Human Nature

Dumb question time

feline74 — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:31:01 GMT

Wouldn't it be easier to just have special cellphone/no cell sections the same way many such businesses used to have smoking/no smoking sections (I'm assuming some states still allow them; my state isn't one of them.)?

Wadya have to go and do that for?

feline74 — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:27:48 GMT

Aside from the remote possibility that a jury could be found somewhere in America that would actually convict him of sexual harrassment?:P

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

AtlPatrick — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:29:03 GMT

Granted, maybe if jammers were legalized and regulated we'd get better jammers, but from looking on the website http://www.phonejammer.com/, jammers operate from 800-1000Mhz and 1800-2000Mhz. This is BOTH the US and European bands (US: 850 Mhz & 1900 Mhz; European: 900Mhz & 1800Mhz). The big problem with this is that other organizations use frequencies in these areas. I'm pretty sure that public safety (IE, Fire, Police, etc) radios commonly use 800Mhz "Trunking" systems (pseudo cell systems that share frequencies).

So, by putting up one of these blockers, you are not only blocking cell phone use, but very possibly Fire & Police radio use.

Also, the jammers on http://www.phonejammer.com/ run from 500mW (portable) to 20 watts (largest base station). Modern digital phones max out at 600mW (0.6 watts) and police radios (portables, IE walkie-talkies) are usually 5 watts or so. So the largest jammer could easily interfere with police transmissions. (FYI, original car mounted or "Bag Phones" analog cell phones transmitted up to 3 watts.)

Here's a chart of US Frequency Allocation, but it doesn't go into great detail: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Here's a list of US frequencies from a scanner web site: http://www.panix.com/clay/scanning/frequencies.html

According to the Panix site, public safety uses 821-823 Mhz and 866-868 Mhz. Also, SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio - taxis, tow truck operators, etc) use 816-820 and 861-865.

Plus, "Personal Communications Services", that is, home cordless telephones, use 901 and 930 Mhz. So if your restaurant is near someone's home, you could be blocking 900Mhz cordless phones, or possibly other home wireless systems (baby monitors, security systems and maybe even those "Life Alert" necklaces). WiFi is 2.4 Ghz, so probably wouldn't be affected by one of these jammers (though it's possible that a more powerful jammer could bleed over into other frequencies, especially if not installed properly).

And, finally, Amateur radio ("Ham radio") has an allocation in the 902-928 Mhz range. A word of warning: if your jammer interferes with a amateur's use, they'll enjoy running around with a frequency meter to figure out what's going and and will possibly report you to the FCC. Amateurs (who are licensed by the FCC) take a dim view of people of people who use their frequencies illegally.

If you really wanted to jam a signal legally, you could just paint your theater/restaurant/etc. RF shielding paints do exist: http://emsectechnologies.com/press_releases/press1.php Probably wouldn't work with something that had windows, though.

BTW, want a completely random cell phone fact? An old tv that can receive channels 70-83 can receive analog cell phone signals! (Analog is pretty rare now, so you probably wouldn't hear anything if you tried, but you might.)

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

MessyONE — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:14:58 GMT

There is no point in asking people to be quiet. People who routinely yell on their cell phones in places they shouldn't are already boorish creeps who have no regard for the rights of others. What makes you think they'd listen to anyone?

I had to restrain The Boy from asking the Brazilian wax Bipsy if he could have a look. After all, the whole place had already heard the blow by blow account of her experience, so surely she shouldn't mind dropping her drawers so we could all see the result.

I married a smart aleck.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

sarah128 — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:39:25 GMT

What happened to just asking people to be quiet? If two people are having a loud conversation is it worse than listening to a loud cell phone conversation? Are you going to "jam" two people talking at a movie, or do you ask them to be quiet? This method is way too sneaky- also, does this device also jam pagers? What if there is someone on-call who needs to receive that page? Just because that cell phone talker is being impolite does not mean we have to react with such extreme measures and also react in an impolite fashion. If something is upsetting you so much that you want to inconvience everyone around you rather than actually confront someone and ask them politely to stop, then you have a much bigger issue on your hands than cell talkers.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

Seeker — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:41:36 GMT

Great, now if someone breaks into my house to rob and rape me, they can cut my landline AND jam my cell phone.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

MessyONE — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:02:27 GMT

Ah, peace in a restaurant!

I only have one objection to the whole jammer thing. We have a couple of friends who are doctors and they really do need to be in contact at all times. They have their phones set on vibrate and leave the room to take calls.

Their situation really is life or death and a land line just isn't going to cut it for them.

Too bad most people are so boorish that they need to be forced to be polite.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

damon2 — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:53:20 GMT

I'm the proud over worked owner of a small restaurant that prominently displays a home made "no cell phones" sign. That sign is ummmmmm, enforced by one of those illegal bought from overseas jammers stashed away in the waitress station. The whole "emergency" thing is over played, if there's a fire I think either I or one of my staff will notice it, and we know how to use a phone. I put it in place about two years ago after becoming totally fed up with people complaining about other people's calls, my staff using theirs, customers wanting their meal redone as it was cold because they've spent the last 20 minutes on the phone discussing such very important things as the movie they went to, the party they were at, what the repairman said about their car, let alone the fact the person they are dining with is forced into chosing between eating their meal while it's hot or being more courteous then their tablemate and waiting till they finish.

I've had a couple of compaints over the years, and I do appreciate that there is an occasional instance when someone is expecting a cal that indeed is important; but I guess my view of it is, let the person know where you are..they can call the restaurant and we'll find you. You can step outside and walk about 3-4 yards and you'll be out of the "dead zone", as the rest of us don't need to, nor in many cases want to hear about your divorce. In the time it's been up I'd put the complaint to compliment ratio at about 1 to 50.

Not bad

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

Anse — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:11:22 GMT

This is actually a pretty interesting perspective. It wouldn't surprise me if one company tried to have a particular signal from another company jammed, but that would easily be addressed with proper regulation. Yes, I know, regulation in this country has been a joke on a variety of fronts.

northzax:

one problem: mobile phones would not automatically become illegal in any place that stands to make money from the use of telephones. this particularly applies to hotels, if I am out on the road, I want to use my blackberry for email, web access and making calls, if Marriott starts blocking that, I now have to pay for their web access and their phones, a pain in the rear. why should they be able to restrict my use of privately owned communications device in my room, in order to make more money?

think Verizon would pay a fee to have cell phones blocked, even 'unofficially' in my condo building to make me buy a landline? what about customizable blockers? all of a sudden, only Sprint phones work in the mall...Verizon already has a monopoly in the DC metro system, why not on buses as well? you can easily create a cell-phone free area in your business, if you want. simply post a sign saying you have zero tolerance for phone use, and that anyone violating this policy will be removed. guy starts talking at the restaurant table? kick him out, just as you would if he was screaming obscenties. people will get the hint.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

Hellzbellz — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:04:31 GMT

IMO the worst is on the bus, people yakking away at twice the volume of a normal conversation. In a restaurant you can call the manager over and say, "either you tell that person to quit right now, or we're leaving." Faced with loss of business, I think that the restaurant will do the right thing.

Jammers have to be used with the same discretion as a cellphone: you only do it when the conversation being held is non-emergent. Since everyone knows what the person is talking about anyway, as we're all within earshot, that should be a relatively easy thing to deduce.

Plus that, you don't have to have the jammer working all the time--you can jam one conversation (say about meatball recipies) and again when the person tries to redial--but you don't have to keep jamming continuously. Just until the offender leaves the area.

I'm all for jamming. I read an article that said that the FCC has never imposed the $10,000 fine that comes with being caught and convicted of cellphone jamming.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

northzax — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:21:47 GMT

one problem: mobile phones would not automatically become illegal in any place that stands to make money from the use of telephones. this particularly applies to hotels, if I am out on the road, I want to use my blackberry for email, web access and making calls, if Marriott starts blocking that, I now have to pay for their web access and their phones, a pain in the rear. why should they be able to restrict my use of privately owned communications device in my room, in order to make more money?

think Verizon would pay a fee to have cell phones blocked, even 'unofficially' in my condo building to make me buy a landline? what about customizable blockers? all of a sudden, only Sprint phones work in the mall...Verizon already has a monopoly in the DC metro system, why not on buses as well? you can easily create a cell-phone free area in your business, if you want. simply post a sign saying you have zero tolerance for phone use, and that anyone violating this policy will be removed. guy starts talking at the restaurant table? kick him out, just as you would if he was screaming obscenties. people will get the hint.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

senbassador — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:07:30 GMT

I would agree on the condition that part of that regulation would also provide some substitute, like an on-site landline that connects to the outside world or some red button that would send emergency signals or disable the blocker.

For instance, all restaurants with the disabler would have the button on the underneath of their tables that can be pressed in an emergency to disable it, also when the firealarm goes off the blockers get automatically disabled too. Now, off course you COULD press the red button to chat with your friend but then you get in trouble like someone who falsely pulls a fire alarm.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

posty — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:01:40 GMT

That could be solved by requiring an emergency land line phone in areas with cell phone jammers, that can only call out to 911.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

Anse — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:25:36 GMT

I don't really buy the safety thing. We all lived in relative peace without the darned things in the past, yet now cellphones have become so ubiquitous as to seem necessary.

On the roads you have definite freedom issues. Folks get distracted by a lot of things behind the wheel, but you need to be able to use your cellphone in public spaces.

But if I lay down $10+ (with snacks) for a movie, I expect to get my money's worth. Having cellphones go off every ten minutes, even without ensuing conversations, can ruin the movie-going experience.

Restaurants, too, though I tend to take each restaurant on its merits. I may cry foul if I'm digging into a $30 steak with truffles and potatoes, but I probably won't care too much if I'm in my neighborhood diner having coffee and huevos rancheros.

What would really be nice is to have these jammers in classrooms, though in our post-Columbine world, maybe that's asking too much. I do have a landline in my classroom, however.

Re: Legalize cell-phone jammers

hotdoog — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:47:29 GMT

This is a good idea for roads but not restaurants. Well, it already would be legal in a restaurant since that is a private space anyway and one could put up a sign that says - "by entering you agree..." But that's all just about taste and discomfort. For SAFETY we NEED to have this on our streets to prevent cell phone drivers who are killers, literally. First, obviously, bans on cell phone driving need to come in uniformly. Then, the jamming should I think be at intersections. Ideally we could jam them just in the driving lanes everywhere and not on the side where someone could legitimately park and talk on the phone (or call 911). But that would be too large an area. Realistically intersections are the most dangerous place for drivers distracted attention so it should be put there. The signal woulded be totally blocked but it would be so intermittant with every intersection then people would be effectively deterred from using them. Also people could park on the side and call still if an emergency.