I found the following article from http://www.firefighterclosecalls.com and find it interesting so I will foward it to here for discussion
Cell Phone Blocking affects communications?
- Thread starter Tommahawk
- Start date
- Status
unitcharlie
a Kentucky DB Admin...
with apologies....
they want to forbid my legal use of a communications device, then i can restrict my flow of legal tender....
they want to forbid my legal use of a communications device, then i can restrict my flow of legal tender....
Joe,
I had not seen this article nor heard of efforts to build cheap RF shielding before. I think, if people would abide by requests to switch off thier equipment, then such matters as safety concerns would not be raised. However, as long as there are people who insist on infringing on the rights of others by thier unwanted use of "communications devices", then I say 3 cheers for Hideo Oka and his team.
I had not seen this article nor heard of efforts to build cheap RF shielding before. I think, if people would abide by requests to switch off thier equipment, then such matters as safety concerns would not be raised. However, as long as there are people who insist on infringing on the rights of others by thier unwanted use of "communications devices", then I say 3 cheers for Hideo Oka and his team.
BobWeb
Member
unitcharlie said:
Great idea. All those who can't live for two hours without talking on the phone can stand out in the parking lot talking while the rest of us enjoy a movie or dinner or whatever without having to listen to phones ring. It's cheaper for you and more enjoyable for us!
BobWeb said:
<sarcasm mode>
Yea - great idea. The firefighter trapped in the back room can't call for help. Yea - WONDERFUL idea. They get to kill people because people can't stand hearing a phone ring.
</sarcasm mode>
While I agree these things are annoying, they should throw the offenders out, not impliment measures that will eventually cost lives. Is your right to a noise free movie or meal worth a life?
Joe M.
I must agree with Joe, I think the risks outway the positives on this one. More power to inventions, but not in some situations.......
BobWeb
Member
<sarcasm mode>
Yea - great idea. The firefighter trapped in the back room can't call for help. Yea - WONDERFUL idea. They get to kill people because people can't stand hearing a phone ring.
</sarcasm mode>
While I agree these things are annoying, they should throw the offenders out, not impliment measures that will eventually cost lives. Is your right to a noise free movie or meal worth a life?
Joe M.[/quote]
<reality mode>
No, I don't want to see anyone die as a result of these measures. But who are you blaming for this? The basic problem is that the cell phone companies control the FCC. They want any idiot with a cell phone to be able to use it whenever and wherever they want. People are going to respond to this. The real problem here is that these companies don't give a damn what results from their marketing. They are the ones who are the problem here, not the companies trying to provide a nice environment for their patrons. The use of cell phones should not be allowed to interfere with the EMS and police services. Unfortunately, for us here in Denver, Nextel is already causing problems for the Denver PD. They are causing the exact problem you're talking about, but there is no concern about this. It is possible that lives have already been lost due to this problem. The FCC has no interest in resolving this. So my point is that savy business owners are not doing any worse by using this type of measure. Why is it that these businesses are being blamed when it is really the phone companies that are the problem? The real issue is that the phone companies should not have allowed this to occur.
</reality mode>
Yea - great idea. The firefighter trapped in the back room can't call for help. Yea - WONDERFUL idea. They get to kill people because people can't stand hearing a phone ring.
</sarcasm mode>
While I agree these things are annoying, they should throw the offenders out, not impliment measures that will eventually cost lives. Is your right to a noise free movie or meal worth a life?
Joe M.[/quote]
<reality mode>
No, I don't want to see anyone die as a result of these measures. But who are you blaming for this? The basic problem is that the cell phone companies control the FCC. They want any idiot with a cell phone to be able to use it whenever and wherever they want. People are going to respond to this. The real problem here is that these companies don't give a damn what results from their marketing. They are the ones who are the problem here, not the companies trying to provide a nice environment for their patrons. The use of cell phones should not be allowed to interfere with the EMS and police services. Unfortunately, for us here in Denver, Nextel is already causing problems for the Denver PD. They are causing the exact problem you're talking about, but there is no concern about this. It is possible that lives have already been lost due to this problem. The FCC has no interest in resolving this. So my point is that savy business owners are not doing any worse by using this type of measure. Why is it that these businesses are being blamed when it is really the phone companies that are the problem? The real issue is that the phone companies should not have allowed this to occur.
</reality mode>
K5MAR
Member
With all due respect, Bob, the Nextell interference problem is an entirely different situation from the one being addressed by these panels that were developed. The Nextel situation has been heavily discussed on other threads, so I won't get into it here.
As for blocking cellphones and pagers, while I sympathize with the theater and restaurant owners, I don't believe these blocking devices are a good idea. There are many people who depend on their cellphones and pagers for the timely delivery of vital, even life-saving information. This could be police, fire, EMS or other off-duty emergency personel, or a doctor who's taking the night out with his wife whan a medical emergency comes up that requires his presence. As annoying as it is to have somebody's cellphone ring during the movie or a play, how "annoying" would it be to find out that the only surgeon capable of performing a life-saving procedure on your family member couldn't be contacted because the theater was bocking the reception of cellular and pager transmissions? Think it couldn't happen? Think again.
Mark S.
As for blocking cellphones and pagers, while I sympathize with the theater and restaurant owners, I don't believe these blocking devices are a good idea. There are many people who depend on their cellphones and pagers for the timely delivery of vital, even life-saving information. This could be police, fire, EMS or other off-duty emergency personel, or a doctor who's taking the night out with his wife whan a medical emergency comes up that requires his presence. As annoying as it is to have somebody's cellphone ring during the movie or a play, how "annoying" would it be to find out that the only surgeon capable of performing a life-saving procedure on your family member couldn't be contacted because the theater was bocking the reception of cellular and pager transmissions? Think it couldn't happen? Think again.
Mark S.
BobWeb said:
Snipped to provide point references. First off, I take it from your 'reality mode' that you think my comment (other than the sarcasm) was NOT reality? If so, you should break for a reality check. I have no problem whatsoever being one to sue the business owner, the contractor who installed, and the company who made these panels if someone dies over their idiotic planning.
Who am I blaming? I guess the only ones to blame are the businesses for not escorting violators out who refuse to put their phone or pager on vibrate mode. Cell phones, pagers, and even PS pagers now days all have it standard, and it should be used. I used it YESTERDAY while in a restaurant. When I got the call to respond to a house fire, it bothered nobody. But, I still got the call (the important part).
As for Cell (or NexTel, which is not Cellular despite what they think)interfering with PS comms, come back when you've read and understand the thread. That is not at all the topic. We are talking about walls designed to block radio signals - specifically Cellular, but in reality will interfere with or completely block any radio signals - especially 800 MHz systems and 900 MHz pagers.
Businesses aren't going to be doing any worse when they impliment this measure? They will when they are repeatedly SUED over their part in the wrongful death of someone - be it the PS worker in their business on duty, on call, or other person whose response is vital in saving lives.
Who knows - maybe it will be YOU, Bob, who has a stroke in a restaurant, and the EMS workers can't contact the ER to receive instructions on how to treat you. Wouldn't that be a b!(ch? But, I'm sure you will be happy to know that your life meant someone else could dine in peace. Not that your twitching body wouldn't disturb them. Maybe they could come up with some way to prevent that, too. Maybe when you collapse, you should be dragged out into the street so others can continue to enjoy their meals. :twisted:
Joe M.
N
nmfire10
Guest
I'm thinking it would be very easy to work a prohibition of these incredibly stupid devices to the local building codes.
Alright, I expressed my opinion at the beginning of this thread and will not repeat it here except to say that I am more in favor of RF shielding than I am not (just to establish my side of the fence.) What I am going to do here is address various points brought up by different people so far throughout this thread.
As to your comment about Nextel; it is certainly cellular, just as any networked trunking system is cellular, if you don’t understand how they work, then don’t make comments you can’t support.
Okay, I have said my bit again, let the bombarding begin. :wink:
It is not legal if the property owner has forbidden it.unitcharlie said:
Bob, if only people would be considerate of others and use some common sense then this entire issue would be much ado about nothing.BobWeb said:
Okay follow me here: Whereas the death of a fireman (or anyone for that matter) due to communications failure is tragic, it is not the blame of the business owner who installs RF shielding. There are plenty of places that have RF shielding (and if they are considerate they will post a notice to that effect) but if a business owner installs it, that owner is not setting out to kill someone by their action. Indeed, this is the same type of argument that the anti-handgun lobby tried against manufacturers and dealers with little success. You are going to sue? Well, if a business owner (read private property owner) decides to install RF shielding, it is his business and his right. That is his property, not yours, if he wants to ban RF he can do so and there is nothing you can do about it. Just because you are a public safety official does not give you the right to use a radio in his place of business. The business owner is not to blame for inconsiderate (read unlawful) patrons who refuse to turn off their devices in his place of business, yes even you (apparently a fireman or something) should turn off your cell phone or pager if the business owner requests it. If a person is subject to being called for some emergency, then stay available, this means don’t go where you can’t be contacted. BTW, my wife is subject to such a leash and we make sure that we don’t go where she can’t be contacted, and if you are interested we shut off our cell phone(s) or pager when we go into a place of business where it might be offensive to others. That means if she is on call, we don’t go out. If you are on call 24/7 that is your choice, but that doesn’t mean I (or anyone else) should suffer for your decision. So although you may file a lawsuit against a business owner, you may find yourself the subject of a counter suit for frivolous or harassing use of the court system. As to your being called out, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your device was on vibrate when you received the call. I just wonder, did you get up and leave the restaurant to take the call? If you did, thank you, if you didn’t I will guarantee that you bothered someone.Voyager (from several posts) said:
As to your comment about Nextel; it is certainly cellular, just as any networked trunking system is cellular, if you don’t understand how they work, then don’t make comments you can’t support.
Are you sure? Evidence the difficulty to write or enforce bans on use of cellular telephones while driving a vehicle (something I don’t support BTW) or anti-smoking rules for public places (something I do support). First you have to get enough support to get the law enacted, then you have to deal with all of the self-important people who think it is a stupid law and they don’t have to obey it or it doesn’t apply to them because the are such-and-such.nmfire10 said:
Okay, I have said my bit again, let the bombarding begin. :wink:
nmfire10 said:
Already done here. All new buildings must pass a signal level test prior to getting a CO. We trained and equiped the Fire Marshal with handheld units that display the signal level of the system control channel. If the signal is less than -96 in the center lower floor the building fails.
The builder must at that point install and maintain a BDA system, with our oversight, so emergency workers have communications when in the building.
The building is then re-tested for adequate signal above -96 and then issued a CO. Yearly Fire Alarm testing now includes signal level checks as well.
If the builder installed such an item, like the signal blocking walls, during the construction process then it would be a waste of money due to us forcing them to install a BDA.
N
nmfire10
Guest
loumaag said:
I was refering to a ordinance banning the use of this shielding, not the use of phones.
K5MAR
Member
Well, Lou, I don't want to get involved in all this again, sufice to say that Nextel is not a cellular telephone service as was originally defined by the FCC, instead it is SMR (Specialized Mobile Radio). Nextel, instead of setting up in the freq range allocated for cellular service (which had adequate isolation from the Public Safety 800 MHz allocations), went out and bought up all of Motorola's SMR licenses and installed their wireless phone service on those frequencies. Unfortunately, these freqs are intermingled with the Public Safety freqs, as they were originally intended for two-way radio systems similar to the public safety systems. (A few widely spaced tower sites as opposed to dozens or hundreds of sites as used by cellular providers.) So the interference problems with these systems is a result of Nextel's business decisions, and Nextel should be held liable for the entire cost of mitigating these problems.
As for rude patrons in restaurants, theaters, etc, they don't need a cellular device or pager to have a negative impact on the other customers. For every person I encounter in a resaurant talking loudly into a cellphone, I encounter a half-dozen people just talking loudly, discussing medical problems, their finances, somebody's indiscretions, yelling at their kids, etc. You get the idea. You can not legislate "appropriate" behavior, and addressing the problem by trying to limit cellphone or pager usage is treating the symptom, not the problem. Post signs asking people to turn off audible ringers on phones and pagers, and ask people who have failed to comply to step outside.
BTW, the blocking material will do nothing to stop people who have audible alarms on their watches, and I hear those almost as often as I hear ringing cellphones.
This whole subject reminds me of a comment by one of the characters in a Robert A. Heinlein novel that goes something like this: People never ask for laws to be passed to prevent them from doing something they know they shouldn't do. They ask for new laws to prevent others from doing something they don't want others to do. Cellphone usage isn't criminal, but sometimes it is rude. You can't legislate against rudeness.
Mark S.
As for rude patrons in restaurants, theaters, etc, they don't need a cellular device or pager to have a negative impact on the other customers. For every person I encounter in a resaurant talking loudly into a cellphone, I encounter a half-dozen people just talking loudly, discussing medical problems, their finances, somebody's indiscretions, yelling at their kids, etc. You get the idea. You can not legislate "appropriate" behavior, and addressing the problem by trying to limit cellphone or pager usage is treating the symptom, not the problem. Post signs asking people to turn off audible ringers on phones and pagers, and ask people who have failed to comply to step outside.
BTW, the blocking material will do nothing to stop people who have audible alarms on their watches, and I hear those almost as often as I hear ringing cellphones.
This whole subject reminds me of a comment by one of the characters in a Robert A. Heinlein novel that goes something like this: People never ask for laws to be passed to prevent them from doing something they know they shouldn't do. They ask for new laws to prevent others from doing something they don't want others to do. Cellphone usage isn't criminal, but sometimes it is rude. You can't legislate against rudeness.
Mark S.
LOL If you can't legislate manners, then why does the government want to try to legislate morality? Answer: To look good for thier constituency. Its all a big game. Why will you never see Nextel ever pay for thier mistakes? Answer: Its not good BIG BUSINESS,... AKA $$$. Anyway, this debate is endless and will NEVER be solved in our lifetimes. Not negative, just cold hard facts.
Hey guy's, you overlooked one thing. It is illegal to jam any frequencie in the USA. Jammers are not allowed and if used, the user will have a very hefty fine placed on them by the FCC. So think about what you guy's are arguing over.
R Collins
R Collins
BobWeb
Member
Yikes! Well, that didn't go at all the way I planned. Upon reflection though, I suppose I didn't word that very well. Let's try this again.
Okay, the basic problem is that some people (not all) who use cell phones do so very rudely or use them in inappropriate places. This, in turn, causes others to become frustrated. So much so that signs have been put up, announcements have to be made, do it yourself cell phone jammers have appeared, and now these panels. All because people lack simple consideration for others. It would be great if people would use the vibrate mode (as I do) when necessary, but they often don't.
As long as the problem continues, people will be looking for a way to remediate it (that's the reality part). The panels are one such solution, but have the unfortunate side effect of also blocking public safety comms. I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should buy and install them for this very reason, but I DO like the *idea* of them.
My point about Nextel is that they are causing comms to be dropped just as these panels would do. I realize that the situation is very different, but the result is essentially the same, which is what I was getting at. I find it very ironic that this has been allowed to go on for so long given the problem it causes, but alas big cell rules the day. So again, I don't see that a business is really doing anything worse by using the panels than what Nextel is already doing and continues to do.
Okay, the basic problem is that some people (not all) who use cell phones do so very rudely or use them in inappropriate places. This, in turn, causes others to become frustrated. So much so that signs have been put up, announcements have to be made, do it yourself cell phone jammers have appeared, and now these panels. All because people lack simple consideration for others. It would be great if people would use the vibrate mode (as I do) when necessary, but they often don't.
As long as the problem continues, people will be looking for a way to remediate it (that's the reality part). The panels are one such solution, but have the unfortunate side effect of also blocking public safety comms. I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should buy and install them for this very reason, but I DO like the *idea* of them.
My point about Nextel is that they are causing comms to be dropped just as these panels would do. I realize that the situation is very different, but the result is essentially the same, which is what I was getting at. I find it very ironic that this has been allowed to go on for so long given the problem it causes, but alas big cell rules the day. So again, I don't see that a business is really doing anything worse by using the panels than what Nextel is already doing and continues to do.
N
nmfire10
Guest
kg4icg said:
Hey, your overlooking something. Nothing is jamming anything. It is SHIELDING. Insulating RF from coming in. It is not jamming anything.
AZScanner
Member
Here's an idea, if you install the panels, you must also post signs to the affect at all fire exits, so when the FD responds they'll know to go to defensive mode right away.... "Who brought marshmallows?!"
OK seriously, why not just make that part of the fire inspection process? If the fire inspector can't do a radio check from inside the building then a sprinker system or other automated means of fire suppression must be installed for the building to pass the inspection. Easy enough, no? Most restaurants and theatres already have such systems in place because it saves them money on their insurance anyway. Next time you go to the movies, before they turn the lights down, look up... chances are there's a few fire sprinklers up there somewhere pointing back down at you.
-AZ[/b]
"Who brought marshmallows?!"OK seriously, why not just make that part of the fire inspection process? If the fire inspector can't do a radio check from inside the building then a sprinker system or other automated means of fire suppression must be installed for the building to pass the inspection. Easy enough, no? Most restaurants and theatres already have such systems in place because it saves them money on their insurance anyway. Next time you go to the movies, before they turn the lights down, look up... chances are there's a few fire sprinklers up there somewhere pointing back down at you.
-AZ[/b]
yeah your right but it will also inhibit something else you forgot if you block radio waves. other then just cellphones. so watch out what you wish for. it might come true.
R Collins
R Collins
- Status
Similar threads
