Banner
Home Forums Movie Theaters The Lobby cell phone jammers: I want one
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: cell phone jammers: I want one

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 20 Dec 2005 12:56 #11796

  • lionheart
  • lionheart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 312
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 3
You're right, Mike. If you can't provide a pleasant atmosphere, how long will you be in business?

NATO's recent efforts to get jamming rights has already been in the news and has caused at least a little controversy. I stumbled across another forum that rasied an eyebrow, http://digg.com/technology/Theater_owners_want_cell_phones_blocked
It just showed how controversial the concept of jamming can be.

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 20 Dec 2005 13:30 #11797

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5026
  • Thank you received: 41
  • Karma: 15
I watched John Fithian this morn on Fox talking about jammers and I'm glad to see him out swinging and talking about the problem. The problem is not with people having heart attacks and needing attention NOW! the problem is with idiots talking on cell phones about absolutely nothing.

Michael Hurley
Impresario
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 20 Dec 2005 16:15 #11798

  • lionheart
  • lionheart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 312
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 3
Currently in the US, cell jamming carries an $11,000 fine from the FCC and a possible one year jail term. But here is an excerpt from a Business Week Online article that proposes one legal alternative.

"As a legal alternative, hospitals have started passively blocking signals--especially since a Mayo Clinic study in January found that cell phones can interfere with heart- and lung-monitoring systems and other medical equipment. When installed in walls, a metal mesh--called a Faraday cage and available for 35 cents a square foot--can dilute radio signals into ineffectiveness, says Mikel Poellinger, president of the Wall & Ceiling Industries Assn. It's legal because it's not actually tampering with transmission, just erecting a barrier to it. Cost for an average-size room? About $500. The value of undisturbed silence? Priceless.
By Brian P. Murphy"

I've been thinking about stucco with wire mesh for my project. I've read that it makes a pretty good faraday cage. I was already thinking about stucco anyway. Now it looks even better. Just hook it to a metal roof, and you should be in business.

For all you folks with existing structures, maybe start by putting the metal mesh on the walls behind your drapes and screens and over your drop ceilings (or even on the roof if necessary. Just remember to tie it all together. Even little gaps can be a problem, so it might take some expense and effort, but it certainly seems possible.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 20 Dec 2005 23:39 #11799

I think the only thing to do is to use jamming devices and faraday cages.

I mean, signs'll do no good because cell phone users are illiterate anyways: "hey wuts goin on bro im in kong now it sux lol ttyl".

And I'm sorry, rustling popcorn bags are enough of a nuicense. I don't need to hear someone clicking away during a movie, and those stupid blue lights and hazy glows are also distracting.

Enough is enough.
Since 1987
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 21 Dec 2005 03:10 #11800

  • BurneyFalls
  • BurneyFalls's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 1341
  • Karma: 0
Interesting about the stucco. Both of my theaters are stucco with metal roofs. One has excellent cell phone reception throughout the building; the other has little to none anywhere.

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 21 Dec 2005 06:46 #11801

  • jimor
  • jimor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 395
  • Karma: 0
The reason that your one stuccoed interior has less recepton than the other is that the walls apparently have metal lath rather than wood, and the metal is somehow grounded to earth somewhere, along with the metal roof. This has the effect of intercepting most radio signals (which is what cell phones and pagers work on) and diverting them to earth.

While it is possible to achieve the same effect deliberately, as with foil coated board, the results can be very upredictable even if the grounding connection is deep and secure. The differences in the resulting electrical qualities of resistance, capacitance, and inductance can result in inadvertent 'tuned circuits' which will pass some frequencies of transmission, but resist others (some radio signals will get through, but not others). This inadvertant selectivity means that the walls act almost like antennas, but then the connection to earth ground is selective in actually grounding out some signals. Apparently, if the construction is the same in your other auditorium, this is what is happening: your one cinema is not as well earth grounded as is the other as far as the inadvertant bond to the metal lath is concerned. Note that your electrical system must be grounded according to code, but THAT earth ground should NOT be the same as the one used by the lath.

I wish I could tell you that there is an easy and sure fix to the problem of intermittant or selective shielding that the metal lath creates, but remedies are problematic. You could get a technical guy to firmly attach a copper grounding wire to a spot on the lath where exposed on the backside and make a short run of the grounding wire to a copper clad steel ground rod burried in always-moist (not wet) soil. This is the classic means to ground out the mast of a TV antenna against lightning discharges, but it is not an assured cure for a situation such as yours; still it is the cheapest way to hunt for a good ground. All of this presumes that the individual panels of metal lath are also securely connected to one another and that the bulk of the grounded metal lath is facing the direction of the incoming signal, and that the total electrical qualities mentioned above are in favor of the frequency and of sufficient quality to counteract the power of that signal. Obviously, the closer one is to the broadcasting antenna and the stronger the signal, the better and heavier one's shielding against it must be. And one should remember that none of this adresses signals generated by devices WITHIN a building, where shielding against the outside will make no difference, of course. So if kids are talking or messaging one another from one area of a room to another, nothing in the walls will prevent the transmission and reception of those signals.

At the least, such shielding is somewhat effective and involves no legal involvements, though some cinemas may want to post a simple sign saying something to the effect:
THIS BUILDING IS SHIELDED AGAINST RADIO WAVES, SO NOT ALL PAGERS, CELL PHONES OR THE LIKE MAY WORK DEPENDABLY HERE. PROFESSIONALS EXPECTING EMERGENCY CALLS SHOULD INFORM THE MANAGER OF THEIR SEAT LOCATION FOR ANY EMERGENCIES ALERTED BY PHONE CALL.

Best Wishes, Jim
Jim R. (new E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) member: www.HistoricTheatres.org
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 21 Dec 2005 09:58 #11802

  • RedDawg
  • RedDawg's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: 0
Here's a workable, if difficult-to-achieve solution for i n c o m i n g calls: Virtually all cell phones manufactured today have a silent ring mode, normally a vibration element. All cell phone manufacturers should get together and agree to make the switch from ring to vibration mode dynamically selectable by means of a special, low-power, locally transmitted signal within the premises. All phones (I think) already have GPS locating capability which is user-selectable to activate either for all calls or emergency (911) calls only. I don't know how this feature was mandated (I'll guess the FCC had something to do with it), but if a similar (if less urgent) process could be used for forced ring mode switching, theatres and similar venues needing the service would buy the transmitter and perhaps pay a small licensing fee for using it. Obviously there would be a change-over period while non-compliant phones rotated out of use, but if the concept was adopted and implemented soon, a workable system could probably be in place within 4-5 years.

This should be legal since you are not blocking incoming signals, simply commanding the phone remotely into silent ring mode.

Outgoing calls would not be affected, but that is a different problem anyway.

FCC, are you listening?

Subsequent edit: After thinking about this a bit I believe the system could be simplified further over what I described above, although it still assumes modified cell phones. The resolution of the GPS system that is available to the public for navigation purposes (1 meter I believe?) is probably suficient for the following scenerio: Theaters and similar venues could define the "footprint" of their facilities in terms of GPS coordinates. After applying to the FCC, being vetted according to some "worthiness" criteria, and presumably paying a fee for the privilege, their GPS footprint would be entered into a cell phone "exclusion zone" data base. Cell phones would be programmed to periodically and automatically check their GPS locations and query the data base. Any phone that has moved inside an authorized exclusion zone would be commanded automatically to switch to a silent ring mode and remain in that mode until a subsequent periodic location check showed that it was no longer in the exclusion zone. This would eliminate to need for transmitting equipment in the individual venue, and also the need for RF spectrum space. There may be some privacy concerns, but they should be soluable.

The Parkway Theatre, an idea whose time has come. Help Make it happen!

[This message has been edited by RedDawg (edited December 21, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by RedDawg (edited December 22, 2005).]
The Parkway Theatre, an idea whose time has come. Help Make it happen!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 21 Dec 2005 12:38 #11803

  • lionheart
  • lionheart's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Gold Boarder
  • Posts: 312
  • Thank you received: 4
  • Karma: 3
Burney, there could be other factors not yet mentioned that would affect how well your stucco building acts as a Faraday cage. One is the type of lath or mesh material used in your stucco as Jimor mentioned. If it's not metal, then it's not doing anything.

The best Faraday cages are made from the most conductive materials. Therefore, copper is great. Aluminum is slightly less effective. And steel is further down the list. I think metal lath is normally galvanized steel. If it's something old and turning to rust, it is probably losing much of its effectiveness.

Another factor is the size of the hole in the mesh. If they used 1 inch chicken wire when they built one building and then used a much tighter mesh when they built the other, the reception would certainly be different. It has to do with wavelengths. I read recently that the chicken wire can block some radio frequencies (I lost the web address telling which ones). Older cell phone technology operates at about 800 megahertz if I remember correctly. However, newer PCS systems operate at about 1900 megahertz. That seems to include most cell providers these days. So, you might need the tighter mesh to be effective against current technology.

An extension of the idea of having tighter and tighter mesh is to use solid metal. A steel building would probably ruin anyone's cell reception, as long as the windows and doors and all other "gaps" are covered.
Some companies sell wall coverings made of copper foil for the purpose of building Faraday cage rooms. You could probably use aluminum foil as well.

It might be worth an experiment to check this out. Take a shoe box and lid and cover them completely with aluminum foil from your kitchen cupboard. Place your cell phone inside facing up. You may need to place a flashlight inside if your phone face doesn't stay lit up. Poke a very small hole in the lid and look inside to see what kind of signal it is getting. I honestly have never tried this, but I believe your phone will likely be showing zero bars. If not, try two layers of foil.

[This message has been edited by lionheart (edited December 21, 2005).]
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 23 Dec 2005 13:13 #11804

  • jacker5
  • jacker5's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 874
  • Thank you received: 6
  • Karma: 7
I think that we have all learned we can not block the signals without getting in trouble.
So we justhave to enforce with strick backing of our policies of NO Cell PHONES in theater.
Play the trailer and have a notice outside the theatre, over the ticket window, at the concession stand and when entering the theatre auditorium.
This is your theatre and your rules have to be followe just liek outside food. Your walker shoudl observe or even the projectionist can see through the port violators.
If on the phone they shoudl be asked to leave the theatre and go into the lobby then after the call they can return.
No kicking out or calling th epilice or any other crazy thing but show authority !
I have woeked at some tough theatres and usually when this action is taken the patrons applaud and the cell user look stupid and goes outside.
End of subject!
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 26 Dec 2005 11:16 #11805

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5026
  • Thank you received: 41
  • Karma: 15
Hope You Like Jamming, Too
Cell-phone jammers may soon be all over.
By David S. Bennahum
Posted Friday, Dec. 5, 2003, at 6:34 PM ET


Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.




Before President Bush visited London last month, the English press indulged in frenzied speculation about the extraordinary security measures that would be taken to protect him. The papers fretted about a number of humdrum potential hassles (street closures, monstrous traffic jams), but they also raised a more peculiar concern: Would the government of Britain selectively block cell-phone signals along President Bush's route? If they did—whether they switched off the cellular networks along his path or jammed local cell-phone signals—nearby mobile phones would become inoperable.

As it turns out, they didn't jam cell phones. But this arcane-sounding precaution was no figment of the English imagination. Cell-phone jammers—already available on the Internet to security honchos and average Joes alike—are a surprisingly useful (and widely used) tool, and they could easily become as popular as cell phones themselves.

A cellular "security bubble" in London could have protected Bush from a very real threat: terrorists who use cell phones to detonate bombs from miles away, or even another country. By connecting a cell phone to hidden explosives, and then calling that phone, one can detonate a bomb (the electrical charge that activates the ringer on the cell phone serves as the triggering signal). In May 2002, Palestinian militants in Tel Aviv nearly caused a major explosion when they placed a bomb wired to a cell phone in a fuel truck headed for Israel's largest fuel depot. (The bomb detonated, but the fire was put out.)

The physics of jamming a cell phone are actually quite simple. Cell phones operate by sending signals along a range of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for their use. (In the United States that part typically is measured as either 800 or 1,900 megahertz; in Europe it's usually 900 or 1,800 megahertz.) All a cell-phone jamming device needs to do is broadcast a signal on those same frequencies, and it will interfere with any devices trying to transmit in that range. The net effect for a hapless cell-phone user? The phone's screen will simply indicate that no signal is available. Odds are most people won't even notice that their phones are being jammed. They'll just assume that they're in a dead spot—and feel annoyed.

It is possible for intrepid consumers to acquire the same technology that's used to create security bubbles around traveling dignitaries. Sites offer a wide range of jamming devices at reasonable prices. For instance, the SH066PL2A/B is a portable cell-phone jammer that sells for 169.99 British pounds ($293). The SH066PL2A/B will get you a security bubble of about 30 feet, and it's camouflaged to look like a cell phone, so you can leave it out on a restaurant table and no one will know you're the source of the blissful silence in the room.

Those seeking a more robust alternative can purchase a bigger device, which will cover a radius of about 100 feet. Law-enforcement officers use the big jammers to cut off mobile communication in volatile situations, isolating hostage-takers and other baddies from the outside world. And corporate security folks can use them to thwart innovative industrial spies, who have several neat new tricks. These days, a boardroom Mata Hari can purchase a specially designed cell phone that will answer incoming calls while appearing to be switched off. In a business meeting, she could casually leave her phone on the table while excusing herself to go to the bathroom. Once she's gone, she can call the phone she left behind and eavesdrop on what the other side is saying in her absence. Sound farfetched? Perhaps, but this threat is the marketing hook for a new product, the Netline Cellular Activity Analyzer, which supposedly can detect hidden cell phones in a room. The same logic calls for installing a cell-phone jammer as well, to ensure you have complete privacy in your offices, or at least in conference rooms where important negotiations occur.

But there's a problem.

In the United States, actively jamming a cell-phone signal is illegal. The FCC, which is the government agency in charge of regulating the airwaves, has established severe penalties for doing so. If you're caught at your local restaurant with the SH066PL2A/B, it's possible you could face an $11,000 fine and a one-year jail term. Possible, but apparently highly unlikely. It seems that the FCC has never charged anyone with this crime, even though the American market is one of the most important when it comes to selling cell-phone jamming equipment. One distributor (who wished to remain anonymous) told me they've exported approximately 300 jammers to the United States this year, more than to any other country. The exporter claims that buyers include restaurants, schools (including some universities, which have installed the technology to stop students from wirelessly diddling away on their phones during lectures), and personal users.

According to the FCC, cell-phone jammers should remain illegal. Since commercial enterprises have purchased the rights to the spectrum, the argument goes, jamming their signals is a kind of property theft. But there are countries with less draconian rules. France, for instance, seems to turn a blind eye to the active use of cell-phone jammers in movie theaters, and countries such as China, Russia, and Israel either permit use of these technologies, or are very lax when it comes to enforcing restrictions.

Americans seeking a legal way to jam cell phones can look into "passive" jamming technologies. For instance, lining your office in lead should ensure that no signals get in or out. But if lead is too industrial to suit your décor, a more genteel alternative exists: You could install "magnetic wood" paneling throughout. A Japanese scientist, Hideo Oka, has invented a new kind of building material, saturated with magnetic particles made of nickel-zinc ferrite that supposedly deflect 97 percent of mobile-phone signals.

Oka's hope is that Home Depot and the like will eventually sell the stuff by the board-foot. Since blocking signals this way doesn't require active broadcasting on a commercially leased frequency, it seems to be legal, though the cellular industry's trade association, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, doesn't think any jamming should occur, whether active or passive.

But the CTIA is unlikely to see a ban on passive jamming any time soon. The problem is that cell phones aren't just for talking anymore. And as the industry continues to provide futuristic gadgets with dizzying capabilities, it will be tougher to make a case against all forms of interference. The prevalence of camera phones, to cite just one example, poses a new problem for industrial security experts eager to keep espionage-minded shutterbugs in the dark. One company, Iceberg Systems, is beta-testing a new technology that will remotely turn off the cameras in cell phones.

While the legality of this technology is unclear, odds are that the demand for such products will surge in the near future, as analysts predict that within five years there could be up to 1 billion camera phones in circulation worldwide. We may find ourselves in a "bottom up" surveillance society, where anyone can record anything, and send sound and image out to the Internet for those who want to watch and listen in. This is happening already: On Nov. 18 a club-goer snapped a picture of an allegedly vomit- and urine-soaked toy gorilla strapped to the grille of a police car parked in front of a popular hip-hop club in Portland, Ore. The picture triggered a minor scandal, forcing the Portland police department to explain why the incident wasn't racist.

In this climate, where anything can be photographed or surreptitiously recorded, the desire for privacy, and "security bubbles" of our own, will likely mean that the once-esoteric world of cell-phone jamming will become increasingly mainstream. And why not? After all, if it's good enough for the president, isn't it good enough for the rest of us?


David S. Bennahum is a contributing writer with Wired and the author of Extra Life: Coming of Age in Cyberspace.



Michael Hurley
Impresario
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 26 Dec 2005 11:18 #11806

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5026
  • Thank you received: 41
  • Karma: 15
http://www.suresafe.com.tw/showroom1.html

cell phone jammers

Michael Hurley
Impresario
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 26 Dec 2005 11:24 #11807

  • Mike
  • Mike's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 5026
  • Thank you received: 41
  • Karma: 15
and there's more........

A mini-industry develops in "blocking," aimed at silencing that annoying cellphone user


By CLIVE THOMPSON


Friday, September 28, 2001 – Print Edition, Page 21


Last year, David Derosier encountered that peculiarly modern frustration: a pinhead cellphone user who wouldn't shut up. "I was sitting in a restaurant, trying to enjoy myself, and this guy's phone rang-over and over again during dinner," Derosier complains. "He was shouting loudly, all this obnoxious stuff.

"I thought, hey, I'm spending a lot of money for a nice night out. Why am I stuck with this idiot?"

Derosier, who's worked in government intelligence, decided to do something about it-by introducing a device that jams cellphone signals and prevents them from ringing through.

Derosier co-founded Cell Block Technologies in Cape Cod, Mass., and hired a development team in Ottawa to create his phone-silencing device. By next spring, he expects to be selling it-to any restaurant, business or organization that wants to impose a no-fly zone for mobile phones, for up to 100 square feet around the jammer. "Flick the switch," he says with satisfaction, "and all the phones go dead."

Jamming phones: It sounds like something out of a CIA counterinsurgency handbook. But cellphones, more than any other modern technology, have the ability to drive calm people irretrievably berserk. This has given birth to a new mini-industry of cellphone blocking, with at least six companies worldwide starting to sell these devices in the last three years.

It isn't necessarily a big-money trend; even the companies involved estimate the global market isn't much bigger than $20 million (U.S. currency except where noted). But it's a curiously emotional market. A Decima study conducted earlier this year showed that Canadians are almost evenly divided over jammers. When I called up telco analysts for comment, they immediately began sharing horror stories of nearly throttling insufferable yuppie cellphone users. "Oh yeah. It's easy to see there'd be a market for this," laughs Ken Dulaney, an analyst at Gartner, Inc.

The first jamming device-the C-Guard-was released in 1998 by the Israel-based company Netline Communications Technologies. The 16-person firm has since sold "several thousand" devices at prices ranging from $650 to $6,000, according to CEO Gil Israeli, and he expects to be profitable by the end of the year.

The technology for blocking is fairly simple. A jammer broadcasts a junk signal that floods a mobile phone frequency. "We confuse the phone into thinking it's out of range of the cell towers," says Israeli. Other devices, such as Derosier's, set up a fake cell-tower signal, and the phone tries to communicate with its dummy signal. In either case, the phone doesn't ring, and anyone calling is routed directly to voice mail.

Early customers have been the ones you'd imagine-owners of establishments where silence is golden, including restaurants, theatres and places of worship. When a Minnesota company named Image Sensing Systems (ISS) released a jammer this spring, it immediately received an order for 5,000 units from a distributor in Bahrain (retail cost: $850 each). "They wanted it to stop phones ringing in mosques," notes Bill Sowell, ISS's vice-president of business development. "Apparently, Bahrain has a ton of cellphones and people are going nuts."

It isn't just about nuisance. Jammers are also attracting such professional paranoiacs as military officials and high-powered corporate executives. As Derosier explains, mobile phones are a horrible security risk-a phone can hide in your pocket and surreptiously broadcast a conversation. "It's easy to quietly turn one on and start bugging a meeting," says Derosier. "You wouldn't believe how much this keeps some people in the military awake at night." Even more sneaky, some new mobile phones include a "non-ringing auto-answer" option-so that you can "accidentally" leave your phone in an office, then later call it if you want to listen in to the room; it'll pick up automatically without alerting anyone that it's on.

Still, one big problem for jammers is that in North America, they're illegal. Using, selling or importing a blocking device means you're messing with federally regulated airwaves, and in the U.S. that'll land you an $11,000 fine or a year in prison. In Canada, it's a maximum $5,000 (Canadian) fine and a year in jail. (Exempt, of course, are government, military and law enforcement, which are allowed to bend their own anti-jamming rules. Derosier plans to target them first.)

I, of course, would never actually recommend a company break the law. But many are doing just that-by using jammers every day. Israeli won't give out individual names, but he says he's sold C-Guards to movie studios and Fortune 1000 companies. "We ship them to the U.S., that's for sure. People want control of their airwaves, and they're willing to risk it." All of which proves what a weird sleeper issue this is. If companies are willing to risk fines to silence cellphones, imagine how much jamming would explode if it were legal.

And there's a small chance it might be-in Canada, anyway. Last spring, at the urging of the jamming companies, Industry Canada began studying whether to make blocking devices legal in places such as theatres and hospitals, and it will make a recommendation by this winter. By the summer, they'd received 237 opinions on the issue from suppliers and the public (some of whom seethed about "communist" plots to control cellphones). "It's an incredibly hot-button issue," says David Warnes, a senior adviser for Industry Canada.

Mobile companies in Canada are, predictably, lobbying fiercely to keep blocking devices illegal. Jammers would hurt their profits, but they also play the altruism card-noting that Canadians make three million 911 calls each year. "People do not want that sense of security taken away from them. They don't want to pull out their phone in an emergency and find it's being blocked," warns Marc Choma, communications director for the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

For Choma, it's a matter of teaching better etiquette. He says that we're still on a cultural learning curve, suffering a continual onslaught of cellphone newbies: "Two million new people get cellphones every year, so that's two million new people who need to learn to turn them on 'vibrate' in theatres."

You could say that mobile telephony is still an immature industry-and thus in need of checks and balances. Given how annoying phones are becoming, the industry itself might find it useful to self-regulate, to help stave off government intervention. Several experiments are already under way. Netline Communications is working on trial technology with the licencee of the Orange cellphone brand in Israel; it will let Orange identify mobile phones in a specific area and automatically stop them from ringing when necessary. Another company, the North Carolina-based Bluelinx, is creating software based on the "Bluetooth" protocol to sell to handset manufacturers; it will also silence phones in designated areas.

Bluelinx co-founder Mary Beth Griffin compares cellphones to that other world-shaping technology-the car: "When cars came out, there were no rules at all. You drove wherever and however you wanted. But pretty soon you had signs and laws and regulations and seat belts."

Either way, the battle lines are drawn. And, for the record, I'm keeping my phone on vibrate mode.


WHAT'S NEXT
IN ONE YEAR
The Canadian government has released its recommendations on cellphone blocking. Given the telcos' powerful lobbying--and legislation against blocking in the U.S.--it's not a thumbs up for legalization.

IN THREE YEARS
Sales of jamming devices increase, as more countries examine whether to legalize their use. A few cellphone service providers offer their own experimental blocking technologies.

IN FIVE YEARS
Makers of jamming devices say the industry is making $25 million a year in worldwide sales. Bluetooth technology in handsets is finally common enough that corporations can set up their own, legal non-ring zones.


Globe and Mail go to their home page and search for "cell block"

For More Information Contact:

Cell Block Technologies, Inc.
4031 University Dr., Suite 200, Fairfax, VA. 22030
Tel: 703-277-7703
FAX: 703-277-7730
Internet: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Send mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with questions or comments about this web site.
http://www.cell-block-r.com/pr01-09-28.htm



Michael Hurley
Impresario
Michael Hurley
Impresario
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 02 Jan 2006 15:15 #11808

  • Mill
  • Mill's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Expert Boarder
  • Posts: 118
  • Karma: 0
The problem isn't only with the ringing phone in the theatre, but the MORON who actaully answers the phone.

Forcing the phone to go to silent/vibrate does nothing to stop the idiot from saying HELLO.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 02 Jan 2006 20:40 #11809

In Canada, 3 million 911 calls are made each year? That's nice. Where's the statistics for how many of those aren't actually emergencies?

In Winnipeg, non-emergency tie ups of 911 operators is a major concern. They're looking at introducing 311 calls for non-emergencies.

As an interesting side note, in school, we were told that Winnipeg was the first city to introduce 911 for emergency calls, although, now all the operators are based at the other side of the province in Brandon.

But, another thing these articles forget to mention is the pull-alarms. Every single theatre in Winnipeg has about 3 pull-alarms in them that immediately summon first response. You don't need a cell phone when you can just pull down on that switch, and its much quicker.

And, as I've said before, the cellphone companies are throwing their signals on MY property. If I choose to ban trespassing, then, that's my decision on MY land.

Hey, why can't we buy rights to that frequency for blockers?
Since 1987
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: cell phone jammers: I want one 03 Jan 2006 10:17 #11810

  • jimor
  • jimor's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 395
  • Karma: 0
I am surmising that Andrew's final question was not only rehetorical, but of humorous intent. But on the off chance that some will take it seriously, I will respond to it.

Broadcast frequencies cannot be "bought" in any country in North America due to an International agreement signed by the three countries back in the 1930s. It was obviously necessary since if two users try to use the same frequency, there is interference and neither gets through to the other clearly, if at all. Thus, the radio spectrum of frequencies was divided into Bands for different services, and within the Bands, individual frequencies were assigned by government licnese to those most capable and worthy of using a particular frequency. These allocations of frequencies have been adjusted many, many times since then as new technology allowed more use of a band, and as various users came and went.

The entire idea of a jammer is that it operates on a frequency already assigned to another, thus making interference very deliberate. Jamming has been going on since the Second World War in earnest, and is a common tool of governments to block the reception within their lands of the signals of other nations. Cuba still blocks certain American-assigned fequencies commonly used by the propaganda branch of the CIA (Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, etc).

Thus, non-government jamming is illegal in all countries, since it not only renders someone else's use impossible, but also tends to scatter beyond the target frequency, causing broken communications between others. Some jammers claim that their devices will not interfere with any other service, but experience over the years has shown that this is usually not the case in actuality (there are many complexities to sending out a radio signal, and beyond the scope of this board). For this reason, to maintain public order, nations react strongly to anyone operating an illegal broadcasting --which is what a jammer device is-- in their lands and jurisdictions.

There may be no simple solution to the problem of unwanted radio signals penetrating "private property" outside of using good quality shielding in one's building to stop the signals from entering. And if anyone thinks that the governments are going to set the precedent of allowing ANY unauthorized broadcasting (including jammers) he is only kidding himself. Governments have a vested interest (and a public duty) to maintain useable airwaves, and they will not change that legal approach. They know that if they turn a blind eye to theatre use, it will escalate to general jamming of any frequency one might want. Some sophisticated criminals now jam police frequencies in the vicinity of a crime they are committing, and such a trend could make our streets even more uncomfortable! Perhaps such places as hospitals will be routinely built with shielding, but even they must be very cautious about using jammers, since these devices can do as much damage as unwanted broadcasters in producing signals that interfere with or even misoperate life-saving electronic equipment. Jammers can also be 'hijacked' by those smart and wealthy enough to employ devices which cause the jammer device to rebroadcast the very signal they are attempting to jam!
Jim R. (new E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) member: www.HistoricTheatres.org
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Time to create page: 0.305 seconds
attraction attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction
attraction