Slashdot Mirror


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

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.'"

43 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is Distracted Driving Awareness Month.. From http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/Hands-free-is-not-risk-free.aspx

      Isn't it just as distracting to talk to passengers?

        - A passenger is able to spot and point out driving hazards
        - A passenger is another set of eyes
        - A passenger is able to recognize when traffic is challenging and stop talking.

    5. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The passengers will help look around for traffic. Also, you can "ignore" passengers in person more politely than someone over the phone. The phone is a reduced communication medium. The quality is worse, so tone can be distorted, and you get no visual cues of the person to help you understand, so you focus more on the phone than a person sitting next to you to get the same level of understanding. The quality of conversation is different as well. You can "tune out" the people in the car more easily, your wife is asking about dinner, the kids are asking to go to the new movie. But the phone call is your boss or customer, and you need to get that information 100% correct.

      There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger. That you can't think of any indicates a problem with you, not those who are seeking a ban to phones, but not passengers.

    6. 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?

    7. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

      " - A passenger is able to spot and point out driving hazards
            - A passenger is another set of eyes
            - A passenger is able to recognize when traffic is challenging and stop talking."

      I guess we'll have to ban blind people from traveling in cars then.

    8. 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
    9. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to a passenger?

      According to Harvard it is quite different.

    10. 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
    11. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I doubt all distracted driving accidents are attributable to cell phone voice calls. Texting, shaving, eating, drinking a beverage, spanking kids, head banging, receiving fellatio, messing with the stereo, messing with the GPS, tying a tie, and ogling the redhead on the side of the street are all distractions.

      What about giving fellatio?

    12. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Won't somebody think of the taxi drivers!

    13. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I dunno about you, but I noticed a long time ago that not all drivers are created equal nor are all drivers on cell phones. In fact, the crash studies that found drivers who get in accidents with cell phones also get in more accidents than normal without cell phones really hit that one home.

      I really think there are just some people who are inattentative, and will let anything distract them from driving. Sure most people have their moments of distraction but I think most people are able to realize when things are distracting and are able to choose the situations in which they take those risks.

      OTOH the people I know who are some of the worst drivers.... are constantly on their cell phone, and, seem to just not prioritize driving at all. This would be meaningless anecdote if not for the fact that.... this is exactly what studies have found... whereas most people drive more cautiously while on phones (often slower) this particular group of people actually take MORE risks while using the phone.

      The thing is, the phone didn't cause this, accident rates have not significantly gone up....these people were always out there...they were just less identifiable.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    14. 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

    15. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds about right. There was a guy on NPR a while back who was talking about how the number of accidents per year hasn't gone down in a generation or two; completely ignoring how much population has increase (30% since just the 70s) and miles driven have gone up, and number of cars on the road etc.... but the raw unadjusted number....about the same... talk about having your head up your own ass.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also (cited later in the thread)

      "It seems counterintuitive: why is talking on a cell phone while driving any more distracting than talking to a passenger? The reasons have to do with the way our brains process information, reports the Harvard Mental Health Letter."

      "One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. "

      Ship AN. "The Most Primary of Care — Talking about Driving and Distraction," New England Journal of Medicine (June 10, 2010): Vol. 362, No. 23, pp. 2145–47.

      Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91.

      article

      --

      Enigma

    17. Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming by meerling · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why? So he can continue to break the law, disrupt peoples activities, and put their lives at risk?

      You don't like people using the phone while driving. Well guess what, there are people in range that aren't driving that the jammer was Fing up. There have been multiple times I've been in a car and had to call in an emergency because of vehicular wrecks, semi-trucks driven by drunks, fires, and a trestle collision.
      Don't forget about everybody else that's not even in a car, yet still in range to be Fd up by that jammer. People walking along, in their homes, etc.
      Of course, if it just magically only affected cell phones, it would still be limited effects, but guess what, cell phones don't use a single contiguous band of frequencies. Other things do use those gaps between the cell phones, so you're screwing up even more things! In some cities that would be part of their emergency response systems. I know of a couple of places that have sensors at various places, and guess how they report their information? Yes, via cell phone.

      The guy was an inconsiderate asshole that was a greater potential danger to the public than the morons using phones while driving. In my opinion, he's lucky they're only going for the fine instead of also slapping him with a public endangerment charge of some kind. (If he is in one of the areas where it might mess with the ERS, then they could totally screw him.)

      If someone is doing something illegal, call the cops.
      If someone is doing something you don't like, but it isn't illegal, suck it up fat boy!
      If you choose to break the law and screw with everyone else, possibly putting people at risk instead of the previously mentioned actions, you deserve to have your sanctimonious ass thrown in a deep dark hole.

    18. 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. 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.

    1. Re:The Slashdot Beta by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  3. How many accidents could he have caused by lecithin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hate when people talk, text and drive. You jam somebody, they are going to take the phone from their head and try to call again, or at least figure out what is going on. This is probably more distracting than just talking to somebody.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
  4. 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?

  5. Re:Another valuable investment of tax payer dollar by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Informative
    From TFA:

    On April 29, 2013, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) received a complaint from Metro PCS4 that its cell phone tower sites had been experiencing interference during the morning and evening commutes in Tampa, Florida. Based on the location of the towers and the times that the alleged interference occurred, the Bureau determined that the likely source of the interference was mobile along Interstate 4 between downtown Tampa and Seffner, Florida.

    On May 7, 2013, agents from the Bureau’s Tampa Office (Tampa Office) initiated an investigation into this matter and monitored the suspected route. On May 7, 8, and 9, 2013, the agents determined, using direction finding techniques, that strong wideband emissions within the cellular and PCS bands (i.e., the 800 MHz to 1900 MHz band) were emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a Florida license plate. On May 9, 2013, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (Hillsborough Sheriff), working closely with the agents from the Tampa Office, stopped the Toyota Highlander SUV. The Hillsborough Sheriff deputies reported that communications with police dispatch over their 800 MHz two-way portable radios were interrupted as they approached the SUV.5

    So it took them a grand total of three days to find the guy. The two years figure comes from his own admission of how long he's been using the jammer.

  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?

  7. Re:Why did he do it - and why didn't they ask? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's quite an obvious question isn't it? So obvious that it's already been asked and answered in TFA:

    Mr. Humphreys admitted that he owned and had operated a cell phone jammer from his car for the past 16 to 24 months. An inspection of the vehicle revealed the cell phone jammer behind the seat cover of the passenger seat. Mr. Humphreys stated that he had been operating the jammer to keep people from talking on their cell phones while driving.

  8. 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.

  9. Re:Sounds fair to me by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Fines aren't supposed to cover costs -- that's what taxes are for. A fine is a penalty to discourage certain behavior.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Jammer was in car by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read the article, you'll notice he was operating the jammer from his car while driving. It's a lot harder to track down a moving jammer than a stationary one.

  13. Unacceptable Behavior by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why can't he just shoot at road signs like most normal people?

  14. 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".

    1. Re:That seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except with BART, they didn't interfere with the signal, they shut off the amplifier that they controlled. A BIG difference. A fine is an expected outcome for illegally interfering with airwaves.

  15. Re:Emergency Services by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    We didn't have cell phones. Or car accidents. Steve Jobs was still alive.

    It was paradise.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  16. You just died. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    30 years ago you had to wait for someone to go get help, which could take quite a while. A lot more people died in car accidents back then. . .

  17. Re:Darwin shot and missed on this one by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    It did jam emergency communication equipment too

    The Hillsborough Sheriff deputies reported that communications with police dispatch over their 800 MHz two-way portable radios were interrupted as they approached the SUV
    ...
    On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz, and 2091-2180 MHz.
    ...
    Public safety radio systems (such as those used by police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians) operate in several portions of the 800 MHz band, which consists of spectrum at 806-824 MHz paired with spectrum at 851-869 MHz.

    http://www.fcc.gov/document/48...

  18. He wasn't just jamming cell phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the article it states that the Sheriffs lost contact with dispatch too as they neared the car. So ignore his supposed noble effort to stop cell use while driving, he was actually endangering lives by blocking communications for first responders.

    1. Re:He wasn't just jamming cell phones by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sheriffs around here (FL) use the 800mhz public safety allocation (digital trunking /w encryption in their case - which requires a good signal to function), and a cell jammer would need to smash that range as well because some networks use frequencies around 800mhz or 850mhz.

      This highlights why jammers are such a bad thing. The spectrum is crowded, and what might be perceived as useless by someone with a jammer might be neighbored by something important.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  19. Re:In the absence of an effective goverment... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Studies have shown that the following things are unsafe:
    • laser pointers
    • smoking cigarettes
    • eating beef
    • eating saturated fats
    • eating transfats
    • drinking caffeine
    • sex without a condom unless in a monogamous relationship
    • drinking alcohol
    • riding motorcycles
    • riding bicycles without a helmet
    • using swimming pools
    • driving while tired
    • eating a diet high in sodium
    • eating a diet high in sugar
    • drinking sugary drinks

    Government has failed to act to address these safety issues.

    But, sacdelta, you did have a comment when a government tried to act to address one of these safety issues:

    Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves.

    A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  20. 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.

  21. I question the studies on this a bit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think that either drunk driving is not as dangerous as it is made out to be, or talking on the cellphone is not as dangerous as drunk driving. The reason is that cellphone use in cars has exploded (as it has in general), yet we continue to see a reduction in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

    If we go back to 1992, when cell phones were something owned only by the very few and expensive per minute so not used a lot, we have 1.75 deaths/100mvmt. In 2002, when they were getting fairly common, but still not all pervasive (about 49% of people had them), it was 1.51. In 2012 when practically everyone (95% or so) has them, and they do a lot and are the main means of communication, 1.14 (2012 is the last year I can find stats easily for both figures).

    Likewise deaths per 100,000 people went down from 15.4, to 14.9, to 10.8.

    So though people are driving as much as ever, and cellphones have gone from a rarity to something everyone has in two decades, we see traffic fatalities continue to drop.

    That doesn't seem like it should be the case if indeed it is as dangerous as driving drunk. Either it isn't, or the dangers of drunken driving have been vastly overstated.

    I'm not dismissing the studies out of hand, but I think that more need to be done, and more controls on things. I think there may be some bias creeping in since there seems to be this want among many researchers for cellphone use in cars to be a bad thing.

    It makes me suspicious that something supposedly such a problem could experience such growth, and yet roads could get much safer.