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."
Few complaints (Score:5, Funny)
They tried to call and complain, but ...
Jammers and Dampers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Insightful)
True damping using absorbtion of the signal is well-nigh impossible, even stealth aircraft don't work very well and the process is expensive. It also needs quite a thickness of material at cellphone frequencies. AFAIK, on certain aircraft (where use of a cellphone, even switching it on, is a major safety hazard, and is illegal) there have been experiments with simulated base stations which transmit inside the aircraft (very minimal power required) and will command the phone to turn its transmit power down to minimum. That will of course prevent it frokm accessing any base station outside. A jammer based on that principle could be justified in certain circumstances, but would no doubt need the agreement of the cellular companies and the regulatory authorities. It would also be difficult to accurately control the boundary of its effective area.
The vast majority of areas where cellphones are banned rely on people being fooled by the signs, and switching them off, because they imagine that they will not work. Still, it seems to work (usually). Fortunately, most of us who know about the probable limitations behave ourselves and switch off anyway.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Insightful)
In my kitchen, I've got a 1.3 kilowatt transmitter. It operates at ~2.4GHz (which isn't very far removed from modern cellular frequencies). There is a screen on the front of the thing that seems to do a good job of keeping the RF from escaping (my nose hasn't gone necrotic from years of watching microwaves cook food) - and I can -see- through it! I can't possibly imagine that the screen contributed substantially to the cost of my microwave.
Therefore, effective shielding is not only readily achievable, but is also relatively inexpensive and already in common use.
Luckily, your short-sighted prose on the operation of stealth aircraft leaves little doubt that you're a dim-witted moron, and just spreading FUD. (RF fud, but FUD nonetheless.)
I hope you haven't fooled too many people.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
In the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if everyone has just decided they are more important than everyone else or if they just don't care, but it seems to get a little worse every year. From people talking on a cell phone in a theather to road rage.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Insightful)
However, in free countries, other people are allowed (within certain broad arenas) to do things you don't like.
I don't like cell phones because I think the service is priced by collusion, not competition. However, that does not lead me to say that other people should not be allowed to use them.
Re:However, your rights end. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you assume that a guy with a 40 foot antenna in his yard is blocking your cell phone signals somehow? A 40 foot antenna like that would be used for HF communications and wouldn't have anything to do with the wavelengths your cell phone uses. Amateur radio operators are much more respectful of the limited radio spectrum than your average suburbanite cell-phone using panty-waste.
Re:Jammers and Dampers (Score:4, Insightful)
If people can't learn basic manners then I am all for blocking or jamming or taking their fucking phone and smashing it with a big rock. Whatever works.
I'm not asking for "miss manners" type behavior, just a tiny bit of common sense and respect would do just fine. Then people wouldn't have to resort to illegal jamming...
But that is the world we live in..
No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
This would be in America. right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be in America, right? In much of the rest of the world there is no concept of "a normal no-service area". Somewhere you can't get service is abnormal.
Re:This would be in America. right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This would be in America. right? (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK, US is the same - in fact there are charities that will collect old, in-active, cell phones for use as portable 911 (our emergency number) phones.
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
look, owning a cell phone is not an entitlement to communication through it, anywhere, anytime. if your cell phone doesn't work, and you feel it's blocked because of one of these tools, AND you are having an emergency, do what prior tech solved in sucessive order : find a stranger to help, find a payphone, run and get help. it's that simple.
i've been in a few emergencies and having a cell phone may have gotten people there more quickly (moutaineering), but for the most part they are abused by scared newbies. i've waited immobilized for a few hours for the helicopters to arrive myself. anecdotes aside, i don't recall any evidence that more cell phone emergency calls are anything more than a conveinence. they don't really seem to make the difference between life and death. if they do, then relying on one is a foolish mistake akin to causing the accident in part.
i've not seen any court cases where people sued a cell phone provider because they did not work adequately in a time of emergency. on the contrary, during large emergencies, cell phone networks seem to be the first to overload.
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The good news is that they're putting automatic defibrilators in airports and malls, which are saving lives everyday.
-B
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:4, Informative)
AEDs are not a magic bullet. AEDs are only effective for two *specific* types of cardiac arrest: v-tach and v-fib. They are not definitely NOT a substitute for CPR. While you may have witnessed a miracle case, recussitation usually requires drugs and constant airflow in addition to shocks.
It is *essential* to keep the oxygenated blood moving to the brain to prevent tissue death (via CPR), until the paramedics arrive. As the grandparent poster said, The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive.
Re:pay phone? (Score:5, Funny)
[/sarcasm]
Re:No complaints now, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, seeing as I'm paying for service that uses public airwaves that everyone has the right to, I would say that I *do* have the right to not having my signal blocked. Completely ignoring the 911 issue, blocking someone's service is theft, plain and simple.
Telemetry (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Insightful)
Curious... I thought humans only came up with the telephone a mere century ago. How ever did we survive for all those millenia before then? No doubt a mystery for the archaeologists.
people that just carry around jammers so they don't have to listen to others talking on the phone while they ride the train need to be shot. The world does not revolve around you!
Funny, most of us feel the same way about all the asshats who can't even get off the damned phone to, for example, pay a cashier, place an order at a restaurant, or just plain drive.
Personally, I would carry a cell jammer, have one at my house, and in both vehicles, regardless of legality, if they didn't cost a few hundred bucks. You can call me "inconsiderate" or "self-centered" all you want, but I have NEVER interrupted a play, or movie, or other public event, merely because I consider myself too important to miss a call. Phones have an "off" switch for a reason. If you don't consider that its default state, I guarantee that you annoy those around you.
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Insightful)
Yawn.
As I pointed out, we survived for hundreds of thousands of years before even the telephone, nevermind cell phones, came into existance.
If the problem occurs in a random location, you won't find me there to bother you (I tend to avoid commotions in random places, rather than gawk like most people).
If the problem occurs in a car, pull over, and I'll have driven past so quickly that you won't even notice the disruption in your signal.
If the problem occurs in a theatre, leave. Problem solved. Can't leave? Then you probably can't dial a phone, either.
You still have every "right" (though I don't think we do actually have any sort of "rights" with regard to using a cell phone) to make an emergency call. You do not have the right to sit near me and disrupt my meal/movie for which I paid. You want to chat? Go outside. Simple as that.
I will repeat, for the third time in this thread, that cell phone jammers would not exist if the majority of people didn't consider cell phone users as intolerably rude. Whatever you may say about the public backlash to that rudeness, "they started it". Unfortunately for the "good" cell users (No doubt all of them, since despite us all knowing the annoyance of a phone ringing during a movie, "everyone" always turns them off like good little doobies), a technological solution exists, which more and more people have learned of.
Everyone claims to behave, and points out the "emergency" uses of a cell phone. I call shenanigans. Out of the uncountable times I have wanted to rip a phone out of someone's hand and slam it against a wall, not once have I actually heard a call for help. Sure, they exist - I have no doubt of that. But to defend the majority of use by that? Yeah, whatever... And most people use Kazaa for trading legal files, too.
If it makes you feel better, go ahead and call me an asshole. Flip me the bird, rant and rave, have a ball. Just hang up and drive (or eat, or watch the movie).
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Insightful)
If 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.
or somebody's Saab saying that it's airbag has gone off in an accident
Nobody installs a jammer in the middle of nowhere. The only place OnStar (or the like) really needs cellular to report an airbag deployment is the middle of nowhere. Any place you'd find a jammer, you'd find people.
perhaps it is just a cell call, and it's just the hospital trying to get their neurosurgeon in.
Hospitals nostly use pagers rather than cell phones to summon on-call physicians. Cell isn't reliable enough.
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Interesting)
So no, I don't think your rationalization is valid.
sPh
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds pretty scary to me. So did they arrive in black helicopters?
Re:Telemetry (Score:5, Insightful)
Cellphone Overuse (Score:3, Insightful)
No action taken (Score:5, Insightful)
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. It's not as if Wal*Mart is mass-installing jammers to stop shoppers talking while shopping, so how would the FCC catch anyone?
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?
This is pretty much a non story because it's hard to tell if you're being jammed or if you're just getting a crappy signal. Sure, you shouldn't be blocking cellphone signals, but I can't see how the FCC is going to catch you doing it.
Re:No action taken (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No action taken (Score:5, Interesting)
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:No action taken (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
jammers (Score:5, Funny)
I jam cell phone conversation MY WAY (Score:5, Funny)
DIY plans? (Score:5, Funny)
About the only thing i can think of that is more rude, is a SUV driver
Re:DIY plans? (Score:5, Funny)
Freedoms end... (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking on a cell phone during a movie, or while driving down the road ( not being attentive, and illegal in many areas ) crosses that line..
Nice try though...
All is needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't shout loudly if it bothers people and don't jam other people's cell phones.
Cones of silence (Score:5, Insightful)
Tin foil may be an answer after all...
'War on' cell phones (Score:4, Insightful)
I see we've solved those issues to now have the time to wage war on those annoying annoying people on cellphones.
I think those people who are complaining must be the people who don't get enough cell calls and feel left out. Amusing as it would be I'll break the fingers of the first person cellphone jamming I see.
Why is it socially acceptable to talk to people but as soon as the person is separated by a bit of technology is it considered obnoxious and socially unacceptable?
Re:'War on' cell phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'War on' cell phones (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Times they are a changin' (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't be much later that we'll see restaurants offering "cellular or non-cellular" seating and theaters (both cinematic and live) physically preventing the use of phones in their establishments.
I welcome it. Cell phones have their uses but are frankly some of the most intrusive devices to penetrate the market as of late. There are barriers of common courtesy that need to remain in place. The person you're standing in front of simply needs to take precedence over the person calling you to let you know orange juice is on sale. The cashier has the right to expect you to pay attention to your purchase. And damnit, I have the right to a dinner in peace.
Dinner in peace? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Just needs one improvement (Score:5, Funny)
Misleading article (Score:5, Informative)
It's basically a feature that needs to be built into the phone. When it receives a certain signal it disables the camera. Iceberg claim it could be used for laptops and PDA's but neglect to mention that disabling the technology would be trivial for any determined pervert.
The complaints over camera phones are pretty idiotic anyway. The determined pervert could just use a tiny camera if they really wanted to take photo's anywhere.
I'm not paying Nokia et al to integrate technology that selectively disables my phone. It reminds me the recent debacle about printers with built in mechanisms to defeat currency copying. I'd rather Nokia and HP spent their time working on useful new features than trying to nursemaid me.
If you are worried about someone taking your photo in the locker room, that is your problem.
who needs cell phone jammers... (Score:5, Funny)
Not cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure some people are inconsiderate jerks. People talk to people sitting next to them in movies all the time. We don't duct tape everyone's mouthes shut on the way in.
Actually they should have screened the line for Return of the King. If you didn't see the first two movies, you should not have been allowed in. There were people all around me having the first 6 hours of film described to them on the fly.
-B
Cell phone jamming on private property (Score:5, Insightful)
I finally relented and got a cell phone vary recently. I (like almsot every other slashdot reader) work in the tech sector 8 hours a day 5 days a week and have revused until recently to bring some of this technology into my home. I don't have cable TV, I don't have an answering machine and until a few weeks ago I didn't have a cell phone.
I for one, would be in favor of movie theaters jamming cell phones inside the theaters themselves, and any other private institution (museums perhaps) who wish to, being able to legally jam cell frequencies at their discression, within their own premisis. It should be considered no different than banning smoking in facilities on private property. The owners should have discression here, And if cell phone users don't like it they can take their business elsewhere. This will cause the business owners to carefully consider the practice before enguaging in it.
I do believe that signage should be requires when such jamming is in effect, so patrons would be aware they will be incomunicado while they are within the given facility, such that they can make an informed choice.
--CTh
Re:Cell phone jamming on private property (Score:3, Informative)
What IS entirely legal however is to design your building such that cell phone signals are unable to penetrate it...For example, by making your building a
Re:Cell phone jamming on private property (Score:5, Informative)
Cell phone companies hold the licenses to any frequency being used for cell phones, and that license extends to their subscribers for using the service only. If you're jamming, you don't have permission to transmit on that frequency, and that's where the FCC can come down on you.
What a bunch of assholes. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I lived in San Francisco I would be amazed when people would get pissed at others for talking in normal tones on cellphones while on the bus. As I told this one old guy who was yelling, "Why don't you yell at the couple in front of her who are talking even louder?!". Personally I don't use my cellphone in crowded places and always keep my ringer off. I don't see why so many people who have vitriol for those who conduct themselves with decent manners.
Fun (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
Re:Fun (Score:5, Funny)
I see somebody using a cell phone jammer. I tell my friends "watch this". I take a normal looking boot that I happen to be wearing and get it lodged up that guy's ass. It's pretty funny to see the look on that guy's face as he's laying on the pavement in pain. I can only imagine the idiot saying, "What did I do?"
A better soltution - Cellphone Detectors (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't be a problem with mobiles (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone carrying a jammer is being deliberately and obnoxiously selfish. They're worse than the ignorant fools who talk to loudly.
If people used better judgement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Agreed, inconsiderate users are the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Individual freedoms (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus we have people jamming cell phones because they think their hate of people talking on cell phones is more important than the need of other people to talk on cell phones.
However, this hate is created by people who think their right to talk on their cell phones in an inappropriate manner (ie bellowing at a restaurant or talking during a movie) is more important than other people's rights to an enjoyable experience.
Legal Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Your a Movie Theater and you dont want cell phones or other wireless devices to work so as to not have people gabbing on them during the movie.
When you build or do any extensive renovation your prbably going to use a lot of drywall if you install a few layers of chicken fence or other suitable fine grid or wire. Make sure the doors are metal (fire code I would think) and that they maintain a good contact to the grid etc etc etc. When the doors are closed yours not going to see an increadable ammount of attenuation to any RF signals with a wavelength longer than the mesh pitch and a good attenuation to most everything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage [slashdot.org] Gives and overview and a link to tempest the DOD's solution to RF leakeage.
Now you have a movie theater that cell phones dont work in. It would be nice if we could clasify transmision types say via bluetooth since thats a hot new thing on cell phones and have the possibility to ask the phone to switch to silent mode while not affecting paging functions for doctors and other on call critical people that can be assumed to be more responcible than a 15 year old with and "emergency" call.
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Jerks like this should go live in Colonial Williamsburg [history.org]. Let the rest of us get on with the 21st Century, where we can talk to our friends and business associates anytime with just the push of a button. Not that it's a Utopia [wikipedia.org] or anything, but...well, yeah, in at least this one aspect it kind of is.
Hoffman Estates schools (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's illegal, there seems to be an exception when government institutions are doing it.
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
But, frankly, I think this dislike of cell phones is irrational and itself annoying. People talk to other people everywhere, often in loud or annoying voices. It makes no difference to me whether someone talks into a cell phone or to someone across from them; at least, when they talk into a cell phone, I don't need to hear the responses.
I'm beginning to suspect that what really annoys people about public cell phone usage is that they are missing out on half of conversation that they would really like to listen in on in its entirety.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Something else I find very rude is the way a phone call gets priority over anything else competing for the recipient's attention. Such as a conversation with me, for instance.
Say you're talking to a friend. Wouldn't you think it was incredibly rude if someone else, who you don't even know, came along, butted in and started his own new conversation, expecting you to wait? Wouldn't you think your friend pretty rude for cutting you out, too? But that's how it always is with phone calls. I think that if you're talking to someone and the phone rings, you shouldn't answer it (unless you're expecting a call). Everyone now has caller id and/or voicemail so there's no worry about missing the message.
Of course this is a gripe about the way we use phones in general, not just cellphones, but the problem is made much worse. Now you can't even go for a walk/drive with someone without an invisible intruder turning up - you can even have a guest at your own home cut you out!
Somehow though I have difficulty getting other people to sympathise with me. Last month,when I was with a group of 5 friends on a train, I tried to explain my point of view after one person made the rest of us shut up for 10 minutes so he could hear what is phone-friend was saying. Somehow no-one else thought it was rude (and I was only suggesting that maybe he should go and stand further from us while on the phone so we could get on with what we were talking about before).
Until most folk improve their manners a lot, I can see why people might want a jammer, though I wouldn't buy one myself.
America can be funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the rest of the world, where cell phones adoption is way higher, this issue is so 1995. Cope and move on, it's progress sucker.
Automatically block calls in the car while moving. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people I know do pull over to use the cell phone when driving. But, there are those idiots out there who think that multi-tasking while driving is a good thing. They should have to commute through the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky bridges on a daily basis, see all the accidents that happen. Maybe witnessing a few deaths will help instill the true meaning of distracted driver.
Beyond the drivers who use them at the wrong time, the rest are just irritating jerks. I always take my conversation away from those who might be interrupted by it. That is outside, down the hall, private room. It is called being polite. That aside though, I would be pissed if someone were jamming my cell phone. I think the appropriate action is to ask politely (first time) for a rude cell phone owner to take it elsewhere. If that does not work, we have done everything from turning our own volume up to the point where said arse had to leave to hear to pointedly telling the individual we were not going to put up with their rude interruptions anymore (to which we have actually received applause from those around us). Honestly, such drastic measures are rarely needed, as almost everyone once asked has been polite.
InnerWeb
Lemme tell a story... (Score:5, Funny)
He proceeded to tell the woman (I assume it was a woman from his lothario manner, tone, etc,) that the view of the canyon was so beautiful from where he had climbed, that he just had to call and share the experience with her.
Myself , and others around me heard this bald-faced lie, and we all looked at him and then each other - keep in mind that none of us there knew each other, then we all spontaniously started making background sounds to illustrate to the woman on the other end that this loser was not where he claimed he was. I said something like: "Sir, you're gonna haveta move your car!" Others made similar noise.
The look he gave us was wonderful. Then he started to explain to the woman that there must be cellphone interference happening.
Consider this before jamming... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, these are the ones that get noticed. The ones who speak quietly while dining alone in a restaurant or on the subway; the ones who speak on a phone or to other passengers safely while driving; the ones who set the phone to vibe and then surreptitiosly look at the caller ID during a film, class, meeting, etc... these people are not noticed and probably outnumber the annoying ones by far.
If you jam cellular frequencies, not only are you screwing with all the safety devices already mentioned, but you're screwing with people who are behaving politely and reasonably.
Would you start spraying febreeze at everyone entering a store because occaisonal patrons come in without having bathed recently? It might help with them, while pissing off people who do behave properly. Jamming makes You the nuisance who should be removed.
CDMA can't be jammed (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: Not good (Score:5, Funny)
> As a top IT executive for a fortune 50, I spend a lot of time on global conference calls. I would be extremely annoyed, and would consider it an attack on both me personally, and me professionally (and, by extension, my company) if someone were to jam my cellular during an important conference call.
As a normal person, I consider it an attack on me both personally and professionally, when someone use a cell phone in an inappropriate context.
I recommend you not do this.
Re: Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
> I recommend you grow the fuck up and realise that world does not revolve around you.
That's just about the ultimate in irony, in the context of a discussion of the annoying habits of cell phone users.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my own criteria for using a cell phone. That is, if I'm in a situation where I feel it's appropriate to talk to a "real" person, it's fine to talk on a cellphone, as long as it can be done at a "normal" volume level (normal for the context.)
So, movie theaters are definitely out. Museums? Why not, as long as you're not disturbing a tour, and other people are talking freely to companions.
Yes, there are inappropriate situations in which to use a cell phone, but what makes me mad is all the self-righteous people who glare at you if they see you with a cellphone to your ear ANYWHERE, even in totally "appropriate" situations. (Yes, there are quite a few such people.)
Re:Common Sense Manners, Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because nobody has reported problems to the FCC yet because (as all the other posts pointed out) it just looks like a no signal area?
Wait until some geek with a spectrum analyzer and nothing better to do starts trying to figure out why his cell phone no longer works at his favorite cafe/movie theater. All the FCC needs is to be told where to look. If you think they won't come down on you like a ton of bricks for this you are sadly mistaken.
Cell phone eqittie/911 arguments aside -- think about the money in politics and the amount of cash that the cell carriers pay for their licenses. If you think they aren't going to defend those licenses then you are naive. I wouldn't touch one of these jammers with a ten foot poll and I consider myself a polite cell phone user that get's annoyed at all the teenieboppers talking about how cute that guy is while I'm trying to eat. I keep my cell phone on vibrate at all times unless I'm at home and it's not hooked to my waist (I only have the cell -- no landline). I talk into it at a normal tone of voice. I don't use it while driving except in emergencies.
And what about the liability exposure? What if somebody in your location has a heart attack and sues you after the fact because their cell phone wouldn't work? What if a doctor is on-call and sitting in your cafe getting a cup of coffee and his pager is disabled by your jammer? Your insurance isn't cover you for an illegal device (and they are all illegal in the US) -- you'll be put out of business and forced into bankruptcy if sued. Not to mention the criminal ramifications of violating the FCC reqs and state laws.
Like it or not these jammers will also have a negative effect beyond their intended area -- if only because of all the headsets in the jammed area that are now broadcasting at maximum power trying to get out. Those transmissions will radiate for several miles and could potently interfere with cell phone (or other usage of the freqs in question) usage outside of the affected area.
If you don't like what somebody is doing on their cell phone then complain to them about it. If they tell you to go pound salt then talk to the management of the business you are at (theater or restaurant). If management refuses to do anything then take your business elsewhere. You don't have the right to interfere with the public airwaves.
Re:Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are my feelings EXACTLY. The only difference that I've thought of is the tendency for some morons to talk a lot more loudly on a cell call than during a one-on-one conversation. I've found that imitating them puts a stop to that, usually.
YOU TALK TOO LOUD (Score:5, Insightful)
So, yes you have a right to talk where talking is appropriate. No, you don't have a right to SHOUT FOR AN HOUR because you're too stupid to realize that people naturally talk louder on the phone.
Not the same at College (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the same at College (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not good (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, all the lawyers just got a woody. Another lawsuit in the making.
Poor people whine. Rich people call their lawyers.
Re:Not good (Score:4, Funny)
It's people like you that cause huge traffic jams because you're talking on your cell phone and not paying attention to the road, then you cut off a tractor trailer who then in turn jacknifes, and runs over a bus full of nuns which catches fire, burning alive all those inside.
You're lucky that people only jam your cell phone calls, if it was up to me, I'd stab you in the face with a soldering iron.
Re:Not good (Score:5, Informative)
It's about respect for your fellow person...starting with the one in front of you!!! I can understand the shopkeeper who deals with this 50 times a day. people come to your shop and you can't give good service because they interrupt your transaction with them for the phone....and OFTEN have the nerve to get mad at YOU "because you're taking too long!" Not to mention disrupting other customers patiently standing in line with loud disagreements, or lack of attention to what's going on around them. It's a menace!!!
That said, jamming or blocking phones isn't the answer, it just makes people ruder! Cell phones have spread the general problem of computers to the masses...computers have allowed businesses to micromanage and interrupt business plans on moment's notice...cell phones allow thoses same types of people to deal with everything NOW...instead of budgeting their time and attention to allow their responsibilites to be properly performed...And THAT is the bigger problem with "instant everything"!!
The main tool to fight this would be better voicemail/sms messages...allowing people to be notified of messages, but keep the phone off until they can give proper attention, those tools are available, but still don't work that well for every minute use. Businesses with "quiet, private places" for phone conversations would help too...they wiped out most phone booths about 10 years ago and didn't replace the "space" to make communications in.
Re:Not good (Score:4, Funny)
Dude. You're a top IT exec for a Fortune 50 company. You have to have something better to do with your time. And I thought I posted too much.
Re:Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not good (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, the whole point of the article is that with these jamming devices being sold to private, unlicensed individuals, he can't be sure of that.
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't care if you use a cellphone in public, I just watch you intently and take notes! I only interrupt if I miss part of the conversation.
You lose your right to privacy when you talk in public. I take advantage of that to embarrass the obnoxious by being just as obnoxious.
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cell phones are a fact of life. If you don't like, move to Elbonia.
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
God help her if she works in a hospital! Or in this enlightened age, if she is a flagger on a construction crew. Her cellphone is off in blasting areas!
What happens to all those doctors who must turn off their phones when they are on the ward, or spending hours in the operating room?
I do some consulting at a university medical center, everyone has phones and everyone turns them off in certain areas. I carry a phone and a pager. I turn them both off - when I turn them on, I get alerted to missed calls and missed pages. It doesn't curtail my productivity, how can it hamper soccer-mom's?
There is no excuse for antisocial behavior, unless you are an immigrant from Elbonia
Re:Safety? (Score:5, Insightful)
Need is a pretty strong word. We need food, water and shelter. We don't need cell phones.
Cell phones have only existed for the last 15-20 years... people got along just fine before that.
As for the "need to receive calls for your job" argument, if you need to receive calls you should be at the office, not at the local cafe.
Re:True Luddites (Score:3, Insightful)
verizon dude (Score:3, Funny)
Ageeed, sort of (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, it's the covert camera phones t