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.
>> 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.
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.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
... 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.
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.
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...
" 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."
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.
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
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
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
A professional who is on call should be responsible enough to avoid places where he is not allowed to use his phone.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
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.
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.
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'