Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Cell-Phone Wars 992

Makarand writes "According to this article in the Houston Chronicle people fed up with cell phone chatter have declared war against cell phones. They are arming themselves with detectors, jammers and other gizmos to defend privacy, security, sanity and blissful silence. Although jamming cell phones is not legal in the US, pocket-sized jammers are available online and even on eBay. Cell-phone jammers typically work by disrupting the communication between handsets and cellular towers by flooding an area with interference or selectively blocking signals by broadcasting on frequencies used by these phones. The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones and has never taken action against anyone for that violation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cell-Phone Wars

Comments Filter:
  • by kjfitz ( 256432 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:02PM (#8286391) Homepage
    In situations like this I try to catch the offending person's eye and with a sad expression shake my head no. It very often works.
  • by jaiger ( 166690 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:02PM (#8286393) Homepage Journal
    If the 911 call doesn't go through, how will anyone know that it was blocked?

    Even the 911 caller would likely not distinguish a blocked/jammed call from a normal "no service" area. My assumption is that a jammed call appears as "no service" to the handset. After all, it can't communicate with the tower.

    This is an interesting point however.

    -joe
  • What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by shadowkoder ( 707230 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:06PM (#8286427)
    I don't see a huge problem with cell phones. As long as you can control how loud you are and respect other people (ie. not in theatres or other quiet places). Illegally jamming signals all the time is a wee bit too harsh.
  • Fun (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Z-MaxX ( 712880 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:10PM (#8286487) Journal
    A couple years ago, I was working in Santa Rosa for a company, developing cell-phone test equipment. There was a nice little Mexican restaurant where the my coworkers liked to eat lunch, across the street from a school.

    The first day I there with them, one of the hardware engineers pulled this thing that looks like a cell phone out of his pocket. He looked at me at said, "Watch this," and pointed toward a guy crossing the street, talking on a cell phone.

    My coworker then pressed a button on his "cell phone" and a second or two later, the man on the street took the phone away from his ear and looked at the display as if to see if the call had been dropped. He put it back to his ear, appeared to say something, and then repeated this sequence a couple of times before giving up.

    The device was a jammer that my coworker had built into a cell phone case to make it inconspicuous.

    It was pretty funny to see hordes of people rushing around, all looking at their phones trying to figure out what's going on.

    I could only imagine what they were saying: "Hello? Can you hear me now?"

  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:12PM (#8286515)
    exactly.

    I'm a cellphone-only user (ie no landline at home), and when I'm in public, my conversations are usually limited to "ok yea yea meet you there".

    And I am still as annoyed as any non-cell-user by those inane loud cell-users who talk about the frickin weather or verbally abuse whoever they're talking to on the phone in ultra-crowded places, such as the bus at rush-hour.

    I suppose 99.9% everyone in here agrees with me, so this is just a rant and none of the people who actually annoy me and others will read this, but it feels good to say it nonetheless! :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:21PM (#8286582)
    Back when the first Lord of the Rings movie was released. I decided to wait for a couple of months before I went to see it. When I finally did go to see it, it was on a Tuesday afternoon in March. While watching, some moron got 6 phone calls during the movie and spent several minutes announcing to everyone in ear shot what part of the movie we were seeing and what was going to happen next. Ok, fine! I've read the books but why it is necessary for some peope to spoil my afternoon's entertainment.

    I had no idea that cell phone jammers were available to the general public, and you can be sure I'm going to get one and dishout some payback.

    As for the going to theaters to see movies now, I don't go... I'll wait for the DVD and watch it in the peace and quiet of my own home.

  • Re:No action taken (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zoney_ie ( 740061 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:21PM (#8286586)
    A cinema in Dublin (Ireland), the Savoy, mass installed these devices. Needless to say, the regulatory authorities were rather swift to force them to turn the system off.

    It's a matter of principle really. In this instance, one could argue that there's no need for calls to be made in the theatres and that there's no automatic "right" for someone to do so. However, the State regulatory bodies quite rightly take the view that no interference with regulated signals should be created - illegal signals can have wide/unforeseen reprecussions.
  • by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:22PM (#8286603)
    Public schools in Hoffman Estates, IL use jammers to keep students off of phones and undistracted during school hours. Houses next to schools can't use cell phones for much of the day, but despite a few complaints, the policy continues. In one case, students parents actually offered to pay for a land line for an affected party.

    If it's illegal, there seems to be an exception when government institutions are doing it.

  • by wideBlueSkies ( 618979 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:23PM (#8286615) Journal
    I see we've solved those issues to now have the time to wage war on those annoying annoying people on cellphones.

    You ever have a guy on a cell phone walk into and knock over your 2 year old daughter? And then yell at her like she did something wrong?

    So his right to use his phone included a right to hurt an innocent baby by not paying attention to where he was walking. And then to act like a big angry 180 pound bully.

    I don't think so. Vanessa's daddy is 6'1" and 250 pounds. The phone guy ended up taking a left jab to his chin and he fall on his ass. Then his phone shattered when it hit the wall between the Frye's and the cigar shop at 85MPH.

    And I got more than one smile and "right on" from passers by. :)

    wbs.
  • by sjwt ( 161428 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:24PM (#8286624)
    I dont know about you,
    but in the last year i havent been to a
    "no service" area..

    sure ive had a few low signals,
    but sofar there ahsnt been a point
    where my phones droped right off..

    im waiting to see for a directional
    emp gun to fry the jameng devices..

  • by KimJ721 ( 732612 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:25PM (#8286630)
    I don't get upset when someone's phone goes off someplace inappropriate; we all are guilty of forgetting to shut it off from time to time. I changed my ringtone so it makes one quiet "beep" that could be mistaken for an old calculator-watch.

    What bothers me is when people proceed to have conversations in inappropriate places. In the middle of a college lecture, it's not unheard of for students to answer and begin chatting on their phone. I haven't had that happen to me in the classes I teach, but I did have a student try to do this in the middle of an exam. He quickly said goodbye and shut off the phone as I reached to confiscate it. For all I know the person on the other end was giving him answers. My rule of thumb is: if I'm somewhere where having a conversation with the person next to me is inappropriate, I shouldn't have a cell phone conversation there either.

  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:29PM (#8286671)
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 92461

    Magnetic wood blocks mobile phone signals

    11:00 27 June 02

    Magnetic wood could be a major plank in the battle against noisy cellphone users. The high-tech material absorbs microwave radio signals, making it impossible to use a mobile phone in any room lined with it. Or a radio for that matter. So theatres and restaurants, for example, can stop people using cellphones on their premises without resorting to signal jammers.

    The anti-cellphone sandwich
    These are illegal in some countries, including the US, Britain and Australia. Jammers also cause wider problems because their signals can spill out of the building they are covering, interfering with other people's calls.

    The magnetic wood - so called because it is packed with minute magnetic particles - is the brainchild of Hideo Oka and a team of electronics engineers at Iwate University in Morioka, northern Japan. They chose wood as their preferred blocking material because it offers more natural, aesthetic options for interior design. Oka hopes that it will soon be possible to buy the novel wood panelling by the metre at your local hardware store.

    While normal wood is transparent to radio waves, Oka's blocks them because it contains fine particles of a magnetic material called nickel-zinc ferrite. When an electromagnetic wave hits the ferrite particles, the magnetic part of the wave is absorbed.

    Bluetooth frequencies

    The team looked at four different ways of making wood absorb radio waves before hitting on the best one. The first was simply wood coated with a ferrite powder. The others were made by mixing ferrite powder with cider wood powder and pressing it into boards, or impregnating the wood with particles, or sandwiching wood pulp containing ferrite powder between two thin wooden panels.

    Oka tested each wood in turn by putting collars of each material over a short antenna that broadcasts radio waves at the typical GSM mobile phone frequencies of 900 megahertz and 1.8 gigahertz.

    The antenna can also broadcast at frequencies up to 2.5 gigahertz, which covers the range commonly used for wireless networks like Bluetooth and the emerging IEEE 802.11 standard, better known as Wi-Fi. A receiver measured the strength of the radio waves transmitted through the material.

    Ferrite sandwich

    In the end, Oka found that ferrite sandwiched between thin sheets of wood performed best. Further tests showed that a 4-millimetre-thick sandwich absorbed the most microwave radiation, cutting the wave's power by 97 per cent. Increasing the thickness of the outer wooden sheets of the sandwich increased the frequency of radio waves that the shield would absorb.

    The wood-based shields could be used to make doors and walls for rooms or even entire buildings where mobile phones simply won't work. While the prospect of being forcefully cut off might horrify some cellphone addicts, Oka says theatre-goers and restaurant customers might appreciate the silence.

    Panels that absorb radio waves could also help with a problem emerging in Japanese cities, where many homes are being fitted with wireless computing networks. If several networks are set up close together, they can interfere with each other. The new panels could divide up the house into different areas, allowing several networks can operate close by.

    Oka believes he can make the wood cheap enough for it to be viable. And he now hopes to cut the cost still further by making the panels from recycled magnetic materials and waste wood.
  • by sjwt ( 161428 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:31PM (#8286688)
    umm no its not..

    how about yelling out

    "GET OFF TAHT FUCKING PHONE OR ILL SHUVE IT UP YOUR ASS"

    It cant be any harder then it is for the
    person on the phone to be distracting you
    in the first place.

  • Ageeed, sort of (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:34PM (#8286717) Journal
    Agreed on the cell phones in movies and restaurants, but some of the anti-cell phone people get a little fanatical about it. They need to reign that in if they don't want all of us to be thought of a kooks. I've seen people get all huffy and upset when someone takes a cell phone call in the middle of a noisy Home Depot. I mean, who cares? They guy was checking with his wife on the color of some expensive blinds. That's just the sort of thing cell phones are good for.

    Anyway, it's the covert camera phones that will usher in a whole new form of rudeness. :-( The tech industry seems singularly devoted these days to giving armaments to the assholes of the world.

    invading the silence by utter (moo) rudeness.

    *blink* I'm sorry, do you have mad cow disease? :-) What that a strange "udder" reference?

  • by DebianRcksLindowsLie ( 752247 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:36PM (#8286734) Homepage
    Blocking cel phones in public areas like theaters is fine. Blocking them in residential areas is not. Someone uses ham equipment in my area, and it's easy to see who, due to the 40 foot antenna in his yard. The guy is known to hate cel phones. Luckily the building inspector is looking into alleged violations turned in by an anonymous tipster *whistles innocently*
  • by lhpineapple ( 468516 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:38PM (#8286758)
    "The inventor of the cell phone never thought about the fact that people would be using them constantly and impeding on other people's privacy," he said. "The inventor of the camera phone never thought about the fact that they would be used in locker rooms and other inappropriate places."

    I'm sure it crossed the minds of the inventors, but in some cases the benefits outweigh the cons, well at least for the cell phone anyway. The camera phone is worthless.

    If inventors didn't think of the consequences, then RFID would already be all over the place and then people would stop laughing at me for wearing a tin foil hat in public.
  • Re:No action taken (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cynikal ( 513328 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:50PM (#8286882) Homepage
    yes but how long till they come up with jammer detectors?

    as a cell phone user myself who gets incredibly frustrated when i cant get a signal, i can easily see myself carrying a jammer detector and beating the piss out of anyone i find tampering with my service.

    it could even be prosecuted under the same laws as tcp/ip denial of service is, since in essence you ARE denying me a service that i'm paying for.

  • Re:Safety? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <[moc.cirtceleknom] [ta] [todhsals]> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:51PM (#8286890)
    no shit! True story, I have a back problem and I have to go jog or walk before bed to be able to sleep (otherwise I wake up after a few hours with back pain). I usually goto bed at 1 or 2am which means I need to jog at 12 or 1. Long story short -- last week I was jogging around midnight, tripped, and broke my ankle (how did I know I broke my ankle? I heard it snap *shiver*). Since I always bring my cell phone I was able to call a family member for help. The nearest house was only 1000 feet away -- not much, but with a broken ankle let me tell you 1000 feet was simply an impossible distance for me to traverse. I was also in shock, I was having trouble seeing/thinking clearly and was on the verge of throwing up. Were it not for the cell phone I probably would have had no choice but to lay there until dawn (about 6 hours) and risk hypothermia.

    I suppose what I'm trying to say is, there are circumstances where even help thats only 1000 feet away can be impossible to reach. There's probably not a scenario where I would have died without my cell phone, but god damn was I glad to have it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:54PM (#8286928)
    In europe, especially in countries like finland and sweden which has among the higest number of mobile phones per person, you never hear about people being angry about others speaking on mobile phones.

    Whenever I go to work I see a lot of people talk on the phones, I never care and neither does anyone else.

    As I see it, this is a problem of either

    • US people are screaming on their phones, just like when the invention of the phone was new and people thought they had to scream in order to be heard. Or...
    • US people are looking for things to be angry about. To that I say: chill out damn it!
  • Re:Not good (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:55PM (#8286933) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, but if you are talking so loudly that I can't hear my one-on-one conversation, then we're going to have a problem.

    Jaysyn
  • Dinner in peace? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MorePower ( 581188 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:02PM (#8287016)
    If you want to have dinner in peace, I recomend you eat at home.

    Restaurants are noisy places by nature anyway, with the restaurant's music system playing, couples chatting with eachother, co-workers laughing and joking, single guys hitting on the waitresses, people at the bar cheering or booing at whatever sports thing is on the TV sets, etc.

    Where does this notion that restaurants are innapropriate places for cell-phones come from?
  • by GQuon ( 643387 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @02:35PM (#8287282) Journal
    I don't know about US networks, but in the GSM network, emergency calls (112) have to get through even if you are on a different network, or haven't paid your subscription.
  • by Alan Partridge ( 516639 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:11PM (#8287573) Journal
    I wouldn't worry about this guy too much. As you say, he's a much easier target than cellphone users are, but it's really just a phenomenon that's indicative of the level of cellphone penetration in your market. In the UK we suffered from this kind of crap a few years ago, with all kinds of yet-to-be-users trying to wage war on cellphones. As penetration has deepened, these idiots have all but disappeared - presumably most are now happy cell users.
  • Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:20PM (#8287647)
    f the cardiologist is far enough away to need telemetry via cellular to tell him about the heart attack, there's nothing he can do about it. Anyone close enough to help is going to see him clutch his left arm and keel over.
    Two weeks ago a private EMS service got off the elevator with a gurney in tow, walked through our office, grabbed one of our employees, and wheeled her out. Their explanation: "she is having a heart attack, although she doesn't know it yet". Pretty weird experience.

    So no, I don't think your rationalization is valid.

    sPh

  • Re:No action taken (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @03:27PM (#8287702) Homepage
    1. How could they take action? The people with the jammers keep them in their pockets. And the only reason they're doing it is for the entertainment/proving a point aspect.

    Because it violates FCC requirements for licencing. A device must take all EM from other devices and not emit EM that causes harm to other devices.

    1. It's not as if Wal*Mart is mass-installing jammers to stop shoppers talking while shopping, so how would the FCC catch anyone?

    Like anyone else; get a directional scanner.

    1. Besides, with the way people move around, service would only appear to be patchy, dropping out as you walk past someone with a jammer, then coming back again. Cellphones do this anyway , so how you would you know what to complain about?

    Good point. If the jammer users don't brag about them, and there are few of them, the FCC or local authorities would probably not notice.

    It also depends on where the jammers are used. If someone used a jammer on a regular basis or for a couple hours near hospitals, police stations, or airports, they would likely raise the concerned interest of technicians responsible for communications or managers who 'run a tight ship'.

  • by danila ( 69889 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:03PM (#8287981) Homepage
    ...especially when noone is hurt. And believe me, the dangers of jamming cell phones are miniscule, don't try to sell me the stories of blocked 911 calls. I see nothing but good coming out of this. Either we will have low-power cellular communications, a better communications mode, less noisy phones or may be more polite people. It's always exciting to watch the struggle of guns vs. armour. More power to the jammers!
  • by tiger99 ( 725715 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:07PM (#8288011)
    The guy is an idiot, you don't need a 40 fooot antenna!

    Two things you can do, corrupt the signal from the base station near the mobile, or corrupt the signal from the mobiles (all of them!) near the base station, in both cases by swamping with in-band spurious signals. The power required in each case is quite minimal, except when a mobile is near the base station. The only difficulty is that you would have to jam every channel. Placing a jammer close to each base station would likely as not be regarded as an act of terrorism by the Unelected Imbecile.

    Not that you should do such things of course, but cellphones can be very annoying. They are also an unreliable means of communication, which has its own nuisance value, and they are generally used to make people work harder, or "be more productive". IMHO they simply add to the pressures of life, and are a bad thing generally, especially in the hands of children or teenagers.

    The way they are sold in some countries is partly to blame, you get a phone for nearly nothing, which deceives many into thinking they are getting a bargain. I only know of UK practice, it may not be the same everywhere, but if it was made illegal to subsidise the phone from line rental and call charges, a lot of people would think again, if they had to pay the actual cost.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:15PM (#8288063)
    I'm tired as fuck of all the self-righteous pricks...
    And I'm tired of trying to explain concepts like "class" and "manners" to inbred, toothless, mouth-breathing hicks like yourself.

    So I stopped trying, and bought a jammer. Voila! I don't have to waste my time trying to correct your parents' oversights. I win, and you don't even know that we've fought. You just keep shifting your chair, trying to get your signal back. Ha! Better try holding it up high, moron!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:16PM (#8288066)
    Been doing it for several months now. Nice jammer, hits all the bands that we in the USA use. Max range 30-35 meters.

    I use it sparingly, and mainly in traffic. Especially rush hour. I finally made the purchase to get one when this jackass in front of me was driving 20 miles under the speed limit during rush hour in the fast lane, forcing traffic to slam on their brakes behind him and swerve around him.

    I bought one on ebay when I came home.
    I've run into several similar situations since then - turn the jammer on, they can't call Kmart to see if that Velvet Elvis sitting with the dogs playing poker at the Last Supper is in and SPEED UP and drive like they are supposed to.

    I also use it on the train when I go to work - I have almost a 2 hour train ride, and want a couple hours of sleep on the way in. I'm in the quiet car, which specifically forbids these devices, but people still use em - not anymore.

    Of course, I don't own a cell phone that's not given to me by my employment, and hate them. So I am biased - but I'm sleeping soundly going to work!
  • by ElNeo ( 166880 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @04:57PM (#8288363)
    I do really not see the point with jamming or materials for damping the signal - this is a social problem!

    In Norway, as in most of Europe, cell-phones is very common. You would need to look hard to find anyone beyond the age 13 that does not have one. In the beginning there was some problems with people talking everywere, kids sending SMS to each other in class and stuff, but this has been solved by other means then jamming!

    Nobody would ever recive, and take the call in a theater. Kids are not allowed to use cells at school. Trains have "Quiet-wagons", where you are not allowed to use your cell-phone. On the Subway, there are no quiet-wagons, but people would seldom take long conversations here - cells are usaually used for quick calls or SMS/WAP.
  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:31PM (#8289013) Journal
    When you go out in public, you are subject to the social norms of the area you live in.

    Yet another hypocrit. I could respond to you guys all day, and barely scratch the surface...

    Tell me, why do you think some people have resorted to carrying around cell phone jammers?

    For the extra dose of radiation to the 'nads? To deliberately block the <0.01% of true emergency calls people make?

    No.

    People have resorted to jamming cell frequencies because far too many cell users have no concept of the very "social norms" you refer to. Not that all people abuse their right to a cell phone - I know quite a few people who use them politely and never in a rude or dangerous situation. Yet, I haven't gone to a movie in over a year where no idiot forgot to turn off his phone (I use "forgot" generously, I have little doubt many such people have no intention of turning off their phones). I can't go shopping without another such moron holding up the line by refusing to hang up so he can quickly pay the cashier. You can't walk down most city streets without carefully dodging these potential Darwin-award recipients, blissfully unaware of their busy surroundings.


    So you want to talk about manners? Fine. I'll tolerate rude cell phone users as soon as you teach every last one of them to switch the damned things off.
  • Re:jammers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PHlLlPY ( 670556 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:31PM (#8289017)
    not quite, spread spectrum was first attempted in WWII as a secure way to control torpedos. it does not prevent jamming, but rather who can listen in/decode it. these cell phone jammers can prevent calls by flooding the radio frequency and making it impossible for a true signal to find the cell phone. spread spectrum basically blows the signal into tiny pieces which are then reassembled by the intended cell phone, it doesn't somehow magically avoid interference....
  • by Salgak1 ( 20136 ) <salgak@speakea s y .net> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:42PM (#8289075) Homepage
    . . .when they interfere with the rights of others. Private property owners are well within their rights, especially in restaurants and theaters, to install dampening material and/or jammers, so that their remainder of their customers can enjoy their experience in peace.

    Incidentally, just went to the movies yesterday, saw an amusing ad, promising cell-phone-user ejection seats in the theater soon. . .

  • CDMA can't be jammed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChrisCampbell47 ( 181542 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:45PM (#8289095)
    [Oh goody, another cell-phone-jamming story that I get to fruitless post this to]

    600+ comments on this story and not a single one mentioning that you can't jam CDMA, which is what SprintPCS and Verizon are. TDMA systems like GSM and AT&T and Cingular? Sure they can be jammed, but not CDMA, and not any of the 3G systems, which are ALL CDMA based.

    CDMA was originally researched and refined by the military for precisely this reason. Because it uses a spread spectrum, a single carrier (or several) can't jam it. You'd need to jam the entire BAND, at a high enough power level, and that is physically impossible. Well, it might be possible with military grade gear, but we're talking huge amounts of power here. You'd need an entire destroyer to carry and power it.

  • by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Sunday February 15, 2004 @06:49PM (#8289120) Homepage
    And as long as that private business owner labels the door accordingly, and the footprint of their jammer does not extend into public areas, and they are appropriately licensed to jam public airwaves (all of which I think are Good Ideas), I think that's just dandy.

    However, some asshole with a jammer in his pocket is a dangerous public nuisance.
  • by technos ( 73414 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @08:40PM (#8289820) Homepage Journal
    Private property owners are well within their rights...and/or jammers

    While you see it that way, me, the FCC, and Johnny Law see it another.

    You jam my cellphone, or my pager, or my cell-modem, and I'm going to see you get a nice fat fine from the FCC. I'll even come down there with a camera and a frequency analyzer to give my FCC submission some teeth. And if I missed something important? You'll be hearing from a company lawyer before the FCC even knocks on the door. Wasting my time is wasting company time, and company time can run thousands of dollars an hour in an outage.

    Remember, some of us carry these accursed things for a reason, and when the boss calls you to let you know half the west coast fiber has gone dead, or the hospital staff calls you to get you to come in and save a car accident victim, "Some bar owner decided I shouldn't be able to use my cellphone because he's too much of a wussy to tell people to turn them to silent" doesn't cut it to save my job or the dying persons life.
  • by nuintari ( 47926 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @08:47PM (#8289862) Homepage
    Yes, and I pay to see a movie in a theater. When you speak on your phone so that I can no longer hear the movie, you are robbing from me. I own a cell phone, I use it for business, however I do indeed hate it. And there are some situations where cell phones are just outright rude. Despite the fact that I can't use one all the time, the idea of a jammer I can employ in theaters and other situations where cell phones just should be turned off, or set to silent, and not answered, does appeal to me.

    Don't even get me started on your free use of your paid for service in the car, then your robbing me of safety on the highway. I don't care what you say, you CAN'T drive and talk at the same bloody time. No matter how good you think you are at it.
  • by Vancorps ( 746090 ) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @09:53PM (#8290156)
    You are thinking is myopic at best. Yes lives can be lost, forget the bar and think grocery store, book store, bakery, coffee shop, all places a doctor could perfecly find themselves. Yes they have pagers but sometimes a text message isn't enough, sometimes they call and just need to know the name of another doctor who specializes in something or other. Expand it further still to the world of IT and the seven or so networks I am responsible for. If a network crashes or otherwise has some failure, usually operator abusing their rights or whatever reason then they call me and I either go to the site or login to my machine. Sometimes its automatic, the server will notify me on my cell phone, or sometimes a person is having an issue and needs my help to get their job done. Ultimately I work for them and so they need to be able to contact me. If I'm walking through a mall or eating dinner at a restaurant then they won't be able to contact me and real financial damage can be done.

    Now in regards to the so called 99.9% non-emergency calls, why does it matter at all? Besides the fact that maybe 20 minutes a month of my phone are involved in personal calls, the rest, easily 1500 minutes are business related. Besides that it still doesn't matter. I deem it necessary to be available to people with my cell number. Yes, a lot of people will have different criteria they use to determine who should be able to call the phone and some will only call out with their cell phones. They deem is necessary, that's good enough for me, if it causes me a problem in a public place then I will either leave or if enough people around me are bothered I will politely ask them to take their call outside.

    Simple, is it not?
  • by NateTech ( 50881 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @02:27AM (#8291599)
    Do you really think business owners will take the time to research the "jamming gear" they purchase to make sure it operates on the "correct" bands? Or will they purchase the biggest broadband noise generators they can get their hands on that costs $50 at a flea market?

    Jamming is not the answer. Technical problems require technical solutions. Human problems require human solutions.

    This is a human problem. Policy: "No Cell Phones Allowed, No Exceptions" and PEOPLE willing to enforce policy and throw out paying customers -- and the problem will stop. Or all their customers will go somewhere else, either way -- problem solved.

    Jammers are a bad answer to the problem of people not willing to confront others in their own place of business and to require their staff to do the same.

    Set rules. Enforce them.

    Jamming is analagous to the Cold War... it'll just escalate the situation, not fix it. The cell phone user will just find a way around the jammer... just like the script kiddies on the Net.

    "Hey man look, that jammer must be in the back far corner of the building, because if I stand over here I get cell signal!"

    See?

    I doubt many business owners are going to employ people to do proper RF surveys of their jamming systems -- thus under the law they're going to be unlicensed transmitter operators who've taken no reasonable action to limit their actions to only their place of business, and therefore... very very likely to pay $10-$15K fines to the FCC.

    Maybe the FCC will start up a program where someone who hunts down an illegal jammer can pocket a portion of their fine... hey, there's an idea... sign me up!

    Have spectrum analyser and directional antennas, will travel! RF Bounty Hunters! Fun!
  • by anubi ( 640541 ) on Monday February 16, 2004 @06:34AM (#8292426) Journal
    This is the part that annoys the crap out of me... its that the machine is so rude, but people accept it.

    Face it, if I went around banging on a bell or making all sorts of annoying noises demanding attention from someone before I would shut up, in normal society, I would expect my face smashed in to shut me up.

    But let a machine do it, and people will not only ignore other people in their presence, they will grant the machine priority. A ringing phone seems to have top priority with most people. I find it extremely annoying to make time to meet with someone, only to be usurped by someone else using the phone.

    It shouldn't bother me, but it does.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...