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 . "
Um... (Score:2, Interesting)
Legality (Score:2, Interesting)
Better idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Interesting)
phone companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:3, Interesting)
They are also used for on call personal like plumbers, system admins, fire fighters, and meidcal staff. You know that nice doctor that helps out during a baby's delivery? They aren't standing by in the waiting room, they are out and about and get called in when they are needed.
That's the biggest argument that should settle the whole issue right there. This "I want it NOW" society has little business complaining about that which makes people reachable. Or would they like to pay two or three times as much for service X to have technician Y standing by at all times ON SITE? Didn't think so.
Doctors (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, cellphones disrupting public events are definately a growing problem, but you know what: the last movie I saw was more interupted by the girls talking/swearing a few rows up than by cellphones. The solution to either problem: kick 'em out.
Disruption is not the solution to disruption... especially if this device were to become to everyone who has a grudge against cellphones.
Re:Lawsuit time (Score:5, Interesting)
I finally figured out why people find cell phones so much more annoying in restaurants than say, other people talking and clinking dishes. First, in the case of a screaming kid or dropped plates, the noise is typically brief, which cannot be said for cell phone conversations.
The second problem is that people always talk louder on cell phones. I personally do not understand this, however, IDNHACP (I do not have a cell phone.) So, the restaurant is already loud, and people are trying to talk over the din, which leads to point 3.
It's only one side of the conversation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not evesdropping, but it is jarring for me (and many others) to hear half of a conversation in my perhipheral hearing. It's easy to block out people talking back and forth, even if they're being loud; however, blocking out someone who is loudly seemingly talking to themselves is much more jarring to your brains white noise filter.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Self righteous pricks controlling others lives (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
If I put forth the expectation that all guests are treated equally, then I should have a right to have your cell phone not work. Why? Because people all around you paid for a show. They did not pay to hear you scream in to your cell phone at Dell about how they missed their latest shipment of PC's to your company.
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.
Hah.
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:3, Interesting)
I saw LOTR: Two Towers and some guy kept getting that chirping tone from the two-way walkie talkie feature. Every thirty seconds or so. Enough people were pissed off... we asked him to stop, but he was a jerk about it. I knew the manager, so we had him formally warned - next time, we'll have the police officer escort you out of the theatre.
Re:I guess I lead a sheltered life... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what about the reverse? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're phone is saying "no service" then outgoing calls probably won't go through. Depends on the phone, maybe.
I agree, though, this is a dumb solution. It's a social problem, not a technical one. Make it unacceptable to disturb somebody. I can't speak for the entire country, but in the last couple of years, cell phone obnoxiousness has gone down. I have witnessed a number of people pull their cell phones out when a movie starts to turn them off. So if all these people are doing that, why punish them by killing service to their phone?
Frankly, I think a better solution could be developed. Cell phones are digital now. Down the road, I can imagine that service will be set up where phones automatically go into silent mode depending on the building you are in. I like this solution. It removes some of the accidental bs from happening.
The most insulting part is that these places think they're more important than a call you might recieve. Imagine a guy leaving the theater, getting out of range of the jammer, and then getting a voicemail that his father's been in an accident. "Oh man! I could have left the theater an hour ago!! nO!!"
I don't mind finding a way to make the audible phone ring go away, it's the "no service for you" attitude that is just the wrong way to solve that problem.
dubious legality... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway... the way I see it is this:
This is a device which transmits on the same frequencies as cell phones. Now, Cell phones are FCC licensed devices licensed to transmit in that range (800MHz range). This device, AFAICT is NOT licensed... which means, that If I were a cell user, the cell company's FCC license rights extend to me in one form or another, I could, under part 15 rules, require that the restaurant using such a device turn it off due to its direct interference with my licensed device. Failure to comply could be met with a complaint to the FCC, followed by an investigation, fines, etc etc.
SO, I guess the question is, since technically any jamming device is illegal (which is why true radar jammers are illegal in your car) AND having this device, or any cell-phone jamming device is against part 15 rules unless licensed by the FCC, what is to stop cell phone companies from suing restaurants, movie theaters, etc who employ these devices. After all, if the FCC finds that the device is not licensed AND caused harmful interference, the people using the device could face severe fines, and jail time even, AND would be open to civil litigation...
it seems like a big can of worms, but I just wonder about the legality of these things, AND whether or not they can be sued for any interference to the licensed cell signals...
Try it for yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Demonstrably, it IS more distracting, though.
Try this test for yourself (which has been used in several studies).
Crank up any task-intensive video game. Driving sim, FPS or similar. Get the best score you can. Now try that game while having a phone conversation. You can even use your fancy hands free thingy. Do you get a lower score? Do you get killed out faster? br>I'm betting you do.
on the road, if you get killed out...there is no reset function.
Re:Doctors (Score:3, Interesting)
And I have, in fact, asked ushers to do this for me, when I was on call for something.
The reminder works great for people who don't need to take calls; the ushers work for those who do.
Re:This is a bad idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this discussion shows an interesting point.
Who should have the right of choice ?
The person that has a mobile phone and wants to choose to be reachable or not (btw. a mobile phone still have an off button as well).
An employer who wants to decide if people are reachable or not (Which is not fine enough grenuality in this case. I guess the employer would like to filter out personal calls from business calls and let them through on the premises
The movie theater that wants to allow people watching a movie without distubances
The community that is annoyed about all those noise pollution that is called music nowadays and finds it ways to mobile ringers within days of publishing
or a lot of other entities that claim a right of control....
I believe it is time to step back and learn some manners again and then let everybody act responsible without contolling everything. Situations are different and people are different. I think the intriguing part of our society is the right and ability of choice. Lets not throw it away because people misuse it. Social distaste as punishment is often severe enough....
Private -vs- public space (Score:4, Interesting)
> It isn't your airspace. It's a public place.
Not true. Public place is a park or the sidewalk, basically anything maintained by the government (local, state, federal). A restaurant is a private place. Ever seen those signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody"? A public place can't do that, because they aren't allowed to discriminate. Private places can do so. I can well imagine a restaurant (mine, if I had one), to automatically take away all food and drinks and bring the check the moment the customer's phone rings. As the ovner of that particular private place, I may feel like refusing service to those who wish to keep their cell phones on.
but the real questions is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
There could even be a "no conversation" signal to instruct the phone to not allow the user to converse. You could set it up so that the "jammer" would be able to recognize emergency cell phones (eg. doctor, fire fighter, etc) or calls to emergency numbers (eg. 911, local police, etc) and allow those but block all others. Of course, that might lead to privacy issues..
Oh wait. Nevermind what I just said. I'm off to the patent office.