FCC Proposes $48,000 Fine To Man Jamming Cellphones On Florida Interstate 427
New submitter freddieb writes: "An individual who had been jamming cellphone traffic on interstate 4 in Florida was located by FCC agents with the assistance of Hillsborough County Sheriff's Deputies. The individual had reportedly been jamming cellphone traffic on I-4 for two years. The FCC is now proposing a $48,000 fine for his actions. They say the jamming 'could and may have had disastrous consequences by precluding the use of cell phones to reach life-saving 9-1-1 services provided by police, ambulance, and fire departments.'"
Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just disgusting how many people use their cell phones while driving.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to a passenger? Texting while driving is already illegal in Florida.
This one guy doesn't get to decide public safety issues.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Informative)
It is Distracted Driving Awareness Month.. From http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Pages/Hands-free-is-not-risk-free.aspx
Isn't it just as distracting to talk to passengers?
- A passenger is able to spot and point out driving hazards
- A passenger is another set of eyes
- A passenger is able to recognize when traffic is challenging and stop talking.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Funny)
" - A passenger is able to spot and point out driving hazards
- A passenger is another set of eyes
- A passenger is able to recognize when traffic is challenging and stop talking."
I guess we'll have to ban blind people from traveling in cars then.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger. That you can't think of any indicates a problem with you, not those who are seeking a ban to phones, but not passengers.
Re: (Score:3)
So it should be illegal to have your boss or customer ride in your car?
Re: (Score:3)
Should it be illegal to conduct business while you are driving? Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL
Good luck writing that law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Funny)
Won't somebody think of the taxi drivers!
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Insightful)
"There's a long list of reasons that a phone call is different from a passenger."
None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yeah, talking on the phone is only as bad as drunk driving [utah.edu]. From the study: "We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit”. It doesn't matter if the call is made on the phone or using a hands-free set, having the conversation is the distracting part. From the article:
"The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk."
It is true that there are a lot of things that distract drivers and every time there is a cell phone thread this point is brought up. The world isn't black and white (distracting vs. non-distracting). There are differing levels of distracted driving depending on the activity performed. Tuning the radio is not as distracting as watching TV. Smoking is not as distracting as making icy margaritas. And talking to a passenger is not as distracting as talking on a phone (although talking to a passenger while driving is distracting). When laws are made to restrict driving, legislatures must balance taking away freedom with a compelling public interest. Obviously some states feel that the freedom to use your phone while driving is outweighed by the societal harm from drivers distracted by such activities.
With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Informative)
Also (cited later in the thread)
"It seems counterintuitive: why is talking on a cell phone while driving any more distracting than talking to a passenger? The reasons have to do with the way our brains process information, reports the Harvard Mental Health Letter."
"One study using a driving simulator found that drivers conversing by cell phone were more likely than those talking to passengers to drift between lanes and to miss an exit they were instructed in advance to take. When the researchers analyzed the complexity of the conversations in this study, they found that drivers and passengers tended to modulate their speech in response to external traffic cues. For example, they stopped talking when a traffic problem developed, or the passenger would offer advice to help the driver navigate. "
Ship AN. "The Most Primary of Care — Talking about Driving and Distraction," New England Journal of Medicine (June 10, 2010): Vol. 362, No. 23, pp. 2145–47.
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91.
article [harvard.edu]
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Insightful)
With your sig, I am really surprised that you take this position. Long before Dunning and Kruger wrote their famous paper it was well known that nearly everybody overestimates their skill in driving (c.f George Carlin on "idiots" and "assholes"). Have you considered that maybe you don't drive as well as you think you do when you are talking on the phone?
No he hasn't, nor will he.
The crux of Dunning-Kruger effect is not that they are unskilled, rather that they are completely oblivious to how unskilled they are and we've known about it for far longer than Carlin, Bertrand Russell said in the 30's "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" and I'm sure there will be earlier examples. Dunning and Kruger wrapped some science around it however.
I'm one of the 4% of humans who can multitask, I dont use my phone whilst driving because I know how badly it affects my driving. Even though I can do two things at once, it still does force me to divide my attention and with the number of idiots on the road, I dont want my attention taken up by something else. Most people who think they can use their phone whilst driving are not driving properly, they think it's easy because they dont bother with things like signalling, checking mirrors and blind spots as well as vehicle management (keeping an eye on speed and other gauges).
Re: (Score:3)
I'm one of the 4% of humans who can multitask
Or, as Bertrand Russel pointed out, at least you think you are....
I question the studies on this a bit (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that either drunk driving is not as dangerous as it is made out to be, or talking on the cellphone is not as dangerous as drunk driving. The reason is that cellphone use in cars has exploded (as it has in general), yet we continue to see a reduction in fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
If we go back to 1992, when cell phones were something owned only by the very few and expensive per minute so not used a lot, we have 1.75 deaths/100mvmt. In 2002, when they were getting fairly common, but still not all pervasive (about 49% of people had them), it was 1.51. In 2012 when practically everyone (95% or so) has them, and they do a lot and are the main means of communication, 1.14 (2012 is the last year I can find stats easily for both figures).
Likewise deaths per 100,000 people went down from 15.4, to 14.9, to 10.8.
So though people are driving as much as ever, and cellphones have gone from a rarity to something everyone has in two decades, we see traffic fatalities continue to drop.
That doesn't seem like it should be the case if indeed it is as dangerous as driving drunk. Either it isn't, or the dangers of drunken driving have been vastly overstated.
I'm not dismissing the studies out of hand, but I think that more need to be done, and more controls on things. I think there may be some bias creeping in since there seems to be this want among many researchers for cellphone use in cars to be a bad thing.
It makes me suspicious that something supposedly such a problem could experience such growth, and yet roads could get much safer.
But here's the thing (Score:3)
While cars have been getting safer, no doubt about that, if there is another force counteracting that, making driving more dangerous, then you don't expect to see numbers go down so much.
In fact another part of the decreased death rate is cellphones themselves. When an accident happens, cellphones allow first responders to be contacted quickly and help to arrive soon. Seconds count with critical injuries.
But ok, let's take raw accident rate. The Census reports 11.5 million traffic accidents in 1990, 10.8 mi
Re: (Score:3)
I can stop talking and put the phone down. If the the person keeps talking, it doesn't matter.
That you claim you are capable of that is irrelevant. That people, in general, don't is causing thousands of deaths. I don't care what some guy "claims" he does better than everyone else. I care about what can be done to prevent preventable deaths.
Did you think about that at all? Or when driving do you star at your passengers?
How's your treatment for glaucoma going? For those of us not functionally blind, we can "see" our passenger without taking our eyes off the road.
None of which has been actually shown to distract any more then having a passenger, or kids, or the radio, or a blond in a convertible drive by..
Yes, it has. They've done studies where a cell phone conversation reduces safety, regardless of whether it's hand-h
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a much larger difference.
You don't need to hold a device to ear to converse with the passenger.
You don't need to take your eyes off of the road to call the passenger.
The passenger doesn't display text and images in front of you. (If they do sedate them before letting them in your car next time)
The passenger doesn't vibrate in your lap startling you. (Unless they're a good passenger, but then again that shouldn't be startling)
If you don't have a hands free setup, which a lot of people don't, and if t
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Informative)
What's the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to a passenger?
According to Harvard [harvard.edu] it is quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
the two are entirely different. you don't shout and concentrate as much with a real person there vs the phone. the phone will cut in and out and distract you; people won't. and finally, the passenger will see that an 'issue' is coming up and probably be quite (or tell you there is a problem ahead). the cell phone will have no idea what your environment is like and they'll continue on blathering while you rear-end the guy who stopped short, in front of you.
I generally won't even answer my phone if I'm dr
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree. Also statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving. So since that isn't practical to ban... the cell phone issue is more of an older generation whining about the next new thing.
I'm sorry if that offends but it is accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt all distracted driving accidents are attributable to cell phone voice calls. Texting, shaving, eating, drinking a beverage, spanking kids, head banging, receiving fellatio, messing with the stereo, messing with the GPS, tying a tie, and ogling the redhead on the side of the street are all distractions.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I doubt all distracted driving accidents are attributable to cell phone voice calls. Texting, shaving, eating, drinking a beverage, spanking kids, head banging, receiving fellatio, messing with the stereo, messing with the GPS, tying a tie, and ogling the redhead on the side of the street are all distractions.
What about giving fellatio?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just disgusting how many people use their cell phones while driving.
It is quite vexing; but I suspect that 'people looking down in surprise when their signal suddenly cuts out' are even less useful for driving than are people chattering like idiots.
He wasn't just jamming cell phones (Score:4, Informative)
In the article it states that the Sheriffs lost contact with dispatch too as they neared the car. So ignore his supposed noble effort to stop cell use while driving, he was actually endangering lives by blocking communications for first responders.
Re:He wasn't just jamming cell phones (Score:5, Informative)
Sheriffs around here (FL) use the 800mhz public safety allocation (digital trunking /w encryption in their case - which requires a good signal to function), and a cell jammer would need to smash that range as well because some networks use frequencies around 800mhz or 850mhz.
This highlights why jammers are such a bad thing. The spectrum is crowded, and what might be perceived as useless by someone with a jammer might be neighbored by something important.
Re: (Score:3)
Jammers are incredibly easy to find.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how fast they're driving, I would be worried the most about the driver who took his eyes off the road to look at his phone and wonder why it stopped working.
Collateral Damage? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if this has occurred to you or not, but not everyone inside a car is driving a car. And if you do get into a car accident, it would be nice if you or someone in the area could call emergency services.
Re:Collateral Damage? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the people who live nearby as well?
Re:Emergency Services (Score:4, Funny)
We didn't have cell phones. Or car accidents. Steve Jobs was still alive.
It was paradise.
You just died. (Score:5, Interesting)
30 years ago you had to wait for someone to go get help, which could take quite a while. A lot more people died in car accidents back then. . .
Re: (Score:3)
True, but cars were much more dangerous back then. Looking at you old Fury III with bench seats, 383 and no belts.
Re: (Score:3)
Blocking access to a service someone has paid for is "damage." The extent of the injury is mostly financial, and hard to quantify because there are a lot of injured parties who were effected over a two year period (none of whom will actually be receiving compensation). However, it easily could have contributed to personal injury and it would be very hard to know.
The purpose of the fine is not to compensate the injured parties, that would be very hard to do. It is meant to dissuade him and others from undert
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Insightful)
So you'd rather have them careening down the freeway at 80MPH with one hand on the wheel and one hand holding their smartphone while looking down at it to see why the call just got cut off?
and when they crash into someone else, no one can call for an ambulance?
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm so sick of seeing people careening down the freeway at 80 MPH with one hand on the wheel and one hand mashing a smartphone to their braincase.
I wish they would do that. More often they're varying speed between 45 and 55 (in a 65 zone) and meandering between lanes. Buy a bluetooth headset or speaker, fuckos!!!
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno about you, but I noticed a long time ago that not all drivers are created equal nor are all drivers on cell phones. In fact, the crash studies that found drivers who get in accidents with cell phones also get in more accidents than normal without cell phones really hit that one home.
I really think there are just some people who are inattentative, and will let anything distract them from driving. Sure most people have their moments of distraction but I think most people are able to realize when things are distracting and are able to choose the situations in which they take those risks.
OTOH the people I know who are some of the worst drivers.... are constantly on their cell phone, and, seem to just not prioritize driving at all. This would be meaningless anecdote if not for the fact that.... this is exactly what studies have found... whereas most people drive more cautiously while on phones (often slower) this particular group of people actually take MORE risks while using the phone.
The thing is, the phone didn't cause this, accident rates have not significantly gone up....these people were always out there...they were just less identifiable.
Re: (Score:3)
No, in fact, accident rates have been going down pretty steadily during the period that cellphones have been becoming increasingly common.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds about right. There was a guy on NPR a while back who was talking about how the number of accidents per year hasn't gone down in a generation or two; completely ignoring how much population has increase (30% since just the 70s) and miles driven have gone up, and number of cars on the road etc.... but the raw unadjusted number....about the same... talk about having your head up your own ass.
Re: (Score:3)
There are three or more seats in almost every vehicle where people can legally operate phones.
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:5, Informative)
You don't like people using the phone while driving. Well guess what, there are people in range that aren't driving that the jammer was Fing up. There have been multiple times I've been in a car and had to call in an emergency because of vehicular wrecks, semi-trucks driven by drunks, fires, and a trestle collision.
Don't forget about everybody else that's not even in a car, yet still in range to be Fd up by that jammer. People walking along, in their homes, etc.
Of course, if it just magically only affected cell phones, it would still be limited effects, but guess what, cell phones don't use a single contiguous band of frequencies. Other things do use those gaps between the cell phones, so you're screwing up even more things! In some cities that would be part of their emergency response systems. I know of a couple of places that have sensors at various places, and guess how they report their information? Yes, via cell phone.
The guy was an inconsiderate asshole that was a greater potential danger to the public than the morons using phones while driving. In my opinion, he's lucky they're only going for the fine instead of also slapping him with a public endangerment charge of some kind. (If he is in one of the areas where it might mess with the ERS, then they could totally screw him.)
If someone is doing something illegal, call the cops.
If someone is doing something you don't like, but it isn't illegal, suck it up fat boy!
If you choose to break the law and screw with everyone else, possibly putting people at risk instead of the previously mentioned actions, you deserve to have your sanctimonious ass thrown in a deep dark hole.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because breaking the law in and of itself is never justifiable, right? As far as lives go, you'd have to offset the number of denied 911 calls that would've saved someone against the number of accidents he prevented by denying cellnet access to all those childadult accidents-waiting-to-happen. Really, it goes either way, and I'll bet the difference he made either way was negligible.
As far as critical infrastructure goes, it should be hardwired, with RF as an emergency fallback. It seems everyone, i
Re:Probably saved more lives with jamming (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the state/county/locale.
Where I live, it's currently only illegal to text while driving, and even then, only if you're under a certain age (21, I believe), although there is legislation in the state Legislature that would expand the texting ban to all ages.
Which just goes to show how idiotic our legislative processes can be; I can only presume they didn't make texting while driving illegal for everyone in the first round had something to do with the law being passed in an election year.
Re: (Score:3)
I responded to you already, but here is some more:
Strayer DL, et al. "A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver," Human Factors (Summer 2006): Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 381–91. http://www.distraction.gov/dow... [distraction.gov]
Fitch, G. A., Soccolich, S. A., Guo, F., McClaffert y, J., Fang, Y., Olson, R. L., Perez, M. A., Hanowski, R. J., Hankey, J. M., & Dingus, T. A. (2013, April).
The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk
(Report No. DOT
Sounds fair to me (Score:2, Insightful)
The dude should certainly be punished, and a punitive fine like that sounds fairly reasonable to me. No sense clogging up the jails even further over what amounts to vandalism of a sort.
Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, it took 3 days to find the guy. And the people that did the investigation were getting paid anyway (you don't think they went out and hired extra investigators for this, do you). The 'cost' was $0.
Re: (Score:3)
By this "logic" all police work (and by extension - all service work) has zero cost, since they're already there...
I should have landscapers come out to my house and have some work done -- after all, they already exist and would be working somewhere else anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to assign those costs to individual cases is meaningless, unless the cases have specific costs over and above the usual (such as requiring overtime).
Why?
False fire alarm keeps going off at your business? Well then, we're going to bill you for rolling the trucks - because a large fire department has to staff based on the number, type and location of calls that they get, and they have to staff to handle a long slew of false alarms.
All sorts of municipalities bill you when you use their services - emergency or not, requested or not. Ambulances will gladly take your unconscious body to the hospital and charge you more than the gas used.
Courts tack on "cou
Jammer was in car (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article, you'll notice he was operating the jammer from his car while driving. It's a lot harder to track down a moving jammer than a stationary one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why did he do it - and why didn't they ask? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, if it was a movie theater, I could see someone jamming cell phones. But on a road? Why?
Was he using an over-powered machine and doing it by mistake? Was he just insane?
Re:Why did he do it - and why didn't they ask? (Score:5, Informative)
Mr. Humphreys admitted that he owned and had operated a cell phone jammer from his car for the past 16 to 24 months. An inspection of the vehicle revealed the cell phone jammer behind the seat cover of the passenger seat. Mr. Humphreys stated that he had been operating the jammer to keep people from talking on their cell phones while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
"he's the hero you need, even if he's not the hero you deserve."
or something like that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that people will re-try the connection several times when it drops.
Re: (Score:3)
Wideband, eh? So he wasn't just jamming cell phones, he very well may have been jamming the communications systems of emergency services personnel.
Seems to me he got off light, all considered.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious question to ask was why someone would do such a thing.
Now, if it was a movie theater, I could see someone jamming cell phones. But on a road? Why?
Was he using an over-powered machine and doing it by mistake? Was he just insane?
Plenty of APKs out there. This guy just kicked it up a notch (and went IRL). Worse than an internet spammer crank, not nearly as bad as the Unabomber, but somewhere in the middle of the nuisance/danger spectrum
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
obvious question — why
For people that actually drive and must cope with vehicles that effectively have no driver because cell-phone there is nothing compelling about your question; the answer is self-evident.
The Slashdot Beta (Score:4, Insightful)
The Slashdot Beta is already having disastrous consequences on this website. The beta site just crashed my browser, and while there currently is an option to proceed to the old version (which I managed to click, just in time, after restarting my browser), I'm sure that even this option will soon disappear.
I'm not an old timer ranting just for the heck of it, (Disclaimer: I've just been on this website for close to 6 years now, five of those were during my engineering degree. Note that 6 years is a very short period of time, compared to some of the commenters who frequent this website, they've been here for much longer, though the way things are going, I doubt that they're going to stick around). The beta is truly unusable, is just a blatant advertisement for tech jobs by the new owners of this website, and destroys the comment system entirely.
I don't come here to read "News for Nerds", because the submissions made these days are just a blatant waste of time. What I do come here for are the comments. There is an absolute wealth of experience among the users on this website, from system admins to web developers to people with all sorts of careers, and from all sorts of backgrounds, not just technology. I come here to read their comments. This is also one of the greatest places to find absolute gems of wit (+5 Funny, I'm looking at you). I attempted to use the Beta to this purpose, but it failed miserably.
TL:DR; I come here for the comments, I won't be coming here any more if the beta becomes the default. Yes, this is a rant. Yes, this is offtopic. Yes, this will be modded as such. But I just needed to say that. Thanks.
Re:The Slashdot Beta (Score:4, Informative)
http://soylentnews.com/ [soylentnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Many of the best commentators from here are also active there, so there's plenty of insightful comments. The overall volume is just low because of recent events.
It got a lot of comments when it was first unveiled, but a bit of drama with the operators that kept making it to the front page, combined with a determination to post more frequent stories than anyone wants, seems to have taken the shine off, and scared plenty of early-adopters away.
Whether it rebounds back to it's path of world domination, or bac
In the absence of an effective goverment... (Score:2)
If the government had actually dealt with known issues regarding driving and cell phone use, his vigilantism would not have been necessary. I know I have thought about doing the same thing myself. And I wonder how many politicians receive contributions from the cell phone companies.
Still... he committed a crime and should be punished. Civil disobedience requires a willingness to accept the punishment to help solve the problem.
Re:In the absence of an effective goverment... (Score:5, Insightful)
His vigilantism wasn't necessary. He accomplished nothing at all with his nonsense than to possibly create a public hazard. What about car passengers? Are they "allowed" to use the phone? How many drivers do you suppose tried redialing again and again? He solved nothing at all. What arrogance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In the absence of an effective goverment... (Score:5, Informative)
Government has failed to act to address these safety issues.
But, sacdelta, you did have a comment when a government tried to act to address one of these safety issues:
Please! Take action so we don't have to take responsibility for our own lives. Heaven forbid we ever have to think for ourselves. [slashdot.org]
A better solution may be to force anyone who complains about how this type of thing negatively impacts them to take a class in self control.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the point. While it may be legal, it has been shown in studies to be unsafe (hands free or otherwise). Government has failed to act to address this safety issue.
I never realized it was the government's duty to protect you from every single possible way that you might come to harm.
Oh, right - it's not.
How many accidents could he have caused (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate when people talk, text and drive. You jam somebody, they are going to take the phone from their head and try to call again, or at least figure out what is going on. This is probably more distracting than just talking to somebody.
Unacceptable Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't he just shoot at road signs like most normal people?
That seems fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly since the FCC levied a similar fine against BART in August of 2011...
Oh, wait. They didn't do anything at all then. But they're coming down like Thor's hammer on Florida Man.
How does that saying go? "You're everything we've come to expect from years of government training".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except with BART, they didn't interfere with the signal, they shut off the amplifier that they controlled. A BIG difference. A fine is an expected outcome for illegally interfering with airwaves.
Darwin shot and missed on this one (Score:3)
Imagine he was in an accident and rendered unconscious with his car still powering the jamming device. Assume it was a single car accident, no need to be cruel to others. Anyhow, nobody can call for help and nobody thinks to switch off the ignition in his vehicle which is clearly not running. If it jammed first responders communication equipment too, all the better. He could enjoy a nice long wait for an ambulance.
Re:Darwin shot and missed on this one (Score:4, Informative)
It did jam emergency communication equipment too
The Hillsborough Sheriff deputies reported that communications with police dispatch over their 800 MHz two-way portable radios were interrupted as they approached the SUV
...
...
On June 14, 2013, agents from the Tampa Office tested the seized cell phone jammer and confirmed that it was capable of jamming cellular and PCS communications in at least three frequency bands: 821-968 MHz, 1800-2006 MHz, and 2091-2180 MHz.
Public safety radio systems (such as those used by police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians) operate in several portions of the 800 MHz band, which consists of spectrum at 806-824 MHz paired with spectrum at 851-869 MHz.
http://www.fcc.gov/document/48... [fcc.gov]
Could and may have saved lives (Score:2)
Its not the cellphone use thats the problem (Score:2)
its the driving thats the problem.
So Until they get fully automated cars, the states should require that all cars and trucks have a 'crew' of 2.
I to drive
the other to navigate and communicate
The second person would not have to be a licensed driver, nor an adult (but there would be a minimum age)
Jamming is a terrible solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most jammers work by blasting noise on whatever channels you are trying to block.
Perfect band pass filters are not a thing the exist, especially not for transmitters. Especially not for transmitters cobbled together by some guy on the cheap. The assumption that they do is why they (rightfully) smacked down LightSquared.
So, let's do a little exercise:
First, look at the 800 MHz Band Plan
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedi... [fcc.gov]
See that slot right below "Cellular?" You know, that cut-away that has all the "Public Safety" allocations? Now, let's look at a quote from the FCC posting:
"According to deputies from the Sheriff’s Office, communications with police dispatch were interrupted as they approached Mr. Humphreys’ vehicle."
The jammer was blocking police radio. Not just cell phones. He was actively interfering with public safety communications. NON-CELLULAR public safety communications.
Personally? $48,000 is getting off easy. I'd add another order of magnitude onto it.
Re: (Score:2)
From a different point of view... he possibly increased the likelihood of a distracted driving accident from callers looking at their phone muttering "wtf" to see why the call was dropped instead of keeping their eyes on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yes, dropped calls are such a rare occurence..
Re: (Score:2)
Or attempting to re-connect several times in an area that they usually get coverage. The jammer was mobile and only on intermittently.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said they were rare. They do however almost always result in the person looking at their phone to figure out what happened.
Re:Maybe blocked a roadside call... (Score:5, Insightful)
Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents.
How are you so sure? Because you like vandalism, so it should be supported?
Re: (Score:2)
. . . and also interrupted navigation systems
Re: (Score:3)
A) "Definitely stopped several talking and driving accidents"
B) didn't cause any accidents due to people being distracted by the dropped call.
C) didn't cause any injuries or deaths when his jamming "interfered with first-responder communications"
While you are at it, exactly how many times a month do you drive I4 in the Tampa area?
Re: (Score:2)
If it were up to me, no call except 911 could be made while the vehicle is in motion.
Passengers?
Re:Another valuable investment of tax payer dollar (Score:5, Informative)
On April 29, 2013, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) received a complaint from Metro PCS4 that its cell phone tower sites had been experiencing interference during the morning and evening commutes in Tampa, Florida. Based on the location of the towers and the times that the alleged interference occurred, the Bureau determined that the likely source of the interference was mobile along Interstate 4 between downtown Tampa and Seffner, Florida.
On May 7, 2013, agents from the Bureau’s Tampa Office (Tampa Office) initiated an investigation into this matter and monitored the suspected route. On May 7, 8, and 9, 2013, the agents determined, using direction finding techniques, that strong wideband emissions within the cellular and PCS bands (i.e., the 800 MHz to 1900 MHz band) were emanating from a blue Toyota Highlander sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a Florida license plate. On May 9, 2013, the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (Hillsborough Sheriff), working closely with the agents from the Tampa Office, stopped the Toyota Highlander SUV. The Hillsborough Sheriff deputies reported that communications with police dispatch over their 800 MHz two-way portable radios were interrupted as they approached the SUV.5
So it took them a grand total of three days to find the guy. The two years figure comes from his own admission of how long he's been using the jammer.
Re: (Score:3)
As a google for "BDA" brings up "British Dental Association" maybe you could be a bit more descriptive?
Are you saying the man accidentally was jamming cell traffic?
I guess it could happen. When I was in high school I built a spark gap and jacobs ladder [wikipedia.org] out of a neon sign transformer. When I turned it on for the first time, the radio I was listening to stopped working. If I had one of these in my trunk driving down the interstate it'd probably render cell phones inoperable, AFAIK I knocked out radios with
Re:Another valuable investment of tax payer dollar (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it worth it to maintain free communications for people? Passengers in the cars were unable to call anyone as well. It's arrogant behavior to think you have the right to jam people's communications. I think a little jail time would be appropriate as well, or at least about 200 hours of community service picking up trash on the roadside.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agree on the community service.
You think you own this piece of highway, hotshot? Alright, then, you get to keep it clean for the next 6 months.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it took more than $48k in tax payer dollars to fund the two year man hunt to catch this dangerous criminal. (/sarcasm)
Enforcing the laws and regulations is often considered an end unto itself, and not a revenue generating device. Little profit flows into public coffers for incarcerating people, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way to know, because a blocked call wouldn't have gone through. . .
Re: (Score:2)
It impeded communication between the police communication centre and the police cars. It wasn't just cellphones, he was jamming emergency services communications too. It was the police who complained. He was broadcasting wideband signals between 800MHz and 1900MHz.
Re: (Score:3)
Results matter.
So someone who is drunk behind the wheel should not be prosecuted? They haven't hurt anyone yet. Being drunk behind the wheel is not a problem except that it increases the probability of an accident. In many cases probability counts as well. Considering there is a probability of someone dying due to the presence of the jammer it is pretty serious.
Re:Cause and Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Evidence? Seems to me that it is more likely he could have caused accidents, because now the idiot who was going to make a call (or was in the middle of a call) is going to be looking at his phone to check signal strength, redialing, getting frustated, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but his mind will now be concentrating inside the car instead of being in some other place while talking on the phone thereby avoiding accidents.