Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Proposes $48,000 Fine To Man Jamming Cellphones On Florida Interstate

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

New submitter freddieb writes: "An individual who had been jamming cellphone traffic on interstate 4 in Florida was located by FCC agents with the assistance of Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies. The individual had reportedly been jamming cellphone traffic on I-4 for two years. The FCC is now proposing a $48,000 fine for his actions. They say the jamming 'could and may have had disastrous consequences by precluding the use of cell phones to reach life-saving 9-1-1 services provided by police, ambulance, and fire departments.'"

24 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Probably saved more lives with jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's just disgusting how many people use their cell phones while driving.

    1. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More likely killed more people who were looking down at their cell phone "Why isn't this damn thing working!".

    2. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Drethon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be less worried about the people going 80 down the freeway with a cell phone and more worried about the ones doing 45 in the city with a cell phone.

    3. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to a passenger? Texting while driving is already illegal in Florida.

      This one guy doesn't get to decide public safety issues.

    4. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you'd rather have them careening down the freeway at 80MPH with one hand on the wheel and one hand holding their smartphone while looking down at it to see why the call just got cut off?
      and when they crash into someone else, no one can call for an ambulance?

    5. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a much larger difference.

      You don't need to hold a device to ear to converse with the passenger.
      You don't need to take your eyes off of the road to call the passenger.
      The passenger doesn't display text and images in front of you. (If they do sedate them before letting them in your car next time)
      The passenger doesn't vibrate in your lap startling you. (Unless they're a good passenger, but then again that shouldn't be startling)

      If you don't have a hands free setup, which a lot of people don't, and if the data function isn't going to be disabled while the vehicle is in motion, then this is a pretty good idea.

      You're correct that one guy doesn't get to decide public safety issues. But it DOES have to start somewhere, and starting with one guy is a good place.I'd like to see the accident data for the times and locations he was jamming and then compare them to the same times and places when he wasn't jamming.

    6. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > I'm so sick of seeing people careening down the freeway at 80 MPH with one hand on the wheel and one hand mashing a smartphone to their braincase.

      I wish they would do that. More often they're varying speed between 45 and 55 (in a 65 zone) and meandering between lanes. Buy a bluetooth headset or speaker, fuckos!!!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he was trying to say it's more dangerous to be on your phone in the city where there are stop lights, pedestrians, cars turning, etc.

    8. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on the state/county/locale.

      Where I live, it's currently only illegal to text while driving, and even then, only if you're under a certain age (21, I believe), although there is legislation in the state Legislature that would expand the texting ban to all ages.

      Which just goes to show how idiotic our legislative processes can be; I can only presume they didn't make texting while driving illegal for everyone in the first round had something to do with the law being passed in an election year.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Regardless of how fast they're driving, I would be worried the most about the driver who took his eyes off the road to look at his phone and wonder why it stopped working.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger."
      None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..

      Yeah, talking on the phone is only as bad as drunk driving. From the study: "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit”. It doesn't matter if the call is made on the phone or using a hands-free set, having the conversation is the distracting part. From the article:

      "The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:

      Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."

      It is true that there are a lot of things that distract drivers and every time there is a cell phone thread this point is brought up. The world isn't black and white (distracting vs. non-distracting). There are differing levels of distracted driving depending on the activity performed. Tuning the radio is not as distracting as watching TV. Smoking is not as distracting as making icy margaritas. And talking to a passenger is not as distracting as talking on a phone (although talking to a passenger while driving is distracting). When laws are made to restrict driving, legislatures must balance taking away freedom with a compelling public interest. Obviously some states feel that the freedom to use your phone while driving is outweighed by the societal harm from drivers distracted by such activities.

      With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?

      --

      Enigma

    11. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?

      No he hasn't, nor will he.

      The crux of Dunning-Kruger effect is not that they are unskilled, rather that they are completely oblivious to how unskilled they are and we've known about it for far longer than Carlin, Bertrand Russell said in the 30's "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" and I'm sure there will be earlier examples. Dunning and Kruger wrapped some science around it however.

      I'm one of the 4% of humans who can multitask, I dont use my phone whilst driving because I know how badly it affects my driving. Even though I can do two things at once, it still does force me to divide my attention and with the number of idiots on the road, I dont want my attention taken up by something else. Most people who think they can use their phone whilst driving are not driving properly, they think it's easy because they dont bother with things like signalling, checking mirrors and blind spots as well as vehicle management (keeping an eye on speed and other gauges).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Sounds fair to me by dreamchaser · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The dude should certainly be punished, and a punitive fine like that sounds fairly reasonable to me. No sense clogging up the jails even further over what amounts to vandalism of a sort.

  3. Why did he do it - and why didn't they ask? by gurps_npc · · Score: 1, Insightful
    The obvious question to ask was why someone would do such a thing.

    Now, if it was a movie theater, I could see someone jamming cell phones. But on a road? Why?

    Was he using an over-powered machine and doing it by mistake? Was he just insane?

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Why did he do it - and why didn't they ask? by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      obvious question — why

      For people that actually drive and must cope with vehicles that effectively have no driver because cell-phone there is nothing compelling about your question; the answer is self-evident.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  4. The Slashdot Beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Slashdot Beta is already having disastrous consequences on this website. The beta site just crashed my browser, and while there currently is an option to proceed to the old version (which I managed to click, just in time, after restarting my browser), I'm sure that even this option will soon disappear.

    I'm not an old timer ranting just for the heck of it, (Disclaimer: I've just been on this website for close to 6 years now, five of those were during my engineering degree. Note that 6 years is a very short period of time, compared to some of the commenters who frequent this website, they've been here for much longer, though the way things are going, I doubt that they're going to stick around). The beta is truly unusable, is just a blatant advertisement for tech jobs by the new owners of this website, and destroys the comment system entirely.

    I don't come here to read "News for Nerds", because the submissions made these days are just a blatant waste of time. What I do come here for are the comments. There is an absolute wealth of experience among the users on this website, from system admins to web developers to people with all sorts of careers, and from all sorts of backgrounds, not just technology. I come here to read their comments. This is also one of the greatest places to find absolute gems of wit (+5 Funny, I'm looking at you). I attempted to use the Beta to this purpose, but it failed miserably.

    TL:DR; I come here for the comments, I won't be coming here any more if the beta becomes the default. Yes, this is a rant. Yes, this is offtopic. Yes, this will be modded as such. But I just needed to say that. Thanks.

  5. Collateral Damage? by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if this has occurred to you or not, but not everyone inside a car is driving a car. And if you do get into a car accident, it would be nice if you or someone in the area could call emergency services.

    1. Re:Collateral Damage? by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about the people who live nearby as well?

  6. Re:Maybe blocked a roadside call... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents.

    How are you so sure? Because you like vandalism, so it should be supported?

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  7. Re:Another valuable investment of tax payer dollar by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it worth it to maintain free communications for people? Passengers in the cars were unable to call anyone as well. It's arrogant behavior to think you have the right to jam people's communications. I think a little jail time would be appropriate as well, or at least about 200 hours of community service picking up trash on the roadside.

  8. Re:Cause and Effect by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Evidence? Seems to me that it is more likely he could have caused accidents, because now the idiot who was going to make a call (or was in the middle of a call) is going to be looking at his phone to check signal strength, redialing, getting frustated, etc.

  9. Re:In the absence of an effective goverment... by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His vigilantism wasn't necessary. He accomplished nothing at all with his nonsense than to possibly create a public hazard. What about car passengers? Are they "allowed" to use the phone? How many drivers do you suppose tried redialing again and again? He solved nothing at all. What arrogance.

  10. That seems fair by Minwee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Particularly since the FCC levied a similar fine against BART in August of 2011...

    Oh, wait. They didn't do anything at all then. But they're coming down like Thor's hammer on Florida Man.

    How does that saying go? "You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training".

  11. Jamming is a terrible solution. by thevirtualcat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most jammers work by blasting noise on whatever channels you are trying to block.

    Perfect band pass filters are not a thing the exist, especially not for transmitters. Especially not for transmitters cobbled together by some guy on the cheap. The assumption that they do is why they (rightfully) smacked down LightSquared.

    So, let's do a little exercise:

    First, look at the 800 MHz Band Plan
    http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi...

    See that slot right below "Cellular?" You know, that cut-away that has all the "Public Safety" allocations? Now, let's look at a quote from the FCC posting:
    "According to deputies from the Sheriff’s Office, communications with police dispatch were interrupted as they approached Mr. Humphreys’ vehicle."

    The jammer was blocking police radio. Not just cell phones. He was actively interfering with public safety communications. NON-CELLULAR public safety communications.

    Personally? $48,000 is getting off easy. I'd add another order of magnitude onto it.