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 . "

Comments

it's too bad...

[Requiem]

It's too bad nobody's developed first-post blocking technologies.

Re:it's too bad...

[nametaken]

Sure they have... it's usually called "Moderator Points". Not working today, though. :) Just kidding.

Thump thumb...

[lukewarmfusion]

My pacemaker just vibrated - I think I have a voice mail.

RTFA!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:RTFA!

[TamMan2000]

A professional who is on call should be responsible enough to avoid places where he is not allowed to use his phone.

Re:RTFA!

[eofpi]

I'd expect someone with that degree of importance to have a phone with a functional vibrate setting. They get a call, they can see who it is by caller id, and if it's important step outside the auditorium to take it. If not, they hit the mute button, it stops vibrating, and they continue watching the movie. No harm, no foul, no inconvenience. It does require them to set the phone to vibrate (if they don't leave it on that all the time), but that's already asked by theaters of everyone.

Re:RTFA!

[Surt]

People on call for life and death situations should probably not be going to the theatre. Having to work your way through a crowd may mean a fatal delay in reaching the person who needs your life or death service.

Um...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought, but wouldn't this be illegal somehow?

Re:Um...

[PhotoBoy]

It's a good idea, but the first time it stops someone calling the emergency services I could see it getting banned.

Cool!

[dsmey]

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!!!

Re:Cool!

[Throtex]

Is it illegal for a business establishment to 'fence-out' unauthorized carrier frequencies? Do you have jurisdiction over the entire spectrum within your own property?

Re:Cool!

[U.I.D 754625]

If I decode TV signals broadcasting through my own skull while standing on my lawn I will get sued by DirecTV and probably lose the case. You don't have jurisdiction over what you RECEIVE, so I doubt you have jurisdiction to transmit anything you want. I think it's real fucked up.

Legality

[DarthVeda]

What is the legality of these devices? Isn't this sort of like wireless DOS?

Lawsuit time

[strictnein]

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?

Re:Lawsuit time

[andih8u]

Typically, in other countries, devices like this (jammers)are already used in theatres, concert halls, etc to stop cellphones from ringing during performances. A device like the one in the article would not interfere with a pager, which is typically what doctors, police, etc use. If you have a grinding need for your cellphone to work, its typically posted that a jammer is in place, so you always have the option of not going to see that movie or that concert.

Re:Lawsuit time

[Sheetrock]

That's a good point. I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants, for example -- it's a public place, and there are all sorts of other potential irritants (screaming kids, cigarette smoke, someone yammering about the colonoscopy they had that morning) that there's simply no point in singling out the one irritant that could save a life in an emergency.

Besides, it is illegal to deliberately block radio transmissions as you point out. Jamming them with a signal is a pretty overt challenge. People need to relax.

Re:Lawsuit time

[prockcore]

I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants, for example -- it's a public place, and there are all sorts of other potential irritants (screaming kids, cigarette smoke, someone yammering about the colonoscopy they had that morning)

Move to Tucson, where there is no smoking in any restaurant, and many classy restaurants will ask you to step outside if your baby is crying.

If you need to have your cellphone with you at all times, eat at home.

Re:Lawsuit time

[Kainaw]

You make the assumption that regular non-cell phones are never available. You also assume that pagers will be blocked by the same service. These devices are developed to combat human stupidity that keeps a large portion of the population ignorant of the fact that there are other people in the world too - and sometimes they like to hear the movie that they just paid over $10 to see.

I must admit, that is my answer after a lot of yoga-like deep breathing. My initial response is that all we need are more guns and less arrests for "attempted murder". Just because you shoot someone doesn't mean you attempted to murder them. Sometimes you just want them to shut up.

Re:Lawsuit time

[jeffkjo1]

That's a good point. I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants, for example -- it's a public place, and there are all sorts of other potential irritants (screaming kids, cigarette smoke, someone yammering about the colonoscopy they had that morning) that there's simply no point in singling out the one irritant that could save a life in an emergency.

I finally figured out why people find cell phones so much more annoying in restaurants than say, other people talking and clinking dishes. First, in the case of a screaming kid or dropped plates, the noise is typically brief, which cannot be said for cell phone conversations.

The second problem is that people always talk louder on cell phones. I personally do not understand this, however, IDNHACP (I do not have a cell phone.) So, the restaurant is already loud, and people are trying to talk over the din, which leads to point 3.

It's only one side of the conversation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not evesdropping, but it is jarring for me (and many others) to hear half of a conversation in my perhipheral hearing. It's easy to block out people talking back and forth, even if they're being loud; however, blocking out someone who is loudly seemingly talking to themselves is much more jarring to your brains white noise filter.

Re:Lawsuit time

[strictnein]

You're just the asshole that talks in the movie theather, looking for some justification.

Sorry jackass, but I'm not. I own a cell phone but I almost always have it on vibrate no matter where I'm at.

Re:Lawsuit time

[Le Marteau]

That's a good point. I don't know why people have a problem with people receiving calls on cellphones when they're in restaurants,

I don't know, either, but it's a fact. Not logical, but it's a fact. There are few things more annoying, and don't bother telling me it's illogical; emotions are BY DEFINITION illogical.

I think it may be a Pavlovian response. Nine time out of ten, in the past, whenever I've seen somebody yakking it up in a restaurant, it was at the top of their voice, talking bullshit (and don't EVEN get me started on those yahoos who do it walkie-talkie style at Starbucks). So we get used to it - "cell phone in public" = "rude behaviour". This expectation becomes ingraned. People become so used to equating "cell phone in public" with "rude person" that the response becomes automatic. What happens, then, is even though a person may be politely using a cell phone, because of past experiences, the immediate knee-jerk response is "rude SOB".

Re:Lawsuit time

[the pickle]

What about business people, doctors, police, etc. who need these devices to work?

Gee, whatever did these people do before the cellular telephone? I can't possibly imagine. Heaven forbid that someone in these professions should have to use a telephone with WIRES, or tell someone where they're going to be for the next couple of hours.

Besides, doctors still use pagers, policemen aren't typically "on-call" when they're at the movies, and "business people" who "need these devices to work" can go conduct their business somewhere else, thank you very much. You wouldn't bring your laptop to the movies to work on a bit of code during boring parts, so why should it be OK to conduct disruptive business on your cell fone?

And talk about lawsuit material. Someone gets hurt, but can't call 911 on their cell phone because it is being jammed by this (or a similar) device.

Gimme a break. Anyone who needs to call 911 on his cell but can't because he's in a "no service" area inside of a movie theatre, concert hall, etc. is going to have approximately 200 people in the immediate vicinity who can come to his aid and/or go fetch the paramedics USING A LANDLINE.

p

Re:Lawsuit time

[strictnein]

Then the doctor should be at home. If they are off in the city, it would take longer for them to respond to an emergency call (find the phone, take the call, collect your wife, get your car back from the valet, drive to the hospital) as opposed to being at home (take the call, leap in your car and go).

So, if you're at home, your automatically closer to where you work?

Interesting thought, all doctors should be at home. You don't even know how doctors typically operate, do you?

Hell, lets take my uncle for example. He's a psychiatrist that deals with a lot of really really wacked out people. He lives about 1-1.5 hours from the city he works in (depending on traffic). When he goes to a play or out to eat he's actually a lot closer to the hospitals he works at than if he's at home. When he gets a call/page and has to leave the play (no, he doesn't answer them during the play, just waits for the intermission) or restaurant, his wife just takes a cab home (if he's not back in time to pick her up). Even though he typically carries 2-3 pagers and/or cell phones, I have never heard any of them go off.
Kind of sucks really, but he's committed to helping people.

No Service

[jmpoast]

...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.

Department

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> from the ass-hole-arms-race-escalates dept.

I guess somebody is having a bad day.

Better idea...

[lpangelrob2]

Can someone make one of these so that I can stop checking Slashdot every 5 minutes all day long? Thanks.

Now this is interesting.

[Tuxedo Jack]

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.

Wow, bet doctors will love this one...

[ClippyHater]

"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.

Re:Wow, bet doctors will love this one...

[adolf]

Isn't the flashing "No Service" light on your phone a good enough indicator that the thing isn't going to be working?

I mean, it's not implicit that a cell phone is going to work anywhere at all, anyway. They are completely unreliable unreliable communication mediums, no matter what Verizon says.

If one is really stupid to have someone's life depend on their bloody cellphone, they'd better be diligent enough to notice when there's no service. And if they think they're too busy to notice, then their phone calls are plainly not very important to them.

Why do we need more signs to limit people's liability for other people's inattentiveness? Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio bad enough yet?

ObLink

[OldManAndTheC]

No-reg link here

In Soviet Russia, link follows you!

Only blocks GSM

[RobertB-DC]

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!

Re:Only blocks GSM

[radish]

Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile [t-mobile.com] customers

And AT&T, and Cingular.

Re:Only blocks GSM

[metamatic]

Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile customers.

...or AT&T customers (except those with old analog phones), or Cingular customers (except those with old analog phones), or Pac Bell customers, or Powertel customers, or BellSouth customers.

In case you hadn't noticed, everyone's switching to GSM except Verizon and Sprint.

but...

[grub]

... what if I want to stop pacemakers?

Re:but...

[Mr. Bad Example]

...what if I want to stop pacemakers?

There's clear precedent--you have to stop before you break my heart. Did The Supremes teach us nothing?

Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives

[onyxruby]

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.

phone companies

[musikit]

how long until phone companies start paying off contractors to use these special anti cell phone materials so they can sell more land lines?

Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives

[irving47]

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.

DOS?

[alfal]

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.

Re:DOS?

[Ichijo]

I want one that does a different kind of Denial of Service attack: one that would simultaneously ring every cellular device in the vicinity until people turn their phones off. Call it a port scanner for cell phones.

I'd use one in the theater right before the show starts.

No lawsuit needed, just a complaint will work...

[n()_cHIEFz]

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.

Doctors

[phorm]

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.

Re:Doctors

[Kiryat Malachi]

LEAVE IT WITH THE HOUSE MANAGER AND/OR USHER, WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO GET YOU IF IT RINGS.

Exactly the same way that on-call doctors worked prior to the advent of pagers and cellphones; they let the hospital know "I will be at the theater from 9 to midnight" and if the call was for them, the house manager would (quietly) find them and tell them.

Sorry to shout, but isn't it bleedingly obvious?

Re:Doctors

[LetterJ]

If you're a doctor with a 12 year old girl dying in the hospital, what in the world are you doing in the theater watching "Hellboy"?

I've had movies interrupted probably 20-30 times in the last year or 2 and it has NEVER been a doctor. Nor has the conversation EVER been important on the scale that everyone talks about in these discussions. Over half of the conversations have started something like this,

"Oh, nothing much, just watching a movie.".
"Yeah, we can bring the beer."
"No, it's no big deal. Some a**hole is telling me to get off the phone, so I'll have to call you later."

Most doctors carry pagers as their notification devices for medical emergencies. It allows them to be notified, but not have to drop what they're doing to know what's going on. Same with on-call ambulance drivers, firemen, etc. In almost every single emergency profession, all they really look for is notification that they need to get to the hospital/ambulance shed/firehouse immediately. They don't need to have an actual conversation.

Re:Doctors

[nick0909]

I carry a fire pager for Search & Rescue in my county. We are on call 24/7/365. There is no other agency in the county to perform search and rescue/recovery of lost poeple, so it is important to get my pages. This is also not a normal pager, it is louder than you can imagine and scares the shit out of anyone nearby when it goes off (including me). Think: high pitched rail road crossing alarm on your belt. The thing is, I have adapted ways to quite the pager when I am in public places to lessen its exposure. Doctors and other such people that are always on call also do this. When you are used to being paged at the worst possible times you get used to trying to minimize its effect on people around you. You only notice and get annoyed by the people that answer and talk loudly to their friends about the party they are going to later. Overall - Jamming signals is a bad idea. We should teach people to not be morons instead. But then I guess my Search & Rescue gig wouldn't be required anymore either.

Re:Doctors

[bluGill]

What privacy issues? The usher answers the phone "theater for john doe, would you like to leave a message or should I get him?" (Or something to that effect) Sure it is a private call, but that doesn't mean the phone answerer needs to be told anything more than "This is an urgent matter than needs his attention now". In any case all the people around the doctor will hear a lot of private information if he answers, while the usher can be assumed to be a little more discrete, if only cause it is just one person. (Who also has made it clear he isn't the doctor)

I don't go to movies, but every theater I've been to (with real actors), they informed us that there were usher willing to hold your phone and answer it for you.

Re:Doctors

[nick0909]

I am not leaving my $450 pager with anyone. And this is not a normal pager, after sounding the alarm from hell it plays the dispatch to where I need to go. I am not going to rely on some usher to remember if it was a dynamic water rescue on a river or a technical water rescue from a strainer in a creek. Sometimes people actually need to be able to get a message anytime anywhere.

Re:Doctors

[Kiryat Malachi]

You tell the usher where you're going to sit, of course. This works a lot better in theater than movies, to tell the truth, but with the exception of crowded opening night theaters, its usually not too hard to pick your seat.

And I have, in fact, asked ushers to do this for me, when I was on call for something.

The reminder works great for people who don't need to take calls; the ushers work for those who do.

Re:Doctors

[STrinity]

If you're a doctor with a 12 year old girl dying in the hospital, what in the world are you doing in the theater watching "Hellboy"?

Well, presumably the girl wasn't dying when the doctor left the hospital.

I've had movies interrupted probably 20-30 times in the last year or 2 and it has NEVER been a doctor.

So does that mean doctors never receive emergency phonecalls at the movies, or that they keep their phones on vibrate, talk quietly, and leave the theater if have an important call without you ever knowing?

Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives

[LS]

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

I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[ScottGant]

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.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[Googo]

But then again, the person you are talking to in the car should also be fearing for their life and help watch the road. Also, radios are passive. You listen to it but don't need to think of responses for it though I may be wrong on this since some people probably do.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[lukewarmfusion]

I get annoyed by people on their cell phones all the time. Several actors have stopped in the middle of performances to yell at audience members that were on their phones.

I saw LOTR: Two Towers and some guy kept getting that chirping tone from the two-way walkie talkie feature. Every thirty seconds or so. Enough people were pissed off... we asked him to stop, but he was a jerk about it. I knew the manager, so we had him formally warned - next time, we'll have the police officer escort you out of the theatre.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[gantrep]

I see your point about cell-phone driving. I hadn't thought of it that way actually.

Logically, using a cellphone and driving isn't any more distracting than using one one hand to steer and talking to passengers.

I suppose the only difference is that if you're holding something, it's slightly harder to go to two hands. I could easily see that someone in the half second before a crash would have a harder time of dropping the phone and then grabbing the wheel than a person who is only using one hand, but the other hand is not holding something.

I think the reason why the laws have been enacted though, is that it's visible to other drivers. If a driver is distracted and cuts you off because of the radio or their passengers, you might not be able to tell that because it's not obvious and you'll just chalk it up to their being a jerk or a woman driver(just kidding folks). But if they have a phone in their hand, you say AH-HAH! Cellphones! Somebody should make a law! etc...

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[Surt]

There is significant research to suggest that the concentration needed to have a two way conversation on a cell is > the concentration needed to have a conversation with someone in the car > the concentration necessary to change the radio channel > the concentration necessary to listen to the radio.

The uproar about it is caused by the experience that 9 of the last 10 near accidents i've been in have all been the fault of a person talking on a cell phone, and in about half the cases that person seemed to be experiencing difficulty with overcorrection due to the use of one handed driving.

Switching the radio station takes one hand away from the wheel briefly. Talking to a person in the car or listening to the radio doesn't take one hand away at all. Talking on the cell phone non-hands-free takes away one hand for an extended period of time.

Another frequent problem with cell phone users is that they commonly raise their voice to overcome bad microphones and/or static on their connection. They wind up talking innapropriately loudly for an extended period of time. Think about the irritation you experience hearing one person yelling at another person. This happens all the time with cell phone users.

Finally there is the problem with cell phones being left to ring (often with an innappropriately loud and long ringsong) at inappropriate times. I haven't been to a movie in the last 3 years without at least 3 cell phone rings. And in at least the last year they have the warnings to turn off your cellphones up on screen for 20-30 seconds before the movie starts! And in 2 movies in the last year I've had to request my money back because I couldn't hear dialog over people who actually took calls and started talking during the movie (and of course talking too loud because of their crappy phone microphones/static issues!)

In short, if you're a frequent cell phoner, try to be considerate of others. It sounds like you (the person i'm replying to) aren't a frequent user, and are probably polite while you're at it, but the fact is most people aren't.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that research has shown that it doesn't matter if you have a handsfree kit or if you are attempting to hold your phone up to your head. You have the same likelyhood of an accident while talking on a cellphone. It's not the phone that's the problem, it's the conversation. People just don't want to accept that the problem is being distracted whether it's by a crying infant in the back seat, attempting to eat breakfast on the commute to work, having a lovers spat while on I95, or just jacking off to your imagination.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[Vancorps]

Those people just need some lessons in fist to face contact. The same kind of person that will sit their talking all through the movie and since you mention plays the same holds true. Some people will sit through the entire thing talking. Yep, its annoying, does the cell phone have anything to do with it? No, they would just find another way to talk or otherwise distract themselves and others around them.

Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life...

[LinuxHam]

two-way walkie talkie feature .. every 30 seconds just because they have a message waiting?

Two different things. The parent was referring to someone in the theater actually using the two-way radio, and you read it as someone actually ignoring their message waiting indicator throughout the movie. Just as annoying but a whole new level of stupid.

Hey Nextel owners, PLEASE hit the black speaker button to turn off your loudspeaker! No, you are not required to use the speakerphone function with the 2-way radio.

'No Service', huh?

[TigerNut]

The only ways that you can get 'No Service' on a cellphone, are:
- 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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[MisanthropicProgram]

I would be extremely annoyed if I couldn't hear you because you insisted on taking my call while you were at a concert or some other place that had a lot of noise. It also doesn't say much for your time management skills if you can't plan your recreation activites around your work.

This is all assuming that you're actually working for a Fortune 50 company and you are who you say you are.

Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives

[ibpooks]

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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[karnal]

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.

An alternative idea

[zerosignal]

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).

Re:what about the reverse?

[NanoGator]

" 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."

If you're phone is saying "no service" then outgoing calls probably won't go through. Depends on the phone, maybe.

I agree, though, this is a dumb solution. It's a social problem, not a technical one. Make it unacceptable to disturb somebody. I can't speak for the entire country, but in the last couple of years, cell phone obnoxiousness has gone down. I have witnessed a number of people pull their cell phones out when a movie starts to turn them off. So if all these people are doing that, why punish them by killing service to their phone?

Frankly, I think a better solution could be developed. Cell phones are digital now. Down the road, I can imagine that service will be set up where phones automatically go into silent mode depending on the building you are in. I like this solution. It removes some of the accidental bs from happening.

The most insulting part is that these places think they're more important than a call you might recieve. Imagine a guy leaving the theater, getting out of range of the jammer, and then getting a voicemail that his father's been in an accident. "Oh man! I could have left the theater an hour ago!! nO!!"

I don't mind finding a way to make the audible phone ring go away, it's the "no service for you" attitude that is just the wrong way to solve that problem.

dubious legality...

[emtboy9]

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...

Re:This is a bad idea

[bgog]

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!!

Wrong!!

[AltGrendel]

You need a different level of concentration when talking on the cell phone and driving vs talking to a passenger and driving.

Read the Study!

Re:Wrong!!

[ajs318]

I can handle driving and talking on my phone just fine because I won't let myself focus on the conversation too much.

Sounds a lot like "I can handle driving after a few beers just fine because I know how to compensate for my slower reactions" ..... doesn't it?

Is whatever you have to say really more important than the safety of other road users?

A**holes before cell phones

[Pegasi51]

I think that the same assholes who wont't turn thier ringer off will manage to be just as annoying with out them. Probably running out side 'your' restraunt/movie theater/whatever every five minutes to check thier phones. How is that an improvment?

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.

Wow I can't believe this

[NDPTAL85]

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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[Tiggan]

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.

Answers to many questions...

[stienman]

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

I don't know whether to be disappointed or angry..

[ValentineMSmith]

That a goodly percentage of the people responding to this story are in favor of this device. At one point, I would have thought that people smart enough to find /. would have been smart enough to know better.

I'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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[Deagol]

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.

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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[Obfuscant]

But, if you are in my airspace ... Let's say it's a fancy restaurant. Or better yet, an opera house.

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.

Try it for yourself...

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[txviking]

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....

Re:This is a bad idea

[Don'tTreadOnMe]

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.

Blocking Wireless Internet

[Brian Puccio]

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?

Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives

[R2.0]

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.

Private -vs- public space

[NetDanzr]

>> But, if you are in my airspace ... Let's say it's a fancy restaurant. Or better yet, an opera house.

> It isn't your airspace. It's a public place.

Not true. Public place is a park or the sidewalk, basically anything maintained by the government (local, state, federal). A restaurant is a private place. Ever seen those signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"? A public place can't do that, because they aren't allowed to discriminate. Private places can do so. I can well imagine a restaurant (mine, if I had one), to automatically take away all food and drinks and bring the check the moment the customer's phone rings. As the ovner of that particular private place, I may feel like refusing service to those who wish to keep their cell phones on.

Re:This is a bad idea

[Romeozulu]

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.

Re:This is a bad idea

[vitaflo]

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)

Malicious use of these

[IronDragon]

A handheld cellphone jammer like this would be fantastic for stalkers, serial killers, robbers and rapists.

but the real questions is...

[LuxFX]

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?

I Have Mine of Vibrate

[Nintendork]

When I'm in a movie, I have my phone in my pocket on vibrate. I simply answer it, whisper for the caller to wait a minute, and walk out to the hallway. Nobody gets disturbed except for me. If people use this jammer, it's going to prevent me from getting calls that would disturb nobody else in the theater.

I'm waiting for a device that logs frequencies nearby that have recently received calls. If the ringer was loud and annoying, you can change their ringer to a loud, annoying song with lyrics to the effect of "I'm an asshole with a stupid ringer and I want everyone to hear my stupid little ringer song when they're trying to eat a pleasant dinner with their girlfriend. Somebody please punch me in the face."

No collateral damage this way.

-Lucas

Re:This is a bad idea

[Deagol]

I'm sorry, but having a kid really is no big deal. It's as big a deal as breathing -- we're all designed to do it, and it will happen regardless of what we do about it (birthing, that is, not conceiving).

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.

Idea...

[verbatim]

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. ;)