Cellphone Jammers Are Effective, Illegal
The power to silence the annoying schmo yabbering away on their cellphone rests within a small black box the size of a cigarette pack. Selling for as little as $50, cellphone jammers can spew radio signals powerful enough to disrupt all nearby cell signals. The downside? It's illegal.
The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for distributing the gadgets -- and it also pursues their users.$11,000 for a roving cellphone-free zone? Seems cheap to us.Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited an upscale restaurant in Maryland over the last year, the restaurant owner said. The owner, who declined to be named, said he bought a powerful jammer for $1,000 because he was tired of his employees focusing on their phones rather than customers.
"I told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away your phones," he said. They ignored him.
The owner said the F.C.C. investigator hung around for a week, using special equipment designed to detect jammers. But the owner had turned his off.
The Verizon investigator was similarly unsuccessful. "He went to everyone in town and gave them his number and said if they were having trouble, they should call him right away," the owner said. He said he has since stopped using the jammer.
Of course, it would be harder to detect the use of smaller battery-operated jammers like those used by disgruntled commuters.
An F.C.C. spokesman, Clyde Ensslin, declined to comment on the issue or the case in Maryland.
This is a test contextual ad for the SHOPPING category. It should appear on all SHOPPING entries, unless the subcategory has its own ad.
Post a comment
Comments:
Just TRY to wire the subway trains for cell phones MTA - the people will rise up!
There is absolutely NO good reason why these should be illegal in places like theaters, hospitals, etc. It's obvious that people can't control their phone usage on their own, so they need to be shown. Common sense tells you not to use your cell phone during a movie, and on top of that the theater tells you to turn it off before the movie begins. Still, that's not enough for a lot of people.
@rg: Common sense aside, a cell phone jammer amounts to an unlicensed radio transmitter that transmits on a frequency that requires a license. Transmitting unlawfully is the crime, not necessarily jamming someone.
For them to be legal, they would need to be type accepted by the FCC and then licensed.
soon the consmerist will be complaining why can't we transmit microwaves into the air to melt people, well, ok fine I give them jammers are useful in the right places, but still,the FCC does a somewhat decent jod of controlling the airwaves
Anyone see the Mythbusters episode where they built a Faraday cage using brass screens to block any radio signal?
Why don't people do that when they build a building that is inappropriate for cell phone usage. Put brass screens behind the sheetrock as you're building it.
I've contemplated it for my classroom... The kids just won't quit texting in class!
Interestingly, I used to always get a great cell signal when flying - until post-911. (After thorough research I axed the bogus notion that it would bring down the plane.)
But after 911, I can get no cell on any plane, whatsoever. Anyone else notice this?
Cell phone jammers will block the federal range, as well as local PD, FD and EMS.
Technically the frequencies the cell phone companies operate on are considered public space. I can legally listen in to a cell phone conversation. But to interrupt that communication goes against Telecommunication acts.
@Ailu: If you use a cell phone on a plane you deserve to be taken out back and shot. The firing squad will be volunteer and there will be many lined up.
Yes it has no effect on the plane. And you may not have made any calls. But you are still a dick for taking an inch and paving the way for someone else to take a foot.
And no I work in the post 9-11 radio industry it has nothing to do with jammers, that is because the national grid switched from analog signals to shorter range digital.
This is part of the same article: "Using the jammers is illegal in the United States. The radio frequencies used by cellphone carriers are protected, just like those used by television and radio broadcasters."
To me the big illegality issue is the fact that someone could stop a 911 call from going through. Yes, this thing usually sends out a brief burst, but not only can that be enough to slow response time, but the user of the device could just keep spamming the signal. Yes, there should be other options to make the call, but in an emergency you aren't going to patiently go through the list of options.
Also, it doesn't selectively end the conversations of the noisy people, but everyone within range. Abuse of this can easily become worse than abuse of the cellphones themselves. At least you know who is the loud talker, and can ask them to stop. It is a little harder to confront someone jamming your signal, assuming you can pin down that that is the reason for your calls cut short.
I'm probably going to get flamed... but here it goes.
I've heard all of the negative comments about jammers - but I really don't get the addiction people have to cell phones. I suppose they can be useful in emergencies - but society has survived for quite some time without them (they really haven't been around that long).
Where I think jammers would be especially useful is in specific types of buildings (places of worship, hospitals, hospices, courthouses, libraries, theatres, restaurants, etc.). Building-type jammers are permitted in France and Japan so long as the signal doesn't bleed into neighbouring buildings or public areas.
In those countries, you have to have a government license and you have to publicly alert people to the jamming so that they know they're entering a "cell dead zone". This way, you can make other arrangements if you need to receive urgent calls (if you're an on-call doctor, for example) or you can choose to not patronize the business and go somewhere that doesn't jam cell signals.
For the record, I'm not a complete Luddite. I'm actually a sys admin - but I don't own a cell phone.
I'd like to point out a couple of things most pro-jamming folks probably haven't thought about.
People waiting for organ transplants don't always have to stay in the hospital. They're allowed to have a life while they wait. Are you going to jam their calls?
Some police officers (especially SWAT types) are always on call. They're also allowed to have a life. Are you going to jam their calls?
What about medical personnel, such as surgeons who are on call?
Finally, don't forget that jamming works both ways. People can't call in, and you can't call out, if, you know, you should ever have an emergency or something.
@Galls: Wow, threatening to take people out and shoot them just for using a cell phone? That's going too far.
This is what comes from a society so passive-aggressive that one cannot go up to such an offender and say "Turn your mobile phone off, it is rude and inappropriate." Cell-dead zones make a bit more sense, since the owner of the building is deciding for their property, and people are informed, but vigilante jamming? Anonymity does things to people (and I say this on the internet of all places.)
As for the restaurant owner, Maryland is an "at-will" employment state. Which is to say, the restaurant owner could easily have fired his employees for such constant rule-breaking. Not that it's the best idea, but if the boss can't stand up to his employees, he's got big problems.
@cmhbob:
There have been on call medical personnel (and others such as police or fire) for a lot longer than there has been broad market penetration of cell phones. And yet, they managed (and continue to manage) to live their lives quite well and still remain in touch.
A real life example, there are several nurses and doctors that frequent the library at which I work when they are on-call. Our number is on the list of contact numbers at their various hospitals and we occasionally get calls for them. The individuals are paged over our PA system and take their call. The doctors and nurses have similar arrangements at many area restaurants.
As for the problem of calling out in an emergency, land lines aren't affected by jammers. There are certainly emergencies that would effect land lines - but many of these are so bad that they would also effect cell service (9/11 comes to mind).
I like the personal jammer. Think I will pick one up. Do I get a color choice?
I'm not sure how to use it though. If it just sends a short signal, then the person will redial. Do you just keep blowing them away until they shut-up?
Jammers? No way. It would obviously be used by people to disrupt signals for any reason, including pure mischief.
The problem lies in the people that don't pay attention to rules and manners. Phones used by students during class should have them confiscated. People using them in theatres should be kicked out.
Put the responsibility on the person, not the device.
Bye the way, my son once asked me about 8 years ago what that thing on the store wall was. He never used a pay phone before. How did we ever survive before cell phones?
Sometimes you're not within easy access of a landline during an emergency.
If the idea is to "get back" at people who use cell phones inappropriately, then this is just a band-aid solution.
I agree with the point cmhbob is making. Just because there are annoying people who misuse cell phones, it doesn't mean all cell phone owners misuse their cell phones.
I'd rather have a super-soaker or similar for use whenever some idiot's on the phone.
I hate to admit it on here, but I own one of these and have used it many times.
Riding the bus to work and back has been a much more enjoyable experience now that I can stop loud, annoying cell phone conversations near me. It isn't like I use it to "zap" just anyone. The typical situation is some idiot using a cell on "chirp" mode and/or ignoring the stares from all the other riders. This merits a furtive movement inside my messenger bag. Done. Problem solved. Usually the person looks in dismay at the phone and puts it away.
Illegal? Maybe.
I love the damn thing. It set me back a chunk of change four years ago when I got my tax return, but I swear it is worth it.
DRGIRLFRIEND said "I agree with the point cmhbob is making. Just because there are annoying people who misuse cell phones, it doesn't mean all cell phone owners misuse their cell phones."
Yes, and the jammer would only be used against against annoying people who are being rude and inconsiderate. Fight fire with fire.
Otherwise what are you supposed to do? Ask them nicely to be considerate? Yeah, right. Grab the phone out of their hand and throw it out the window? Smack them upside their head? Get in a fight and get shot by some punk who thinks he is a man because he packs a gun??
People keep mentioning jamming use in hospitals are ignorant in the reasoning behind the reason you don't use cellphones in hospitals. It's the radio signals themselves that disrupt the equipment, such as heart telemetry, so jamming with more signals would not be a good idea.
Jammers should not be illegal, and if you own and run your own business, and you have a no cell phone policy, you should be able to enforce it within your own work environment.
If the FCC does not want people to use these large jammers, they should allow a smaller, less intrusive model to become available.
This businessman should be able to use his jammer in his own business. He should also be required to put up a sign for customers stating his business is a cell-free zone. Jammers in use, and no, it should not be illegal to use.
@Galls: no you can't. from fcc rule 15 ->
Section 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this Part for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.
jammers are illegal. anyone who knowingly (or unknowingly) operates a device that interferes with radio waves governed by the fcc are violating the law. go ahead & use them if you want, but those black vans are real & they will find you. ask any ham that hasn't tuned his equipment right.
you couldn't even license use for jammers b/c licensed radio wave operators are responsible for insuring their devices do not cause harmful interference.
@iamme99: actually, i've found the best method is to enter the conversation. not only does it work almost all the time, it's fun as hell.
we just need to retrain ourselves as a society to "stand up" when someone is abusing their cell phone. how many times have you seen someone confront a mouthy user & everyone else shrinks back & pretends to ignore the exchange?
even the most brash among us cave to mob pressure.
@othium:
Most simply put, you then consider your comfort above others legal rights. Like it or not, they indirectly pay the FCC for the right to use that airspace, and there is nothing against them doing so on the bus. Do I talk on the bus, or even in public? No, my conversations are private, but I have learned to tune out and rise above some irrational hate of other people doing what they are entitled to do. Then again, maybe it isn't even that which draws people to the buzzers. Might just be the power trip of total and secret power over the cares on concerns of the people around you, right? Their conversation is annoying, they shouldn't be having it in your presence.
And if the fact that you are breaking the law for the sake of elevating yourself above the people around you doesn't bother you, please remember you are on a BUS and that many jammers cover police bands (or soon will, as bands may be shifting soon). For every jerk on a Nextel you feel the need to block, the cop in the car behind the bus may miss a message. Just think twice next time you 'need' your silence, ok?
When you go out in public you have to enjoy yourself because you're not entitled to enjoy the company of others. So the entire world is supposed to step back 20 years in technical evolution because of a few annoying phone calls? Should we ban bicycles because of the few inconsiderate riders who bomb down the sidewalk? We've turned into a nation of sheepish little babies. Since when was your ride on the bus supposed to be quiet and peaceful? So now you use a cell phone jammer to disrupt the lives of everybody on the bus?
Interestingly, most high-school-and-under teachers I've talked to are DYING for jammers in their classrooms because it's sooooo hard to control students texting during class.
But when the college I teach at briefly thought about NOT extending cell coverage (not jamming, just not extending -- we could only get coverage in very limited spots in the buildings, and then only spottily) to keep students from constantly using phones during class, faculty didn't like that idea one bit, because (and especially after Virginia Tech) we're all encouraged to keep campus security on speed dial on our cells. Especially female faculty.
Although I suspect college students are slightly less problematic in general. First, a lot of my students are either EMTs (we have a lot of programs relating to EMT fields or medicine generally) or have kids, so I see no reason they shouldn't have cells on vibrate. And secondly, they just skip class if they don't feel like listening to me.
I made my jammer myself. It fits in an Altoids tin. I only use it when people are annoying me, not for mischief. Like the other day, this women was talking about how her "flow" was ridiculous and wouldn't stop. I just fired that baby up a couple of times to knock the signal off. Although I do admit I take it personally when they try to call back 4 or 5 times. It becomes a game to see how many times they'll try to call back before giving up.
OK, so it's illegal. I don't understand how I could ever get caught. Even with detectors, I can activate it from inside my pocket so if I only do it in a crowed, what are they going to search 20 people in the area?
You know, there is another use for these devices that has not been brought up. Many IED's in Iraq are triggered by cell phone. How great would it be to have one of these things attached to every vehicle? The would-be bomber sends his signal and nothing happens. He goes to check on the bomb and when the jammer clears the area, BOOM!
Jammers are momentary. They disconnect current calls, and very temporarily drop phones off the network (like having zero bars for just a blip as you move from one cell to another in certain areas). They burst for a second, dropping a call, and then you're free to call again. If this happens a couple of times, you just figure you're in a bad cell, and wait until later to bother everyone else.
This isn't unlike entering some buildings, tunnels, or otherwise bad service areas. If everyone's going to gripe about safety and emergency calls, then we need to make it a national priority to improve our infrastructure to the point that coverage is absolutely universal and available everywhere. Otherwise, interruptions are to be expected, jammers or otherwise notwithstanding.
safety concerns aside, this would be great to combat the endless, inane chatter that anyone who lives in a city overdoses on daily. used selectively, it could be very satisfying.
I hope these are legalized! Every restaurant and movie theater in the US should have one! If you make a phone call, even for an "emergency", you can just as easily step outside. A simple sign notifying customers should suffice.
If this happens a couple of times, you just figure you're in a bad cell, and wait until later to bother everyone else.
@balthisar: Or I figure someone is using a jammer and I start playing around with my ring tones, at full volume, over and over again.
@balthisar: The priority for improving the infrastructure should remain with the cell phone companies and not the government. Nowhere is there stated a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, cell coverage and internet access.
Regarding kids using cellphones in schools during class, there is a better idea than jamming them -- it's called confiscation. Take it and let the parent come pick it up.
I'm with you. Nothing gets the point across to a cellphone-using misanthrope than responding as if they're talking to you. :-)
@Baz: Can you imagine the nightmare? I shudder whenever I have to ride a line that's above ground - from the idiotic ringtones to the Gump-level convos that people are forced to endure...well, let's just say I see a big market for these things if the MTA does go ahead with that little scheme.
I'd like it for the area the 6 train goes above ground in the Bronx. If they don't like it, heck: switch cars!
@AD8BC: "Regarding kids using cellphones in schools during class, there is a better idea than jamming them -- it's called confiscation."
Right, but it turns into a daily classroom time-suck, because the parents just give the phones back to their kids the next day (with, of course, strict instructions only to use them for emergencies) and the kids are right back to texting. Under the desk. Whipping it out of sight. And unless a school has a rule that students can't have cell phones AT ALL, which parents usually object to, you have to catch them with the phone ON. (A lot of schools allow students to carry phones OFF in their bags during the day, because parents REALLY want their kids to have cells available for emergencies, after-school contact, etc.)
If you spend class time confiscating 30 phones every single day, that's a lot of lost teaching time.
I don't think jammers interrupt texting. Anybody know?
@GeekChicCanuck: This is the correct response, IMO. Businesses, libraries, places of worship, etc, should have the right to stop whatever cell traffic they want, as long as they clearly publicize it. Individuals on a bus? Not so much. The bus company itself would need to create 'dead zone' routes or buses or parts of therein.
When you think about it, this debate highly parallels the arguments for/against public non-smoking policies (without the health aspect). Two sides fighting over the same things-- dubious individual 'rights' ('right' to talk obnoxiously? 'right' to absolute quiet?) and how or what is a common sense solution.
I can see it ending similarly-- no-cell buildings, with designated cell-approved areas somewhere either inside or out.
From www.instapundit.com:
Reader Ken Johnson explains another problem:
My wife has hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition with which I believe you are familiar. For 30 years, she been slowly losing her battle with the disease and is now on the list to receive a heart transplant.
Neither she nor I had a cellphone when she went on the list. We purchased two of those cheap, pay-as-you-go phones so the hospital can contact us if a heart becomes available.
Basically, we're waiting for one life-changing phone call -- and if we're sitting next to one of these lawbreaking, self-righteous jerks when it comes, we'll miss it.
Who the hell do these people think they are that they imagine they have a right to interfere with the communications infrastructure in the United States?
Right on.
Most arguments against Jammers are FUD. They don't stop incoming calls, they just don't let you keep connected long enough to have fun.
First responders on call can still be contacted, they just can't have a long call. They would still see who called and can call back, or check their voice mail while on the way out.
Personally I'd like to see the FCC encourage development of the ability to selectively ban all but data services. So that everything voice is dropped, but text messages etc. will still go through.
Of course cell phone companies are going to stand up here. It's their business on the line. If people can't burn through their minutes as quickly, they don't get as much money on overage charges. That's the reason why it's illegal.
@Landru: They don't, unless the jamming person is draining his batteries and continuously jamming, or it just happens to happen at the very second your phone is talking to the tower -- but it'll let you know to try again, or just try by itself, kind of like how Ethernet automatically routes packets. Phone calls are different in that they require a continuous "session" with the tower. Once that's broken -- even for just a second -- you've got a dropped call and have to make a new connection. Remember, they're only momentary devices. They don't continuously transmit. Well, maybe some of the expensive, plug-in ones, do, but anything that's hand held shouldn't. It'll kill your battery fast.
@AD8BC: Yeah, I was being a little facetious.
@digitalgimpus: "...they just don't let you keep connected long enough to have fun.
Because only you need to take (or make) important phone calls.
WTRICKMAN... Your schoolboard needs to pass a rule that the students can't have cell phones in class. Simple as that! Most school districts across the US have implemented such rules. The main reason is to prevent students from cheating on exams.
The downside is that it's illegal? How about that it disrupts cell phone service?
Surely the Consumerist is going to lead the crusade against these devices which deprive paying consumers of the services that they paid for.