Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Are jamming devices needed to put manners on mobiles?

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 16:54:16 -0500

Are jamming devices needed to put manners on mobiles?
Source: Irish Times
Publication date: 2002-12-13

Mobile phone etiquette has become a burgeoning issue in recent times with
the growth in the use of phones in public places. The popularity of mobile
phones has meant it is common to see people making and receiving calls in
bars, restaurants and on public transport. Some people, however, want to
ban or jam mobile phones.
Mobile phones have reached mass market popularity faster than
comparative technologies like radio, TV and the internet. Many more people
will own mobile phones than traditional land-line telephones. The EU
Commission predicts more EU citizens will be internet enabled via mobile
devices than PCs. Soon there will be an average of one billion daily text
messages sent worldwide. MMS or multi-media messaging services, such
as picture messaging, are also predicted to become popular.
Despite the penetration and popularity of mobile phones, many people are
put out, sometimes justifiably so, by other people using mobile phones in
public. Examples include dining out, attending a concert, the cinema or
church to name but a few.
As a result many public places now have signs indicating that mobile
phones should be turned off. Indeed some authorities elsewhere have
banned mobile phones in certain public places. There is yet no clear
consensus between these measures and in one case the ban was later
withdrawn. Another solution the article highlights is a technical "system of
digitally blocking mobile usage in concert halls or theatres". A recent
European study found that a large percentage of consumers surveyed
favoured such devices.
These are known as mobile jamming devices. They block the radio signals
of mobile phones. Therefore, it is possible to prevent mobile phones ringing
in concert halls, aeroplanes, schools, restaurants, churches and some have
even suggested courts. These devices, however, are not without
controversy. Many argue that they could amount to an invasion of personal
privacy and free choice. In addition, there is potential interference with
mobile and radio devices used by law enforcement and emergency
authorities. They may also block signals to mobile phones and other
wireless devices (for example Blackberrys, pocket PCs, Personal Digital
Assistants) which may use non-audible signals such as texts, emails or
even vibrate alerts. What happens if a doctor, or an IT consultant, on call is
unaware their mobile phone is "jammed" because there is no warning sign?
Potential liability issues arise if an organisation operates a jamming device
but the signal drifts and blocks mobile phone signals in adjoining areas.
In addition, as with all areas of new m-commerce services and wireless
services, the legality and legal regulation of mobile jamming devices is far
from clear. Certain jurisdictions view these devices as unregulated. Others
have specifically banned them, one of the most recent being Canada. But
other jurisdictions such as Japan, have permitted such devices. Some
jurisdictions also feel that existing legislation prohibits the use of mobile
jamming devices.
In Ireland the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation
appears to believe the use of mobile jamming devices is not permissible.
Such a view may be justified by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. While
the Act pre-dates modern mobile phones and new mobile jamming devices,
Section 12 of the Act restricts the use of certain apparatus for wireless
telegraphy.
The operative section states that it is not lawful "for any person so to work
or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy that electro-magnetic radiation
therefrom interferes with the working of or otherwise injuriously affects any
apparatus for wireless telegraphy in respect of which a licence has been
granted under this Act and is in force"
The language used is arguably archaic and overly legal. In layman's terms it
appears to prohibit the use of apparatus for wireless telegraphy which
interferes with or "injuriously affects" licensed apparatus for wireless
telegraphy. This may include mobile jamming devices. Should such an old
statute, however, be interpreted to apply to a new and unenvisaged
situation? Does it prohibit mobile jamming devices which interfere with
certain localised wireless services which may not be licensed, or which
operate outside of a public telecommunications network? It may require a
technical examination of the operation of mobile jamming devices to
ascertain whether actual "electro-magnetic radiation therefrom" interferes
with mobile phones. Do these devices "block" signals or actually "interfere"
with the working of mobile phones? It also seems more difficult to establish
"injurious affect" as opposed to mere interfere. The significance of this
distinction in the Act is unclear.
One issue which this continuing debate highlights is the novelty of society's
use of new mobile phones and devices, as well as the often complex legal
issues which surround new m-commerce and wireless services. One recent
analysis forecasts that global m- commerce revenue could reach $225
billion (E225.4 billion) by 2005. Whether or not this analysis is fulfilled we
will no doubt continue to see these issues highlighted both from a social
etiquette and regulatory point of view.
Paul Lambert is a member of the IT Law Group at Matheson Ormsby
Prentice
Publication date: 2002-12-13
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=35128023&ID=cnniw&scategory=Telecommunications%3AWireless&

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/