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.
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
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
>> from the ass-hole-arms-race-escalates dept.
I guess somebody is having a bad day.
"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!
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?
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,
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.
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.
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
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.
It's a good idea, but the first time it stops someone calling the emergency services I could see it getting banned.
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
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.
//Blessed are they that run around in circles, for they shall be known as wheels.
" 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.
"Derp de derp."
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!!
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
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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)
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'
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
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?