My hero: Man silences cell phones on Philadelphia bus

[dzero]

Oh how I've fantasized about doing something like this. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/philly-man-took-it-upon-himself-to-quiet-city-buses-by-jamming-cellphones/)

Many use their cellphones and smartphones to multitask while on public transportation going from point A to point B, calling family, making appointments, talking with friends, etc. This can result in an endless drone of one-sided chatter, and one Philadelphia man couldn’t stand it anymore (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Rider-Annoyed-by-Calls-Jams-Phones-on-Septa-Bus-140966733.html), the local NBC affiliate reported.
So, he took it upon himself to quiet things down by jamming their cellphones. NBC10 reported that one of their own staff saw a man on a SEPTA bus holding a “walkie-talkie” looking device that he was using to silence the conversations by jamming phones:

[Martin Hyde]

I haven't been on a bus in years but I probably would if there was no chance of being caught.

I think it'd be an interesting prank type thing at least, but because it's technically a big deal with the FCC getting caught makes it far more of a hassle than it would be worth.

I wouldn't do it regularly, though. As annoying as I think cellphone use is, I think if you want a quiet bus or train then the transit authority needs to establish no cellphone rules and then enforce them, it isn't the place of individual passengers to commandeer the airwaves.

As an aside, something I always find funny in any thread complaining about cellphones is you usually hear from someone saying, "yeah I agree cell phones suck but you really need them so someone can get in touch with you in an emergency!"

I remember most of my life people didn't have cell phones and we still seemed to handle emergencies pretty well.

[dzero]

I was thinking more in terms of movies and cafes, but I see your point.

[Magiver]

I didn't vote but morally a hero, legally the devil.

I can't believe some of the conversations I've been subjected to in public places. The stuff discussed would create an instant lawsuit if it was the result of eavesdropping and yet there are people who scream out the most intimate details of their lives.

[chizzuk]

I didn't vote but morally a hero, legally the devil.

I can't believe some of the conversations I've been subjected to in public places. The stuff discussed would create an instant lawsuit if it was the result of eavesdropping and yet there are people who scream out the most intimate details of their lives.

You ain't kidding. Just off the top of my head I can recall:

-man behind me calling his mother while his young son was in the bathroom and bitching about how his wife won't cook or clean and he wants a divorce

-tearful woman crying into her boyfriend's voicemail about how sorry she is about some big fight and please please please pick up the phone and blah blah blah

-woman bitching and moaning to her doctor's office about not calling in refills of her Lyrica for her fibromyalgia. I cannot believe how many people will talk loudly on the phone about intimate medical issues on the subway.

My personal favorite: guy sitting next to me calls up his bank to report fraudulent transactions on his credit card. Apparently someone has been using it to eat out in Quebec. He then proceeds to scream out his account number and the answers to all his security questions within earshot of about 50 people. Then he says, "I just don't understand how this could have happened!"

You don't understand? I will be happy to explain it to you, but first could you repeat the last three digits of that account number and your mother's maiden name? I can't write that fast.

[colonial]

Throw the book at this asshole-- all 16/$16,000 of the fine plus max jail time.

(No, I do not own a cell phone).

[Cat Whisperer]

Go for it. It's an interactive world we live in - they want to affect me with their transmissions, I'll affect them with mine. :)

[Taomist]

There are things you'd LIKE to do, and things you just DON'T do.
This is both. If you don't like to hear about other people's lives, wear some earplugs or earphones and listen to something enlightening, ffs.
It's not hard.

FWIW, I don't use my cellphone for much of anything but emergencies, but come on, people. Grow a pair and control your own life, not everyone else's just because you don't like what they're doing. That's just...really childish.

[bouv]

The man's a jackass, and I hope he gets fined (jail time would be a bit much, IMO.)

Cell phone jammers are illegal, I'm pretty sure. For good reason...how the fuck does he know that every conversation, every phone call, every text, is pointless? Doctors, nurses, and even just people in jobs like IT have to be "on call" from time to time. Wouldn't you love to be the guy on the operating table while the staff is wondering why the surgeon isn't answering his phone? Or the manager of a large online...thing...and you can't get a hold of your head IT guy when the router goes down?

[Trinopus]

Throw the book at this asshole-- all 16/$16,000 of the fine plus max jail time.

(No, I do not own a cell phone).

Agreed. Absolutely agreed.

We all like to think of ourselves as Koko from The Mikado. We all have a little list of people who'd not be missed.

But only a sociopathic monster actually goes out and acts on these fantasies.

I do have and use a cell phone; I try to be responsible, but there are times when I have had to take a call at an awkward time. Emergencies happen.

What if this jackass had kept a doctor from taking an emergency call? Or a soldier from getting his unit's call-up? A sailor might miss his ship. A parent might miss an emergency call from his or her kid's school.

Throw the book at this twerp.

[Becky2844]

I had a T shirt made that on the front reads "If I wanted to hear somebody else's conversation...."
on the back, "...I'd listen to my husband."

I don't have a cell phone, but I've wanted to (block?) a few.

[RickJay]

My cell phone is the emergency contact number for every third party that takes care of my child; her school, her art class, her summr camp, and if she's with relatives, them.

So if it's all the same to you, would you guys mind staying the fuck away from it?

[Magiver]

You ain't kidding. Just off the top of my head I can recall:

-man behind me calling his mother while his young son was in the bathroom and bitching about how his wife won't cook or clean and he wants a divorce

-tearful woman crying into her boyfriend's voicemail about how sorry she is about some big fight and please please please pick up the phone and blah blah blah

-woman bitching and moaning to her doctor's office about not calling in refills of her Lyrica for her fibromyalgia. I cannot believe how many people will talk loudly on the phone about intimate medical issues on the subway.

My personal favorite: guy sitting next to me calls up his bank to report fraudulent transactions on his credit card. Apparently someone has been using it to eat out in Quebec. He then proceeds to scream out his account number and the answers to all his security questions within earshot of about 50 people. Then he says, "I just don't understand how this could have happened!"

You don't understand? I will be happy to explain it to you, but first could you repeat the last three digits of that account number and your mother's maiden name? I can't write that fast.
I heard a lady screaming into a phone she held at arms length that her boyfriend should tell his mother that they had sex in her house and on her kitchen table. I could hear this a good 100 yards away. Another was in a gas station store using language that would make a sailor blush and she covered so many topics I couldn't keep track. How would these people feel if someone you-tubed their ass?

[drachillix]

I heard a lady screaming into a phone she held at arms length that her boyfriend should tell his mother that they had sex in her house and on her kitchen table. I could hear this a good 100 yards away. Another was in a gas station store using language that would make a sailor blush and she covered so many topics I couldn't keep track. How would these people feel if someone you-tubed their ass?

Sounds like an idea for a site.

[Roderick Femm]

I heard a lady screaming into a phone she held at arms length that her boyfriend should tell his mother that they had sex in her house and on her kitchen table. I could hear this a good 100 yards away. Another was in a gas station store using language that would make a sailor blush and she covered so many topics I couldn't keep track. How would these people feel if someone you-tubed their ass?I hear people all the time running their business in the street in full hearing and view of lots of other people, and they don't seem to care, and they don't need cell phones to do it. Fights, questions, damn near make-up sex. I ignore it. If they were doing it on a phone it wouldn't make it any harder to ignore. So I wouldn't use a jammer, for many of the excellent reasons already stated.

Lots of things in this world are annoying, but there isn't much you can do about them, nor should you. They are the price you pay for living in a modern society. If you want to go back to the era of 3 TV channels and a phone anchored to a wall, you will probably find it more quiet there. I wish you joy of it.

(Note: the "you" in the above paragraph is intended for anyone who thinks it's ok to do what this man did.)


Roddy

[dzero]

I heard a lady screaming into a phone she held at arms length that her boyfriend should tell his mother that they had sex in her house and on her kitchen table. I could hear this a good 100 yards away. Another was in a gas station store using language that would make a sailor blush and she covered so many topics I couldn't keep track. How would these people feel if someone you-tubed their ass?
Damn it. Now I want to why she thought he should tell his mother.

You see, this is the real problem. You get involved in a good story and the next thing you know, you have to decide if you should get off at your stop or keep riding to find out what happens.

[Lord Feldon]

Cell phone jammers are illegal, I'm pretty sure. For good reason...how the fuck does he know that every conversation, every phone call, every text, is pointless? Doctors, nurses, and even just people in jobs like IT have to be "on call" from time to time. Wouldn't you love to be the guy on the operating table while the staff is wondering why the surgeon isn't answering his phone? Or the manager of a large online...thing...and you can't get a hold of your head IT guy when the router goes down?

And how does he know he's only interrupting phone calls? (He doesn't, because things that are illegal to manufacture, sell, purchase, own, or use aren't really subject to rigorous quality control.) In any case, the FCC and the licensee decide what uses of the spectrum are "pointless," and the property owner decides what conduct is acceptable, not some slack-jawed moron who bought a fancy doodad that evaded customs.

I think public transportation providers have a responsibility to act in this situation, too. I can't imagine that the fare conditions allow passengers to commit federal crimes while in transit, so people who do this should be banned from riding.

[Typo Negative]

Maybe public transportation ain't for him......

[Rachellelogram]

And how does he know he's only interrupting phone calls? (He doesn't, because things that are illegal to manufacture, sell, purchase, own, or use aren't really subject to rigorous quality control.) In any case, the FCC and the licensee decide what uses of the spectrum are "pointless," and the property owner decides what conduct is acceptable, not some slack-jawed moron who bought a fancy doodad that evaded customs.

I think public transportation providers have a responsibility to act in this situation, too. I can't imagine that the fare conditions allow passengers to commit federal crimes while in transit, so people who do this should be banned from riding.
This is my concern, what if such a device interfered with the train conductor's radio (or whatever they use now to communicate with the dispatcher)?

[rowrrbazzle]

If you don't like to hear about other people's lives, wear some earplugs or earphones and listen to something enlightening, ffs.
It's not hard.NO, ffs. Why should I have to use earplugs?? All pollution should be stopped at its source, and that includes noise pollution.

[Simplicio]

So basically, he was annoyed people were talking on the bus? Its not a public library, I don't think there's really any expectation that people will or should sit quietly. And its not like people having loud conversations in public was invented with the celphone.

If it was in a movie theatre or something, I'd be a little more understanding, but in this case the guy just seems like he's unable to cope with being near other human beings in a public space.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

I read the news and my email on my smartphone while riding the bus. That doesn't bother ANYBODY, but would still be stopped by the jammer. Break his thumbs and throw him in the gutter.

Same goes for people who scream loudly on their phones annoying the rest of us. Why resort to technology when good old fashioned violence is sufficient?

[Alessan]

Later on, the man was caught slashing the bus's tires, because internal combustion is the devil's work.

[Little Nemo]

The guy was upset about people having cell phone conversations on a public bus? He needs to get over himself. People talk on public transportation and there's nothing wrong with that. This guy was just being a dick.

Now if you want to jam cell phones in a church or a library or a movie theatre, maybe you have a point.

[Grumman]

Like everyone else said, it's public transport. By using the jammer, he's at least as bad as they are.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Like everyone else said, it's public transport. By using the jammer, he's at least as bad as they are.

At least as bad? People using mobile phones on a bus aren't doing anything wrong. If this prick doesn't like hearing people speak, then he either needs to get a car or buy some earphones. I'm another who hopes the guy gets reamed.

[amanset]

He is perfectly welcome to not take the bus if he finds the experience so odious.

[dzero]

I just want to point out that even if you miss a call because of jamming, as long as someone leaves a message, you'll get it as soon as you get off the bus - same with texts. So what we're really talking about is only a delay for as long as you happen to be on the bus.

It's still illegal though and on that basis alone he deserved to get busted, but let's at least try to put things in perspective.

[amanset]

I just want to point out that even if you miss a call because of jamming, as long as someone leaves a message, you'll get it as soon as you get off the bus - same with texts. So what we're really talking about is only a delay for as long as you happen to be on the bus.

It's still illegal though and on that basis alone he deserved to get busted, but let's at least try to put things in perspective.

Because as we all know, there are absolutely no phonecalls that you may want to act upon straight away. Like, for example, ones regarding my job as a sysadmin where the "wrong" phonecall would see me getting out my laptop and logging in to fix things - something I also wouldn't be able to do if someone was jamming 3G signals.

[Alka Seltzer]

He was also jamming people at random as the bus drives past, there are reasons these devices are illegal. Lets hope no-one was making an important or emergency call huh?

[dzero]

Because as we all know, there are absolutely no phonecalls that you may want to act upon straight away. Like, for example, ones regarding my job as a sysadmin where the "wrong" phonecall would see me getting out my laptop and logging in to fix things - something I also wouldn't be able to do if someone was jamming 3G signals.
And what percentage of the total cell phone volume in the US falls into that category - specifically, calls that absolutely, positively can't wait - period? Like I said, perspective.

[Vihaga]

I just want to point out that even if you miss a call because of jamming, as long as someone leaves a message, you'll get it as soon as you get off the bus - same with texts. So what we're really talking about is only a delay for as long as you happen to be on the bus.

It's still illegal though and on that basis alone he deserved to get busted, but let's at least try to put things in perspective.

That's not always true; only my newest phone has voice mail show up instantly. With some of my previous phones/ carriers, messages took a while to show up.

Besides, perspective would be realizing that wanting a public bus to be your own personal quiet zone is ridiculous and that you don't get to enforce your whims on everyone else just because you can't tolerate other people doing normal things like speaking.

I say throw the book at him, and I keep my non-home cell calls brief and limited to vital information I can't send via text or chat. I do, however, use the 3G capability nearly constantly.

[chrisk]

I can understand how annoying it is. I try not to make calls on the bus, and if I'm taking a call I'll explain to the other person that they caught me on the bus and wrap up the call as quickly as possible.

But still, jamming is at least as jerkish as chattering for the whole ride at normal volume. (Not as jerkish as shouting for the whole ride.) Especially since I'm a big believer in public transit productivity - did this guy think that he might be inconveniencing somebody who needed to send a quiet text message on his phone without bothering anybody? Or use her laptop with a datastick/cell tether?

[Musicat]

What I don't understand is why a conversation between two people on a bus is OK, but if you only hear one side of the conversation, that's annoying? What if two people carry on a conversation with each other, seated side by side, using cellphones? If you aren't looking at them, it would sound exactly the same.

Or is this nut saying all talking on public transportation should be banned?

[Vihaga]

Besides, assuming the guy was riding a bus in downtown Philly, the homeless guys and people talking to one another are going to be WAY louder than even relatively loud cell phone talkers. What's he going to jam them with? A rag on a stick?

[dzero]

That's not always true; only my newest phone has voice mail show up instantly. With some of my previous phones/ carriers, messages took a while to show up.

Besides, perspective would be realizing that wanting a public bus to be your own personal quiet zone is ridiculous and that you don't get to enforce your whims on everyone else just because you can't tolerate other people doing normal things like speaking.

I say throw the book at him, and I keep my non-home cell calls brief and limited to vital information I can't send via text or chat. I do, however, use the 3G capability nearly constantly.
Perspective means being able to gauge relative importance. I'm not trying to justify what he did, but I think it's ridiculous to trot out worst case scenarios. Such scenarios are possible certainly and that's why shit like this is illegal. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

[Vihaga]

Perspective means being able to gauge relative importance. I'm not trying to justify what he did, but I think it's ridiculous to trot out worst case scenarios. Such scenarios are possible certainly and that's why shit like this is illegal. That's not the point I'm trying to make.


This guy has arbitrarily decided that the importance of his enjoyment of his bus ride is greater than that of the much larger number of people he's inconveniencing. The possibility of him doing real harm with his antics is just icing on the cake.

So, is the point you're trying to make that public busses *should* be quiet zones and that everyone who can't tolerate hearing other people speak should have the right to stop any and all signal traffic around him? If not, then what is it?

[dzero]

This guy has arbitrarily decided that the importance of his enjoyment of his bus ride is greater than that of the much larger number of people he's inconveniencing. The possibility of him doing real harm with his antics is just icing on the cake.

So, is the point you're trying to make that public busses *should* be quiet zones and that everyone who can't tolerate hearing other people speak should have the right to stop any and all signal traffic around him? If not, then what is it?
I'm trying to put it into perspective - as I've said 3 times now.

[olivesmarch4th]

What I don't understand is why a conversation between two people on a bus is OK, but if you only hear one side of the conversation, that's annoying? What if two people carry on a conversation with each other, seated side by side, using cellphones? If you aren't looking at them, it would sound exactly the same.
They did a study on this, and the human brain finds half of a conversation much more distracting than a full conversation. I think it's because the brain automatically tries to fill in the other half of the conversation.

I don't think this guy was in the right, but I do think many people dramatically overestimate the importance of a cell phone. I can think of very few instances where an incoming call would be so important that it would justify annoying other people.

I don't talk on my cell phone in public and I really wish other people would institute the same rule.

[tdn]

You ain't kidding. Just off the top of my head I can recall:

-man behind me calling his mother while his young son was in the bathroom and bitching about how his wife won't cook or clean and he wants a divorce

-tearful woman crying into her boyfriend's voicemail about how sorry she is about some big fight and please please please pick up the phone and blah blah blah

-woman bitching and moaning to her doctor's office about not calling in refills of her Lyrica for her fibromyalgia. I cannot believe how many people will talk loudly on the phone about intimate medical issues on the subway.

Sure. I can add two more.

-On Saturday I had an appointment, but I was running late and getting a little lost. Without my phone, I never would have made it there.

-Yesterday, my family was desperately trying to reach me. My father's health took a sudden turn for the worse, and I may have to take an emergency flight to Florida to say my last goodbye.

In addition, most cell phone users are not loud. Texting is silent. Reading e-mail is silent. Surfing the web is silent.

I agree that there are far too many frivolous and loud cell phone conversations. The problem is not the phones, it's the rude people who use them. A bigger problem is assholes who use illegal technology to impinge on the rights of others.

Fine the mother fucker.

[Annie-Xmas]

I don't drive, so I ride the buses all the time. The last time I checked, talking on the bus is not illegal. As a matter of fact, I spent the time riding the bus this morning in a coversation with the bus driver.

Of course, it's also not illegal to join in the cell phone user's conversation with your own comments. It's also far more annoying.

Great line stolen from Doper Eve, to be used after cell phone talkers refuse your request to be a little quieter: Well, if you can't be less noisy, can you at least be more interesting?

[hogarth]

I was thinking more in terms of movies and cafes, but I see your point.
I'd probably pay double to go to a movie theatre built inside a Faraday cage. But I don't really care about most other places -- I'm probably more annoyed by loud in-person conversations (that drag on seemingly forever) than loud cell phone conversations (which are often pretty short).

[Anaamika]

In the movie theatre, I'd be all for it. On a bus? Deal with it.

[Frank]

As annoying as I think cellphone use is, I think if you want a quiet bus or train then the transit authority needs to establish no cellphone rules and then enforce them, ...
This. Every public transportation I've been on bans radios, etc. unless you're listening through a headphone. If the public desire was that cellphones be banned too, it would be so.

Personally, I'd support such a ban, but I recognize that I'm in a very small minority.

[Vihaga]

Where I am, the first car of any daytime train is "quiet ride" which bans cell phone use, conversations above a whisper, and music audible through headphones. It seems to work well as a compromise, since there are obviously people at each station who either line up for or actively avoid the quiet car.

[Der Trihs]

Besides, assuming the guy was riding a bus in downtown Philly, the homeless guys and people talking to one another are going to be WAY louder than even relatively loud cell phone talkers. What's he going to jam them with? A rag on a stick?Since he likes gadgets, he could use this device (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27620/); a "speech jamming gun". Would the people supporting the cell jammer support the use of a speech jammer, I wonder?

[ZipperJJ]

I just want to point out that even if you miss a call because of jamming, as long as someone leaves a message, you'll get it as soon as you get off the bus - same with texts. So what we're really talking about is only a delay for as long as you happen to be on the bus.


That's not always true; only my newest phone has voice mail show up instantly. With some of my previous phones/ carriers, messages took a while to show up.

I've read this 10 times and I still have no idea how your point has anything to do with what dzero said. He is explaining that a voicemail or a text being successfully sent has nothing to do with your phone being on or available. They go to the network and are on the network's servers until the phone can a) Retrieve notice of there being a voicemail b) retrieve the text itself.

You are saying that sometimes this process of retrieving the notifications take longer on some carriers or phones. And...????

dzero is saying that jamming is not keeping you from ultimately getting a message - it's basically like losing signal or turning your phone off. Just like turning off your computer doesn't keep you from being able to receive email.

NO, ffs. Why should I have to use earplugs?? All pollution should be stopped at its source, and that includes noise pollution.

Wow so you can't take a step to make yourself more comfortable - everyone else on all public transportation everywhere should stop talking to make you more comfortable? Balls.

[Vihaga]

I've read this 10 times and I still have no idea how your point has anything to do with what dzero said. He is explaining that a voicemail or a text being successfully sent has nothing to do with your phone being on or available. They go to the network and are on the network's servers until the phone can a) Retrieve notice of there being a voicemail b) retrieve the text itself.

I thought his point was that if you miss a call, it'll immediately go to voicemail and you'll get it the moment you get off the bus and have a signal again, so it doesn't matter if you miss an emergency call on the bus. That hasn't always been true for me with all phones/ carriers; sometimes voice mail has taken a while to show up, so missing an emergency call could result in a significant delay before I got the voice mail and responded. It would only matter at all for time-sensitive emergency calls, but I'd still consider it an extra downside of having someone jam my cell signal on the bus.

[Blaster Master]

I do think it's a travesty that so many people can't seem to go through their day without constantly being on the phone. First thing people do out of work or out of class seems like they get on their cell phones or start texting. People are constantly updating Facebook or Twitter or whatever. It seems strange to me that so many people feel a need to stay THAT connected but in so doing ruin the social aspects right around them. It could just be being rude or annoying, or sharing private information with others, or missing out on opportunities to meet new people and have new experiences for the sake of pointless mini-conversations with people you already know.

But jamming cell phones isn't the way to address the larger social problem. We need to take steps to fix the social problem. Like, don't have lengthy or private conversations with anyone you wouldn't have had one with at times before cell phones. I won't take those sorts of calls in a public place because it's not only rude to the others there, but I think it's just as rude to the person I'm talking to that I can't make time for them and have to have a private conversation in public. If you do have to have a conversation now, maybe it actually is important or timely, fine, but at least don't use speaker phone. I'm at least glad the PTT/Walkie-Talkie things have gotten much less popular; the only thing worse than hearing one person talk loudly about private or mundane details is hearing two, with obnoxious beeps between them.

[Hippy Hollow]

Had a great response, but no, this guy is a fuckstain. Who the hell is he to decide how to control conversations?

He should have invested the money for the jammer into a bike or moped so he could have his precious peace and quiet. But wait, there's no silence in those two modes of transport, either.

Listen, Philly douchebag, people sneeze, cough, smell funny, talk too loud, and commit any number of human behaviors in public places. If you have a problem - a major problem - with this, remove yourself. Yes, I am annoyed by loud cell phone talkers. I would never impose my will, however, on others.

I think anyone who missed a ride, couldn't get in touch with a family member or friend, should be able to sue this douchebag, or at least, be given the opportunity to drop the jammer device on his groin area from a great height.

[purplehorseshoe]

In the movie theatre, I'd be all for it. On a bus? Deal with it.

Yup. One citizen taking the law, or his own crazy opinions, into his own hands is just being a dick, and a vigilante dick at that.

[Little Nemo]

Since he likes gadgets, he could use this device (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27620/); a "speech jamming gun". Would the people supporting the cell jammer support the use of a speech jammer, I wonder?According to the article "Japanese researchers build a gun capable of stopping speakers in mid-sentence."

And I call bullshit. Americans have had guns that can stop people talking in mid-sentence for a couple hundred years now.

[Eve]

I never thought I would be praising NJ Transit, but they have finally implemented Quiet Cars (the last car on every train during rush hour is no cell phones, no loud talking).

Now we actually have permission--the other prissy library ladies and I--to pounce upon cell-phone screamers and tear their heart out and show it to them before devouring them bit by bit and throwing their gristle from the train. Which plays havoc with a girl's manicure, but is totally worth it.

[MaxTheVool]

I remember most of my life people didn't have cell phones and we still seemed to handle emergencies pretty well.

I gotta take issue with comments of this sort. It's just like "hey, back when I was a kid we never wore seat belts and none of us died". Obviously none of you died, because you're here posting now. Heck, back before penicillin plenty of us survived infections, back before telephones people still found ways to communicate, back before cars people were able to survive, etc, etc, etc.

Before cell phones, there were all sorts of other things built into various systems to help deal with emergencies... I'm sure there were elaborate systems where surgeons would call into hospitals from pay phones letting the staff know where they were and how to reach, etc. And I'm sure those systems worked a lot better than nothing. But with cell phones they can (at least in theory) work better. So (a) the system is better than it used to be, and (b) now that we have cell phones, the previous systems are likely no longer being used, so if you suddenly turn off cell phones we might not just revert to pre-cell-phone levels of emergency response, we might get much worse because we are now depending on cell phones.

[Cat Whisperer]

I'm glad to hear the cellphone jammer device exists; the public bus probably isn't the place for them, but movie theatres, study areas, school classrooms, etc. all are.

ETA: And private cars! When the car ignition gets turned on, the cellphone jammer goes on. Sorry passengers who want to make calls - you're collateral damage from all the idiots who refuse to stop talking while driving, forcing a draconian solution.

[aceplace57]

I wish there were cell free zones. Libraries, theaters, bookstores should jam cell phones. Make people step outside for their phone calls.

But the FCC doesn't see it that way. Instead we get a-holes talking in the middle of movies. Ruining the movie I paid to see.

[JoelUpchurch]

Apparently the guy figured out that what he is doing is illegal.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Philadelphia-Cell-Phone-Jammer-Septa-bus-jammer-signal-blocker-mobile,news-14341.html

According to NBC10, shortly after they confronted Eric, he called them to say he had confirmed that his use of the cell phone jammer was illegal and would be disposing of the device.

[Cat Whisperer]

Did he give a big >WINK!< when he said he would be disposing of it?

[DocCathode]

The man was an ass.

Smoke on a Septa bus and the other passengers will complain. The driver will eject you.

Listen to music without headphones and the same will happen.

There is no rule, written or unwritten, about using a cell phone while on the bus.

Additionally, as somebody pointed out, the driver uses a radio system to stay in touch with dispatch and other drivers. Jamming that system has got to be a separate violation as well as grounds for ejection from the bus.

I find the bus to be too loud. However, I can't afford a car. I just deal with the noise.

[hogarth]

Instead we get a-holes talking in the middle of movies. Ruining the movie I paid to see.
I find it's rare for people to actually talk on the phone during a movie. But I can't count the number of times that some dude in the next one or two rows "sneakily" checks his cell phone for new calls or texts without realising that he's basically turning on a flashlight in my field of view. Grrrr....

[Telemark]

I wish there were cell free zones. Libraries, theaters, bookstores should jam cell phones. Make people step outside for their phone calls.

But the FCC doesn't see it that way. Instead we get a-holes talking in the middle of movies. Ruining the movie I paid to see.
The FCC just says you can't block cell phone signals, it says nothing about requiring people to leave the theater, library, or bookstore to talk on the phone, or require people to put their phones on vibrate. Plenty of good movie theaters will kick you out for talking on the phone, you just have to find the right one. You're complaining about the wrong people.

[Enderw24]

What I don't understand is why a conversation between two people on a bus is OK, but if you only hear one side of the conversation, that's annoying? What if two people carry on a conversation with each other, seated side by side, using cellphones?

I think it's a combination of two different things.
1) You can zone out when it's quiet and you can zone out with a constant noise as you convert it to white noise. But it's much more difficult to ignore the constant start and stop of noise that you'll get when you're hearing a one-sided conversation.
2) People, on average, speak louder when using a cell phone than they would were the person right next to them. So the volume is more and it's more difficult to ignore.

[Zsofia]

I gotta take issue with comments of this sort. It's just like "hey, back when I was a kid we never wore seat belts and none of us died". Obviously none of you died, because you're here posting now. Heck, back before penicillin plenty of us survived infections, back before telephones people still found ways to communicate, back before cars people were able to survive, etc, etc, etc.

Before cell phones, there were all sorts of other things built into various systems to help deal with emergencies... I'm sure there were elaborate systems where surgeons would call into hospitals from pay phones letting the staff know where they were and how to reach, etc. And I'm sure those systems worked a lot better than nothing. But with cell phones they can (at least in theory) work better. So (a) the system is better than it used to be, and (b) now that we have cell phones, the previous systems are likely no longer being used, so if you suddenly turn off cell phones we might not just revert to pre-cell-phone levels of emergency response, we might get much worse because we are now depending on cell phones.
Remember babysitting when you had to have the number of the restaurant the parents would be at? And sometimes you had to CALL it and ask for "Mr. and Mrs. Zebrowski" and they had to go find them? That SUCKED.

[aceplace57]

Based on the articles description cell phone jammers are still bulky and easy to spot. The triple antennas is a easy give away. I can imagine a severe butt kicking for people caught using them.

Sadly, I think new cars will eventually have jammers in them. That's the only way to stop people from causing accidents while talking or texting. Laws are being passed but cops can't watch every car that's on the road. The only solution is to disable cell phones inside the car.

[JoelUpchurch]

Sadly, I think new cars will eventually have jammers in them. That's the only way to stop people from causing accidents while talking or texting. Laws are being passed but cops can't watch every car that's on the road. The only solution is to disable cell phones inside the car.

If there is an accident, then it is easy to request the cell phone records to see if the driver was using their phone when the accident occurred. In any case self driving cars will be available in a decade or so and make the point moot. I would also like to point out that fatalities per passenger mile have actuality gone down every year, so this doesn't seem like an urgent need.

If you wanted to add equipment to make cars safer, it would make more sense to have breathalyzers as standard equipment. There is a pretty strong correlation between DUIs and traffic fatalities.

[Simplicio]

Sadly, I think new cars will eventually have jammers in them. That's the only way to stop people from causing accidents while talking or texting. Laws are being passed but cops can't watch every car that's on the road. The only solution is to disable cell phones inside the car.

Just like they've put governors in cars so they can't exceed the speed limit?

[Eve]

Just like they've put governors in cars so they can't exceed the speed limit?
Not Governor Corzine, I hope.

[Marley23]

Question for the people who are applauding this jerk: do you own cell phones yourselves? Because I doubt your conversations are any more interesting than the ones this guy took it upon himself to disrupt. Yes, a lot of the cell phone conversations you're forced to listen to are annoying and some people are just too freaking loud. Your desire not to have to listen to those calls does not come first. I say that as somebody who's pretty quick to get annoyed by this kind of thing.

As far as putting cell phone jammers in movie theaters or other places... it's probably not going to happen. What's more important: your movie, or the off chance that someone actually gets an important call?

[Taomist]

NO, ffs. Why should I have to use earplugs?? All pollution should be stopped at its source, and that includes noise pollution.

So next time someone annoys you, try asking them to shut up; you know, like an adult?

I'm sure they'll be happy to accomodate you. :dubious:

And if they aren't, well...guess what.
Welcome to the world of living with other people.

[YogSosoth]

I'd definitely do it. I don't believe that the occasional emergency happens often enough to warrant this barrage of constant noise we're subjected to. We've let it become the new normal when just a few years ago, before cell phones were ubiquitous, we had to wait until we were home to answer this. People can shut up for the few minutes or hours it takes to ride the bus.

Besides, unless these guys are House, you're not going to be solving medical mysteries over the course of a bus ride. Whatever is happening is not going to be solved by you because you can't be there to do the surgery, nor can you get there faster because otherwise you wouldn't be on the bus. It only makes people think they are in control, to be appraised of the situation, when they could not do anything about it anyway. I would be very surprised if people get these types of emergency calls that could not be put off for an hour. I can imagine situations of it, but I seriously doubt they happen to any sort of significant degree

[TBG]

Apparently the guy figured out that what he is doing is illegal.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Philadelphia-Cell-Phone-Jammer-Septa-bus-jammer-signal-blocker-mobile,news-14341.html

According to NBC10, shortly after they confronted Eric, he called them to say he had confirmed that his use of the cell phone jammer was illegal and would be disposing of the device.

Can he dispose of it in mailbox? Addressed to me? Because that would be swell.

[DocCathode]

I'd definitely do it. I don't believe that the occasional emergency happens often enough to warrant this barrage of constant noise we're subjected to.


You honestly think people on the bus would be quiet if only they had no phones?

People can shut up for the few minutes or hours it takes to ride the bus.

My experience shows that no, they can't.

[Lord Feldon]

We've let it become the new normal when just a few years ago, before cell phones were ubiquitous, we had to wait until we were home to answer this.

And we've done it because, by and large, we like it. Being able to communicate while engaging in a passive activity like riding the bus is a convenience for many people.

[RickJay]

Based on the articles description cell phone jammers are still bulky and easy to spot. The triple antennas is a easy give away. I can imagine a severe butt kicking for people caught using them.

Sadly, I think new cars will eventually have jammers in them. That's the only way to stop people from causing accidents while talking or texting. Laws are being passed but cops can't watch every car that's on the road. The only solution is to disable cell phones inside the car.
There's another really obvious solution, one that has worked with similar problems before: Make the fine for using them while driving extremely costly.

Remember when littering out of cars was a huge problem? Back in the day highways were absolutely strewn with trash because the easier way to dispose of your Quarter Pounder meal was to throw it out a window. Like cell phone use, there just wasn't any way for the cops to catch everyone - but to solve the problem, one of the things they did was impose huge fines. So you might not usually get caught but when you did it was a pretty staggering penalty.

Drunk driving is the same thing. You can't catch them all, or even most of them, but the really severe penalties have resulted in a significant drop in the problem.

[Cat Whisperer]

Question for the people who are applauding this jerk: do you own cell phones yourselves?<snip>I do have a cellphone, and sometimes I even talk on it in public - off to the side or in a corner somewhere, so I don't annoy other people. Being aware of how you affect other people in the world is definitely becoming a lost art.

As far as putting cell phone jammers in movie theaters or other places... it's probably not going to happen. What's more important: your movie, or the off chance that someone actually gets an important call?It's more like, which is more important, 200 people watching a movie in peace, or one person getting an important call? Not to mention that all cellphones have a vibrate feature, so you can excuse yourself and go out of the theatre to take your important call.

And we've done it because, by and large, we like it. Being able to communicate while engaging in a passive activity like riding the bus is a convenience for many people.Your convenience trumps my pleasant bus ride/shopping experience/movie/library time?

[Magiver]

What I don't understand is why a conversation between two people on a bus is OK, but if you only hear one side of the conversation, that's annoying? What if two people carry on a conversation with each other, seated side by side, using cellphones? If you aren't looking at them, it would sound exactly the same.
I beg to differ. This isn't about a couple of giggling nuns. It's about people scream into their phones. haven't you been reading the thread?

The legality of what he's doing is not in question. But nobody wants to listen to some jackass's personal life.

[Spiderman]

I think public transportation providers have a responsibility to act in this situation, too. I can't imagine that the fare conditions allow passengers to commit federal crimes while in transit, so people who do this should be banned from riding.

C'mon, this is f$#%ing SEPTA we're talking about! I'm convinced you don't pass their driver training unless you are proficient at striking pedestrians & bicyclists. I've personally been a victim of a hit-&-run from these a$$holes & on other occasions almost been struck will standing on the sidewalk because the driver jumped the light & took the turn too tight. I've also witnessed drivers intentionally run red lights on multiple occasions. When they stop breaking state laws, then maybe they can worry about enforcing federal ones.

I read the news and my email on my smartphone while riding the bus. That doesn't bother ANYBODY, but would still be stopped by the jammer. Break his thumbs and throw him in the gutter.

The way I understood it, he'd turn it on, the obnoxious party's call would be dropped & then he'd turn it off, he wasn't keeping it on. You might need to reload your page; I was under the impression that he wasn't keeping it on long enough for someone to miss the entire ring cycle so emergency calls going to voicemail wouldn't be an issue.

[fachverwirrt]

... he wasn't keeping it on long enough for someone to miss the entire ring cycle...

I should hope not. That would be a long time to be on a city bus.

[Lord Feldon]

Your convenience trumps my pleasant bus ride/shopping experience/movie/library time?

A bus ride is transportation from A to B, and any pleasure people get from it is a bonus. If you can only derive pleasure from it if people refrain from speaking, then you just get that much less pleasure in your life. If proprietors of movie theaters and other places where it's reasonable to expect silence from patrons (a city bus is not one of those places at all) don't want people talking on the phone while watching movies, then they should eject phone users from the property instead of stealing from lawful users of the radio frequencies they're jamming.

[psychonaut]

The man was an ass.

Smoke on a Septa bus and the other passengers will complain. The driver will eject you.

Listen to music without headphones and the same will happen.

There is no rule, written or unwritten, about using a cell phone while on the bus.In London it is permitted to use a cell phone on a bus, but it is prohibited to play music without headphones. Unfortunately some people seem to think that the former rule pre-empts the latter, and happily use their smart phones to blast music at full volume. When they do this on the upper floor of a double-decker bus it's unlikely the driver is going to notice and eject them. At times like those I wished I had a cell phone jammer which would jam only the phones' loudspeakers.

[amanset]

And what percentage of the total cell phone volume in the US falls into that category - specifically, calls that absolutely, positively can't wait - period? Like I said, perspective.

You tell that to my boss when I can't get our servers up and running again, because some idiot has decided to use an illegal device because he has no social skills whatsoever. Our servers not up = the company not making any money.

[amanset]

I'm trying to put it into perspective - as I've said 3 times now.

As long as this "perspective" agrees with your view of things, right? It couldn't be at all possible that your view of "perspective" is skewed?

[Marley23]

Being aware of how you affect other people in the world is definitely becoming a lost art.
I'll agree with that.

It's more like, which is more important, 200 people watching a movie in peace, or one person getting an important call? Not to mention that all cellphones have a vibrate feature, so you can excuse yourself and go out of the theatre to take your important call.
Also true. I'm not laboring under the illusion that everybody who's screwing with their phone in a movie theater is taking an important call or sending a vital email; it's just that a movie doesn't justify jamming everyone's phone. (On the other hand, are there phone-free theaters? That's a concept I could see taking off.) The rest of it is a failure in manners.

[tdn]

Besides, unless these guys are House, you're not going to be solving medical mysteries over the course of a bus ride.

Forget medical emergencies. How about this call?:

"Which stop is it again?"

Or

"I'm almost there. Can you pick me up?"

Or

"We're stuck in traffic. I'm going to be a little late."

Of course those are not long, blabby conversations. They are short and necessary.

[MsRobyn]

The issue with this bozo isn't that he jammed cell phones. The issue is that signal jammers and Faraday cages don't distinguish between the cell phones of rude assholes, it's that they jam or block all wireless signals, regardless of whether they're supposed to be there or not. The concern with "Eric" is that he disabled (or could have disabled; I'm not clear on whether that happened or not) the bus's radio, which meant that the driver would not be able to communicate with Septa. And that's bad ju-ju; if there had been an emergency, the driver would have been cut off.

That's why these devices are illegal in the first place. It's not so that Dr. Important can get calls from the hospital (although, because of privacy considerations, every doctor or health professional I know [and I know a lot] won't take those calls publicly in the first place, so it's generally non-issue anyway). It's so that wireless systems that are supposed to be there aren't blocked.

So yeah, this guy is a total wanker who could have put his fellow passengers in danger. I'm just as annoyed by rude people as anyone else, but at the same time, I'd rather be put out by a little rudeness than losing necessary signals. Eric can go screw himself.

[johnpost]

this jammer could interfere with data collection and control of utility systems within some unknown range of where he went.

wireless systems for data, voice and control in buildings nearby could be interfered with.

[RickJay]

Your convenience trumps my pleasant bus ride/shopping experience/movie/library time?
It's society, not a goddamned card game. Little inconveniences bump up against each other all the time and you just have to live with it. We make appropriate rules where needed; a loud conversation in a library is not allowed, but on a bus, which is noisy as all hell, it's accepted. If you don't like it, become a hermit.

It's called public transportation for a reason; when you ride it, you will find the public there. The public is loud. Suck it up or buy a car.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

I don't care if people are talking on their cell phones, as long as they aren't YELLING into their cell phones. But somebody always is. The other day I was walking my dog and I could hear one guy's side of the conversation from a block away,

In a movie, absolutely yes, but nobody should be talking during the movie.* On a bus, talking is allowed, and I don't consider it rude to ignore your seatmate, a random stranger, in favor of conversing with, say, your sister, about dinner next weekend.

Just DON'T YELL.

This guy who used a jammer also disabled people who were texting, right? How was THAT bothering him?

*I don't have a problem in a library as long as people are using their library voices. Bookstore, grocery store, etc. I only object if the person is standing at the cashier's, jabbering away instead of paying and getting out of the way so the next person can have their turn.

[YogSosoth]

Forget medical emergencies. How about this call?:

"Which stop is it again?"

Or

"I'm almost there. Can you pick me up?"

Or

"We're stuck in traffic. I'm going to be a little late."

Of course those are not long, blabby conversations. They are short and necessary.

Eh, you're probably right, there's a lot of those...

I guess I'll amend my support for this guy. I still think he should have done it, but I wouldn't want it widespread. Having a single guy going around doing this is probably going to cause a lot less damage than everyone doing it.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
Also true. I'm not laboring under the illusion that everybody who's screwing with their phone in a movie theater is taking an important call or sending a vital email; it's just that a movie doesn't justify jamming everyone's phone. (On the other hand, are there phone-free theaters? That's a concept I could see taking off.) The rest of it is a failure in manners.Okay, if not a movie, how about a university classroom? As for a phone-free theatre, how about a big sign at the entrance (before you buy your ticket) telling people that this is a cellphone jammed area - if you want to take a call, this isn't the theatre for you?

It's society, not a goddamned card game. <snip>
That argument cuts both ways; people should be aware that they are affecting other people, and not be rampant assholes. If they keep on being assholes in public, there should be consequences. (Yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of "shoulds" in that idea, and the "shoulds" don't match up with the reality.)

[RickJay]

That argument cuts both ways
Exactly.

The people supporting Mr. Jammer only think it cuts one way.

[Marley23]

Okay, if not a movie, how about a university classroom?
No, I'm not seeing that as a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea to belittle students by taking away their ability to make a decision, and in a sense that cuts to the core of this issue. I get very annoyed when people get on their phones and act like assholes, but I also object to being denied the ability to use my own phone because other people are stupid.

As for a phone-free theatre, how about a big sign at the entrance (before you buy your ticket) telling people that this is a cellphone jammed area - if you want to take a call, this isn't the theatre for you?
Like I said, I can imagine that taking off as a specialty market where it's part of the marketing of movie theater (as opposed to springing it on the customers when they get there.) Speaking personally - not that I've seen a lot of movies in theaters lately - no, I'm not going to pay extra to have my phone jammed. Movies here already cost an arm and a leg.

[Cat Whisperer]

No, I'm not seeing that as a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea to belittle students by taking away their ability to make a decision, and in a sense that cuts to the core of this issue. I get very annoyed when people get on their phones and act like assholes, but I also object to being denied the ability to use my own phone because other people are stupid.<snip>I think you're right; I think that is the core of this issue. Too many people are making the wrong decisions when it is left up to them, and will probably end up with the decision being taken away from everyone because so many people refuse to do the right thing.

[Krouget]

The way I understood it, he'd turn it on, the obnoxious party's call would be dropped & then he'd turn it off, he wasn't keeping it on. You might need to reload your page; I was under the impression that he wasn't keeping it on long enough for someone to miss the entire ring cycle so emergency calls going to voicemail wouldn't be an issue.
I'd prefer he cut the passive-aggressive approach, get up, and simply ask the person to tone it down. I'm sure if they're being that obnoxious, other passengers would agree. It's both legal and more directly addresses the problem, without disrupting others.

The way he is acting, it's as if he pays a higher fare or pays the phone bill of the person(s) he is disrupting. By extension, it's also tampering with the service being provided by the respective carrier, so I'm sure they aren't happy about that, either.

[TruCelt]

As a single Mom who needs to be available any time the school might call - I'd be enraged. This guy has no right to prevent my child's caretakers from reaching me should the need arise.

[YogSosoth]

As a single Mom who needs to be available any time the school might call - I'd be enraged. This guy has no right to prevent my child's caretakers from reaching me should the need arise.

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, what can you do from a bus over the phone? The only thing I can imagine that would help is if your kid is allergic and the school calls you to find out what medicines they can or cannot give him. Other than that, isn't telling you irrelevant to the care that can be provided if an emergency comes up?

I'm not a parent, but as I've always looked at it, I can't help anyone over the phone, I'd rather not know, let the doctors do what they have to and tell me at the end of the day. I'd just be getting in their way acting all panicky.

[Marley23]

Too many people are making the wrong decisions when it is left up to them, and will probably end up with the decision being taken away from everyone because so many people refuse to do the right thing.
I'm not sure what you are envisioning exactly, but I don't think we're ever going to see cell phone jammers in cars or a lot of public places, for example. It's too onerous and intrusive, and in some cases probably not that hard to defeat.

[Larry Mudd]

If you could selectively jam the obnoxious people, I would be all for it.

But some people seem to be able to use their phones inoffensively, even for short, discreet voice conversations.

Me, I text with my wife, check facebook, and use the SDMB. Interfere with that and I'll fecking twat you one. (Or at least nod in approval as you're fined into penury and/or thrown into the dungiest of dungeons.)

[TruCelt]

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, what can you do from a bus over the phone? The only thing I can imagine that would help is if your kid is allergic and the school calls you to find out what medicines they can or cannot give him. Other than that, isn't telling you irrelevant to the care that can be provided if an emergency comes up?

I'm not a parent, but as I've always looked at it, I can't help anyone over the phone, I'd rather not know, let the doctors do what they have to and tell me at the end of the day. I'd just be getting in their way acting all panicky.

Get off at the next stop and head back toward the school/hospital, for one thing. Give permission for medical treatment to begin for another. Start calling the medical insurance company to speed up admitance when they arrive at the hospital. . . talk to my child and let her know, Mommy's on the way. . .

It doesn't matter what it is though, if they have an emergency, and can't reach me, they have to call CPS. And that would be BAD.

[MsRobyn]

Can I ask you, in all seriousness, what can you do from a bus over the phone? The only thing I can imagine that would help is if your kid is allergic and the school calls you to find out what medicines they can or cannot give him. Other than that, isn't telling you irrelevant to the care that can be provided if an emergency comes up?

I'm not a parent, but as I've always looked at it, I can't help anyone over the phone, I'd rather not know, let the doctors do what they have to and tell me at the end of the day. I'd just be getting in their way acting all panicky.

What you're forgetting, or just didn't know, is that parents or legal guardians have to make decisions on behalf of their minor children, and they have to give permission to treat. For example, the sprog's school nurse has my permission to call his pediatrician or an ambulance, but I still have to give consent for the pediatrician or the ER doctor to treat him. Even if I'm on the bus, I can still do that by phone and sign the paperwork when I get there. And most important, I can be kept informed about what's going on so there isn't a lot of wasted time when I do get there.

And before you write me (and TruCelt) off as hysterical parents, being reachable can literally be a matter of life and death. Some years back, I was working as a contractor for a company that had a no-cell policy. The sprog got very, very sick at daycare and couldn't get a hold of me because I didn't have a phone on my desk and the person who answered the phone said that she had no idea who I was. The daycare finally got a hold of my mother-in-law, who sent me an e-mail to my company address (why we had e-mail addresses but no access to a telephone is beyond me). I had to use the pay phone to call my mother-in-law to tell her to take him to the ER, where I would meet them. It was two hours between the time the daycare first tried to call me and the time I got to the hospital. By this time, the sprog was running a temp of around 103 and rising, and he was not doing well. Had I been directly reachable, I could have been there in 30 minutes versus two hours. I went out and got a pager the next day; if the company didn't like it, too damn bad. My son's -- or any human being's -- life is worth more than your peace and quiet.

[MsRobyn]

Oh, and the company changed its policy a week or two later when another contractor, whose daughter also got sick, threatened to sue. So yeah, it's pretty serious.

[YogSosoth]

Get off at the next stop and head back toward the school/hospital, for one thing. Give permission for medical treatment to begin for another. Start calling the medical insurance company to speed up admitance when they arrive at the hospital. . . talk to my child and let her know, Mommy's on the way. . .

It doesn't matter what it is though, if they have an emergency, and can't reach me, they have to call CPS. And that would be BAD.

What you're forgetting, or just didn't know, is that parents or legal guardians have to make decisions on behalf of their minor children, and they have to give permission to treat. For example, the sprog's school nurse has my permission to call his pediatrician or an ambulance, but I still have to give consent for the pediatrician or the ER doctor to treat him. Even if I'm on the bus, I can still do that by phone and sign the paperwork when I get there. And most important, I can be kept informed about what's going on so there isn't a lot of wasted time when I do get there.

And before you write me (and TruCelt) off as hysterical parents, being reachable can literally be a matter of life and death. Some years back, I was working as a contractor for a company that had a no-cell policy. The sprog got very, very sick at daycare and couldn't get a hold of me because I didn't have a phone on my desk and the person who answered the phone said that she had no idea who I was. The daycare finally got a hold of my mother-in-law, who sent me an e-mail to my company address (why we had e-mail addresses but no access to a telephone is beyond me). I had to use the pay phone to call my mother-in-law to tell her to take him to the ER, where I would meet them. It was two hours between the time the daycare first tried to call me and the time I got to the hospital. By this time, the sprog was running a temp of around 103 and rising, and he was not doing well. Had I been directly reachable, I could have been there in 30 minutes versus two hours. I went out and got a pager the next day; if the company didn't like it, too damn bad. My son's -- or any human being's -- life is worth more than your peace and quiet.

Ok, point taken. I probably wouldn't be a good parent, that's why I will only become one accidently

[Chronos]

What's so annoying about cell phones, anyway? Way back before cell phones, people talked to other people sitting next to them on the bus, too. Was that annoying? As long as the driver's not one of the ones doing it, what's the harm? It really is possible to just ignore people, you know.

[tdn]

What's so annoying about cell phones, anyway? Way back before cell phones, people talked to other people sitting next to them on the bus, too. Was that annoying? As long as the driver's not one of the ones doing it, what's the harm? It really is possible to just ignore people, you know.

That's been asked and answered several times in this thread already. But I agree with Hilarity, it's not so bad if the person is talking in hushed tones. I think that a lot of people still think that they can hear the other party better if they themselves yell.

[aceplace57]

It occurred to me that cell phone use in cars can be stopped without pissing off the FCC.

A sensor in the car could detect a cell phone signal and sound an annoying alarm like the seatbelt does. After two minutes the horn would start blaring. The cell phone signal is never blocked and that keeps the FCC happy.

Sounds extreme? Just last month this college coed was texting and updating Facebook on a trip home. 80 mph and her head is looking at that damn phone. A text every 90 seconds according to her phone records. I'm just glad she didn't kill anyone but herself.

Google accident cell phone

Cops can't stop this because there's no evidence of a crime unless they catch you driving and talking/texting.

At the time, Sauer was driving 80 mph from the Utah State University campus in Logan to visit her folks in Caldwell, Idaho, and was passing the time on the four-hour drive by messaging her friend about the Denver Broncos, according to MSNBC.com

She was killed instantly; investigators saw no signs that she applied the brakes before the fatal crash. And in checking her cell phone records, they learned Sauer was posting about every 90 seconds during her drive.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46627015/ns/today-today_people/t/parents-teen-who-died-texting-driving-kids-think-theyre-invincible/#.T1aJq3md1K0

[Marley23]

Sounds extreme?
It is extreme.

[aceplace57]

Normally I'd be the last person to argue for more Nanny state rules. I never agreed with seat belt laws. I wear one myself. If others don't then its their risk and life. Motorcycle helmets laws are the same deal.

Cell phone use while driving endangers me and people I care about. I don't want to get rear ended by a stupid girl texting her friends while she's driving 80 mph.

[MsRobyn]

Normally I'd be the last person to argue for more Nanny state rules. I never agreed with seat belt laws. I wear one myself. If others don't then its their risk and life. Motorcycle helmets laws are the same deal.

Cell phone use while driving endangers me and people I care about. I don't want to get rear ended by a stupid girl texting her friends while she's driving 80 mph.

What would your proposal accomplish, exactly?

[JoelUpchurch]

Normally I'd be the last person to argue for more Nanny state rules. I never agreed with seat belt laws. I wear one myself. If others don't then its their risk and life. Motorcycle helmets laws are the same deal.

Cell phone use while driving endangers me and people I care about. I don't want to get rear ended by a stupid girl texting her friends while she's driving 80 mph.

I looked into this and discovered there is a lot of anecdotes like yours and no hard evidence. What you should demand is that fatal accident investigations should always pull the driver's cell phone records and see it the phone was in use when the accident occurred. Then you might have have some evidence instead of scare stories in the media.

It would make sense to require breathalyzers in cars, since we can actually document the 12,000 people a year killed by drunk drivers.

[aceplace57]

Well, as others said, the FCC would never allow jamming signals in cars.

Seat belt buzzers annoy people enough that it encourages people to wear them. An annoying buzzer alarm triggered by cell phone use should have a similar effect. Add in a car horn that blares every 20 seconds and that should discourage most cell phone texters. The horn would also attract the cops interest too.

There really isn't a perfect solution. Cell phone's are needed and will always be around. Its a shame the actions of a few idiots endangers the rest of us.

What would your proposal accomplish, exactly?

[JoelUpchurch]

Normally I'd be the last person to argue for more Nanny state rules. I never agreed with seat belt laws. I wear one myself. If others don't then its their risk and life. Motorcycle helmets laws are the same deal.

Cell phone use while driving endangers me and people I care about. I don't want to get rear ended by a stupid girl texting her friends while she's driving 80 mph.

I looked into this and discovered there is a lot of anecdotes like yours and no hard evidence. What you should demand is that fatal accident investigations should always pull the driver's cell phone records and see it the phone was in use when the accident occurred. Then you might have have some evidence instead of scare stories in the media.

It would make more sense to require breathalyzers in cars, since we can actually document the 12,000 people a year killed by drunk drivers.

[aceplace57]

I agree more study is needed. They should always check the cell phone records after an accident. Also check cell phone usage for any driver ticketed for extreme speeding or reckless driving. That data is needed to fully study this issue.

My state has laws that can be enforced. I'm not sure if cell phone records can be used later in court. It would certainly help convictions if they could be used.

Cell Phone Use

Drivers 18 to 20 are banned from handheld cell phone use. Novice drivers in Arkansas - drivers younger than 18 – are banned from all cell phone use while driving (handheld and hands-free).
Texting

All drivers are banned from texting while driving.
http://www.drivinglaws.org/arkansas.php

[jabiru]

I voted 'maybe' but I probably wouldn't. There have been times, though, when I've felt like grabbing some loudmouth's mobile and chucking it out the window.

None of which would be necessary, of coure, if people weren't such selfish arseholes.

[JoelUpchurch]

My state has laws that can be enforced. I'm not sure if cell phone records can be used later in court. It would certainly help convictions if they could be used.


Cell phone records get used all the time in criminal cases, so I would think the only question is whether the timestamp is accurate enough to determine if the driver was making a call when the accident occurred.

[RaftPeople]

I voted yes, definitely.

I also would spray paint any other car that is red to the color blue because I do not like the color red.

[Nava]

This is my concern, what if such a device interfered with the train conductor's radio (or whatever they use now to communicate with the dispatcher)?

In most of Spain, cellphones, same as cabbies.

Accident investigations here (no need to be fatal, any involving a serious injury) do involve getting phone records. I remember an intercity bus where the phone the driver used to talk with Central had rung just as he entered a dangerous curve (22 dead including both drivers). You can use cellphones here if they're "hands-free".

[Krouget]

What you should demand is that fatal accident investigations should always pull the driver's cell phone records and see it the phone was in use when the accident occurred. Then you might have have some evidence instead of scare stories in the media.
I agree with this.

However, there is another point of consideration; people like myself stream music from my phone through the car speakers on a growing basis. I'm not actively using my phone (meaning I'm not forwarding my attention, it's set and forget), but it would be tricky to make the distinction, since data is constantly active.

There is no simple solution to the problem, but there needs to be a bigger push for driver education and some way to turn around the idea that driving is a passive activity. I know it's anecdotal, but I was listening to the radio a while back, where the host and callers were expressing the opportunity to multitask while driving, because there exist a lot of "downtime" where they can get other things done. That's pretty crazy.

[aruvqan]

As an aside, something I always find funny in any thread complaining about cellphones is you usually hear from someone saying, "yeah I agree cell phones suck but you really need them so someone can get in touch with you in an emergency!"

I remember most of my life people didn't have cell phones and we still seemed to handle emergencies pretty well.
And back in the day you kept hearing stories of "And we tried to reach Uncle Fester for days so he could gt to Morticias deathbed, but we couldn't reach him and she died before he could say goodbye" or "If only we could have reached Gomez in time to learn that Morticia had a deathly allergy to Sodium Pentathol so she died during the emergency operation to remove <whatever>" or "I tried to get you, the perfect job was open but when I couldn't get you in to speak with Fred he hired his hairdresser's third cousins brother"

If I was riding a bus, and you prevented me from getting news that my Mom was in hospital and on her deathbed and that I had a limited tome to reach her, and you caused me to miss it, I would literally probably hire someone to kick the living shit out of you and put you in hospital if I couldn't sue you. You simply do not keep people from communicating just because you are tired of them using cell phones. Get a set of noise cancelling headphones or earplugs and learn to deal with it.

[Clark Cello]

It occurred to me that cell phone use in cars can be stopped without pissing off the FCC.

A sensor in the car could detect a cell phone signal and sound an annoying alarm like the seatbelt does. After two minutes the horn would start blaring. The cell phone signal is never blocked and that keeps the FCC happy.

Sounds extreme? Just last month this college coed was texting and updating Facebook on a trip home. 80 mph and her head is looking at that damn phone. A text every 90 seconds according to her phone records. I'm just glad she didn't kill anyone but herself.

Google accident cell phone

Cops can't stop this because there's no evidence of a crime unless they catch you driving and talking/texting.




http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46627015/ns/today-today_people/t/parents-teen-who-died-texting-driving-kids-think-theyre-invincible/#.T1aJq3md1K0

So no one in the car is allowed to use a phone?

[MsRobyn]

Well, as others said, the FCC would never allow jamming signals in cars.

Seat belt buzzers annoy people enough that it encourages people to wear them. An annoying buzzer alarm triggered by cell phone use should have a similar effect. Add in a car horn that blares every 20 seconds and that should discourage most cell phone texters. The horn would also attract the cops interest too.

There really isn't a perfect solution. Cell phone's are needed and will always be around. Its a shame the actions of a few idiots endangers the rest of us.

I can actually see your solution being at least somewhat dangerous because people will learn to ignore the noise, or they will figure out a way to disable the system entirely, which isn't that hard to do. Either way, you're back to square one, only now, you've got people with safety systems that don't work. If you don't disable the horn correctly, you can affect the airbag system, and even if you do disable the horn correctly, you've got no warning device if, say, someone's about to back in to you or you're about to hit someone else.

Even if the horn isn't disabled, the sudden noise from the horn may be enough to startle some drivers enough to get into an accident. Since that's what you're trying to prevent in the first place, your idea seems counterproductive.

[Nava]

I can actually see your solution being at least somewhat dangerous because people will learn to ignore the noise, or they will figure out a way to disable the system entirely, which isn't that hard to do.

I once got a cabbie who'd disabled his buzzer by inserting a piece of folded cardboard into the piece where the seatbelt goes. After that I've seen and refrained from getting into two other cabs with similar devices.

[TruCelt]

I really don't understand how any reasonable person is bothered by other people using their phones. While driving, yes, that's dangerous to everyone around, but riding on a bus? Sitting at a table in a restaurant? Mind your business, people!

[MsRobyn]

I really don't understand how any reasonable person is bothered by other people using their phones. While driving, yes, that's dangerous to everyone around, but riding on a bus? Sitting at a table in a restaurant? Mind your business, people!

Yeah. That's what it really comes down to. People should be courteous enough to take their personal business to a more private place (like outside the restaurant) or at least, keep the volume down. By the same token, those who complain about others' cell phone use should tune it out. It's really not that difficult.

[Hippy Hollow]

Yeah. This is a locus of control issue. You really don't have much right to control what others do in a public space (within reason). Yes, we can expect a level of civility (nobody should touch you, expose themselves, etc.) but if you personally don't like the way someone sounds, looks, smells, and so forth, get the fuck over yourself. Take measures to limit your exposure to the stimuli (wear a blindfold, stick a clothespin on your nose, get earplugs, etc.), or better yet, opt for a private mode of transport.

All of these options are superior to inconveniencing others because it bothers you.

I can appreciate folks sharing examples of life-or-death situations as to why they need cellphone access, but honestly, it's not even on that level. Limiting someone's ability to communicate, really about anything, in a place where that communication is allowed, is a disgusting and offensive overreach of one's influence. And since we have technology like noise canceling headphones and earplugs easily available and this dick chose not to utilize those options - or not ride the bus altogether, it's readily apparent to me that he is an execrable self-centered douchebag who thinks that the word should revolve around him.

[tdn]

I really don't understand how any reasonable person is bothered by other people using their phones.

Asked and answered many times in this thread already. Did you read the thread?

[AHunter3]

I'm inclined to contribute to his defense fund.

[JoelUpchurch]

I agree with this.

However, there is another point of consideration; people like myself stream music from my phone through the car speakers on a growing basis. I'm not actively using my phone (meaning I'm not forwarding my attention, it's set and forget), but it would be tricky to make the distinction, since data is constantly active.

There is no simple solution to the problem, but there needs to be a bigger push for driver education and some way to turn around the idea that driving is a passive activity. I know it's anecdotal, but I was listening to the radio a while back, where the host and callers were expressing the opportunity to multitask while driving, because there exist a lot of "downtime" where they can get other things done. That's pretty crazy.

The long term solution is self-driving cars. I expect to first cars to arrive sometime between 2020 to 2030. In the United States, the legal problems are much more intractable than the technical issues.

The first car is supposed to be a Mercedes Benz S-Class in 2013, but it be limited to speeds below 40kph.
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/self-driving-cars-by-2013-20111115-1ngbx.html

[drachillix]

but I still have to give consent for the pediatrician or the ER doctor to treat him.

Things like this are why implied consent exists. If there is any real danger to your childs well being, medical professionals are allowed to act without your consent, just not against your express protest. As a parent, I understand your desire to be there and help deal with the situation but its not an absolute need on their end.

In a true emergency, there are already mechanisms in place to deal with it. ER staff regularly deal with situations like car accidents where the parents are unable to give consent due to being critically injured themselves and unable to discuss the situation.

Kid has a tummy ache and needs to go home is not an emergency, its a deal with it as soon as practical.

Plenty of parents work in environments not conducive to easy phone contact on demand or departure on demand. For example, an ICU nurse does not just get to walk away from a patient because of a family emergency, and abandoning patients can at best get their licence pulled, at worst land them in jail.

A friend of mine works in a locked psych unit of a prison. All cell phones and personal belongings are placed in lockers outside the unit and only specific phones in the area can even dial out of the prison.

LA and SF bay areas have plenty of parents who commute 2-3 hours to work. I can go on with dozens of examples, many of them advanced professionals requiring hefty degrees who are otherwise model parents.

[MsRobyn]

I'm writing this post in a restaurant, and I have a serious question. How is a cell phone user any different from a loud, obnoxious conversation amongst a group of customers who are physically present?

Drachillix, your point is well taken. I know that there is such an animal as implied consent. IME, however, providers prefer explicit consent whenever possible, and I can give that by phone. That's all. :)

[Marley23]

I'm writing this post in a restaurant, and I have a serious question. How is a cell phone user any different from a loud, obnoxious conversation amongst a group of customers who are physically present?
On a psychological level, hearing half a conversation is just annoying. I remember hearing an NPR segment that delved into the issue- not that I remember the specifics of why it's a pain. I suppose that you could look at it as a positive: it's better to be forced listen to one idiot than two idiots.

[drachillix]

Drachillix, your point is well taken. I know that there is such an animal as implied consent. IME, however, providers prefer explicit consent whenever possible, and I can give that by phone. That's all. :)

I was not intending to pick on you specifically, just using your example.

The little ex EMT in me despises the abuse of the term emergency and crisis.

[tdn]

I'm writing this post in a restaurant, and I have a serious question. How is a cell phone user any different from a loud, obnoxious conversation amongst a group of customers who are physically present?

Other than what Marley23 pointed out, not much. Loud obnoxious behavior is never acceptable. But I think that people tend to do that more on cell phones than in person.

[DocCathode]

. Yes, we can expect a level of civility (nobody should touch you, expose themselves, etc.)

So THAT'S why they kicked me out of Olive Garden!

[Cat Whisperer]

I thought of a way to jam cellphones responsibly - allow incoming calls only, and limit them to 30 seconds. Maybe not on the bus, but in movie theatres and moving cars, etc. - you can take an incoming emergency call, find out what you need to know, and get back to what is going on around you.

How 'bout that? Does that satisfy everyone? :)

[Hippy Hollow]

So THAT'S why they kicked me out of Olive Garden!

Well, now you know. :)

Cat Whisperer, I just don't see the need for it. Here in Austin, the Alamo Drafthouse's non-cellphone policy went viral (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs). That's how you handle it.

I have no truck with a private business turfing obnoxious customers out the door with extreme prejudice. However, it's hard to ascertain the harm of an individual talking on a cell phone while on a public conveyance. It's not like people were quiet as dormice before cell phones became ubiquitous.

[tdn]

I'm not sure why people are saying buses are otherwise very loud places. Most people in conversation are talking in normal conversational tone or quieter. The only times that it gets to shouting level is when there are teenagers, drunken sports fans, and old Chinese ladies.

[Martin Hyde]

What you're forgetting, or just didn't know, is that parents or legal guardians have to make decisions on behalf of their minor children, and they have to give permission to treat. For example, the sprog's school nurse has my permission to call his pediatrician or an ambulance, but I still have to give consent for the pediatrician or the ER doctor to treat him. Even if I'm on the bus, I can still do that by phone and sign the paperwork when I get there. And most important, I can be kept informed about what's going on so there isn't a lot of wasted time when I do get there.

And before you write me (and TruCelt) off as hysterical parents, being reachable can literally be a matter of life and death. Some years back, I was working as a contractor for a company that had a no-cell policy. The sprog got very, very sick at daycare and couldn't get a hold of me because I didn't have a phone on my desk and the person who answered the phone said that she had no idea who I was. The daycare finally got a hold of my mother-in-law, who sent me an e-mail to my company address (why we had e-mail addresses but no access to a telephone is beyond me). I had to use the pay phone to call my mother-in-law to tell her to take him to the ER, where I would meet them. It was two hours between the time the daycare first tried to call me and the time I got to the hospital. By this time, the sprog was running a temp of around 103 and rising, and he was not doing well. Had I been directly reachable, I could have been there in 30 minutes versus two hours. I went out and got a pager the next day; if the company didn't like it, too damn bad. My son's -- or any human being's -- life is worth more than your peace and quiet.

Two things about this.

Firstly, it sounds like the people at the day care were absolutely fucking stupid. I do not need anyone's permission, as a citizen of the United States, to call emergency medical services and have a child in an emergency medical situation sent to the hospital. The daycare, when it was unable to get in touch with you should have called 911 because if your story is as described it seems like a very clear cut case of a medical emergency.

Secondly, current law allows emergency medical treatment of minors without parental consent, notification, or accompaniment in the case of a medical emergency when the parent can't be contacted cite (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/703.full). So if the daycare had called 911 (as anyone can do, and the EMS will definitely move someone with a medical emergency to the hospital) the doctors would have not just let your son sit there and die--and if they did they would be negligent.

I grew up in a community where many people's parents worked in underground coal mines, where even today you will not be able to get in touch with them during a shift. It's just simply not the case that properly functioning caretakers of children will just let a kid seize up and die because they are unable to get in touch with the parent.

Your story is very light on the details so if anything I've said contradicts some detail you haven't shared, I'm not particularly interested--I'm addressing a general point here and am not particularly interested or concerned with the particulars of your story beyond the general concept of it.

[Martin Hyde]

I gotta take issue with comments of this sort. It's just like "hey, back when I was a kid we never wore seat belts and none of us died". Obviously none of you died, because you're here posting now. Heck, back before penicillin plenty of us survived infections, back before telephones people still found ways to communicate, back before cars people were able to survive, etc, etc, etc.

Before cell phones, there were all sorts of other things built into various systems to help deal with emergencies... I'm sure there were elaborate systems where surgeons would call into hospitals from pay phones letting the staff know where they were and how to reach, etc. And I'm sure those systems worked a lot better than nothing. But with cell phones they can (at least in theory) work better. So (a) the system is better than it used to be, and (b) now that we have cell phones, the previous systems are likely no longer being used, so if you suddenly turn off cell phones we might not just revert to pre-cell-phone levels of emergency response, we might get much worse because we are now depending on cell phones.

Here's the thing, I'm not saying we shouldn't carry cell phones. I'm not saying we should ban cell phones on a bus. I'm just saying I don't get the people who complain about cell phones but then also say "but you can't help but carry one because of emergencies." Aside from narrow cases, most people could indeed get by without carrying a cellphone, so that isn't really a normally valid reason for someone with an expressed distaste for cellphones to carry one.

In this same vein, something I've never understood is the person who never lets a phone just go to voicemail. I've known people who will literally look at their phone, say "ugh, I do not want to talk to this person" and then answer. Every. Single. Time. I've also been told when I ask "why do you do that?" that they "have" to answer "because it might be important" or "it might be an emergency." Unless it is a work thing and you're expected to answer or get in trouble, I see no reason that either of those is a compelling reason to take a call you otherwise would not take. I'm assuming in a situation where something is important or an emergency a voicemail would be left and you'd know in 2-3 minutes if it was an emergency or not.

[MsRobyn]

Two things about this.

Firstly, it sounds like the people at the day care were absolutely fucking stupid. I do not need anyone's permission, as a citizen of the United States, to call emergency medical services and have a child in an emergency medical situation sent to the hospital. The daycare, when it was unable to get in touch with you should have called 911 because if your story is as described it seems like a very clear cut case of a medical emergency.

Secondly, current law allows emergency medical treatment of minors without parental consent, notification, or accompaniment in the case of a medical emergency when the parent can't be contacted cite (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/703.full). So if the daycare had called 911 (as anyone can do, and the EMS will definitely move someone with a medical emergency to the hospital) the doctors would have not just let your son sit there and die--and if they did they would be negligent.

I grew up in a community where many people's parents worked in underground coal mines, where even today you will not be able to get in touch with them during a shift. It's just simply not the case that properly functioning caretakers of children will just let a kid seize up and die because they are unable to get in touch with the parent.

Your story is very light on the details so if anything I've said contradicts some detail you haven't shared, I'm not particularly interested--I'm addressing a general point here and am not particularly interested or concerned with the particulars of your story beyond the general concept of it.

I'm not going to share the particulars. Suffice it to say, however, that babies get very sick very quickly. What started out as a mild fever got much worse in the 90 or so minutes it took to get a hold of me.

And my general point is that there are some occasions when a conversation on a cell phone on the bus is necessary. I don't particularly care what miners do or don't do. I do care that I'm reachable, and if that offends you, that's too bad.

[zweisamkeit]

I thought of a way to jam cellphones responsibly - allow incoming calls only, and limit them to 30 seconds. Maybe not on the bus, but in movie theatres and moving cars, etc. - you can take an incoming emergency call, find out what you need to know, and get back to what is going on around you.

How 'bout that? Does that satisfy everyone? :)

No. If someone is being too loud/obnoxious on their phone, either ask them to pipe down nicely, talk to someone in charge (if you're somewhere that has a policy against it), or deal with it (whether that means ignoring it, wearing earplugs, or whatever).

People In Public can be aggravating as shit, definitely. But you are also a Person In Public; chances are really goddamned good that you've aggravated someone at one time or another, even if you weren't aware of it.

[Shodan]

I hate cell phones as much as the next guy, but I don't see how it's any of my business on a bus, any more than any other annoying conversation. People In Public can be aggravating as shit, definitely. But you are also a Person In Public; chances are really goddamned good that you've aggravated someone at one time or another, even if you weren't aware of it. True dat. Especially that time I fell asleep on the bus and drooled on myself.

Regards,
Shodan

[MaxTheVool]

Here's the thing, I'm not saying we shouldn't carry cell phones. I'm not saying we should ban cell phones on a bus. I'm just saying I don't get the people who complain about cell phones but then also say "but you can't help but carry one because of emergencies." Aside from narrow cases, most people could indeed get by without carrying a cellphone, so that isn't really a normally valid reason for someone with an expressed distaste for cellphones to carry one.

We're wandering down a tangent here, but a hypothetical person who has purchased a cell phone in case of emergencies, never or almost never talks on it, and complains about people talking loudly on cell phones in buses (or whatever) does not strike me as being hypocritical. They're not complaining about cell phone OWNERSHIP (which they do partake in), they are complaining about cell phone MISUSE. As for whether it makes sense to own a cell phone in case of emergency, well, it's one of those things where the vast majority of us won't have an emergency (fortunately), and a good proportion of the emergencies we do have we won't need a cell phone for whatever reason, but there are some fairly non-contrived situations in which a cell phone could literally mean the difference between life and death. And of course you might have a cell phone and be present at an emergency not involving yourself. Ie, you witness a car crash and call 911.

(On a related note, I suspect there are a fair number of people like me who own cell phones but basically never have "conversations" on them per se, but use them for logistical things like "hey wife, I'm at the grocery store, need me to pick anything up" and things like that. I might also bitch about loud cell phone users describing private issues on the bus without being a hypocrite, if I felt so inclined, which I don't.)

[zweisamkeit]

There are also more and more people using their cell phone as their only phone. When my now-husband moved out on his own, he never got a landline; when I moved out on my own, I didn't get one either. As a married unit, we've just kept with our two cell phones. We just didn't really see a reason to pay for an additional phone when we already have our own with more than enough minutes and no worries about long distance calls.

[Lord Feldon]

The FCC has put out a very stern memo (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0306/DA-12-347A1.pdf) (PDF) in response to this. In fact, it's a ***CONSUMER ALERT***, so you know it's serious.