Personal (But Illegal) Mobile Phone Jammers Getting More Popular?
from the doesn't-seem-all-that-helpful dept
We've known for a while that mobile phone jammers were popular with places like hotels even though they were illegal. And while a US firm selling the devices is involved in a lawsuit claiming that banning the devices is unconstitutional, they're still very much barred. Yet, as the NY Times reports this weekend, overseas sellers of the devices (including personal ones that you can keep in your pocket) are seeing growing demand from US users, including random people who just like to mess with mobile phone chatters around them. Of course, for those of you tempted to annoy those who normally annoy you with their chatter, at least recognize that the fine for getting caught using these devices starts at $11,000.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: phone jammer, signal jamming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow!
Shop for trash WITH the trash ... that's the Walmart way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
Maybe his job requires him to be on call a lot, maybe even 24/7. As he says, "if I don't get phone calls, I don't make money" Notice he said get calls, not talk. It very easy to have your phone on vibrate in a theater, and walk outside the room to take your call if necessary.
I've never understood this huge problem people have with public cell talk. Unless the person is talking unnecessarily loud, i don't see the problem. Yeah I know a lot of people do talk loudly, but that is the problem that should be fixed, not using a phone in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
If you don't have vibrate, get a phone that does, you owe that to the others you are a nuisance to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
I can't stand paying to go see a movie and have to listen to someone on their cell phone or, the person in front of me texting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
You ignorant people, like Random Loser here:
Just because someone is "on call" does not mean they are disruptive.
I need to be on call very often. Like Mike, I go to the movies while on call. And just like Mike I put my phone on vibrate. When I get a call I have two chioces: 1) Step into the lobby and take the call or 2) ignore it. Nobody in the theater is disturbed or even aware that I got a call.
THINK! Especially before you spew your BS all over the page.
PS - How do you listen to someone texting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
> so if I am out with the family at the movies,
> I will be unable to get calls, and if I don't
> get phone calls, I don't make money.
Your need to make money doesn't give you the right to disrupt a movie (or anything else) for everyone around you. And that includes even opening up your phone in a dark theater and illuminating everyone around you with the glow from your phone's screen.
If you can't go to the movies without turning off your phone for 90 minutes, then might I suggest you don't go to the movies. One word solution: Netflix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cool!
> either lose business or have to raise prices
I think there'd be a helluva market for theaters that are cell phone free. I know if I had the choice, I'd pick the theater that blocks cell phones every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cool!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cool!
I think there ought to be some way to make these work on the highway as well. Perhaps some way so it only affects you while you're driving and not pulled over to the side with a flat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Along ride to work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Along ride to work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Along ride to work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Along ride to work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would definatly say that personal use of such a device should stay illegal!
However, there is nothing wrong with a movie theater, or a classroom as this technology can prevent unwanted disruptions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, the jamming of a phone is denying other people service which they pay good money for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might even start up a new wave marketing, "Come to our theater; We won't block your cell phone!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about parents with children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about parents with children?
Imagine blocking signals like that "I'm sorry that your house burnt down sir, but too many of our firefighters were out to diner and didn't receive the call" RiDICKulous, Anonymous Dick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about parents with children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about parents with children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about parents with children?
> and want to go out and have whoever is watching
> the kids be able to get hold of them in an
> emergency.
Gosh, you'd think that parents were never able to go out and leave their kids with a babysitter before the invention of the cell phone.
How ever did they do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coward, the baby killer...
Nothing wrong with jamming cell phone signals in theaters??? How about doctors on call (with their phones set on vibrate of course).
While you're at it, you might as well install baby blenders at the theaters as well. That would definitely prevent some unwanted disruptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coward, the baby killer...
> in theaters??? How about doctors on call
> (with their phones set on vibrate of course).
As long as there's a sign on the front door explaining that cell transmissions in the theater are blocked, then the doctor who is on call has notice that he'll either have to risk missing a call or come back and see the movie some other time when he's not on duty.
There's no inalienable right to patronize a movie theater with a cell phone on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Imagine this
if your in the middle of such a important call -- stay in your damn car -- it sucks getting stuck inline between 2 smucks flapping their lips on a phone.hell i was in the store today and a woman was standing in the middle of the isle flapping her lips acting like the whole world should stop for her call. -- theSavage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Imagine this
> standing in the middle of the isle flapping her
> lips acting like the whole world should stop for
> her call.
I can top that. Was in my apartment building getting on the elevator and this woman runs up just as the doors are sliding closed and sticks her briefcase in between them to hold the elevator. But she doesn't get on. She just stands there holding the doors open and continues her phone conversation-- because she was afraid if she got in the elevator, she'd lose the call. So there she is holding the elevator and apparently expecting the four of us who were already on it to just stand there and wait for her to finish her goddamn phone call. Because in her mind, she apparently expects the world to come to a stop the moment she gets on the phone.
Yeah, lady, it's your world. The rest of us are just living in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie Theatres
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Jamming cell phones is illegal for a reason. Basically you are creating a transmission dead zone that has consequences for everyone else broadcasting on that frequency such as police, fire fighters, ambulance crews, everyone who uses a two way cell signal. Another thing to consider is the way it jams the signal is by generating large amounts of interference, which can cause problems with other electronic devices.
Come on people, how is trading an annoying person on a phone for an annoying person with a jammer a good solution? No matter how annoying someone is, you really don't have special rights that negate their own rights. I personally have never had a problem, if someone is talking on their phone, I ask them to stop. It is up to restaurants and theaters to regulate people, if they choose not to, then it is their choice as a private business to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
I agree, with respects to personally carrying one, but businesses have every right to do what they want as far as allowing customers on cell phones. As long as they have clear signs saying if you enter this building you will not have a cell phone signal, then why not? If you do not like it, do no go to that business.
Beside they can block the certain cell phone signal (I just read up on these, pretty cool) without interfering with emergency lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
Exactly, you can't block everyones signal in a theater (and those outside) from using mobile devices just because you don't like it. The owner of the location is the only one to make that decision since it will impact their business. I have no problem with a business deciding to do it, although it would be almost impossible for them to get it approved by the government.
They can block a frequency, the problem is that a lot of government people use normal cell phones from the same carriers as the public for a lot of what they do. It's becoming more and more common for agencies to use someone like NexTel or sprint as a standard, which means if you choose to block the 1900mhz frequency, you are blocking all kinds of GSM traffic such as TMobile, Sprint, AT&T, and I'm sure more. Of course, not all phones are on the same frequency, so while you are fiddling with your personal jammer, you might be disconnecting everyone else who isn't even your target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
Businesses(nor homeowners or anyone who has the right to modify their buildings) don't need these jammers to do that in the first place. Read up on the "Faraday Cage" and its effects on radio signals. No electronics required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
No need? Retrofitting shielding to entire buildings is EXPENSIVE! Jammers are much, much cheaper. So yes, they DO need them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
> that in the first place. Read up on the
> "Faraday Cage" and its effects on radio
> signals. No electronics required.
I've been wondering about this myself for a while now. We all know there are places where cell phone signals drop: tunnels, elevators, parking garages, etc. I wonder if we have we reached the point where people think they have a "right" to use their cell phone to such an extent that even constructing a building that is passively cell phone "unfriendly" would be considered illegal jamming?
Put another way, is there in effect an affirmative requirement to build your structure such that it won't block cell transmissions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow...
I also agree that if you're willing to commit a crime to avoid a minor verbal confrontation with an individual in public, you shouldn't be in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow...
That doesn't give you the right to drive it on my private property though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow...
I ddn't see anyone say this before, but how true. If you have a problem with people using cell phones in WalMart, DON'T GO!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
Not entirely true. Most of them simply nullify(1 +(-1)=0) the specific cell phone frequencies and leave the rest alone. A little research will show you that the people who design the jammers actually think of the exact same stuff you mention and design around it. They also typically limit the effective range to within 50 feet or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's their own damn fault!
You reap what you sow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the last time somebody told me to get off my phone i fucked them up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
say that to my face and i'll fuck you up to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
i'm ur worst nitemare. who r u bitch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not a name. You're clearly scared to reveal who you really are now that you've made these verbal threats. You're also an awful speller. We are not impressed.
Oh, and by the way, no one can say anything to your face because you don't have one here. This is the internet. No one has a face here; all we have are names. Thus, it's pretty easy for you to say all kinds of ridiculous things to us in order to compensate for whatever inadequacies you may have (small penis, low self-esteem, parents didn't give you enough hugs, etc.) while hiding behind your computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, just to weigh in, I really don't think that cell phones should be blocked. But i think that you should be asked to leave if yours goes off during the movie. Maybe an ejection seat...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also think businesses should have the option of installing these devices provided they give public notice such devices are in use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replacing Annoying with Annoying
Is that what everyone really wants!? Anarchy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jammer Over-Ride?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jammer Over-Ride?
X + (-X)=0, no matter what the size of X.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jammer Over-Ride?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jammer Over-Ride?
> my phone then I'd invest in a quite powerful
> RF amplifier
How would you know if you "ran into" someone with a jamming device? Cell phones drop calls all the time and/or lose signal even when they're NOT being jammed. How would you know that your phone dropped the call because someone in the crowd around you had a jammer versus just lousy reception?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constant Contact
If you're a parent and you're that worried that you need to have your cell then you should NOT be going out without your child. Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
Next if you're on call...you can stay at home or be some place where receiving a call isn't an annoyance to those around you.
And they should run jamming around the interstate (minus shoulder areas) because do you know how hard it is to txt, drive at 75mph, and eat a McDonald's hamburger is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constant Contact
Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
People made it through the Dark Ages, too. Do we really need to revert back to those days? It's called progression.
Next if you're on call...you can stay at home or be some place where receiving a call isn't an annoyance to those around you.
SILENT MODE AKA VIBRATE!!!!!!!!!!
And they should run jamming around the interstate (minus shoulder areas) because do you know how hard it is to txt, drive at 75mph, and eat a McDonald's hamburger is?
Then they should ban eating McDonald's hamburgers, especially on the shoulders since that is where all the trash ends up.
Really, your points are pretty moronic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constant Contact
> Do we really need to revert back to those days?
Are you seriously suggesting that not being able to use a cell phone for 90 minutes in a movie theater is the equivalent to reversion to the Dark Ages?
Seriously?
God help you, if you are.
> SILENT MODE AKA VIBRATE
Those little screens light up like fireworks in a dark theater. Even on vibrate these fucking cell phones can be annoying as hell. Nothing like trying to watch a movie while a half-dozen teenagers are incessantly texting each other all over the theater and their phones are glowing like fireflies right in your eyeline to the movie screen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constant Contact
Yeah, and back then, parents left numbers/names of places they would be for the babysitter. If your kid hurts them self and has to go to the hospital, or there is some other emergency, you want to know about it!
P.S. Techdirt wasn't around until 10 years ago, maybe you should consider why you need that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constant Contact
Yeah, so they can do it now too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Private Property?
range to be limited so the effect is say 90% on the private property only.
in a public place illegal, I'd go as far to have a license requirement.
now if a cinema wants to be mobile free it can be, and if another one wants to allow phones thats fine too. people will go to whatever they want.
random jamming in public is a bad idea.
public transport, well you don't need a jammer, design the vehicle to block signals passively, faraday cage etc.
as for liability for blocking an 'important call' thats the point behind the signs and private property only. when you go in you accept the limits on the service.
this can't be too hard.
places will probably on block the signals if they think its good for business to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scenario
Still pleased with yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scenario
That's about as stupid as saying that doctors shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom because their patients might die while they're in there. Get a clue: That's why hospitals have more than one doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward...
This is simply a case of vigilantism. Let law enforcement deal with enforcing the laws fairly and with common sense! Whenever regular people get involved with regulating the public, the public gets screwed.
---- Constant contact....dude... come on... Ties change. this isn't 1970. Its stupid to say that just because we've only had technology for a few years, that we can simply do without it today. Today cel phones are a "required" or at least heavily relied upon piece of communication equipment for business and families alike. Just because you think people did without it yesterday has nothing to do with the argument of how we use the technology today and tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward...
Whenever Law Enforcement gets involved with regulating the public, the public gets tazored!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous Coward...
Jammers are sure better than tazers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
Now, having said that, I am curtious enough to turn the phone on vibrate in a movie theatre or when I was in college in a class.
The resteraunt argument or anything ragarding a public place doesn't make sense. What's the difference if I am on the phone talking, or talking to a person physically next to me???
As a parent that phone is my lifeline to my child at home. If I lose signal for 4 hours while I'm out for dinner and a movie with my wife and something happens to my child how will I know? Oh yeah, once I get signal again when I'm on my way home when my kid has been in the hospital for the past 4 hours bleeding to death. What was I thinking...
These devices should remain illegal. What would happen if there was an emergency situation and 911 was the only way to alert authorities?? How would anyone be able to get help?? I would think the person who set up the device would have liability for anything that happened in that kind of a situation (although I'm no a lawyer).
RE: Constant Contact by Luke
Good lord people...there was a time less then 10 years ago when we all made it just fine without constant contact.
There was a time when we scavenged for food in forests and our clothes were made from animal hide that we tore of the beasts by hand or with tools made out of rocks/sticks.
If you're a parent and you're that worried that you need to have your cell then you should NOT be going out without your child. Anyone over the age of 15 made it to this point without having cell phones to connect us to our parents 24/7 so your kid can make it too.
Have you ever heard of an emergency? Wouldn't you like to know if you child got hurt and is in the hospital? This doesn't apply only to parents, but ANY emergency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Points Missed
1) Parents have been going out for decades and have done just fine. Leave the number of the restaurant or theater.
2) Businesses would be liable for not making emergency calls. Not really, they can just provide a pay phone. 911 calls are free.
3) Breach of service contract? Nah, people always have a choice to not go somewhere.
4) The doctor and his patient dying. If a patient is going to do because one doctor can't get a call...you have more problems than just a blocked phone. There is ALWAYS a backup doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Points Missed
a) stay at home round the clock for weeks, months, or years until a compatible kidney is found.
b) trust the cashier at the theater to raise the lights in the theater, interrupt the movie and pass on the message, versus blowing it off as a crank call.
Yep, we've been doing just fine all these decades without cell phones. All those inconvenient emergencies just went ahead and died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Points Missed
Do you have any actual examples of people dying because their cell phones were jammed? I thought not.
It's amazing how quickly some people will resort to outlandish claims to support their position not matter how obviously stupid such claims are.
Speaking of stupid, do you have any more stupid made-up scenarios?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Points Missed
- Nope, because jammers aren't common. Yet.
Stupid made-up scenario #1,
http://www.columbiasurgery.org/pat/lungtx/guide_waiting.html :
Staying in Touch
Once you have been registered with UNOS, it is vital that you stay in touch with the lung transplant team. Your transplant coordinator must be notified of any changes in address and phone numbers, including cell phones and beepers. If you travel for any reason, whether business or pleasure, let the transplant team know. Be sure to contact them if you have any serious illnesses or hospitalizations during the waiting period.
- Gee... why don't they just rely on the beeper?
Stupid made-up scenario #2,
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070703/NEWS/707030330/1102
Kelley had been on an organ waiting list for a little over a year — always hoping for a call that seemed as if it would never come. She and her former husband were vacationing in Maine over Columbus Day weekend in 2000 when her cell phone rang at 2 in the morning. A pancreas was available from a 40-year-old man who had died of an aneurism (sic). They told her to be at the hospital at 8 a.m.
--
National cell coverage (Sprint only)
http://coverage.sprintpcs.com/IMPACT.jsp?nobrand
- Unless you live in the mountains around L.A., you've got a pretty good area of coverage.
Next question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Points Missed
That's right. If you move or change your numbers you should tell them. So what's your point?
By the way, every cell phone I've ever seen has some way of indicating when you are in an area without service. Anyone dumb enough to really rely on having cell service should at least avoid those areas. For those even too dumb to do that then nature has a solution.
Gee... notice how they actually do mention beepers (i.e. pagers)?
Good thing she didn't just so happen to be a heavy sleeper or in a dead spot or no-service area then if that was all she was depending upon. Otherwise it might have been a classic example of Darwinism in action.
I've got Sprint. Those maps are bogus. Even on the major roadways coverage is sometimes spotty and when you get away form them it gets worse. All told most of the country doesn't have coverage. You don't happen to work at the FCC measuring broadband competition do you?
Now you see, I knew that if you really tried you could come up with some more stupid scenarios. It really isn't all that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Points Missed
Don't worry, though. I'm neither a transplant candidate nor a cell junkie. You won't have to listen to me in the movies OR restaurants. Maybe a minute or two in the grocery store, but not in the checkout line... it's kind of fun, though, watching spouses shop by remote control :-D
No more examples - I'm obviously not going to persuade you of my point - that jammers are more selfish, inconsiderate, and possibly life-threatening than loud cell calls - and I've got other things to do.
Take care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Points Missed
There are plenty of situations that i can think of where you might not be able to get to the pay phone in the establishment. I'm no lawyer, but i see no reason why the establishment wouldn't be liable for the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cars have always represented autonomy and for the discourteous and just plan stupid they take this to the Nth degree. Whether traveling at high speeds or bumper to bumper there are times when someone knocking some idiot off there "CELL" phone could save lives or at least prevent some road rage.
If your call is that important and you can't get a signal ...pull over and or use a land-line. Hell that right there might improve social skills. Learning once again how to ask some if you can use there phone.
Whaaa, whaaa "But I paid for this service" that I can't use this very minute even though I'm driving and listening to the radio. I still can't tell my friend about the dummy who just walked into a pole while calling in to the radio show.
"But, I paid for it" either by the minute or an unlimited plan. Your being charged when using the phone or you'd have paid the same amount anyway. OMG I cant use the phone I'm paying for, for a whole three minutes.
"But, but.. I PAID FOR IT ...damn You!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the "I paid fot it" argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: About the "I paid fot it" argument...
Also, you can be hit with 1st amendment charges too. Stifle someone's speech a little/censorship?
I hope they put people who jam away to jail, not just fine em, unfortunately first offense doesn't hit that probably.
Just wait for that to happen anywhere with a blocker and it'll be a GIANT oops. The problem is being able to prove the blocker (I can't find any jammer detectors on the market).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About the "I paid fot it" argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: About the "I paid fot it" argument...
> charges too. Stifle someone's speech a
> little/censorship?
Oh, baloney. Here we have yet another person who is completely clueless as to how the 1st Amendment works. It only prevents GOVERNMENT censorship. Just read the damn thing. Notice how it starts with "Congress shall make no law..." That means it only applies to Congress (and by extension any mechanism of the government).
Private citizens or business censoring each other is not covered by the 1st Amendment or the Constitution in generl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that works two ways - why do you have the right to tell someone they can't own an electronic device?
So - regardless of the fact if your call gets disconnected and you get annoyed - you don't have special rights that negate their right, correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theaters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
Am I missing something or are there just a lot of idiots on the lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ?
You're either missing it or ignoring it. I suspect the latter.
Yes, there are quite a few of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ?
Two People in a restaurant talking loudly or people in a movie theater talking at all, are just as rude and disruptive, if not more (twice the people!) as a single person on a cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ?
1. Cell phone conversatons do tend to be louder than other converstions. Even land-line conversations. That's why land-line phones had something called "sidetone". Basically what sidetone did was to feed part of your own side of the conversation back into your own phone to give you some feedback as to how loudly you were speaking. Otherwise people tended to yell into their phones. But to make sidetone work without feedback 'squeal' or echoes required the phones to separate the transmitter (microphone) and receiver (speaker) by several inches, among other things. Remember what traditional telephone handsets looked like? There was a reason for that. This turned out to be a hard thing to do on cell phones due to their small size and so the manufacturers just eliminated sidetone. The result is that people tend to yell into their cell phones.
2. One sided conversations are much more annoying and intrusive than two sided ones. Our brains are wired to interrupt our other thought processes when we hear someone speaking to us. If there is another voice already responding to what is being said then then that our brains can filter it out if it isn't too loud. This is what gives us the amazing ability to carry on a conversation with another person in the middle of a party in a room full of other talking people. But if our brain doesn't hear someone else responding then the filter turns off and we are made aware of it. It is this constant interruption by a one sided conversation to our train of thought that is more annoying and intrusive than regular conversation.
You can make an analogy with odors. Hey, odors are odors, right? Yes, but not all odors are the same and some are more objectionable than others. People who claim to not understand the difference between cell phone conversations and regular conversations are about as credible as those who claim to not under the difference between the odor of a fart and that of a rose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Birth Repair Money and Impending Death
1) Expecting parents could miss the call that their child is being born. 2) Your repair man may not get the call to come out and restore your power, telephone or internet. 3) It may cause some business thousands of dollars due to missed service agreements. 4) You might get cut off when your getting the news that a loved one has been critically injured and may not make it through the night......
Do we really want to block cellular communications???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Birth Repair Money and Impending Death
> their child is being born.
You're kidding, right? Why in the hell would expectant parents need a phone call to tell them their kid is being born. If the kid is being born, one of the parents is already in labor, doofus. She certainly doesn't need someone to call her and tell her it's happening. And if the dad is so out of it that he's at the movies instead of with his imminently-birthing wife, then he probably doesn't care all that much anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Birth Repair Money and Impending Death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business Use
Now in our latest project under construction we are including special screening in the walls and windows to keep cell phone signals out of our buildings. But there is still the problem of people stepping outside to use their cell phones. We have rules against loitering that say that walkways and such can only be used for ingress and egress which makes such activities a lease violation, but enforcement is difficult and expensive. (24 hour guards don't come cheap) So even with fully screened buildings jammers are still needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Business Use
That is total bullcrap. You have no right to force people to have your phone service. That's a monopoly. People should have the right to use whatever they want or property they lease, as long as it doesn't damage your property (as having other phone or cable lines, or a satellite dish installed would), or pose safety hazards, as a kero space heater would (stealing your ability to charge them for the electricity to heat their apt.)
But using a cell instead of your line doesn't damage your property in any way, nor does it pose any safety hazards. Blocking that would be like people from buying bottled water and drinking it on your property!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business Use
Not if the lease prohibits it. People don't have to live there if they don't want to.
It damages the owner's income. That income is part of the payment the owner expects for the usage of his private property. It's called capitalism. Communists ans socialists always want to take away the rights of private property owners. Which are you?
You don't get out much do you? I've been to many restaurants and other places that will only serve bottled water (that they probably bottle from the tap in the back room) and won't let you bring your own in either. The last was an outdoor concert in 100F+ heat. Water was going for over $15 per little bottle and people were glad to get it! Now that's capitalism done right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Business Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Business Use
We don't do that so that doesn't affect us (or hotels with their own systems). We actually have our own cable systems, not exclusive agreements with local providers. We own our own equipment, buy satellite feeds and then resell that programming on our own systems. It's all perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In checkout
However, that doesn't mean cell signals should be blocked n the checkout line (which from the article it sounds like t would be possible to limit it to that area), but instead people should take the common courtesy to say to the person on the other end, "Hold on, I'm in at the checkout lne", and the put the phone down, pay the cashier, and the resume their conversation.
And if business want to, any cell phone usage rule can be enforced. Yes, some may be hard, but if your are n the theater and someone is on the phone, far enough away the you can't easily say something to them, just get the attendant outside and tell them that someone is on the phone in the theater. Problem solved. And no, i don't think anyone will think of you as a "tattle-tale", just thank you for stopping the disturbance. As for the checkout line, have seen many businesses who solve the problem with signs at the check, "We will be happy to serve you when you are finished with your phone call" A simple point at the sign by the cashier to a person talking on the cell when they should be completing their transaction fxes the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In checkout
Just exactly how "many" is this "many"? One? Two? None? I have never, ever seen such a sign. But then, I don't live in fantasy land either. Maybe things are different there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In checkout
> the phone, far enough away the you can't
> easily say something to them, just get the
> attendant outside and tell them that someone
> is on the phone in the theater. Problem solved.
No, not problem solved. I shouldn't have to miss several minutes of the movie I've paid for wandering around outside in the lobby trying to find the teenage manager in charge of the theater in order to complain about someone talking on their cell phone. I paid to watch the movie, not snippets of it in between hunting down people to complain to.
The jammer solves that problem in that it stops it before it starts, thereby alleviating me of the need to miss any of the movie I've paid for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What scares me
That is, what happens when a rapist or mugger, gets a hold of one of these. He could corner someone in a dark ally or deserted parking structure. And then cut off their only means of calling for help.
Casper’s got the right idea. Teach our kids some manners. That is to say that some of us still have some?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On call, jamming and others
Also, mentioned in the story, are hotels. They want to jam your signal so you use their over-priced inhouse telephone service.
Sure a lot of this would be buyer-beware should these things be legal -- but they are not.
Common decency and courtesy is uncommon and that's really the problem. You can't legislate or jam that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other uses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #67
The actions you've described can be summed up one way: as those of a power-hungry crook. No matter what you may think the airwaves are public property, whether they intersect with your building or not. You have NO right to block cellular transmissions just so you can sell (probably overpriced) phone services, and you should fire any lawyer that tells you otherwise... unless of course they've managed to rewrite the FCC rulebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #67
> just so you can sell (probably overpriced)
> phone services
Actually, he has every right to block the transmissions. He just can't legally jam the transmissions. There's a difference.
If he designs his buildings out of materials and in configurations that passively block the signals-- essentially a big Faraday cage-- that's perfectly legal. He under no obligation to build cell-phone friendly buildings.
What he can't do is actively jam cell-phone transmissions by sending out an interference wave using one of these devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: #67
I already told you, I'm in the multi-unit housing, a.k.a. apartments, business. But my interests also intersect those of hotels and other private property owners.
The actions you've described can be summed up one way: as those of a power-hungry crook.
I think you need to apologize now. I am a capitalist and proud of it. I am not a crook and do not break the law.
No matter what you may think the airwaves are public property
Actually, they seem more like the property of the government who then auctions them off to the highest bidders. But in any case, we have no obligation to allow "public" use of our private property.
you should fire any lawyer that tells you otherwise
You're not a licensed attorney, now are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess what I don't understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess what I don't understand...
I guess what I don't understand is if some businesses choose to block phone calls with jammers why it is such a hot button issue. Of course not EVERY business is going to do this; it might even open up a commodity business. If movie theater A is blocking calls, but movie theater B is not...the go to movie theater B if you are expecting an important phone call.
Beside there is nothing stopping you from having a pager and leaving the building in case of an emergency to make a call. I just feel if a business would like to jam signals they should be able to. Personally, I would go to a movie theater that does jam cell phone calls as opposed to one that did not.
I do not see why allowing cell phones to be jammed should be outlawed. No one is stopping you from going somewhere that does not jam signals. Remember, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, including cell phone users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple: The. Air. Waves. Are. PUBLIC.
Nobody has the right to disrupt content being transmitted though legally government licensed services; it's as simple as that. This is especially true of any venue that caters to the public, as they are legally defined as "public places". Businesses don't operate under the same rules as private residences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
+ +
+ I would like to use one while I am riding my +
+ Motorcycle +
+ +
+ +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thank you
I didnt even know these things existed until today.
£140 is a small price to pay for knowing that noone within 10 metres of me will ever annoy me again:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faraday cages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I need to know? I suppose not. Do I want to? Yes. And I think that I have better right to know than you have to not be "inconvenienced" by a screen lighting up.
I'm all for businesses jamming the signal, so long as they warn about it. Lets me avoid those places. Private citizens, however, hell no. Too many of them seem to think that their desires trump everything.
@ And if the dad is so out of it that he's at the movies instead of with his imminently-birthing wife, then he probably doesn't care all that much anyway.
Because no child has ever been born prematurely. Good to know that they're always exactly at the due date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
faraday cage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: faraday cage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pagers still work
Oh, and I always keep it on vibrate when in public. It is just the courteous thing to do. I know that is unpopular in the 'ME generation' day and age. My cellphone stays off and in the car for emergencies only. Otherwise, I live much the way I did 20 years ago, in peace! Over-connectivity is a major cause of high blood pressure. If you keep your cellphone on all the time, it is no longer for your convenience, it is for everyone else's convenience of finding you at their whim. UNPLUG yourself before you have a stroke! Buy a pager if you go somewhere that has a jammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pagers still work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government regulation?
Want to see how many people lean out the window to make calls or into the passenger seat?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone jammer
You can get a phone jammer here.
http://www.phonezapper.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ham, spam and Jam away!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamtastic
The second you take both hands off the steering wheel you reduce the amount of control you have on the vehicle. If you add to that the fact that you are also discussing last night episode of Heroes or how many stocks you should sell then you have a vehicle that is potentially dangerous to not only yourself but to others. We get upset when we hear stories of other people wilfully endangering others lives yet people are allowed to be on their phone/eating a sandwich/reading a map in the car...?
As far as emergencies are concerned, the phone jammer only works for a limited radius. You would have to be pretty sick to wander up to within 30 feet of an emergency situation and switch on a jammer. There are prob people out there who would do it be then there are people that go into schools with guns. How often are you people within 30 feet of an emergency situation?!?
If you're in a theatre and you need to take a call you leave the theatre. Simple as that. If you need to take a shit you'd leave wouldn't you? Perhaps some of you wouldn't....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jamtastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cell phone jammer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it is needed by some one and in some places
Though in some countries,the product is illegal,its existance prove it is needed by some persons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is time to build cell phone jamming into the highway system itself
It could be set up to jam non-emergency vehicles that are in motion. With such a system. if someone wants to use a cell phone, they would have to stop their own car completely without slowing down or obstructing other drivers.
If we are truley concerned about "global warming," this would be one measure that would increase the flow of traffic--and lower aggregate CO2 emmissions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]