Cell Phone Jamming on the Rise

netbuzz writes "It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone either, as the number of inconsiderate dolts who yammer away oblivious to the disruptions their yapping is causing those around them continues to rise. Pocket-sized cell jammers are becoming a hot item, while proprietors of restaurants and the like look to defend themselves as well. Yes it's illegal, but given that the rudeness is pretty close to criminal as well, it's unlikely to stop any time soon."

matter of time

Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic. And then nasty court battles... the "blockers" will deserve it. You don't silence rude cell phone people by cutting off the cell phone universe. You don't stop obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate.

There are better ways to deal with the issue. It requires a little courage on the part of those who are violated, but it's better than the alternative. Personally, I do think cell phones are way overused and a general nuisance, certainly the way they're used today. But I'm coming out with guns blazing the day I can't get emergency help for me or someone who needs it because some gutless wonder is using one of these devices and my cell phone is rendered more useless than it already is.

From the article, one of the makers of a jamming device offers up this weak rationalization:

"Our position is that the proprietor of an enclosed space should have the right to control disturbances within that space. That could be a fight in a bar, that could be somebody yelling at his kid on a cell phone, or whatever."

Back to my example of bad and dangerous drivers... yes, there's a "collective right" to "control" bad behavior, but you wouldn't blockade the interstates in the interest of "control". Similarly, to unilaterally disable all cell phones is ludicrous.

In pre-response to:

• Just take it outside! Answer: In an emergency one may not be thinking that clearly about just why their cell phone isn't working, losing precious time.
• Just take it outside! Answer: Outside may not be all that close... what if you're on the commuter train? Where's "outside" there?
• Just take it outside! Answer: What if "outside" is another zone where someone has deemed it appropriate to silence rude cell phones?

I do propose at some point the ubiquitous rude behavior on cell phones dictates some solution. I hope sooner rather than later. Jamming.... is not the solution.

Re:matter of time

I do propose at some point the ubiquitous rude behavior on cell phones dictates some solution. I hope sooner rather than later.

I hear cattle prods are fairly effective. Oh sure, it briefly increases the noise level, but it's well worth it.

Re:matter of time

don't forget that you also have the option to touch the offending cellphone with that cattle prod, too, for a longer term solution

Re:matter of time

"can you hear me now, bitches?"

If you carry that jamming device in your front pocket you'll be saying that to your nutz sometime soon.

Re:matter of time

I think he's referring to the effect that all the RF energy from a jammer would have on your package.

Re:matter of time

Perhaps your issue is that you live in a country renowned for being full of inconsiderate jerks

France? :)

Re:matter of time

Why don't you shoot them? It takes care of the problem permanently. Although you say "shooting them is usually illegal", you obviously don't have a problem breaking the law by jamming their cell phone. What you meant to say was "I don't have a problem breaking the law unless I get caught, I don't really care about it though"

The rudeness does not give you the right (in the opinion of anyone who matters, I.E. a judge) to "do what [you] damn well please". In fact, using this as your defense in front of a court is likely to land you the maximum sentence (or largest fine) for demonstrated lack of respect for the law.

Re:matter of time

The rudeness does not give you the right (in the opinion of anyone who matters, I.E. a judge) to "do what [you] damn well please". In fact, using this as your defense in front of a court is likely to land you the maximum sentence (or largest fine) for demonstrated lack of respect for the law.

IF you can get it to a jury trial, then the opinion of the judge doesn't particularly matter - it's the opinion of your "peers" in the jury that matters.
Of course, that is, IF you can get it to jury trial. Which is getting rapidly harder.
I don't particularly see that expressing this sort of opinion in court would be particularly harmful to your case though, or to the sentence were you convicted. Or to the sentence after you'd appealed over-sentencing.

Someone upthread suggested that there would be trouble when an emergency occurred in a place where cellphones were blocked. I wonder on exactly what grounds. Cellphones aren't certified as emergency equipment (so there's no come-back on the manufacturers in the event that they don't work) ; cellphone networks aren't certified or advertised as emergency equipment, so the operators can't be held liable in the event of the networks being unavailable in an emergency (remember that when the July-the-whenever bombings went on in The Smoke, the mobile networks were overwhelmed by people sending "I'm OK" and "I'm un-OK" messages, rendering the network unusable in exactly the same way that some of these jammers work). It might also be a good idea for people pursuing this line to stop showing their metropolitan prejudices for a few seconds and read up on the actual coverage levels of the country : covering 99%+ of the population can be done with around 70% coverage of the land area. And since it costs significant money and effort to service base stations, that's a situation which isn't likely to change significantly in the foreseeable future. Mobile phones are only going to be usable where there is significant population density. So, if you have a an emergency in an area of low population density, then you're not going to get mobile service. And you're pretty unlikely to get landline service either. Which throws you back where you've always been - relying on your own internal resources.

[I suppose I should enlighten people to my experience of life-threatening incidents : a number of NDEs doing variations on the theme of mountaineering ; a guest at my aunt's guest house having a heart attack (the ambulance took 45 minutes to get to the house from receiving the call and some tens of minutes to receive the call from the nearest landline. Which is a long time to do CPR unassisted. DOA.) ; lift-threatening helicopter failures every half-decade or so, over sea or threatening to crash us into oil drilling rigs a hundred miles or so from a base station, and up to 10 metres and an aluminium chassis away from our mobile phones ; oh, and flying a car off a snow-covered road which did have mobile coverage because it has a significant population density. I know perfectly well how useful emergency services a long way away are compared to my "internal resources".]

Concerning whether businesses are liable, in some way for communications lost due to having jammed mobile access in their volume ... what's the issue. As long as they've advertised the fact adequately (I'm sure the manufacturers of jammers could come up with some legally satisfying wordage to go onto a "We don't like inconsiderate mobile users" signs, so you can kill three birds with one stone), then there's nothing for the de-phoned person to complain about. After all, coverage is far from universal.
The deep reason that mobile phone jammers are illegal in the UK is that the Government don't want private citizen to go around using (or abusing) the radio waves, except in ways which the government has sanctioned. Part of this might be the technical concern that inept circuit designers w

Re:matter of time

Check again dumbass....

Under law, the importation, sale or use of cell-phone jammers is banned in the United States and can result in Federal Communications Commission fines of up to $11,000 daily per device. An FCC spokesman said the fines have been levied against people for not holding a license to use the devices.

"The FCC rules are clear," said Travis Larson, spokesman for the international Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. "Jamming is illegal, but whether there is an exception made for law enforcement is a decision the FCC will have to make."

Re:matter of time

Check again dumbass...

On the topic of public rudeness, we should be able to jam the internet when people take Internet Anonymity as a right to be overly flippant. Let's see, Swiss army knife here...just need to find the right cable....What town do you live in again?

Re:matter of time

If one happens to be any good with a soldering iron, a person may build their own short range RF jamming device.

This website [ladyada.net] details the design and construction of the "Wave Bubble": a self-tuning, wide-bandwidth portable RF jammer. The device is lightweight and small for easy camouflaging: it is the size of a pack of cigarettes.

Re:matter of time

Building it yourself doesn't make it legal. It is still a jammer and jammers are illegal.

It may be illegal, but the chances of actually being 'busted' are very small unless the device happens to actually cause enough damage/disturbance to attract serious law enforcement attention. The same laws and FCC regs apply to CB radio, and those regulations...especially regarding transmitter power and intentional interference..are broken constantly and regularly with complete disregard and derision.

The FCC field investigation operations are woefully understaffed and underfunded, and availability of "export-only" and foreign manufactured radios whose transmitters exceed US CB transmitter power limits by a large margin, as well as covering frequencies outside band limits, and extremely high-powered external transmitter power amplifiers (known as 'linear amplifiers', many well in excess of 1 kw) is ubiquitous.

A person using one of these cell phone jammers would be in much, much greater danger of a beating from an aggrieved cell phone user than he would be of any possible legal action by the FCC.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:matter of time

911 calls were the first thing I thought of, too. Any business owner who jams a call about somebody having a heart attack would be sued into oblivion, and deserve it.

For restaurants, hair salons, etc., there's a simple solution -- just make it a policy, and have the guts to enforce it. Post little "No cell phone usage inside this establishment" signs. If people ignore the signs, politely remind them of the policy. If they continue to ignore it, throw them out, just like with any other customer who violates a policy of the business. Make common-sense exceptions for 911 calls. (They could even put that on their signs, if they wanted to.) Whatever business they'd lose in aggrieved cell-phone-addicted customers, they'd probably gain in others who appreciate the peace and quiet. The jamming thing is sneaky, cowardly, and dangerous.

*Mod Parent up!**

Throw out a loud obnoxious bozo yelling into his cell like you'd throw out that loud obnoxious drunk guy. There's not much of a difference.

Re:You don't have an argument

Same way as before cell phones. How did you ever manage 10 years ago when there were no cell phones?

Re:You don't have an argument

"If you think you can compare them you're really missing the point."

Speaking of missing the point... he wasn't comparing cell phones to CT scans.

How did you manage to listen to some great music at your home if you are not grown in a family of virtuoses before recording equipment and amplifiers?
How did you manage to proscrastinate at work when there was no /.

You should be the guy that re-reads that post and gets the right meaning out if it instead of being the guy that calls bullshit on a comparison that wasn't made.

Re:You don't have an argument

What does it matter if you get the message right away? Doesn't change your father's medical condition any.

(BTW, why is active jamming unacceptable because of 911 calls, but copper mesh in theater walls to achieve the exact same end allowed?)

Re:You don't have an argument

If your father's condition is so serious that you need to be on-call 24 hours a day, you shouldn't be leaving him alone while you go to the movies in the first place.

To the others who will inevitably pop up in this thread claiming that they need to be "on call" for a job or something:

1) You're not that important. Really.

2) If you actually ARE that important, you shouldn't be fucking around at the movies without arranging for someone to cover for you. Really.

3) It sucks to be on call. That doesn't mean you're entitled to make life suck for everyone else in the theater. It's not all about you and your personal convenience. Really.

Re:You don't have an argument

It's a tragedy of the commons in the theatre and that's why we kick people out for flipping them open all the time indiscreetly.

Simply put, the average Joe that walks into a theatre will not walk out of the theatre if they get a call from someone important. I think it's a social problem, yeah, but because it's -impossible- to catch everyone and simply "enforce the policy every time" as people above say is a solution, there has to be a more proactive approach. Regrettably, the ethics and the oddball situations prevent a lot of people from saying yes or no to various techniques.

But don't be spiteful just because you don't understand the problem. You obviously haven't had a lot of experience with people ruining other people's movie watching experience, we lose quite a bit of money refunding those tickets and giving them passes to another show because some jackass(es) in the theatre ruined their movie.

Re:You don't have an argument

If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.

Would your presence have prevented his death? If not, your nonpresence is just another of life's unfortunate circumstance (same as if you'd been unavailable due to travel, a dead phone battery, or any other reason), not a tragedy in and of itself.

People a hundred years had no expectation of continual, interrupted connectivity, and even today it is enjoyed only by a limited subset of the world's population; I find it hard to treat such connectivity as a necessary element of the human condition.

Re:You don't have an argument

"What does it matter if you get the message right away? Doesn't change your father's medical condition any."

If you got to the hospital an hour after he died, there'd be a large amount of 'matterin' about it. The difference is you being there when that person needs you.

This statement is the fundamental attitude problem with rude cell phone users. You imply that the probability of there being an actual, life-or-death event, during the two hours of a movie, that only your specific attention can prevent, is high enough that you must answer every single call immediately, regardless of the inconvenience to others. If your attention is so critical to the functioning of the world, perhaps you should consider forgoing the distraction of a movie or dinner out until a competent person can be found to stand in for you for a couple hours.

Re:You don't have an argument

Exactly. Another thing to consider is simple absence of service. Cell phones don't work everywhere, even when not purposely actively or passively blocked.

Can you successfully sue a cell phone carrier because your emergency call didn't get through because you were in a dead spot? Bet you can't.

Can you successfully sue a business owner because his building is built with plaster with metal particles, reinforced concrete or drywall with metal mesh that blocks your signal? Bet you can't.

So no, there is no right to always available cell phone service. Jamming is illegal only because any sort of unlicensed transmission on a licensed band is illegal. Laws to make passive jamming illegal would have some very nasty repercussions in all kinds of places, including for the carriers themselves.

That same train of thought would work great...

...with smoking. And yet for some reason people feel that they need to force the government to step in and enforce such rules en masse, instead of letting individual businesses decide for themselves...

A little over the top there...

A jammer does not need to be on all the time to work. Just turn it on when someone is being annoying. They loose signal. try again, loose signal. They go outside thinking they are not getting enough bars. Problem solved.

Not to mention society seemed to get along just fine before the invention of the cell phone. Landlines work for 911 as well, you know. And if it's a pay phone you don't even need money...

Re:A little over the top there...

you're still putting a lot of faith in the one using the jamming device. the person may very well just leave it on (not sure how long they last or power usage, etc.). that right there destroys your first argument. the second argument is that cell phones have changed societies. landlines are becoming more and more rare. yes, in most establishments you can find them, but a lot of payphones are being shut down due to them no longer being as profitable. so, comparing now to the pre-cell phone age isn't a very good comparison. not everything else is equal. while your points are valid, it still puts all the control in the hands of the jammer, not the person making the emergency phone call.

Re:A little over the top there...

That argument assumes jammers would be used responsibly. If cell phones aren't being used responsibly, what are the odds that jammers would be?

Re:matter of time

> You don't stop obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate.

If there was a way of only blocking obnoxious car drivers by blockading the interstate then I'd blockade the interstate.

My interest in this is watching a film/listening to a concert. I don't want to hear a phone ring, ever. You know, the way it was 10/15 years ago. Back then, only professionals had phones/pagers, which would vibrate silently. Before that (20+ years ago), not even that. I'm proposing that no phones ever ring in a cinema/concert hall. If your job is so important that you must be reachable all the time, you have 2 options. One - you just don't attend the event whilst on call, and 2) you pay someone outside the event to look after your phone, and if it's important enough for you to leave then they can come and get you.

Re:matter of time

You know, there are a lot of things that I hate when I got to movies, including but not limited to cell phones going off, people talking loudly, people who go to the bathroom too often, people who eat loudly, people who put there feet up, etc etc. All of these things could be prevented in one way or another.

However, I lack that feeling of self-importance that the entire movie theater revolves around my experience. If someone's cell phone goes off, fine. If they answer it or if it goes off again I politely ask them to get out of the theater. If someone eats too loudly, not much you can do there but tell them, because your food jammer hasn't come in the mail yet. If people are talking, ask them to stop because you can't legally duct tape their mouths shut yet. Jamming cell phones is just an unneeded cost to stop something that isn't even the most common or distracting thing that happens(at least at any movie I've ever seen). If someone does something you don't like, tell them about it, don't sit around thinking about a preemptive strike to try and control other people. Try being assertive, it works even on problems that technology can't solve.

Re:Three words: quit yer bitching

I don't understand this argument at all. There are circumstances under which I would be incredibly angry if someone was trying to reach me about something vital (like a life-or-death situation, one of my loved ones in danger, or something like that) and could not because of some asshole like you.

What I don't understand is your idea of cause and effect. Why do you place the blame on the people who might use a cellphone jammer when they are only a reaction to a nuisance that keeps getting worse? The "asshole" is not the guy who gets fed up with widespread blatant rudeness and finally finds a solution; the assholes are the ones with the cell phones who won't be considerate of others in the first place; if not for this, almost no one would have used a jammer. That there are so many such assholes is why being assertive is not practical -- what size mob of immature, self-important other-people-don't-exist assholes who won't take a correction do you want to confront? A jammer is a neat solution that, unlike a confrontation, guarantees that the actual cause of the problem is the one who will be disappointed. Blaming it on the jammers is effectively excusing the root cause of this problem because you dislike one of its symptoms.

My father had cancer, and while he had cancer I was always on call, always available to hear any news about it whatsoever. During the final days it was all I could do not to just sit silently staring at my phone, waiting for news. I was polite, though. If I was in a theatre and an important call came through (on silent, mind you) I would leave the theatre and immediately call back. I know I am not the average case here but I'm also not extraordinary. Lots and lots and lots of people out there are smart and polite people who know how to responsibly use a cell phone.

That's an understandable use, but don't allow your emotions to impact your judgment. A little thought would lead to the conclusion that if your cellphone is on silent/vibrate mode and it vibrates and you leave the theater and call back where you won't be disturbing anyone, there's no incentive to jam your phone call. I doubt anyone near you would even know that you had a cellphone if you handled it this way. Unless you believe that people buy jammers because strangers have a personal vendetta against you and just want to make you miserable (they call this paranoia), then by your own reasoning the jammers won't be after you or anyone who handles this the way that you do. The more rare your politeness is (and this is increasingly the case), the more likely it is to be very much appreciated.

Don't block us out just because of the ignorant masses that just don't get it.

This really seems to be coming from an assumption that a jammer would be operating continuously. I don't own a jammer (and don't plan to since using one is illegal) but if I had one, I know I would not want a microwave frequency radiation source emitting continuously from my person. It's the kind of thing that can't be good for you long-term. Then there's the question of how heavy the batteries would be and how many you want to carry. Considering that continuous use is not at all necessary since you would only need a few seconds to disconnect a call, I think you're inventing a highly unlikely extreme-case scenario backed by an emotional time of your life to justify your universal condemnation.

And you know what? You're living in 2007 now, so if you hear someone's cell phone go off then TOUGH F*CKING COOKIES.

I could just as easily say "You're living in 2007 now, so if you're rude and inconsiderate and your cell phone call gets dropped by someone with a jammer, then TOUGH FUCKING COOKIES." I find this easier to justify than "someone's being rude, you better lay down and take it."

You can approach them politely and ask that they put thei

Re:matter of time

When you use one of these things, you only hold down the button till the phone call disconnects (usually ten seconds at most). The you let it off. You usually find if they call back, they get the phone call over with quickly.

This hysterical crazy talk about many people dying in a skyscraper because of this kind "black spot" is just nonsense (You really have to wonder how the human race made it to the 1980s without cell phones at all).

In Japan people are very polite on trains regarding talking on phones, most people wisper and cover their mouths while talking.

In the US, Australia and the UK (where I have most of my experience of it, you often encounter "Exhibition Talkers" who seem to believe the whole carriage is interested in their little world. Asking them to "keep it down please" will only result in abuse.

Re:matter of time

Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic.

One possibility could be that a team of highjackers take over an airplane and use one to prevent outside phone calls.
Or...
An armed robber has one to prevent anyone from making calls during a heist.
Or...
An house burglar uses it to disable one of the new type of house alarms that are cellular.

That said, I don't think the technology should be banned outright because any of the above would be able to make it from generic parts and it would have some legal uses.

As long as it remains on private property and the signal does not interfere with cell phones outside the property any business should be allowed to use one as long as they have signs posted that they disable cell phones.

Of course as it stands now, FCC regulations prevents even legitimate use so this has become a black market of sorts.

Re:matter of time

"Our position is that the proprietor of an enclosed space should have the right to control disturbances within that space. That could be a fight in a bar, that could be somebody yelling at his kid on a cell phone, or whatever."

"Your honor, my client was viciously raped after the attacker use the Jam-O-Matic 5000 to keep her from calling the police. We're asking $3.2 billion."

I wonder to what extent a judge or jury would buy their rationalization.

Same old same old

The only hot-button missing from your tirade is "think of the children". OK, I'll admit I'm in my mid 50's. Back in the early/mid 1980's, I remember 2 new trends in phones...
1) the rise of telemarketing (answering machines were non-existant for the average consumer)
2) instead of phones being hard-wired into the wall, you could actually get the now-familiar phone-jack

There was all sorts of yelling and screaming and apocalyptic predictions about the thousands of people who would die because they had disconnected their phones from the wall socket, and wouldn't get the warning phone call that their house was on fire, or some natural disaster (flood/fire/whatever) was coming their way. Guess what, it didn't happen.

One incident I do remember is when my employer was short-staffed in one office. In addition to someone being on vacation, and someone else on a long training course, another employee in a rotating shift position got pregnant, and was unable to continue, especially with the shiftwork. Because I had done the same job a few years earlier, I got pulled off my regular duties, got a 1-week refresher course by the shift supervisor, then went on rotating shifts by myself for a month.

The morning after my first graveyard shift, I got home around 8:00 AM, and was not exactly 100% lucid. I undressed and crashed into bed... only to be awakened 3 times in the next hour and a half by telemarketing assholes. Fortunately, I had a condo with the "new" phone jacks, and disconnected it from the wall. If the phone had been hard-wired, so help me, I would've "disconnected" it "the hard way".

Similarly, I don't think that society is going to callapse if cellphones become unreliable. Unlike you young whippersnappers, I remember the ers BC... Before Cellphones. Civilization survived thousands of years without cellphones, and can do so again.

hmmm

What I find a little strange is how some people consider someone talking on a cell phone in a restaurant automatically rude, even if they're speaking at a normal volume. If someone's in a conversation at another table, is it really that bad if the other participant in the conversation isn't actually in the restaurant?

Re:hmmm

When you only hear half a conversation you are subconsciously assuming that it's intened for you - there's no one else listening, so it must be for you. If you see two people talking, then you know you're not involved, and don't have to listen.

What a BS arguement

While I have in some instances (grocery store line-up, etc) half turned because it seemed somebody was addressing me (pointed at me, talking, and with a headset), it takes about .5 seconds to acknowledge that the aren't, and - if the conversation is of regular volume - ignore it.

With a restaurant, it's not a problem. Why? Well probably because there's no need for me to be tuning in to the conversations of those around me, cellular or otherwise. If they're at normal volume, and the person isn't directly positioned to address me, it's pretty obvious that they're not talking to me, and I've never found a reason to assume otherwise.

This of course doesn't apply to those that speak at a conversational level that would put a stadium PA system to shame, but that's a different story, and one that should be address by either the restaurant, or perhaps a brave individual who is willing to point out the rudeness of such things on the hopeful assumption that the disruptive party will cease the conversation - or reduce their volume level - without becoming confrontational.

Rudeness vs. Illegality

No, the rudeness is not criminal. A cell phone jammer takes away a person's right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot. Rudeness is a person exercising their right to be a loud, annoying, inconsiderate idiot.

I agree with "Matter of Time"

In addition to the public safety issues, there are purely engineering ones. We are on a path to where the background noise level caused by multitudes of transmitters is going to render much of the radio spectrum useless. Plus with devices that have not gone through Type Acceptance, who knows what garbage is coming out of their antenna?

Pagers? Special frequency?

I really don't know much about cell / PCS

Is there some way these things could be made to not block a special frequency or pagers. Doctors and emergency workers on call need to be able to be reached at dinner and in movie theaters. Everyone else can shut up.

I see your hyperbole and raise you a lawsuit.

Criminal? That's an hyperbole. Here's a use of the word that's not: preventing access to emergency services because it affords you a little convenience is, literally, criminal.
Besides, while I can see the harm of a cellphone ring during a live theatrical performance, such as a play or an opera, it's merely an annoyance during a movie. And as far as restaurants are concerned, well, it's not like asking the offending patron to STFU is going to stop the globe from spinning. And sysadmins, doctors and other "on-call" professions have a right to eat, don't they?

Re:A mind forever blabbing...

Yes, they have a right to eat. But they don't have a mandatory requirement to do it in public.

That's probably the stupidest think I'll hear today. Congratulations.

If you're in a nice restaurant then turn your mobile off and SHUT-THE-FUCK-UP!

Cell phones have replaced pagers for most people. Am I allowed to get IMs, or do I have to turn those off too?

Re:I see your hyperbole and raise you $500 per day

Running a jammer is literally a "federal case". Enforcement hasn't been widespread, but that is subject to change based on complaints. The cell phone carriers know how the FCC works and they certainly can complain effectively if they have cause and desire to do so. Illegal jammers conducting denial-of-service attacks on spectrum the carriers paid dearly to license would seem to provide that cause and motivation. Use jammers at your own risk!

SEC. 501. [47 U.S.C. 501] GENERAL PENALTY.

Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this Act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this Act required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this Act, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both; except that any person, having been once convicted of an offense punishable under this section, who is subsequently convicted of violating any provision of this Act punishable under this section, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 Communications Act of 1934 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

SEC. 502. [47 U.S.C. 502] VIOLATION OF RULES, REGULATIONS, AND SO FORTH.

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by the Commission under authority of this Act, or any rule, regulation, restriction, or condition made or imposed by any international radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party, shall, in addition to any other penalties provided by law, be punished, upon conviction thereof, by a fine of not more than $500 for each and every day during which such offense occurs.(quotation from the communications act,47 U.S.C 501 [fcc.gov](large pdf!)

Blockers should be shot

Yes it's illegal, but given that the rudeness is pretty close to criminal as well, it's unlikely to stop any time soon.

It's not just illegal, it's totally unethical. My wife and I both carry cellphones - I'm a sysadmin and she's a surgeon and we're both on call basically 24/7. And yet, you'd never know that we have them, because we mute them when appropriate and never start conversations when we shouldn't. Instead, we'll either step outside quickly to answer them or let it roll to voicemail so we don't kill ourselves and others as we dive over rows of seats and then respond ASAP. Cell phone jammers punish the jackasses in theaters that we all love to hate, but they also punish the majority of users who are quiet and responsible.

Imagine that you or your mom or your kid has a problem with their recent surgery and is desperately trying to reach their doctor who went to a movie, but some smug asshole with a jammer is blocking the call. Kinda puts it in a different light, huh?

not this again

jamming cellphones is ridiculous. it's about as useful as throwing a spammer in prison for 50 years. it doesn't do anything to impact the practice.

i STILL have yet to be intruded upon so heinously (in fact not at all i can remember) by someone on a phone either at a restaurant, movie, play, etc that makes me think this is at all a rational response (i live in a metro area of 2.2 million. so it's not like i'm in the sticks where no one has a phone).

i rotate on call shift with the other IT guys. granted i won't goto a movie or something that would be boned by the intrusion, but i won't stop myself from going to a nice restaurant because of it and expect that i'll be reachable.

if this were a story about DRM everyone would be crying that the MAFIAA is "screwing over the responsible ones because of the bad acts of the few". if i'm on my phone at the store, i get off before standing in line, don't do it at the bank, don't do it at movies, if i'm at a restaurant i'll quickly goto a better place and call back.

there was another poster who got it right, establishments need to make it known to patrons if they allow phone use and enforce it. not pull some underhanded sneaky bullshit. that will piss customers off more.

Ha! Good!

Cellphones are WAY overused in today's society. There should be a "No Phone" sign on the door of every establishment right by the ones concerning smoking and guns. Or better yet, replace the "no guns" sign with "no phones"! The only people complaining about not being able to wander around aimlessly while carrying on some insipid "conversation" are yuppies. I can only hope that the stock market goes further down the hill and they all get crushed under the ridiculous mortgages that they had to have for their "holier than thou" SUVs and ranch houses!

Rights?

I would have to say that a very valid statement can be applied to both sides of this argument: "Your rights end where mine begin".

From the cell phone users perspective: I have the right to use my cellphone for critical situations and needs.
From the cell phone jammers perspective: I have the right to not be forced to listen to your conversation.

Somewhere in the middle there is a gray area where both parties must be respectful of one another.

Good deal

Here in Chicago, downtown, there's a great sandwich shop called Perry's Deli. They have signs: no pagers, no cell phones (if you need to use them while eating, maybe you should be eating at a more upscale restaurant, the sign says). If they see someone using it, they turn on a LOUD, *VERY* ANNOYING alarm, annoying everyone in the place, until the offender either stops, or goes outside.

And I still want all cellphone usage by drivers treated exactly like DUI, since the accident stats are the same for drunks and cellphone users.

            mark "could you drive any better if I shoved it where the sun
                          don't shine?"

What you want is a cell phone detector

If you don't want a cell phone active in your establishment, what you want is not a jammer, which is illegal, but a detector...

http://www.cellbusters.com/product_info.php?products_id=28 [cellbusters.com]

Of course, then you have to be willing to forgo the miscreant's business by ordering anybody with an active cell phone outside. When I first researched this issue about six years ago, I found precisely nobody -- not restaurants, not the pharmacy, not even a freakin' movie theater -- would be willing to install a detector and order people off the property. The only places I know of that use detectors is hospitals, because some cells put out signals that interfere with things like an EEG.

Emergency Use? My Ass...

Most often seen reply: "But I need it for emergency... I'm a Sysadmin/Nurse/Surgeon/Firefighter".

Yes, you are right.
Yes, your use is justified.

And you make up 0.01% of what we're talking about here.

I commute to work just 30 minutes each way. At least once a week there's some idiot on the train with a cellphone conversation so loud and/or obnoxious that I'd like to hit him with something hard. At least once a day there's someone with a ringtone that was certainly carefully engineered after extensive studies as to what the most nerve-wrecking sound imagineable is and at what precise volume (maximum) you have to play it to cause inner-ear bleedings. At least twice as often there are less irritating but still obnoxious and anti-social cases that scream "I'd piss in your front yard and shit in your doorway, too".

And as far as I get the contents, it has not once not ever been something important that couldn't have waited until the asshole got home.

If cell phone jammers were legal, I'd buy one tomorrow.

Re:Emergency Use? My Ass...

But I need it for emergency... I'm a Sysadmin/Nurse/Surgeon/Firefighter

      I'm a doc, and I have NO problem switching off my phone when I go to the movies or at a fancy restaurant. If I'm expected to be available, I simply don't go to those places that day. And I doubt very much that anyone can make up a more pressing reason to be reachable than me. It's just bad manners, there's no excuse.

Forced Buzzing

The talking on the phone I can deal with, by talking to the rude talker. Sometimes I take the other half of their conversation, or just act like they're talking to me, other times I just tell them to stop talking, or just yell "WHAT? WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" They almost always shut up and/or leave.

What really needs automated jamming is ringing. Phones should be required to accept a signal that switches them from ringing to vibrating. Then movie theaters, public transit vehicles, and other places where the public is forced to share a space with some people too rude to keep to themselves. Buzzing won't interfere wih their functioning, it won't privately infringe on the public airwaves except to send the signal.

The damn phones should be shipped to vibrate by default anyway, with a ringtone an explicit option, and a single puttonpress to switch between the modes.

If people would just be polite

If people would just be marginally polite and turn off the audible ring then theaters wouldn't be so tempted to jam cellphones. It's not like it's that hard to put a phone on vibrate to see a movie. If a call (silently) comes in that's THAT important, the lobby is only a few seconds away.

If it's not important enough to go to thee lobby for, it's not important enough to answer at all.

When checking out at a store, the cashier and people behind you do not want to just wait around while you quack on about your new shoes, little Johhny's report card, what's going on, etc. The cashier is NOT the one being rude by trying to get you to at least have the courtesy to complete the transaction and get out of the way before you complete your conversation.

I don't get it....

How is the inconsiderate person talking loudly on a cell phone worse than the inconsiderate person talking loudly to their friends? Maybe we don't need cell-phone jammers, just gags.

Emergencies and physicians

Numerous points have been made about emergencies. As a doctor, I would add the following:

Radio waves do not know their discrete boundaries -- I don't have too much of a problem with jamming on private property in theory, provided the business informs the consumer very well that the premises is jammed. Therefore, doctors, etc. can avoid this area when on call or need to be reached, and people can 'vote with their wallets'; in truth I would not be a patron of such a place. However, in practice jamming signals can creep elsewhere, to the neighboring restaurant / apartment / out on the street. This clearly can be very dangerous.

Numerous people have commented that you should not expect to receive cell phone signals everywhere. This is true, and also why physicians still carry low-tech pagers, which have much more of a signal range. In clinical practice, all reliable systems for emergencies have redundancy. For instance, an interventional cardiologist in the middle of the night may be paged for a patient with a heart attack. If the operator doesn't hear back from the doctor in 5 minutes, he pages again and tries another form of communication (cell phone, land line..) If still no response, a backup doctor may be paged (extremely rare). Ideally, this redundancy works across different modalities (e.g. not all cellphone / 900 MHz etc.)

For some reason, probably historical, most doctors consider cellphones unreliable, and pagers completely reliable. For good systems, there must be redundancy as above in all situations. A half year ago, I got a nasty email from another doctor saying that I didn't return a page; I thought the person was crazy and they hadn't paged me, or paged the wrong person (still not sure what happened), but again, had they a second / backup method of reaching me, it would not have been a big deal. My role was not critical in that situation, so nothing happened (also why we didn't have critical redundancy), but if this had been due to *intentional* uninformed jamming, appropriate action would be taken...

The low-tech solution

I've promised myself for years that now if I pay 10 of my hard-earned dollars to go to a movie and some bozo starts yammering away on his phone during the feature itself, I will grab the phone away from him and throw it to the other side of the theater. Yeah, that's a crime of some sort, I'm sure... but would a jury in the world convict you? And if they did, what would the punishment be? A new phone for the dirtbag? Taking me to court to actually get the money would cost more than the phone is worth.

I know it's not as fun as making a neat gizmo to do the job, and obviously it increases your chances of getting knifed by a teenage gangbanger exponentially, but as another comment said, jamming runs the risk of jamming a 911 call.

By listening to the douche say "nuthin, I'm just kickin it at the movies...", you ensure that the call is of a non-vital nature, and therefore rude as hell.

This aggression shall not stand, Dude!

The times article says it all

If anything characterizes the 21st century, its our inability to restrain ourselves for the benefit of other people, said James Katz, director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. The cellphone talker thinks his rights go above that of people around him, and the jammer thinks his are the more important rights.

Or put more simply three people are involved here who think "ME ME ME". The caller, who couldn't wait to call, the answerer who couldn't wait to answer the call and the person being annoyed who thinks he has to the right to be undisturbed by other people.

First the caller, 99% of calls are unneeded and could easily have waited until a later time. People keep bringing up emergency calls, I am willing to bet my entire income for the rest of my life that if you measured all the calls that are of a real emergency nature (911 or even telling someone their wife is about to give birth) that would not even come to a whole percentage of mobile phone calls. You do NOT have to call that other person at night when you see them next day. You may want too, and technology has made it possible but their is NO NEED. Learn to understand the difference between NEED and DESIRE.

Then there is the person answering. YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT. The entire rest of the world does NOT have to be put on hold for your convenience. Sometimes you got to make choices what to do, and this means you can't be doing something else. Lets say you think you should answer the phone in a theather, should the actors do the same? Do you want your doctor to answers his wifes call while he is working on your hearth? So why do you NEED to answer that phone NOW. I think this is part of a larger social disfunction. Take MMO's you see people complain that they take large chunks of time, and that people get upset if you leave in the middle of a raid. Well yeah, but how many of you would walk out of the middle of a say a football game? If you are in any kind of a race, do you really expect all the others to stop because your phone is ringing? I think the mobile phone is just a symptom of the larger development that some people think, the world revolves around me (they are wrong, it revolves around me) and that everyone else should fit themselves to their need.

But finally there is also the person who is offended. There is NO law, NO right, to be undisturbed. Yes there are some laws that forbid certain disturbances, anti-honking laws for instance that dictate you can only use your car horn for alerting of impending danger, but talking in public is not among them. People are free to talk in public transport. You get people who get upset by headphones being too loud who complain that they can't hear themselves talking. Eh, your talking and the headphone are BOTH interfering with my peace and quiet. Unless we introduce a law to SHUT THE FUCK UP and produce NO noise whatsoever, public transport is NOT a place of peace and quiet. Your desire for peace and quiet is NOT a right. You are just as much an asshole for wanting everyone else to be silent as the person making a noise.

It is often said that human beings are social animals, so lets see some social animals shall we? Ooh, what a lot of fighting and squabiling in even small groups. We are NOT ants who really work together, we are a pack of monkeys who are constantly fighting over everything but without a leader who can just beat the crap out of anyone who really gets out of line.

Modern techonology just brings it out more. We also allowed the controlling elements of our society to become weak and feeble. We think we are mature adults who don't need a big brother watching us, while we behave as little spoiled brats.

A simple solution exists to this whole mobile phone dilemma. Since REAL emergency calls are so rare, it would have been very easy to put in as part of the system a protocol for dealing with them. In restricted areas you would broadcast a signal "emergency only". The caller would have to send the signal that it is an emer

Re:Full support

The ambulance isn't coming, skippy.

You'll just lay on the floor breathless, your life slipping away as a crowd stands around you in increased frustration as they're calls to 911 won't get through.

The coroner will find the jammer in your pocket later, when he inventories your possessions before tagging your toe and zipping up the bag.

And all because you didn't have the stones to just ask people to please turn off their phones so you could hear better.

Re:endangering lives

Fortunately, there is 100% cell coverage by all carriers everywhere.

Re:endangering lives

For all you know some 10 year old kid has a bad heart and has to keep his cell phone on 24/7 for that all important "Get to hospital NOW" call.

Quick! Outlaw tunnels and buildings too thick to allow cell phone signals!

But seriously... It is kind of silly to think that someone can rely on a cell phone 24/7 for emergency issues. As an anecdotally statement, there are parts of the building I work in that are complete dead zones depend on which direction I face. Maybe they used too much concrete or my service provider just blows, but I have a hunch that if there is an emergency I should use a land line.

If I go driving in the backwoods of New Jersey my cell phone doesn't even get a good roaming signal. (Though the nice thing about the Turnpikes is that New Jersey does have emergency phones ever so often)

Anyways... If cell phone use is critical for life and death situations then you should probaly invest in a satellite phone or a ham radio which of course still won't work in a tunnel.

Simply wasting police time with hunting these down is not going to solve any real problem other than to waste tax money. It would be better spent making cell phones more reliable.

Re:endangering lives

more dangerous than a gun or a knife. Having one with you could kill tens or even hundreds of people (think shy scrapers and such).

I'm thinking skyscrapers and such... I have no idea how denial of cell service could possibly kill hundreds of people.
What, the fire alarms have all been replaced with "in case of emergency, use your cell" signs or something??

Re:Anything but normal social interaction..

There are no 'norms' for behavior while on the phone. I see guys at urinals, talking to various people. I always mention, loudly, do you know this guy's calling you while peeing?

1) they have both hands busy, and therefore can't fight
2) if they do, they'll soil themselves
3) they have to immediately explain their actions to the called party.

People are terribly self-centered, and you'll never get around them. It's like the kilowatt jam speakers in people's car trunks, and how they'll rattle the dishes in an neighborhood. They can't hear the sound of my paintball gun over the tops of it-- and I'm sure of this. I hate to waste rounds, but the cars sure do look psychedelic when they pass thru my 'hood.

uhm what world to you live in?

have you ever politely asked somebody to keep it down...you'll find that most people when treated with a little respect will gladly oblige, and apologize.

Not been my experience at all. I've politely asked someone to take their cell phone conversation outside (after the third call in a 5 minutes span) in a movie theater and this guy threw a drink on me and stormed out (I later got an apology from the managers and free movie for that one).

Once a bus in a city I was unfamiliar with stops and was trying to ask someone a question and this teen-aged girl was yammering away so loud I couldn't hear anything the guy I was asking for help was saying. As the teenager took her hand off the pole to flip me off after asked her if she could tone it down for a second, the bus slowed down and she fell on her ass (won't ever forget that one).

My favorite was when I was on a plane and the flight attendant was telling this lady to please shut down her cell phone as they were going to close the doors and back away from the gate, the lady kept one waving her hands and the three flight attendents walked over and stared at her until she put her phone away. After they flight attendants went to sit down, the lady pulls out her cell phone again and instead of getting up again, the flight attendant gets on the speaker and tells everyone to stare at the woman in seat 16D... Took her another minute to shut up, which was then followed by a round of applause in the cabin. Sadly, that's the world I live in...

I don't have a jammer myself, but if I had one of these things, I'm sure there would be times that I wouldn't regret using it at all