Stop Cell Phones Without Stopping Pacemakers... 552
metoikos writes "A company based in Fairfax, Virginia, has come up with a subtler method of
preventing cell-phone addicts from using the world as a phone booth than a faraday cage or even those little hand-held jammers.
Cell Block Technologies (that name must go over well with law enforcement) is developing a smoke-detector sized device which sends signals of 'no service' to cellphone frequencies, prompting phone to send calls directly to voicemail.
Admittedly this is better than messing with everything that uses the same frequencies cellphones do . "
RTFA! (Score:3, Informative)
By SAM LUBELL
Published: April 8, 2004
T could happen on a train, in a restaurant or during an awe-inspiring aria at a performance of "Carmen": a neighbor's cellphone starts bleating the theme song from "Friends," disrupting the mood and setting nerves on edge. Wouldn't it be great, you think to yourself, if this couldn't happen?
Others are thinking likewise, including companies and researchers developing or already selling devices that render cellphones inoperable in certain locations. Methods include jammers that interfere with cellphone frequencies, routing systems that mute phones' ringers in specific places, sensors that detect active cellphones and building materials that block cellphone waves.
Proponents say that such measures are more effective than "no cellphone" signs, "quiet cars" on trains or even legal restrictions (like a law prohibiting cellphone use during performances, enacted by the New York City Council last year).
The concerns go beyond mere annoyance: casinos are seeking to stop phone-based cheating; prison authorities want to guard against phone use by inmates for drug deals or other forms of wrongdoing. With the rise of camera cellphones have come privacy concerns that have made locker rooms and other areas no-phone zones.
"At some point the American public will become so frustrated with the abuse of cellphones that it will rise up and yell that something must be done," said Dave Derosier, chief executive of Cell Block Technologies, based in Fairfax, Va., which is developing a transmitter the size of a smoke detector that relays signals of "no service" to cellphone frequencies, prompting them to send calls to voice mail.
Cell Block's products are slightly more sophisticated versions of what is probably the most widespread method of stopping cellphone use, called jamming, which renders phones inoperable by disrupting the connection between cellphone towers and cellphones. Jamming devices overpower phones' frequencies with especially strong signals and often with loud noise. Such devices can be found on eBay and at Web sites like globalgadgetuk.com.
That site says it has sold thousands of devices to theaters, businesses, military users and individuals. The jammers range from $200 for a rudimentary hand-held model to nearly $10,000 for suitcase-sized gear sold to governments and the military, with the price usually based on the signal range and the likelihood of disrupting cellular activity.
Other means are also in development, from devices that merely detect cellphone use (and prompt users to desist) to construction methods that render cellphones inoperable.
But not everyone finds this trend encouraging. Cellphone industry experts and federal regulators deride jammers in particular as unlawful, unethical and even dangerous.
"You're not allowed to barricade the street in front of your house because you don't like hearing an ambulance," said Travis Larson, a spokesman for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, who asserts that blocking systems inhibit customers' rights and can block emergency calls. "Just like roads, the airwaves are public property."
The Federal Communications Commission points specifically to the Federal Communications Act of 1934, which says that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications" licensed by the government.
"It is the F.C.C.'s authority and obligation to determine which transmissions are lawful," said Lauren Patrich, a spokeswoman for the commission's wireless bureau. "If the F.C.C. doesn't have that authority, then what's its point?" Fines for violations can reach $11,000 for a single offense.
Mr. Derosier said that devices like Cell Block's are "questionably legal" in the United States, but he added that with proper disclosure and provisions made for emergencies, there is no reason that they should not be used. The devices are legal in Japan, France and Eastern Europe, and in most of
ObLink (Score:5, Informative)
In Soviet Russia, link follows you!
Only blocks GSM (Score:5, Informative)
Some interesting notes:
* Their technology currently only works on GSM phones, so here in the US, it'll only block T-Mobile [t-mobile.com] customers. No more Catherine Zeta-Jones hollering "Stop!" in the middle of your bowling tournament. I hate it when that happens.
* The company is Canada-based, so they're outside the reach of Ashcroft & co. The NYT article quotes the company's founder as saying that the technology is useful in mosques... if the founder is indeed Muslim, he's probably wary of landing on Ashcroft's little Enemies List. Heck, I'm worried myself, 'cause I'm not sure what he thinks of Methodists [nwsource.com] these days!
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:5, Informative)
"no service signal" gibberish (Score:1, Informative)
That's crap. Jamming is jamming. There is no such thing as a "signal of no service".
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:4, Informative)
You are claiming that the airwaves are public, so people can transmit if they want. Well, what if I feel like transmitting "no service" signals? Also, this is a bad analogy, as a person's mouth is not public.
Anyway, I don't think the cell-phone specific airwaves are public anyway - this portion of the frequency spectrum is sold by the government to private entities.
LS
Re:Only blocks GSM (Score:3, Informative)
And AT&T, and Cingular.
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Informative)
The uproar about it is caused by the experience that 9 of the last 10 near accidents i've been in have all been the fault of a person talking on a cell phone, and in about half the cases that person seemed to be experiencing difficulty with overcorrection due to the use of one handed driving.
Switching the radio station takes one hand away from the wheel briefly. Talking to a person in the car or listening to the radio doesn't take one hand away at all. Talking on the cell phone non-hands-free takes away one hand for an extended period of time.
Another frequent problem with cell phone users is that they commonly raise their voice to overcome bad microphones and/or static on their connection. They wind up talking innapropriately loudly for an extended period of time. Think about the irritation you experience hearing one person yelling at another person. This happens all the time with cell phone users.
Finally there is the problem with cell phones being left to ring (often with an innappropriately loud and long ringsong) at inappropriate times. I haven't been to a movie in the last 3 years without at least 3 cell phone rings. And in at least the last year they have the warnings to turn off your cellphones up on screen for 20-30 seconds before the movie starts! And in 2 movies in the last year I've had to request my money back because I couldn't hear dialog over people who actually took calls and started talking during the movie (and of course talking too loud because of their crappy phone microphones/static issues!)
In short, if you're a frequent cell phoner, try to be considerate of others. It sounds like you (the person i'm replying to) aren't a frequent user, and are probably polite while you're at it, but the fact is most people aren't.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry jackass, but I'm not. I own a cell phone but I almost always have it on vibrate no matter where I'm at.
Re:Only blocks GSM (Score:3, Informative)
...or AT&T customers (except those with old analog phones), or Cingular customers (except those with old analog phones), or Pac Bell customers, or Powertel customers, or BellSouth customers.
In case you hadn't noticed, everyone's switching to GSM except Verizon and Sprint.
Wrong!! (Score:3, Informative)
Read the Study! [njsafety.org]
A**holes before cell phones (Score:2, Informative)
Second as I understand it the air waves are not "free" but "public domain" hence you are definatly NOT free to do what ever you want over them. HAM operators have to be tested and licenced in levels, each level granting more freedom to broadcast on the air in return for proving you know what you are doing. That is why the 'boob incident' was such a big deal. The FCC regulates the hell out of what can and can not be done over the airwaves.
Answers to many questions... (Score:4, Informative)
Safety: Yes, they will prevent emergency phone calls from being received or made. With well posted signs this could be mitigated (ie, you can't be held liable if the doctor or liver transplant candidate were aware of the cell phone blocking upon entering the establishment) However, I wouldn't want to be the owner when the place is taken hostage, landlines cut, and no one from inside can use their cell phone.
Ideally such a technology would allow ring signals to get through, but would disable call initiations (answering or dialing). This is not impossible, but technically expensive (snoop on all frequencies, short jamming bursts on specific activity types)
This is a social problem which can really only be taken care of in a social manner. Theaters, restaurants should alert guests to turn off or silence their phones. If they must use them they should leave to a cell-phone allowed area (near pay phones, for instance) or be escorted out if they forget to do so. They should not be allowed to re-enter if it will prove an interruption to other guests (ie, during intermission only, if one is available). If there are no penalties and immediate actions taken against anti-social guests, then they will assume their behavior is allowed in that establishment.
Very short text messages and pages would work very well for many emergency situations. One-way text pager coverage in the US exceeds cell phone coverage significantly, and those who have to deal with unexpected emergencies know this and use it, relying on the cell phone as a contact and status device only.
-Adam
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't your airspace. It's a public place.
If I put forth the expectation that all guests are treated equally,
First of all, there is notthing inherently "equal" about preventing cell phone signals. Second of all, your "expectation" isn't binding on anyone else. I expect my cellphone to work when I am in a restaurant or theatre. I pay for it to work there. Tough beans for your expectations.
Why? Because people all around you paid for a show.
There is nothing in the silent vibration of my cellphone that anyone around me will notice. If they notice me pull it out of my pocket and look at the screen, then it wasn't a very interesting show and you owe them their money back.
I may be stopping your right to receive a call, but if your phone is licensed in the US under our FCC laws, your phone must accept any interference, which may cause undesired operation.
This is the reason I bothered to respond to your selfish little rant. You are patently wrong. Primary licensees do not have to put up with any interference, they have the primary right to the frequency, and deliberate interference is illegal and can subject the interferer to heavy fines.
What you are probably thinking of are Part 15 unlicensed devices like Wi-Fi or cordless phones and baby monitors. Those devices are not licensed any they do have to put up with interference from licensed users of the spectrum and each other. For example, as an amateur radio operator, I am a primary licensee in the 2.4GHz Wi-Fi band. If I decide to put up a station on one of those frequencies, I can do so, at a much higher power than you can ever hope to override, and YOUR use of the spectrum goes POOF!
I am a SAR volunteer, and my cellphone may be how I am notified that there is a lost child that needs to be found. I'm sorry if you think that your right to silence overrides the life of another human being, but get over it. If my cellphone vibrating in my pocket annoys you, then get your fucking hand out of my pocket and mind your own damn business.
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Informative)
Two different things. The parent was referring to someone in the theater actually using the two-way radio, and you read it as someone actually ignoring their message waiting indicator throughout the movie. Just as annoying but a whole new level of stupid.
Hey Nextel owners, PLEASE hit the black speaker button to turn off your loudspeaker! No, you are not required to use the speakerphone function with the 2-way radio.