NYT article (from tomorrow's edition) on jamming all cell phones (in a small area).
April 11, 1999
Noises Off: A Muzzle for Cell Phones
By DAVID WALLIS
NEW YORK -- There are places where cellular phones are as
unwelcome as fire ants at a picnic. Just ask Laurence Fishburne.
During a performance of "The Lion in Winter" at New York's Roundabout
Theater in early March, Fishburne suddenly stepped out of character and
growlingly upbraided a man in the audience whose cell phone had been
ringing for half a minute. The play resumed only after a long, loud ovation.
But gentle or ungentle reminders from actors, not to
mention librarians, symphony conductors, maitres d'hotel,
and other public shushers, have so far not succeeded in
keeping America's 60 million-odd cell phones (and their
owners) from making nuisances of themselves.
Now, though, a small company in Israel is offering a
technological fix: a device about the size of a cigar box
called C-Guard Cellular Firewall, which is said to block cell
phones within a hundred-yard radius from sending or
receiving calls. It is a cure that may prove as controversial
as the disease.
The company, Netline Technologies Ltd. of Tel Aviv, sells
the Firewall over the Internet for roughly $1,000. The
device detects the activity of any nearby wireless device
and emits bursts of static on the same radio frequency. Cell phones in its area
of influence report "no service" or "signal not available" to their owners, and
incoming calls do not get through.
"Every medicine has side effects, and so does cellular service," said Netline
vice president Gil Israeli, one of the Firewall's designers and a retired Israeli
military officer. "We are simply offering a pill that reduces those side
effects."
But irritating chatter and ill-timed rings were not the side effects that
prompted Netline to develop the device; security lapses were. "Some years
ago, several officers were having a meeting," Israeli recalled. "One of my
colleagues sat on his cell phone, which pushed the 'send' button. He had
dialed someone who listened in. Luckily, it was another officer."
Unluckily for Netline, cell-phone jamming runs afoul of the Federal
Communications Commission, whose approval is required for devices that
send signals over the air. "We would not authorize a device that's intended to
deliberately interfere with authorized radio services," said a senior FCC
official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Nonetheless, the official
acknowledged that trying to police Internet sales of the Firewall could prove
as difficult as stopping New Yorkers from jaywalking.
The specter of deliberate dead zones worries the cell phone industry. "If one
of our members learns that jamming equipment is in use, the FCC will find
out about it in short order," said Geoffrey Nelson, spokesman for the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association, who cited the 98,000 emergency
911 calls his group reckons are made on cell phones daily.
And experts say anyone who installs a C-Guard Cellular Firewall would be
skating on thin legal ice. Under federal law, interfering with legal over-the-air
communication is punishable by fines of up to $11,000 and a year in prison
for each incident.
But Israeli argues that there is a sound defense for his company's device.
"When cellular operators were awarded a license to exclusively use frequency
bands, no permission was granted to invade one's private property and
disturb the rightful owner," Israeli said. "Just as anyone is entitled to remove
a trespasser who causes damage, an owner is entitled to use C-Guard to
protect himself from nuisance."
Israeli, who asserted that the device had been sold to American customers
but would not name them, said his company did not rule out challenging the
FCC in court. In the meantime, he said, "We are optimistic that many
enlightened countries will accept C-Guard as beneficial." Last June, the
Japanese government said it would accept applications for licenses to install
such devices.
Legal issues aside, restaurants might seem a fertile market for the Firewall,
both because loud phone conversations can ruin the mood and because of the
profits from in-house pay phones. But restaurateurs are divided on the
device's desirability.
Danny Meyer, who owns several Manhattan luxury restaurants, including the
Union Square Cafe and the Gramercy Tavern, loves the idea of cellular-free
dining. "If I had known about that Firewall I would have put one in" when he
opened Gramercy Tavern, he said. "Cell phones have become the cigarettes
of the '90s," he added, because of the way users irritate nonusers with them.
(It turns out that cell phones usually don't work in the Gramercy Tavern
anyway.)
Karen Waltuck, co-owner of Chanterelle in Manhattan, thinks the Firewall
idea smacks of authoritarianism. "You don't have to go the Giuliani route and
jam people's phones because one person may not behave properly," she said.
Copyright 1999 The New York Times Company |
