Regulation of Cell Phone Use

[Patrickt]

"[FONT=&quot]In recent years, the number of websites offering “cell jammers” or similar devices designed to block communications and create a “quiet zone” in vehicles, schools, theaters, restaurants, and other places has increased substantially. While these devices are marketed under different names, such as signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, they have the same purpose. [/FONT]We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi.[FONT=&quot]Despite some marketers’ claims, consumers cannot legally use jammers within the United States, nor can retailers lawfully sell them."
[/FONT]https://www.fcc.gov/general/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law

I sometimes forget how much people in the U.S. love government regulations. What is your opinion of this federal law prohibiting a business from blocking cell phone use with jamming devices.

I have read about assaults in schools that happened when teachers attempted to enforce a ban on cell phone use in class. I've witnessed disturbances between patrons over cell phone use in restaurants, theaters, and a church.

So, what is your opinion on a federal law prohibiting the blocking of cell phones or even possessing a device capable of blocking cell phones?

A note. I'm in favor of businesses having the option providing they have a conspicuous display advising potential customers they will need to leave the theater, restaurant, concert hall, funeral parlor, or church to use their phone.

 

[MaggieD]

"[FONT="]In recent years, the number of websites offering “cell jammers” or similar devices designed to block communications and create a “quiet zone” in vehicles, schools, theaters, restaurants, and other places has increased substantially. While these devices are marketed under different names, such as signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, they have the same purpose. [/FONT][/COLOR][B]We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi.[/B][COLOR=#1D2B3E][FONT="]Despite some marketers’ claims, consumers cannot legally use jammers within the United States, nor can retailers lawfully sell them."
[/FONT]https://www.fcc.gov/general/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law

I sometimes forget how much people in the U.S. love government regulations. What is your opinion of this federal law prohibiting a business from blocking cell phone use with jamming devices.

I have read about assaults in schools that happened when teachers attempted to enforce a ban on cell phone use in class. I've witnessed disturbances between patrons over cell phone use in restaurants, theaters, and a church.

So, what is your opinion on a federal law prohibiting the blocking of cell phones or even possessing a device capable of blocking cell phones?

A note. I'm in favor of businesses having the option providing they have a conspicuous display advising potential customers they will need to leave the theater, restaurant, concert hall, funeral parlor, or church to use their phone.

Since the airwaves are the airwaves, I'm against that option for businesses. A business can insist cell phones be set to silent, turned off, or not used while on their premises, but I think jamming signals in business establishments is unreasonable.

Since I think texting while driving is more dangerous than DRUNK driving, though, I think jammers that activate at 10 mph should be allowed in a car owner's vehicle for the safety of others. The safety component makes the difference.

 

[Nilly]

The reason for the law isn't to inconvenience business, it's to ensure that the emergency services can do their job should they be in the vicinity.

To that end, I am satisfied with the current law. If businesses want to prevent cell phone use, they can use other measures. They can ask people to put them away/turn them off, leave them at the front door or even confiscate them

Since I think texting while driving is more dangerous than DRUNK driving, though, I think jammers that activate at 10 mph should be allowed in a car owner's vehicle for the safety of others. The safety component makes the difference.

You'd jam passenger phones too?

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'm not sure it comes down to an absolute on prohibiting the jamming of cell phones or not. It may come down to the reason and capability of the jamming device, which usually speaking the FCC tends to clarify along usage lines. Effectively what we are talking about is broadcasting across signal types to force no reception and/or no signal strength on cell phones which would encompass transmissions for voice, text and internet all on one device these days. Regardless of location and ability to mask jamming to that location (like in a car, or in a business, or in some other space) the reason for it may dictate the regulation direction here.

I am leaning towards being against it but I suspect there is far more to consider on this. Here is the link to the FCC "Advisory note"...

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-249A1.pdf

Not sure it covers well enough the why part.

 

[haymarket]

Cell phones are the work of Satan. They should be abolished and we all go back to home phones with rotary dials and even party lines to limit our calls and time on the phone.

Now I say that half mocking and half in seriousness.

I detest what has happened to normal manners with the rise of cell phones. People who answer their phone while talking to you face to face..... people who make calls during social occasions with other people ...... people who refuse to abide by instructions posted like TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES or NO CELL PHONES HERE PELASE. Students using cell phones in class. Screw em all and smash those damn things to damnation.

I get it - they are useful in emergencies and accidents and stuff like that. Fine.

My favorite incident that tells me a lot about cell phones happened in a grocery store years ago. This is more or less what I heard as a middle aged man stood in the store. each line is after some response to the previous statement from the other end - which I did not hear but can guess what they said.

MAN: you wanted corn?
... corn on the cob or in a can?
.... any special brand?
... well they got Green Giant and Stokleys and Spartan and Freshlike and some others on a higher shelf that I can't make out
.... they don't have that one... want me to read em again?
.... what size can you want?
... well they got ten ounces... twelve ounces ... 16 ounces and 20 ounces
... OH!!! I just found on the bottom they have these really big cans - three pounds of corn!!!!
... they also have a frozen food area where you can get corn in frozen containers. You want that instead?
... hey they also have some corn with little peppers mixed in.... wanna try that one?
... and they got cream style also -
... yellow corn or white corn?
... how many cans you want?
... I didn't take the coupons... maybe they have some in the store paper if I can find one.
... okay - got it.

This was pretty much an actual conversation. I got home and told my wife about it and asked her to shoot me if I ever got that bad. She smiled and said she would be glad to grant my wish.

I don't own a damn cell phone.

Any laws you want to put on them is more than fine with me.

 

[MaggieD]

The reason for the law isn't to inconvenience business, it's to ensure that the emergency services can do their job should they be in the vicinity.

To that end, I am satisfied with the current law. If businesses want to prevent cell phone use, they can use other measures. They can ask people to put them away/turn them off, leave them at the front door or even confiscate them



You'd jam passenger phones too?

Yes, I would. Texting while driving is THAT dangerous in my opinion. Adults understand this. Kids? Notsomuch.

 

[Anagram]

Yes, I would. Texting while driving is THAT dangerous in my opinion. Adults understand this. Kids? Notsomuch.

I wouldn't support that. Texting while driving is dangerous, but not so much that we need to mandate cell jammers in vehicles.

And the statistics only kind of bear out that it's as dangerous as drunk driving. In the studies they find it about equal to driving at the .08 legal limit, but most people who are drinking and driving are well past that. This is probably why there are more than 3 times as many drunk driving deaths each year as distracted driving deaths, despite a much greater rate of distracted driving.

 

[joG]

"[FONT="]In recent years, the number of websites offering “cell jammers” or similar devices designed to block communications and create a “quiet zone” in vehicles, schools, theaters, restaurants, and other places has increased substantially. While these devices are marketed under different names, such as signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, they have the same purpose. [/FONT][/COLOR][B]We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi.[/B][COLOR=#1D2B3E][FONT="]Despite some marketers’ claims, consumers cannot legally use jammers within the United States, nor can retailers lawfully sell them."
[/FONT]https://www.fcc.gov/general/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law

I sometimes forget how much people in the U.S. love government regulations. What is your opinion of this federal law prohibiting a business from blocking cell phone use with jamming devices.

I have read about assaults in schools that happened when teachers attempted to enforce a ban on cell phone use in class. I've witnessed disturbances between patrons over cell phone use in restaurants, theaters, and a church.

So, what is your opinion on a federal law prohibiting the blocking of cell phones or even possessing a device capable of blocking cell phones?

A note. I'm in favor of businesses having the option providing they have a conspicuous display advising potential customers they will need to leave the theater, restaurant, concert hall, funeral parlor, or church to use their phone.

Again I am astonished how intrusive people allow their government to be. In this case it isn't a matter of the Constitution being broken. But to forbid companies from doing their business as they see fit is illegitimate.

 

[MaggieD]

I wouldn't support that. Texting while driving is dangerous, but not so much that we need to mandate cell jammers in vehicles.

And the statistics only kind of bear out that it's as dangerous as drunk driving. In the studies they find it about equal to driving at the .08 legal limit, but most people who are drinking and driving are well past that. This is probably why there are more than 3 times as many drunk driving deaths each year as distracted driving deaths, despite a much greater rate of distracted driving.

If it's my car and my teenagers, I should get to call it.

It is impossible to track accidents caused by texting while driving.

PS...I'm not talking about MANDATING jammers in cars. I'm talking about being able to use one in your own car to protect your own family. Completely different.

 

[Anagram]

If it's my car and my teenagers, I should get to call it.

It is impossible to track accidents caused by texting while driving.

PS...I'm not talking about MANDATING jammers in cars. I'm talking about being able to use one in your own car to protect your own family. Completely different.

That is different. I don't really care about it then. If the government doesn't have a good reason for blocking cell phone jammers then I'm fine with that.

 

[radcen]

Since the airwaves are the airwaves, I'm against that option for businesses. A business can insist cell phones be set to silent, turned off, or not used while on their premises, but I think jamming signals in business establishments is unreasonable.

Since I think texting while driving is more dangerous than DRUNK driving, though, I think jammers that activate at 10 mph should be allowed in a car owner's vehicle for the safety of others. The safety component makes the difference.

I agree with your first paragraph. It should be illegal to jam... and that goes for government, too, barring a court order for a specific situation. I have no issue with companies having a policy of no use.

I wholly disagree with your second paragraph. It is not reasonable to jam passenger devices for any reason whatsoever, and it's really not even reasonable to jam a driver's device as it may need to be used for emergency purposes and stopping won't be an option (i.e. calling police while being chased in a road rage incident, etc.).

 

[Casper]

Again I am astonished how intrusive people allow their government to be. In this case it isn't a matter of the Constitution being broken. But to forbid companies from doing their business as they see fit is illegitimate.

Jamming phones is Not their business. The main reason being emergency calls both outgoing or incoming. Let's just say any business that openly stated that they would jam your phone while on their property would go out of business, Fast. Food for thought, jamming cannot simply be confined to a specific area, if one business is jamming phones and that jamming crosses over onto public or private property they could and would be in big trouble.

 

[MaggieD]

I agree with your first paragraph. It should be illegal to jam... and that goes for government, too, barring a court order for a specific situation. I have no issue with companies having a policy of no use.

I wholly disagree with your second paragraph. It is not reasonable to jam passenger devices for any reason whatsoever, and it's really not even reasonable to jam a driver's device as it may need to be used for emergency purposes and stopping won't be an option (i.e. calling police while being chased in a road rage incident, etc.).

Your argument against an owner of a car being able to jam cell phone signals IN his car sounds reminiscent of the seatbelt argument. "What if the car is on fire and you can't get your belt unbuckled?"

Just a reminder..we have lived thousands of years without cell phones in cars. As a parent, I should have the right to choose what is in the best interest of my child.

 

[11Bravo]

Since the airwaves are the airwaves, I'm against that option for businesses. A business can insist cell phones be set to silent, turned off, or not used while on their premises, but I think jamming signals in business establishments is unreasonable.

Since I think texting while driving is more dangerous than DRUNK driving, though, I think jammers that activate at 10 mph should be allowed in a car owner's vehicle for the safety of others. The safety component makes the difference.

I like where your head's at, but this would never happen in a million years. No one would want to jam phone signals in a car if they're going on a road trip and they have 3 teenage boys and girls in the back seat. Safety concerns? Absolutely you're right. Reality? Our politicians don't care enough about safety to pull that.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Cell phones are the work of Satan. They should be abolished and we all go back to home phones with rotary dials and even party lines to limit our calls and time on the phone.

Now I say that half mocking and half in seriousness.

I detest what has happened to normal manners with the rise of cell phones. People who answer their phone while talking to you face to face..... people who make calls during social occasions with other people ...... people who refuse to abide by instructions posted like TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES or NO CELL PHONES HERE PELASE. Students using cell phones in class. Screw em all and smash those damn things to damnation.

I get it - they are useful in emergencies and accidents and stuff like that. Fine.

My favorite incident that tells me a lot about cell phones happened in a grocery store years ago. This is more or less what I heard as a middle aged man stood in the store. each line is after some response to the previous statement from the other end - which I did not hear but can guess what they said.

MAN: you wanted corn?
... corn on the cob or in a can?
.... any special brand?
... well they got Green Giant and Stokleys and Spartan and Freshlike and some others on a higher shelf that I can't make out
.... they don't have that one... want me to read em again?
.... what size can you want?
... well they got ten ounces... twelve ounces ... 16 ounces and 20 ounces
... OH!!! I just found on the bottom they have these really big cans - three pounds of corn!!!!
... they also have a frozen food area where you can get corn in frozen containers. You want that instead?
... hey they also have some corn with little peppers mixed in.... wanna try that one?
... and they got cream style also -
... yellow corn or white corn?
... how many cans you want?
... I didn't take the coupons... maybe they have some in the store paper if I can find one.
... okay - got it.

This was pretty much an actual conversation. I got home and told my wife about it and asked her to shoot me if I ever got that bad. She smiled and said she would be glad to grant my wish.

I don't own a damn cell phone.

Any laws you want to put on them is more than fine with me.

Rude, inconsiderate, and idiotic people predate cell phones.
So, jam cell phones, and we'll still have such people.

Better to make a rule against rude, inconsiderate, and idiotic people. Oh, and the ones who text while driving? Let's outlaw distracted driving as well... Oh, already did? Well, then, that takes care of that!

 

[radcen]

Your argument against an owner of a car being able to jam cell phone signals IN his car sounds reminiscent of the seatbelt argument. "What if the car is on fire and you can't get your belt unbuckled?"

Just a reminder..we have lived thousands of years without cell phones in cars. As a parent, I should have the right to choose what is in the best interest of my child.

It does seem reminiscent on the surface, but the difference is that a road rage incident is dependent on the whims of another irrational person that you cannot foresee or control, and the seatbelt issue (which I never bought into, btw) is more an inanimate scenario.

Can you guarantee that the jammer in your car won't affect other nearby cars or homes and business as it passes by? If you can't guarantee it, should you still have that right?

And we've lived and survived and even thrived thousands of years without a lot of things. That's not a relevant point either for or against.

 

[Patrickt]

Jamming phones is Not their business. The main reason being emergency calls both outgoing or incoming. Let's just say any business that openly stated that they would jam your phone while on their property would go out of business, Fast. Food for thought, jamming cannot simply be confined to a specific area, if one business is jamming phones and that jamming crosses over onto public or private property they could and would be in big trouble.

Sadly, I'm old enough to remember the days where people would actually go out in public without a phone. We didn't even have play dates for our children. You could buy raw milk if you wanted the kids to learn how butter is made and if you wanted to live in a tree house you could. Not only that, how's this for daring, but if your neighbor cooked tamales you could buy a dozen for the family.

I have been in restaurants, theaters, meetings, and a concert where people got in arguments with selfish cell users. But, I suppose telling people what you're having for dinner in a fancy restaurant qualifies as an emergency for yuppies.

If I were a doctor or a police officer or a personal injury lawyer and was going to a concert...I'd carry a pager. If I owned a nice restaurant I would like to have a sign that says, "If you wish to use a cell phone please leave the dining room and step outside or into the restroom."

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The only reason I am in favor of the law as it stands is such jamming can interfere with contacting emergency services. But that one reason is good enough for me.

 

[MaggieD]

I like where your head's at, but this would never happen in a million years. No one would want to jam phone signals in a car if they're going on a road trip and they have 3 teenage boys and girls in the back seat. Safety concerns? Absolutely you're right. Reality? Our politicians don't care enough about safety to pull that.

Well, I guess I have in mind something that turns on and off...

 

[MaggieD]

It does seem reminiscent on the surface, but the difference is that a road rage incident is dependent on the whims of another irrational person that you cannot foresee or control, and the seatbelt issue (which I never bought into, btw) is more an inanimate scenario.

Can you guarantee that the jammer in your car won't affect other nearby cars or homes and business as it passes by? If you can't guarantee it, should you still have that right?

And we've lived and survived and even thrived thousands of years without a lot of things. That's not a relevant point either for or against.

If that couldn't be guaranteed, I'd never support it. Good points you raise.

 

[Cardinal]

Since the airwaves are the airwaves, I'm against that option for businesses. A business can insist cell phones be set to silent, turned off, or not used while on their premises, but I think jamming signals in business establishments is unreasonable.

Since I think texting while driving is more dangerous than DRUNK driving, though, I think jammers that activate at 10 mph should be allowed in a car owner's vehicle for the safety of others. The safety component makes the difference.

Thing is, though, when I grew up, if you went out, in particular to things like the theater, a concert or a restaurant, it was understood that you were not reachable by phone. I don't know why that expectation is so up for debate today.

I teach a class and I have a strict cellphones off rule. My reasoning is simple: this is a place for focus and quiet. If you have an important situation that requires your close attention, then you need to make a decision as to which is more important to you: the class or your personal situation. If it's your personal situation, then you need to leave to tend to that.

Edit: I just realized you and I already agree on being able to require cell phones to be off/silent. Derp.

 

[Cardinal]

"[FONT="]In recent years, the number of websites offering “cell jammers” or similar devices designed to block communications and create a “quiet zone” in vehicles, schools, theaters, restaurants, and other places has increased substantially. While these devices are marketed under different names, such as signal blockers, GPS jammers, or text stoppers, they have the same purpose. [/FONT][/COLOR][B]We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi.[/B][COLOR=#1D2B3E][FONT="]Despite some marketers’ claims, consumers cannot legally use jammers within the United States, nor can retailers lawfully sell them."
[/FONT]https://www.fcc.gov/general/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law

I sometimes forget how much people in the U.S. love government regulations. What is your opinion of this federal law prohibiting a business from blocking cell phone use with jamming devices.

I have read about assaults in schools that happened when teachers attempted to enforce a ban on cell phone use in class. I've witnessed disturbances between patrons over cell phone use in restaurants, theaters, and a church.

So, what is your opinion on a federal law prohibiting the blocking of cell phones or even possessing a device capable of blocking cell phones?

A note. I'm in favor of businesses having the option providing they have a conspicuous display advising potential customers they will need to leave the theater, restaurant, concert hall, funeral parlor, or church to use their phone.

I have a public and a private position on this issue. My public position that nobody should be able to arbitrarily decide when and where they can block other people around them from being able to use their cellphones.

My private position is: "Jam those mother****ers."

 

[joG]

The reason for the law isn't to inconvenience business, it's to ensure that the emergency services can do their job should they be in the vicinity.

To that end, I am satisfied with the current law. If businesses want to prevent cell phone use, they can use other measures. They can ask people to put them away/turn them off, leave them at the front door or even confiscate them



You'd jam passenger phones too?

That's fine by me. But I am not really convinced by the emergency argument. The business personnel will be knowledgeable of the disturbance and will be able to make the call.
Equally the idea would apply to the government. If businesses cannot have enforced no communication areas then neither should the government, which should have to enable people to make emergency calls from anywhere on its premises.

 

[Casper]

Sadly, I'm old enough to remember the days where people would actually go out in public without a phone. We didn't even have play dates for our children. You could buy raw milk if you wanted the kids to learn how butter is made and if you wanted to live in a tree house you could. Not only that, how's this for daring, but if your neighbor cooked tamales you could buy a dozen for the family.

I have been in restaurants, theaters, meetings, and a concert where people got in arguments with selfish cell users. But, I suppose telling people what you're having for dinner in a fancy restaurant qualifies as an emergency for yuppies.

If I were a doctor or a police officer or a personal injury lawyer and was going to a concert...I'd carry a pager. If I owned a nice restaurant I would like to have a sign that says, "If you wish to use a cell phone please leave the dining room and step outside or into the restroom."

I remember those days also, guess what where I live you can still All those things and people do.

Rude is rude and I have no issue with an establishment saying that they require all phones to be muted or turned off. Even a doctor or LEO or parent that gets a call about an emergency at home can still be informed by simply setting their phone to vibrate if an incoming call is being made. Problem is if you jam the signal then those people cannot even get a notification that someone is trying to contact them and there is Zero sense in that and could open someone to liabilities. If some patrons still ignore the rule the establishment has every right to ask them to leave.

 

[year2late]

I have no issue with a private business jamming your phone, as long as there is clear marking that they are doing so. (if you need your phone for incoming emergency calls, you should know it ain't happening)