but this is nothing more than the most minor of annoyances.
Photos.
http://www.cell-block-r.com/
If someone is rude during a movie, they can always be asked to leave - the cell phone is a moot point.
I see... so last week when I was at the movies and the 300lb guy w/bandana and gang colors was having a colorful chat on his cell phone with someone who he refered to only as "bitch" or "woman"... I could have informed him he was being rude, and asked him to hang up, or just asked him to leave.
Dang it! Why didn't I think of that???
The point of this is to force the issue via invisible passive-aggressive means...
I just don't see how you can equate the right to Free Speech with the right to use a mobile phone whenever and wherever you choose. The two just aren't the same thing.
In the United States, we have the right to come and go as we please, as well. Even if you're not a U.S. citizen, you have the expectation that you can be walking down any public street in America and nobody will demand to see "your papers, please" before you can pass.
Does that mean I have the right to walk into any room of the White House any time I want? You say they're the "public airwaves." Well, after all, the White House is "public property," isn't it? Our taxes pay for it.
Does freedom to travel mean I can drive on the wrong side of the road?
Obviously, no and no, and neither of these restrictions undermines my "rights" in any way. Cellular phones are an invention of the last 20 years; telling me I can't use them at a particular place and time is hardly equivalent to sewing my mouth shut, or threatening to send my kids to prison if I make certain statements. Making that argument just sounds like typical, greedy, self-centered American materialism.
Breakfast served all day!
Wake me up when they invent a way to block every singal except the ones to doctors on-call. This is a social problem, not a technical one. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater by blocking all cell signals is dangerous.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
you are a pretentious wanker
No Service "honeypot" would only work if it overpowers everything else AND creates horrible interference. Otherwise anyone who's phone is put into "my own network only/disable roaming" mode won't pay any attention to strong signal from alien network (just like AT&T's phones prefer even weakest AT&T signal over stronger signal from other networks). Interference creation is illegal. So back to illegal "noise on all cell phone frequencies" devices then... :(
I like Quiet Zone bluetooth solution way more, but all CDMA operators hate bluetooth technology
Hyperom.com
Don't doctors carry pagers? Wouldn't it make more sense since pagers have better coverage than cell phones? The doctor in question would get his silent page, quietly check the message, then go out to the lobby to call in.
Did you ever think that it was the persons fault, NOT the cell phones fault, and NOT the symphonies fault? The problem here is that people are assholes, some people don't understand that some etiquette is required if you are to have your cell phone on you all the time. MY CELL PHONE GOES ON VIBRATE EVERY TIME I ENTER A RESTAURANT, MOVIE THEATRE, OR OTHERWISE "QUIET" ATMOSPHERE. Does that make you want to kill me for bringing my phone with me? And what does it matter if she talks during the intermission, at least she isn't talking while its going on. Go cry to your mommy, maybe she will console you.
So if I design my public place as a faraday cage to prevent the reception of unwanted signals, passive as it is, this too would be illegal? So buildings are allowed to prevent reception as long as that is not the intent?
Sounds goofy enough to be law to me!
Such a device would have to transmit, which is the whole reason that cellphones are prohibited on airliners.
This is an example of using technology to solve a social problem and it's overkill. This is why phones and pagers have a silent/vibrate mode.
I want to receive calls in a movie theater or anywhere else I am. It's part of the convenience of having a portable phone. I put my phone on vibrate and I check who is calling and if I want to talk to them I step outside.
I'm surprised here of all the places that a lot of people are supporting a sweeping solution like this that inconveniences everyone because of a few rude assholes.
You ever talk to somebody who was listening to music loudly on headphones, and have them respond to you by yelling (unintentionally)?
It's the same thing. I'm not saying they're not stupid, that's just why it happens. They're too inept to adjust their phone's volume, and instinctively speak as loud as the other person sounds when held to their ear.
There's also the "shout through static" effect, where people try to yell through whatever reception difficulties they're having.
Personally, I prefer mobile IM anyway. It's quiet and unobtrusive.
this just makes me wonder about the legality of this... Not that I disagree... few things irk me more when out at a restaurant or movie than a cell phone ringing... I leave mine in the car or turn it off out of courtesy, why cant everyone else?
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...
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
What the heck is this article talking about? There is no such thing in cellphone technology as "signal of no service". If the cellphone cannot detect a compatible network/ get no signal, it displays a "no service" message. There is no freaking way in hell you can send a "no service" signal to a cellphone! If it does, it's just jamming the service provider's signal to make it unacceptable to the mobile device.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
STFU and turn your damn phone off. What's the problem? There was a time when NOBODY had a cellphone and we got along fine.
Low power transmitters do not need licences.
I seriously thought those cool ads they play were effective. They rotate them every few weeks, everyone laughs, but you actually see people in the audience take out their phone and check it. It always makes me think about my own.
I guess the assholes wouldn't notice, but it can stop true accidents.
"Mauled by a TIGER!?"
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
To avoid kidney donation to NYT
u its/08cell.html?ex=1082001600&en=348516b568cf570e& ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/technology/circ
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
I heard your mother's mouth is public and gets all kinds of transmissions.
What? Nobody misread "Symbian" when used in a post that also contained the word "vibrate"?
/. coming to?
What is
Tim
For Sale : Device to send not in service signal to ___________
Now fill in the blank with the following:
I go to the movies a fair bit, and I can never remember hearing a cell-phone ring. The cinema shows a short clip before the movie starts telling people to turn their phones off/to silent, and it seems to work.
I know people abuse them and annoy but this is stupid. My wife is due to have our second child in 3 days. I NEED to have my cell work (vibrate) wherever I am.
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!!
Read the Study!
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
The same people who want to block your cell phone are probably the same people who sit in a restaurant blowing cigarette smoke in your face.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
And your right to use the cell phone can stop at the door of the establishment, at management's request.
They wouldn't necessarily have to jam your signal, but a sign and 2 thugs at the front door would make you reach in your pocket really quickly.
Besides, on private property (as a theatre would be), wouldn't it be legal to jam specific frequencies, as long (and this is the big thing) as you're not interfering with anything outside the building?
Karnal
I for one enjoy the movie more if everyone in the audience is participating. It makes the movie a lot more fun if the hero makes a pun and everyone groans or if they joke and everyone laughs, or if there is something suprising happens and everyone gasps. Going to the movies with a good audience only enhances the expierence. I would imagine I'd feel rather uncomfortable if something really funny happened and no one laughed.
Public Shared Spaces.
What part of public is so hard to understand? You have no more right to annoy many people around you by spewing into your little plastic box, then you do to urinate on someones shoes because the bathroom you need "right now" is somewhere else.
This is incredibly self centered, and blatantly disregards other people who also have a right to peace and quiet, not to mention dry shoes.
Let's look at the good sides of jamming.
Public places like fairs would use jammers to provide people with a more mellow, quieter, stress-free experience, hotels would use them to enable you and your friends to have a relaxed, intimate chat without some buffoon bellowing in the background, and on and on.
Don't forget that emergency services use public spaces extensively to get to accident scenes, most of which are caused by people who TALK instead of DRIVING. Many emergency radio systems, arguable most, are incompatible with each other. Thats why any intelligently run municipality will have standardized on one radio system, so that different services can communicate.
Also, radio is a BROADCAST medium, which means that all emergency personnel can listen at the same time to central commands. Cell phones are useless in a big emergency, because panicked citizens will overwhelm the cell phone network.
Public shared spaces are also used by personal like plumbers, system admins, fire fighters, and medical staff. You know that nice doctor that helps out during a baby's delivery? They have a very stressful job, and it helps them a lot when there is a little more peace and quiet in their day. Several doctors are always on duty at a hospital, and pagers can easily summon more if needed.
Now I understand that some selfish people feel that their immediate want is more important then sharing a peaceful public space with other citizens, just as in the bad old days a few people would pollute the environment the rest of us live in with toxins because it was public. So the better question is, when did some people get so self-centered that they feel free to pollute the commons with their asinine bellowing?
And why do the rest of us tolerate it?
Hello! Why not just take the phones away from prisoners?
If the manufacturers would just get together, they could easily come up with some sort of a "mute" system.
Basically, you have a small transmitter that broadcasts at a certain public frequency. Cellphones have a receiver that catches this signal, and automatically flip the cellphone to mute/vibrate. This way, when the person leaves the building, his/her phone will revert to the old function.
This could be extended to disable the phone's radio, or just individual components, such as cameras, video, etc., as well.
All it would take is the manufacturers getting together and coming up with a common protocol.
It'd be a hell of a lot better than jamming all signals outright.
... and all I wanted for xmas was a magic 8 ball, but i got this lousy
Second as I understand it the air waves are not "free" but "public domain" hence you are definatly NOT free to do what ever you want over them. HAM operators have to be tested and licenced in levels, each level granting more freedom to broadcast on the air in return for proving you know what you are doing. That is why the 'boob incident' was such a big deal. The FCC regulates the hell out of what can and can not be done over the airwaves.
There is no situation you can not make worse. -Jim Lovell
So, you want to take away others rights to use their LEGAL product in the manner for which it was intended (cell phones), but you want to stop others from enforcing the similar rights rules for digital content? I suppose that next we'll hear "my rights are more important than yours" arguments. Folks, it's all the same thing. It comes down to some people restricting rights to a (product|action|method) that is otherwise legal, execpt for the (prod|action|method) being used where 'certain' people don't want it to be.
Saying "I like this" is the same as endorsing Paladium technology, DRM, and the RIAA
I am one of the people who actually has his phone set to vibrate mode nearly all of the time but this type of "you can't use your own phone" attitude really pisses me off.
If such a practice of blocking signals ever became legal and prevelant in the US I would go to such places and manually activate my ringers then pretend to carry on a conversation ANYWAY and encourage others to do the same until the nonsense was repealed.
Cell phones are a fact of modern life. Mature, grow up and deal.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
And you can't get your babysitter to call the restaurant?
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.
Legality: In theory if your radio transmissions do not exceed your property boundaries then you can practically transmit anything you want. Practically, though, radio transmissions are 'infinite' in distance, so they are regulated by the FCC to a specific power level at various frequencies, and a license is often required when the power exceeds the regulation. In other words, these devices may or may not require a license, but I doubt they are 'illegal' already according to current regulations.
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
sized device which sends signals of 'no service' to cellphone frequencies, prompting phone to send calls directly to voicemail.
Uh, WHAT???
Doe cell phones honor a signal of "no service" over the ACTUAL signal?
Do phones even LISTEN for a "no service" signal?
Isn't that a little too Col. Klink'ish: I HEAR NOTHING!!!
Why would you even program something to say "If you get this signal, PRETEND there isn't a signal"
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
It is better practice to inform people of proper cell phone etiquette.
If you don't own the property people are on then it is completely illegal howeverI'd like to think I'm a responsibile cell phone user. In theatres, the first thing I do is either switch it off, or to vibrate only. If a call comes in for me in a public place, I step outside into an uncrowded area, or I let voice mail catch the call.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. today, the concept of personal responsibility has been killed. It's gone. It's pushing up posies. This is the same argument used by the gun control fanatic types: "An average person isn't smart enough to own a gun. So, instead of making them take responsibility for their actions, we'll just make it illegal to own guns."
So, here, instead of politely tasing (using a Taser) on rude individuals who insist on using cell phones rudely, we have people that want to make cell phone use impossible, thus taking away the ability of people who truly do need them from being able to be in those areas.
You don't need to have a cell phone to be rude and insensitive: Miss Manners existed well before the cell phone was invented.
Ahhhh... I love the smell of my karma burning in the afternoon.. It's the smell of victory.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
Unfortunately, as mentioned in the article, the FCC does not agree with you. The public airwaves are their domain, and whether it's your property or not, they rule the airwaves. You may *not* interfere with the signals that they've licensed to be there.
Now, if your interference is limited to your home only, they'll tend to ignore it, as it isn't worth the trouble, but if you start cutting service in "public" areas (subways, malls, theaters, etc), without an okay from them (which, I presume, hospitals have), you're violating Federal law. They may not hunt you down, but it's still against the law.
If you are in the US under our FCC laws you cannot legally transmit on a frequency that you do not have a license for, excluding a few itinerant business frequencies. The Part 15 'interference acceptance' that you speak of is for random emmissions and not targeted powerful transmissions.
Hah.
What they really need is to broadcast a "vibrate mode request". By default, phones that receive this signal go into vibrate mode. Install it in theaters, etc. Of course, there'll be an option in the menus to ignore this request. But I honestly believe that people don't do it just to annoy other people. They're just forgetful sometimes. Any asshole in the theater will always be able to annoy you one way or another if that's their explicit goal ("Back in my day, we didn't have fancy cellphone ringtones to piss people off, we had to talk loudly during the movie and throw popcorn at the screen").
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 anyway -- then take some time off and hang with your wife until the big event comes around.
And while not trying to not sound like one of those raving loons on alt.support.childfree (or whetever it's called), you have no rights or expectations to a social life should you choose to procreate. I know -- I'm a father of two. When I left my kids with the sitter/evening daycare, I would give them my cell number, but I never left it on. If the situation was *that* dire, I'd hope they'd call the hospital/police/etc rather than me. And it it's not that dire, they can handle the kids 'till I pick them up.
Sheesh -- you'd think childbearing and parenting were rare events, fraught with peril, if parents in this thread were actually taken seriously. Kids (and expectant mothers, for that matter) just aren't that fragile.
Man, these cell phone jammer articles sure do get people all riled up. How did we *ever* survive life before the 90's when every 12-year-old and her dog didn't have cell phone. Those were dark days indeed. :) Lighten up, folks. You can manage w/o your precious portable phones.
Method of processing duck feet
What did we do before cell phones? I am sure in case of emergency there will be a wired phone for someone to use close by.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
There needs to be a standard for this. A small, short-range transmitter just like the one described in this article can send out a code that says "silent mode only" to phones, rather than "no service." It would allow vibrating rings, and prevent answering until the user left the area to pick up the call. Even better would be if the person on the calling end could receive a message telling them that the party on the receiving end is in a silent-mode zone, and that they should hold on longer for an answer while the person leaves the silent-mode area.
Unfortunately, this would require some sort of cooperative standard from the handset manufacturers-- not likely.
It's your choice to go to a restaurant where your phone is jammed. As long as it's posted, you really can choose to go elsewhere. If enough people make the same choice, the jamming will stop, but I think more people will be grateful.
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.
Fine. But all you men with preggy GFs/wives back home, just what the hell are you all doing in the movie theater?!?!
You should not control rude people by punishing all!!
So how do you recommend we punish you, without stepping on your civil rights, wasting police resources, or sinking to your level of rudeness?
And remember, twenty years ago the world got along fine without cell phones. A lot of the infrastructure from back then still remains today (albeit not as many phone booths as before, but there are still plenty of land-lines around).
I say these devices are OK as long as I am also allowed to duct tape the mouths of annoying people whose conversations I don't want to hear. Why do some people think they have the right to decide who gets to talk in a public place? That being said, I do agree that using a phone during a movie is about the rudest thing you can do, but if you were loudly talking to the person next to you, its basically the same thing. What we need is for people to learn these things called manners.
...or to the usher, or to the receptionist, or to whoever else is the appropriate contact person.
If your situation is really that much of an emergency, the employee will be able to take your call and appropriately inform you of the fact, leading you to an area where you can use your phone.
It's no more of a burden for you than everybody had 20 years ago; less, in fact, since you don't have to give people a different contact number. If you've got a little common sense, it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience.
Two rebuttals:
Phones would power up after the timeout to a half-awake state--receive only, no broadcast or tower searching--looking to see of a damping refresh is happening that would extend their sleep. Thus, if you get stuck on the runway or in a holding pattern, you wouldn't get this sudden burst of cell-phone activity near the end of the flight.
Alternately, phones that have been put to sleep by the beacon would only power up to the "half-awake" state afterwards only, for some period longer than the specified ##, and a separate beacon in the jetway and/or the terminal would be able to cancel this compliant state.
Make sense?
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
And you don't NEED my cell phone to be blocked, you just want it to. If it's on vibrate in my pocket and I exit to use it, what do you care?
Next you'll wan't to keep people from driving because some people drive recklessly.
This is more than just a cell phone issue. I think we, as a society, should avoid taking the easy route and punishing everyone to prevent a few abusers. Same goes for putting a tax on blank CD media because you can use it to copy audio CDs. However that hurts innocent people who are just writing data to them.
I would be fine with policies or laws that make certain areas ring-free zones or something.
I hope you don't live your life only expecting freedoms to NEED. You don't NEED to drive a car, or post your thoughts freely on slashdot, but you can. I certainly wouldn't take your right to post away just because some people abuse the freedom by trolling. Think about it.
Stopping the use of cell phones is a reason people come here and if you don't like it find somewhere else to eat.
if the next generation of phones accept a command to go to Vibrate mode from an external source (theater/restaurant) with verification from phone owner.
This would require action from the standards groups/phone manufacturers.
another feature I wish would be built into the next generation phone: Garage door opener.
What the hell makes you think you have some right to punish me just because I carry a cellphone that might vibrate while I am somewhere in your vicinity?
I suggest you get a life and stop trying to control every other person who happens to be unlucky enough to be within five feet of you. Either that, or I'll figure out some way of punishing you just because I don't like you.
I cannot believe this would be legal. How many people depend on the cell phone for their jobs? What about the doctors on call or IT professional who need to know when a server or something goes down?
Plus, wouldn't this infringing on peoples right to own and use a cellphone? Sure some might abuse this, but is it not wrong to prevent people from using a service they *are paying for*?
I hate the guy who's cell phone goes off during a movie, but then again I also hate the kid who kicks the back of my chair or the baby that cries during a theater performance.
How am I justified in preventing this person from using their technology?
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Huh? Of course I don't HAVE to be there. This is my second child and forgive me for wanting to be there. Excuse me if i'm driving to work and would like to know I need to turn around and go back.
I NEVER implied that my wife or kid are fragile. But gosh, there are a few really important events in our family and I'd like to be there. I pitty for not feeling the same.
I want you, right now to remove your television, computer, oven, toaster, electric shaver etc.. from your house. I mean, how did you ever survive with out them.
I never claimed to be unable to manage but please explain to me how a small vibrating piece of plastic in my pocket hurts YOU?
Logically, using a cellphone and driving isn't any more distracting than using one one hand to steer and talking to passengers.
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 betting you do.
on the road, if you get killed out...there is no reset function.
Well, let's take a look at karnal's comment.
- In the U.S., individuals do not own the airwaves--the people do.
- The Federal Communications Commission regulates the airwaves on the behalf of the people.
- No one may legally jam or interfere with a licensed radio service.
- The FCC routinely fines individuals who break these rules (and others) roughly $10,000 for each instance of interference.
By the way, the "must accept any interference" line applies to incidental radiators. Cell phones transmit as a licensed service so they are protected from interference on their licensed frequencies. The must accept language means that if the phone generates too much noise outside of its licensed band(s) (place an AM radio very close to your computer or monitor to hear an example), then too bad.
If you can guarentee that the jammer blocks calls within a private place of business, that's one thing. However, if your jammer interferes with calls in adjacent public or private spaces, say the sidewalk out front or my office next door, you lose the moral high ground you imagine you occupy.
And, the same FCC laws you quote about accepting interference also prohibit devices that produce intentional interference.
I know someone who works at the front desk at a gym/swimming pool. He says they have recently banned all cell phones after discovering people had been discretely taking pictures of children in the change room and sending them off immediatly, destroying the evidence. This jamming device would be useful in this situation.
On the other hand, is there a liability issue when someone phones for an ambulance and their cellphone is jammed?
Why? Oh, simple. I've long since realised that people who want to make sure my cellphone is unusable, either by taking it away from me or jamming or whatever are my sworn enemies. Now it gets proven to me again - this time, not on personal experience.
My folks just got scammed out of a rather large sum of money solely by the virtue of someone posing as a law official and convincing my brother to turn off his cellphone - with undeniable malicious intent, since they used this fact to convince my father that his son's in trouble and he can help by providing the aforementioned sum.
This was, in the current circumstances, quite a plausible story they told. And it was trivial to confirm it or deny by merely calling my brother on his cellphone.
And that was the thing that was made impossible by turning the thing off!
The instant I see a jamming device like this one, I'll jam something sharp into it. My cellphone is first and foremost the device I need to call for help. People who stop me from calling for help are my enemies.
Simple, trivial logic.
In Soviet Russia... RUSSIANS comment on YOU.
The "how did we ever get along without" argument is stale and flawed. Now, I'd like you to give up driving between the hours of 4pm and 6am.... because it annoys me. I mean, how did people ever manage without a car?
cell phone jammer and keep it on all the time in my backpack. The difference is astounding. My commute has become infinitely more bearable...And I can even sometimes catch a snooze.
People with cell phones are consistantly obtrusive...Women in particular can't seem to shut the fark up once they get a cellphone in their hands. Women are also the ones who freak out the most when their precious cell phones are jammed. They act like I've just cut off their oxygen supply.
Luckily, the FCC does not regulate my foot, which will be jammed so far up your fucking ass you'll be wiping shoe polish off your lips if your god damn fucking cellphone *rings* during a movie I'm watching.
Why don't you just use text messages?
My friends and I use these all the time. They're not only completely silent (provided you remove the 'received message' bleep), but they're cheaper than calls.
With these I can use my phone during movies... lectures... whatever...
Is exactly as long as it takes for it to prevent a 911 call resulting in someone's death and the lawsuit resulting from it.
Of course terrorists would be more than happy to blow up theaters knowing the victims may not be able to get help fast due to the scanners.
Finally someone who actually believes in civil liberties!
> If you have a grinding need for your cellphone to work...
...give it to the usher, tell them where you'll be sitting, and have them come get you if there's an emergency call.
Kinda like what we did 20 years ago, only more convenient.
Phone companies would rather sell you cell phones.
paintball
What the hell makes you think you have some right to punish me just because I carry a cigarette that might be lit while I am somewhere in your vicinity?
What the hell makes you think you have some right to punish me just because I carry a breast that might be unveiled while I am viewed on a television somewhere in your vicinity?
What the hell makes you think you have some right to punish me just because I carry a dick that might need to be stroked while I am somewhere in your vicinity?
Your rights end where mine begin, bucko!
Here in the United States, most of the producing class (the ones who get up each day because they are responsible for earning a living) believe in the concept of "no free lunch".
Nothing discriminatory at all about restricting a luxury good (dinner without a cell phone) to only those who can afford it ($100)
Luxury goods and services should be rewards for those who produce. Making them available to everyone because they need it just subverts capitalism.
I think this discussion shows an interesting point.
Who should have the right of choice ?
The person that has a mobile phone and wants to choose to be reachable or not (btw. a mobile phone still have an off button as well).
An employer who wants to decide if people are reachable or not (Which is not fine enough grenuality in this case. I guess the employer would like to filter out personal calls from business calls and let them through on the premises
The movie theater that wants to allow people watching a movie without distubances
The community that is annoyed about all those noise pollution that is called music nowadays and finds it ways to mobile ringers within days of publishing
or a lot of other entities that claim a right of control....
I believe it is time to step back and learn some manners again and then let everybody act responsible without contolling everything. Situations are different and people are different. I think the intriguing part of our society is the right and ability of choice. Lets not throw it away because people misuse it. Social distaste as punishment is often severe enough....
2 kids in 3 days? Thats a medical miracle! Most women gestate over about 9 months.
The article notes this: 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.
Oh my God! What did parents do in the days before cell phones? Lord have mercy! There must be graveyards FULL of children who died because parents didn't have immediate access to their babysitters.
Suck it up and go out to a nice restaurant without your cellphone, you prick.
Proverbs 21:19
And yours is the second post ;)
Really, how did the parent get modded up to +5 Insightful? With this kind of pandering:
> Why should only people who can afford $100 dinners be able to eat dinner without cell phones?
> Sounds pretty discrimanatory to me.
It's discriminatory in the way expensive clothes are discriminatory; that is, it isn't. This has jack shit to do with a rich/poor divide.
> Free speech often means interfering / annoying those around you
Not often, although occasionally. Nothing guarantees you a right to run electronic equipment of your choice on someone else's private property, though, so what's your point? What right does shutting down cellphones on my property violate?
> If someone is rude during a movie, they can always be asked to leave - the cell phone is a moot point.
No - it's a very valid point, because very often people don't _intend_ to be rude and have their phone ring; they're just forgetful.
Moreover, pre-emptively stopping disturbances is well-established: how are "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and "working cellphone, no service" so fundamentally dissimilar?
It doesn't -- I commend you for having the discipline and/or courtesy to use the vibe rather than the ringer where appropriate. However, most people are not that selfless. That's why there's an increasing market (or at least a perceived one) for cell jamming.
That said, if I'm paying to hang out in an establishment for the expected ambiance of "quiet", then I feel that that trumps a person's need to have their cell phone ring in the same establishment. And if you choose to place yourself in such an establishment where everyone does let their phones ring (even though you don't yourself), it's just silly for you to complain about it when jamming becomes the norm in such places.
If you need to be contacted in a moment's notice, then stay near a phone. My point wasn't to sound like a Luddite (BTW -- we've tossed our microwave, washer, and dryer, and we've done fine, thank you), but to point out that in the face of public backlash against mobile annoyances, we can route around such backlash. It'll just be a little more inconvenient, that's all. Nobody is entitled to convenience.
I do feel that public locations should never block signals of any kind. But private property is, well, private property, and barring violation of civil rights, they should be able to impose whatever restrictions they want to.
Perhaps I got a little too harsh/personal with the childbirth thing. I aplogize. I would have been irked to miss the birth of one of my kids -- but then again... I kept near a phone (or my wife) when the time was near. I wish you and your wife a healthy kid and your wife a speedy delivery.
Method of processing duck feet
Fine. Totally agree.
If it's on vibrate, in my pocket and I talk on it outside, away from you. Then my rights have not met yours, period.
Using your argument, your right to block my silent phone ENDS when it collides with my right to have it. Especially when you are completly unaware that I do because I don't let it bother you. Please deal with the guy with the fancy ring tone separatly from me.
I used to work out at a local YMCA up until a few months ago. While I was a member they started a policy prohibiting cell phones from anywhere except the lobby. They were concerned about the new picture phone technology and people taking pictures of others in locker rooms or of kids or whatever...
That policy was in place for a grand total of 2 weeks before it was reversed (probably because of *valid* legal threats). Why? Because a private organization cannot prevent you from using a legal FCC contracted product. It is your right to use these phones where and when you want.
Now then, if you abuse them, that is a different story. Anyone caught using the phone in a 'malicious' way was excorted out and their membership terminated. I actually saw this happen once.
My guess is these devices won't last long. The correct solution to this social problem is to do the same. If you are in a restaurant or movie theater and you abuse your cell phone, you should be asked to leave, with no refund. That will shape up people really fast.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
Now carjackers won't bother about police being called by victim or nearby car -- they will jam cellphones around...
A lot of people have a really bullshit attitude about this. It is almost like any conversation about TV where I sift through a million posts of people talking about how great life is since they don't watch. You know what? Pat yourself on the ass, great job, nobody cares.
Listen. I don't own a cell phone. I don't say that to insinuate that I'm better than people who do. I want one! I just don't have room for it in the ol' budget at the moment. People who have a cell phone should have every right to have it on and recieving calls where the fuck they choose to be. If the phone is ringing throw their ass out for not turning it to vibrate. Eventually they'll get the picture. However, if I had a cell phone and I missed a call about a loved one being in an accident or something because some asshat thought he had a right to run a jammer in his movie theater you can bet your ass there'd be a lawsuit.
People here are all about saying P2P isn't the problem, it is irresponsible users. Well, that's true. Same with cell phones. I don't want a fucktard with a GED and a jammer messing up my day anymore than I want the RIAA suing kids.
>>>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.
People should be more educated, even those tree-huggers, who may get a life-or-death call while watching LOTR.
If I see someone using a cellphone on the theatre, I educate him. I stand up, walk up to him/her, and tell him, very politely:
"Would you shut the fuck up!! please!"
And then I proceed to hit the shit out of them.
If everyone did this at theatres, cinemas, operas, whatever, people would be more educated with their cellphones
Good point. I guess I will go to the mall naked next time. And if someone complains then I will say that they are infringing on my right to bear myself. Better yet, I will go naked with a megaphone and then hold a conversation with my other nude friend at the other end of the mall. Where do you draw the line? Frankly, I think people should be allowed to have jammers that can have a certain maximum radius in public, and private areas can have their own policies regarding jammers.
I agree with you. Unfortunately that is the tendancy in this country. Hopefully we won't get to the point where the only place I can count on my phone working without someone else messing with it is my own home - at that point, what's the point to it?
Thank you for the good wishes. I probably got a little too erked as well.
First of all I do think the establishments do have the right to block them. I just don't think they should. If the theater took the time to embarassingly boot anyone who's phone rang, ALWAYS, it wouldn't be long until everyone made sure they were off or silent.
I unfortunatly don't have enough vacation to stay home before and after the baby so I have to work. And it's not always possible to be near a regular phone.
Even though you don't have a washer/dryer doesn't mean you don't use a convienience item to get the job done. A laundry-mat or a washboard, people had to live without them at one point or another. So unless you beat your clothes on rocks, I still think the "how did people ever manage" arguments arn't so good. Someone could use them to take anything away from you because people managed without anything.
Thanks again for the good wishes. And for the record it drives me up the wall when phones ring in theaters too, I'm just fighting for the bigger picture.
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 confines of this establishment". Lord knows, if two restaurants were side-by-side, I'd choose the one least used by cell phones. And then that would mean it was everybody's choice whether they were unable to use their cell phone or not.
Congratulations on the new little dude/dudette, by the way.
So now I'm a prick for trying to make a point?
People managed to get to work without cars... too. Please give me yours. And your computer... people managed without those too.
And text messages aren't completely silent. I still hear DTMF when I hit a key.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
What about people like me who use their phone to wirelessly surf the web? Doesn't make any noise, but you're willing to stop me from surfing the web just because you don't want to hear others? Any establishment that blocks my internet will find themselves short one more customer. What's next, dumping buckets of water on each person as they enter so they don't smoke?
You are confusing "free speech" with noise pollution. The right of freedom of speech is a right to be able to speak your opinion or speak facts without government suppression. It concerns content, not the existence of noise coming out of your mouth.
If you were standing on my street at 3:00 AM having a "conversation" with your signifigant other at screaming level, would you expect NOT to be arrested for disturbing the peace?
And actually, freedom of speech does *not* include interfering with others. If I pass by a demonstration I might be annoyed, and that's fine: I can excercise my freedom of expression to ignore, make a gesture, or tell the protesters my opinion. But if someone lays a hand on me (battery) or blocks my path (restricting my freedom of movement/kidnapping), all bets are off.
I believe that most "protests" that are designed to interfere with others are the social equivalent of a temper tantrum: the public isn't paying attention, but some cause is so important that the protesters will MAKE everyone pay attention. Oh, protesters will grab my attention by chaining themselves across a bridge and screwing up traffic for 2 hours, but it will be negative attention, and their cause (aside from from the orgy of self congratulation at having "done something") won't benefit from it.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Which amendment gives you that right? Private organizations can make whatever rules they want while you're on their premises. Think dress codes in restaurants, loitering in stores, etc. Plenty of health clubs have cell phone bans.
> 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.
Thanks for the Congrats.
Why not skip the blocking. Post a policy at the door. "Cell phone use on these premesis is prohibited. Phones must be silenced. Violators will be asked to leave."
The second or third time the rude guy is kicked out in front of everyone, you better believe he'll learn some manners quickly.
So, someone starts talking abnoxiously on their phone in the middle of a restaurant? Hit them over the head with a chair, problem solved.
Seriously, how many cell phones did you see in the good old western movies? I rest my case.
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.
A few nights ago, someone a few rows up from me at the theater kept pulling their cell phone out to check something The light was so bright that it was distracting.
I have seen people who put their cell phones on "silent", then leave them out. Most cell phones flash the main lights when they ring, while not as bad as a ring-tone, it is still very distracting in a dark theater.
But all that said, I do think that people should be able to block cell phone calls in private businesses, as long as it is well posted that they are doing it. I can then take my business somewhere else if I don't like it.
That's a paddling!
My wife is due to have our second child in 3 days.
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)
If it is private property I should be able to do whatever I damned well please. If I own a theater and don't want phones going off, bullocks to you if you don't like it. You seem to have an obvious need to use your cellphone all the time, at least until your next child is born. Well, looks like you would then have to stay out of theaters/restaraunts/etc. that would be using this technology. Just because YOU want/need to use your phone all the time, doesn't mean WE have to oblige.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
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.
Why does your org not use the reserved emergency bands for communication. It is rather easy to target specific freqs when desiring to interfere with a service without interupting service to another band.
Those reserved bands are not simply for fire and police personel. Many communities also use the reserved bands for medical pager systems, ambulance comminications, and tow truck raddios (some places even use them for taxicabs, as they might be necessary emergency transport in some extreme events). Even all volunteer clubs, such as the Civil Air Patrol are using the reserved emergency bands in some communities.
There is an added expense for the equipment, but those bands and corresponding communications networks are less likely to become saturated with traffic, like the cell networks tend to during emergencies. It's rather irresponsible for a rescue operation to depend on the standard cell networks. As you said, somebodies life might be at stake, and it would be a sorry excuse to blame a failure to respond on a saturated network.
Read, L
Wow, I guess people didn't have babies before the advent of the cell phone. I don't know how people dealt with all the emergencies they NEED to deal with before cell phones. I rember back in the eighties, before cell phones, I would just sit by my phone all day, every day and not move. Because, holy shit, what if there was some emergency? HOW Would theey get a hold of me?!!!???!
XML causes global warming.
If contacting a person was that important, there would be a less intrusive redundant method. If you are that important, don't leave the house and keep your noise to your damn self.
Else...
SHUDDUP/HANGUP AND DRIVE!
SHUDDUP/HANGUP AND EAT!
SHUDDUP/HANGUP AND WALK!
Noisy motherfucker, you can count on one of these being built, and installed and running on my car an all times. If you don't like it, blow me and go home and sit by the phone and flap your whining lip.
The hell they don't have the right on THEIR *private* property that was NOT designed or intended to be the place where a bunch of loser douchebags call their cells phones to look important.
SHUT THE FUCK UP AND HANG THE FUCK UP!
You wanna use that phone around me, you will be talking out your asshole and digging your fingers in to dial. As much as you want to take pictures of people with your phone and try to look like you are not a waste of life, you should stick to getting your porn on net not the locker room or kid's room. I also have the right to blow a whistle or air horn in your ear and deafen the loser talking to you, how the fuck you like those apples?
How the fuck was this moderated as insightful?
Yes, life existed before cellphones. Yes, he doesn't NEED to have one at all times, but equally stupid is this "insightful" guy acting like having a kid is no big deal.
I mean, damn, some things are just important.
$45 per U Colocation Special
A handheld cellphone jammer like this would be fantastic for stalkers, serial killers, robbers and rapists.
And what happened in the days BEFORE cell phones?
Parents who went out to dinner left the phone number (shock) of the restaurant that they were going to be at. Friends, same thing. Also, they would typically leave instructions to the sitter to, in case of an actual emergency, call this relative or friend AFTER calling 911 and have them get you to the hospital, jail, or their house.
Now, however, we just feel that it is easier to annoy everyone else rather than take a few prudent safety measures. Let the cell phone solve it.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
NEED, eh? Wow. What, pray tell, did people do 10 short years ago? (In 1994, if you were middle class and had a mobile phone, it was a car phone - remember those? You didn't carry it with you, it was mounted in the car, a big black box, a handset, an antenna on the windscreen or stuck atop the boot...) I assume expectant and new parents NEEDed this technology then, but instead had to put their lives on hold...?
geek. lawyer.
the fuck up? I went to see LOTR but ended up hearing stupid hip-hop-ghetto comments for 3 hours. I suppose I should be happy there wasn't a family with their 3 todlers running around screaming.
Nextel
CDMA system.
..well at least for blocking of a certain type of first post troll - using the "browse at" filter.
For instance, I think it's well over four years since I last saw a first post which referred to a Beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman pouring hot grits over her...well you get the idea!
In fact, most first post trolls I see now seem to be modded +5 Funny - just like yours in fact.
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
I thought the whole point of no service was that you couldn't even receive a signal.
A professional who is on call should be responsible enough to avoid places where he is not allowed to use his phone.
I'm an amateur, you insensitive clod.
No. What the phone companies should do is:
1. Get together.
2. Use open standards.
3. Create special TCP/IPv6 addresses for each cell phone so communication is:
3a. Standardized between each phone.
3b. Can use everyone else's cell phone as a pathway to reach the nearest tower (like the web uses each node as a path to send/receive packets presently).
4. Have a standardized set of commands which can be sent to a cell phone.
4a. Which has a method of setting the volume up or down and to ring or just vibrate.
4b. Which has a standardized set of PGP keys so malicious people can not go around mucking with other people's phones.
4c. Which also has some smarts built into it so the phone knows the difference between an incoming command via another phone and an incoming command via an outside source (so theatres et al can have a device which broadcasts to the phones but other phones can not broadcast the message).
Places where there is not to be any noise above a whisper could then have a device which sends a "VOLUME:BUZZ:X:Y:Z" message out. Using GPS tracking, any phone inside of the area (say 500ft [or maybe 200m] around X:Y:Z) would have their settings reset to just buzz. Once away from the area the phone would reset itself to the proper volumn level. Other places, where no phone calls can be received would have something like "VOLUME:OFF:X:Y:Z" followed by "CALLS:OFF:X:Y:Z". (Or maybe "VOLCAL:OFF:X:Y:Z".
Phone companies could then provide an automated message which states something like "This customer's phone is presently not accepting calls. If this is an emergency, please press one now. To leave a message press two." The command override would have been given by the person in advance (ie: to start your service you have to give an emergency override id number). The system then sends the override message along with the password (encrypted of course) and the phone begins by first buzzing the person, then incrementally increasing the speaker's loudness. Once maximum volume has been reached (and no one has answered) the phone resets to the override command and sends back that it failed to reach the person.
The person on the other end is notified of this and they are given the option of leaving a voicemail and/or phone number to be reached at.
It isn't all that hard to imagine a way this can all work. The hard part is getting all of the phone companies to agree to work together and to settle on one methodology of making the phones work.
The neat thing is - cell phones could be their own routers, hubs, DNS, et al. It just takes a different way of looking at things.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
You could always take another route, though it's even more distracting to who ever takes the time to do it:
Walk out of the theater and ask for you money back due to uncontrollable disturbances by other patrons.
If more people do that the theaters may actually start booting people for not silencing their phones. Convince them where it hurts.
No, signal jammer equipment are transmitters, hence, they are regulated by the FCC. If they don't properly use the frequency space allocated (they don't), if they aren't licensed (the FCC would never license a device that doesn't even try to properly operate on their frequencies), or if they cause harmful interference to properly licensed devices, they are illegal transmitters.
Your building does not elecronically generate and amplify electromagnetic radiation in frequency ranges that fall within the ITU's control, therefore, your building is perfectly legal.
-twb
http://www.devs.org/vignes/ny_times_around.html
...i just usually start making fun of people using their cell phones in areas where it's not wanted.
:-)
So far, it worked best at the times i had a banana at hand. Most people get the idea pretty fast when you are demonstratively holding a banana to your ear and mouth, repeating sentences the guilty party says to his/her cell phone while showing off a really stupid face
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Oh, you poor darling. Perhaps we should tell you "if you are so easily distracted, stay home." That's what you are telling cell phone owners. How do you like it?
But all that said, I do think that people should be able to block cell phone calls in private businesses, as long as it is well posted that they are doing it.
If they do it without obtaining the requisite radio licenses, I think they ought to go to jail.
I can then take my business somewhere else if I don't like it.
"We don't serve no _insert_minority_here_ here. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere."
So why block signals, surely we can just enforce a "good manner mode" to the phone instead, by requiring that newly manuf'd phones can have this behaviour imposed in certain local areas.
It's not like 95% of the phones currently in use will not have been upgraded in the next 24 months anyway, if someone does take a call in a cinema you can still always excersize your right to put a straw-full of well-aimed soda on the back of their neck (if everybody did this, you think people would take calls?).
Anyway, "good manner mode" might mean vibrating ring only, no calls placeable/answerable. You can surf the web on your phone if you want, I know I've been to some films where I'd want to do that, but I've left the phone in the car...
Strange, are you sure cell phones must accept interference from other devices in the US? In most other countries, it's the other way around - the GSM frequencies are allocated to the GSM service, and any other devices must accept interference from them.
Regardless, I'm quite sure that even if this is the case, it only applies if the device generating the interference has exclusive rights over that frequency band - something this thing certainly does NOT have.
Anyway, not saying this thing is bad or good... just would like to know.
Ok, I admit I don't know everything about wireless service, but how does sending out "no service" messages constantly "better than messing with everything that uses the same frequencies cellphones do"? I don't get it. I thought that if you used a frequency then nothing else could use it for that period of time. Doesn't sending out "no service" also block everything else?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
...so I can zap those morons that pay no attention to their driving because they're on their cell phone.
on your ability to communicate, check your equipment when you change location.
gewg_
You're right, people don't NEED their cellphones everywhere they go. However, I'll offer you this childhood story.
;) This takes place during my high school days.
:)
Years ago, when I was in elementary school, my sister had to undergo an operation at the hospital. I went to school like normal that day, however my mother told me that she may not be able to pick me up from school. She said that if she didn't, she would send someone else to pick me up. The day passes, and the front office buzzes the teacher; she has a call. I can't remember if she didn't take the call or what, but I clearly remember that I was never informed (by the school) that it was from my mother. When school let out I waited, and waited, and waited, but my mother never showed up. Finally I spotted the friend of hers who was sent to pick me up. She approached me and I acted a bit bewildered.
"..uhh.. Why are you here?"
"I'm here to pick you up. Didn't the school tell you?"
Now, if I had a cellphone (not that schools allow them anyway, especially for grade school kids, heh.) I would have have been able to receive a call, or even better, text message from my mother informing me of this. Or, perhaps if the teacher had her phone go off during class?
Just to drive the point home, I'll mention another awful childhood story. It involves me at school, much the same as the first, waiting, and waiting, and waiting for my mother to pick me up. She was getting her hair done, or something, and sent (a different) friend to pick me up. This said friend completely forgot about me after she picked up her own child, and I was left waiting at school for an hour or two before she finally realized this.
Cellphone, anyway? If only I (or the office) had been able to contact mum, or the said friend via cellphone, this could have been easily avoided.
And for the heck of it, one last story.
I had a fairly young math teacher (early 30's) who had a toddler, about three months old at the time. She had gotten sick and was prescribed medication that had to be refridgerated. The said medication was left out one night and the teacher was frantically waiting for a call from the pharmacy to confirm if it was safe or not to continue using it.
It was interesting, actually, because he apologized up a storm to the entire class about it afterwards. This as compared to a different teached I had who let everyone know he had a cellphone, although school policy didn't allow it (yes, even for him!) but since he was a teacher and we were only students (we'd get in trouble, he wouldn't), that the joke was on us.
Finally, the moral of the story(/ies). Cellphones are fine if used properly. Or, erm, make sure you live in walking distance from school. Or... ride the bus? I don't know.
(Somehow, I think this got a bit OT. Ohh well. Enjoy laughing at my childhood.
--
PH
Why is there a "no service" signal in the first place? Do phones really rely on a special signal to tell them they don't have a signal?
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
You first, you arrogant faggot.
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
Shut up you hypocritical asswipe. Anyone 1 generation older than you can demand you don't use technologies you're accustomed to, ad infinitum.
So unless you're Amish, shut up.
When we are in the field and have them available, we do. They are great for short-range tactical comms. Were we to use such radios for call-outs, you would certainly find it much more annoying since we would have to have them on all the time, and THEY don't have vibrating ringers and messaging capability. (And I do often carry such a radio, but not as the first line of contact. That way it can be off most of the time.)
There is an added expense for the equipment, but those bands and corresponding communications networks are less likely to become saturated with traffic, like the cell networks tend to during emergencies.
Cell phone systems do not tend to become saturated during small-scale emergencies, such as "missing child" or "lost adult". They are more private, so personal details may be more freely discussed, and the infrastructure is much broader than the typical public safety radio system. For example, if I am in the next big town over (just ten miles away) I get great cell service but crappy reception of even the primary county law enforcement channel. (That's ok, it is in the next county.)
And, unfortunately, yes, during large scale problems, even the standard public service radio systems get congested. The advanced digital trunked systems were supposed to help with this, but even they don't manage to keep up under stress. In fact, many of them are worse, since they don't provide simplex direct communications. If you are buried in a pile of rubble and cannot reach the closest trunk site, you don't communicate, even if your budies are in the next room. The old analog radios do much better at that -- and cell phones have the same problem. And then you have the problem of incompatible digital systems between different agencies.
Further, such radios are single purpose devices, while cell phones are multi-purpose. I cannot use such a radio to call home to say "I'm on the way to a search" or to call other people at their homes to get them involved. Having to carry multiple devices all the time is a real drag, as anyone who does it can tell you.
It's rather irresponsible for a rescue operation to depend on the standard cell networks.
That would be true if that was ALL that we used, but it isn't (because it would be irresponsible). If there was a major disaster we wouldn't depend on cell phones, but for normal operations they are pretty reliable and certainly more convenient than regular radios.
<mood=angry>Then turn off the bloomin' keytones. Most people I know have them turned off because they're just too annoying for everyone concerned.
Of course, you can still hear the clicking of the buttons if you listen carefully. Perhaps such infidels who attempt to communicate with other humans in such a minimalistic style should have their fingers chopped off?</mood>
I think the "from the ass-hole-arms-race-escalates dept." slashdot description describes this entire story quite well. Reacting to the small number of complete pillocks, who would be complete pillocks whether or not they're shouting into a mobile phone at a funeral or not, by punishing everyone is just silly.
I say we take-off and slashdot the site from orbit... it's the only way to be sure
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 EEG monitor, and a motorized hospital bed to make its way into the world. Yeah, sometimes they do, but statistics are in favor of an uneventful birth.
Common -- there are 6 billion of us alive right now. Then there's the billions before us. You tellin' me that human reproduction is truly a beag deal? Give me a break. Sure, seeing my son born was kinda neat. My wife thought the event sucked. :) But then again, she did the natural birth thing -- she didn't cop out like many women do and go epidural and/or C-section (when not necessary). But it was in no way a miraculous, life-shattering, earth-moving event. It was the result of nature in action. Nothing more.
Remember Howie Mandel? The head-under-the-surgical-glove comedian guy? The voice of the cartoon "Bobby's World"? Star of "St. Elsewhere"? Well, he had one of the most classic lines in one of his 80's comedy routines.
Paraphrased:
"So, my wife and I are expecting our first baby."
Cheers, hoots, and applause by the audience
(Mock surprise and confusion) "It's really no big deal -- all I did was fuck my wife."
A succinct (albeit, crude) point if there ever was one. Having a kid ain't no big deal. :-)
Now... raising a kid. That's a hell of a lot more work, and a lot more impressive if the kid turns out okay in the end. And my hat goes off to any parent who can do a good job of it in this crazy world of ours. That's something to celebrate about.
Method of processing duck feet
Then again, technologies have a tendency to become necessities over time. Let's see you survive without electric, sewers, running water, packaged food, medications, transportation, etc, etc...
You know what might be really cool? If, instead of jamming, the device could communicate with cell-phones and force them into vibrate-only mode. Eg. the cell phone sends out a signal and the "jammer" responds and instructs the phone that this is a vibrate-only area. Communication with the cell phone network would not be interrupted and any activity wouldn't bother people. That would take care of ringing... and people talk through movies anyway - even without cellphones.
;)
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.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
You wanna use that phone around me, you will be talking out your asshole and digging your fingers in to dial. As much as you want to take pictures of people with your phone and try to look like you are not a waste of life, you should stick to getting your porn on net not the locker room or kid's room. I also have the right to blow a whistle or air horn in your ear and deafen the loser talking to you, how the fuck you like those apples?
So how is this different from loud obnoxious people talking to each other? You may be nearby and be offended by what they are talking about, but they have the right to talk as loud as they want about whatever they want.
Now then, there might be repercussions to this act, but you cannot stop them from doing it in the first place. It is their right to do so if they choose.
And by the way, you're apples are rotten and dumb. Anyone who uses that line has an IQ of about 10.
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
If they can broadcast a "no service" signal. Arent they using the frequency that they are trying to make us NOT use.
If they can use it.. I CAN use it.
This proves the entire "dont use the cellphone" line is total crap. Besides... look on the roof of every Hospital. Yup. You guessed it.. A cell tower!
On the other hand. It looks like a great way to make money.
Stop imposing your beliefs / holier-than-thou attitude on others...fascist.
People like you should stay home and stop 'flapping your whining lip' at those that don't agree with you.
How did you make the leap that this person is a pedophile? Do you see something of yourself in that post? Thought so.
Don't be so arrogant to asume that others can afford baby sitters, don't asume people go on forign holidays, don't asume people have driving licences and passports, don't asume all the children at your local school can go to afer school clubs and don't asume the world is a nice friendly place where everyone has the same ammount of money you do.
What was almost refreshing was when somone asks you 'Are you on the phone', because not everyone even has a phone in there home.
but I hope someone makes a huge blocker to shut everyone's off.
Better yet, I hope it is found that cell phones cause major health problems. Okay, I don't want cell users to have health problems, but I just want an excuse for them to not use their damn phones.
Folks, give it up. Cell phones are annoying and useless. If you need a phone on the go, try a pay phone. (And it pisses me off that they are taking away pay phones because everyone uses their freaking cell phones instead, leaving me searching for a way to call someone.)
Go ahead and mod me down, I don't care. I just had to say it.
Just as a point, service isn't blocked at all in hospitals. (intentionally at least, the concrete walls might still do it.) They just tell you not to, for fear that it will screw with the monitoring equipment.
Quit posting this shit. You copy and paste this garbage every time a cell phone article comes up.
From Mr Derosier
"the system works by making the cell phone believe that a smoke-detector sized control unit is the ceiling is the best tower to camp on. Once the phone camps on the control unit it becomes captive and off the public network. Incoming calls are sent to voicemail by the public network because they think the phone is turned off. the control unit will not let the phone make outgoing calls.
as for the name, a large market for the Cell-Block-R (cellblocker) products are prisons."
IMO, the biggest problem with cell-phones in cars (and elsewhere) is that they ring. If the phone rings while you're driving, you take the eyes off traffic, find the phone, flip it open, and answer. The noise is distracting (we modern folk seem to have Pavlovian conditoning that we must answer the phone NOW!). Then there's the fumbling in the console, purse, etc. to get to the ringing phone. Then you're expected to carry on a conversation in a situation not of your choosing, such as when negotiating a highway interchange in heavy traffic. Stop the ringer, and the cell phone is much safer on the highway. Or let your passenger take the call ("Honey, I'll take the call while you drive. OK?").
Not true in the case of cell phones. These are licensed devices, with the service provider being the FCC licensee. Unlike unlicensed (Part 15) devices, cell phones do have legal protection from interference. Unless the denial-of-service device is owned and operated by the licensee (cell service provider), the FCC probably will issue a Cease & Desist order (at the least) if somebody files a formal complaint about it. The cell phone companies paid huge fees for their licenses, and they aren't about to let somebody else deprive them of their licensed airspace.
Nor may your device cause any harmful interference.
"quiet cars" on trains
Sweet!! When do we get these on BART? When when when??
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
right... so be sure to tell your kid why you weren't there when he/she was born.
"You missed my birth for a movie? Was it good?"
Unfortunately way too often businesses seem to want to keep customers rather then enforcing rules.. be it.. a theatre throwing out noisy viewers... an ISP keeping users who keep violating the TOS and getting viruses and spam sending because of those viruses, etc.
Businesses need to learn they can't be nice to everyone!
Block Technologies is developing a smoke-detector sized device which sends signals of 'no service' to cellphone frequencies
So it sends a 'no signal' signal? That doesn't make much sense. Wouldn't the absence of a signal indicate 'no service' to a cell phone? It must jam the cell signal.
Some people are on call 24 hours a day. It it absurd to think they shouldn't do anything but sit in their car waiting for a call. Doctors can have a life too.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
Um... I see both sides of this. Today I was annoyed by a coworker in the lab I work in who had to go on and on about the crap she does in her personal life with someone on the other end of her cellphone. Very loudly. So yeah, I was annoyed and wished she'd shut the fuck up.
<rant>
On the other hand, I don't normally expect emergency phone calls, but if something bad were to happen to my wife or kids and they couldn't call me because you're a selfish asshole who doesn't want to be disturbed, I would feel quite justified in tracking you down and shoving your fucking cell phone jammer up your ass. Violently. Sideways. And then lighting you on fire. Your family too, to see how you fucking like it. Motherfucker.
</rant>
If you look back at the many other replies to my message you'll find similar arguments and I simply don't buy the "how did we get along before" argument.
I never bother anyone with my cell phone. It is always on vibrate and I talk on it in seclusion. Please don't expect me to be happy being penalized for the rudeness of others when I've taken great care to be considerate.
How did you ever manage without a computer. If you wanted information you went to the library. So does that mean I should make your computer not work because SOME people abuse them?
Duh.... I might just think that because I am paying for the dining experience I just might be allowed to have a nice time and not listen to a loudmouthed idiot talk about the "Big Deal" he is working on.Or how many famous people She will have at the next party. Of course these conversations are carried out about 40 decibels higher than necessary so that everyone can hear.
Reminds me of my ex-roommate in the Navy. He would smoke a couple of joints, then place a speaker at either end of his bunk and listen to Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick for hours on end while he rythmically spit shined his shoes. Nice shoes too always got high military marks.... After he was busted I last saw him riding the back of a garbage truck shouting that he was so glad that the navy was getting rid of him. Of course I never told him that my cheap sears silver tone radio, which I tuned to 455 kHz higher, than where his expensive system was tuned, was responsible for all the static and noise that kept coming out of his speakers. He must have taken that stupid stereo back to the PX and had it replaced at least twice. Yep usually the self rightous pricks have a way to level the playing field against a boorish idiot.
You could be right...
I'm struck by how much this resembles the Smoking vs. Non-Smoking argument. That is, restaurants have the choice of declaring smoking or non-smoking, and then everyone has the choice of which to patronize. But it didn't work out that way, and many local governments stepped in to ban smoking in eating establishments. I like it, personally, but in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "It's their restaurant, if they want to allow smoking they ought to be able to." (And of course, second hand smoke has potential health risks.)
I have to admit, I have never been bothered by a cell phone user in a restaurant, having never seen one in the establishments that I frequent. I suspect that they would be shown the door at the places I go regularly, and that's good enough for me.
But if it were a theater, that seems different somehow. I would be very disturbed by a cell phone going loud during a play, for instance, and I wouldn't be satisfied with the offender just being drummed out by an usher.
I think I've circled back to thinking that the establishment should be able to decide what is acceptable, smoking, non-smoking, cell phones wide open, cell phones blocked.
I suppose it explains why I don't go out much - Then I don't have to deal with it.
There is nothing in the silent vibration of my cellphone that anyone around me will notice.
Maybe you have a better phone than me but mine is not silent in vibrate. Oh, it's a lot quieter than ring but it is clearly audible those those near me.
Whispering to the person calling isn't very silent either.
What I'd like to see is:
1) Ring through an ear piece. Maybe some do this already. I have an old phone.
2) Programable keys that will allow me to answer the call with my choice of canned response.
For example I could program one key to say:
"Can't talk now. Try again later"
Another key would say
"Give me a minute. I need to find a place where we can talk"
it's not the cell phones that are the problem. it's the users. just like with everything else in life. the devices are awesome, very handy. but when someone answers a phone in a movie and instead of asking the person to hold and going outside they proceede to talk loudly and interrupt everyone, that's annoying. once again to be clear. the phone isn't annoying, the idiot user is. I think that jamming the signal is opening up the wrong can of worms. and is going about it all the wrong way. maybe required cell phone carrying classes? hehe zeb http://www.zeb.hznet.us
http://www.zebpalmer.com
I've always had a theory on cell phone calls in public places: If the other end of the call could be heard as audibly, the amount and length of these calls would be reduced significantly.
That said...
- people should be able to use a cell phone in public places if they so desire, but I would expect some level of common decency (which is usually, sadly, absent)
- people should be able to block cell phone usage in private places if they so desire. However, I do far prefer warning signs on audible cell phone usage. Phones set to vibrate should not pose any problem. So far in any movie theatre I've been to, this has been respected*
- people who have a problem with such measures, be it for personal or professional reasons, are in tough luck; just don't visit those private places
Cell phones are part of daily life now, so we'll have to live with them - and I think that's perfectly possible.
* The thing that bugs me about cell phones in movie theatres, despite lack of ringing, is their displays. I can't see any movie these days without at least 5 fairly well-illuminated areas in the seats in front (I typically sit in the mid-section) from cell phone displays - text messaging seems to be "the 'in' thing" in the U.S.
There is already a law against this in most states. It's called reckless driving. If the cell phone user is really distracted, pull them over and ticket them for that. There's no need for a whole new law. Just thickening the thick books...
I wish they'd just leave my cell phone alone. It's mine, and I can turn it to silent for movies, or off in a hospital. Last thing I want is someone else regulating how I use a service I paid for.
My wireless company
Oh, please. I have no idea if my dad was there for my birth or not, but I really couldn't give a crap either way.
Whether he was able to be contacted and whether he was conveniently nearby when some only-vaguely-predictable event occurred means nothing to me. It means a billion times more how he's treated me for almost 30 years now. The only way it could ever matter what he did on that one day is if he were a crappy dad the rest of my life, and if that were the case it's not like him being around on that one particular day would redeem him.
Progress has value only if it is shared by all -- slogan of SNCF [French Railways]
Fucking commies.
When a cell phone receives a signal at a particular frequency:
- The phone will vibrate only, never ring, and
- The phone will not work for actual conversations (i.e., a person can't answer the phone).
Install devices that broadcast at that frequency in movie theaters and funeral parlors, along highways, etc.A person will be able to detect an incoming call because the phone will vibrate, but will have to leave the quiet zone in order to answer it.
Further, the signal could indicate one of two different levels of quiet zone.
For example, it could allow a person to make calls on a highway (in case of an emergency), but not allow a person to make calls in a movie theater (because if it is really an emergency, the person could leave to make the call).
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Hey, idiot. FCC rules not only state that a device must accept any incoming interference (from legit sources like broadcast radio), but that a device must also not interfere with other devices.
So your cell-blocker interferes with my cell phone, which is against FCC regulations.
Hah! (back'atcha, jackass).
I didn't think you were worth the responce, but I am in a mood right now...
I am a aerospace engineer, not an IT professional. Also, I work out about 10 hours a week. I bench press about 200 lbs, I have run multiple marathons, My BP and cholestorol are both good, and my resting pulse is in the upper 40 BPM range. So yes, I am rather healthy...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Magic. Read the fucking source you cocksmoking teabagger.
Hypocritical asswipe? I would only be hypocritical if the technology I was using infringed on other people's privacy. Anyone who can't turn their cellphone off for an hour has a serious personality flaw, and should probably seek psychiatric help.
Proverbs 21:19