Telecom Trends

Jamming should actually be required in certain types of places, like Court rooms, concert halls, theatres, i.e. where the disruption of an idiotic ring tone can have really serious consequences or a least intense aggravation for large numbers of people. If someone is expecting a life and death type emergency call, then they have no business being inside such a place or should make other arrangements for receiving the call.

Jamming should be permitted in other places, such as restaurants, museums, art galleries, etc. as long as the policy is clearly made apparent to the patrons or where people may collectively agree, i.e. places of worship.

The difficult policy choice is what to do about trains, for example, where people are locked up together for a long time and some may need to do business, etc. by phone - but it’s highly irritating for other passengers to hear their mostly stupid and occasionally embarrassing and confidential conversations. I once had to ask a lawyer who was practically shouting out all sorts of stuff about his client’s case in a VIA I car to please shut up. The solution may be a “cell phone” car, like the old “smoking sections” - in other words to segregate cell phone users on public transportation and make them pay more to have cell phone access in order to compensate VIA for the costs of jamming, etc. for the comfort of what I suspect is the large majority who prefer peace and quiet.
 

I do not usually take time out of my day to comment on telecommunication policy; that is my father's job. However, I need to take a few minutes to tear apart the previous commentator's statements.

By sequestering those expecting a life and death type emergency call (The proper expression is life OR death, by the way. It would be pretty horrible to get a life AND death call) to their houses is a ridiculous and unreasonable expectation, and that is not what my father intended by his statement that cell jamming 'endangers lives' at all. In an emergency situation in a public place, the cellphone is the most vital life-saving tool available. Though there are numerous other situations which are more likely to occur in North America, an example I can think of is when I was in Israel for the Hezbolla-Israeli war in 2006: If cellphones were banned in restaurants and other public places, I would have had no way to get to a safe place or to reach my family in Canada to tell them I was safe while the rockets exploded all around me. Thankfully we are not subject to such extreme examples in North America, but emergency situations in public places happen all the time, and we know from experience that cellphones save lives.

Aggravation is not a really serious consequence. Death is a really serious consequence. Bodily harm is a really serious consequence. Fortunately, the ringing of a telephone causes neither of these (though if you hold a phone up to your ear, max out the volume and let it ring for around seven hours straight, it can damage some outer hair cells and speed up presbyacusis, or at the very least cause tinnitus, but that is neither here nor there)

Mild annoyance is simply mild annoyance. Human beings are annoying. It's a simple fact of life. We do not ban obnoxious human beings from existing, we simply legislate their actions and hope that they follow the rules; if the don't, they suffer the consequences. When your phone rings in a restaurant/museum/art gallery, the consequence is public disapproval, and most people are so embarrassed by disapproving stares that they will be quick to shut off or silence their phones. When your phone rings in court, you're kicked out.

We do not ban crying babies from public places; we offer sympathetic glances to their overworked parents and hope that next time, they will be put to bed at naptime rather than taken to the mall.

As for Anonymous' incident on the train, it is clear to me that he has no social graces at the ready, given that he asked the annoying lawyer to 'shut up' rather than ask him to keep it down. Also, how come anyone who speaks on a cellphone instantly has a 'mostly stupid' conversation? Do people speak to eachother differently on the phone than when in person? And cellphone access is not provided by VIA rail, by the way, internet access is. And if VIA chooses to jam cellphones, it should be those who do NOT use cellphones who should pay for the luxury of a ring-free car. And where does this legislation end? Are you allowed to talk while on the train? Should we then mandate sign language classes for all train/plane/bus passengers so that we needn't be subjected to the vibrations of eachother's vocal cords? And while we're at it, can we ban ugly people too, if their very presence offends? Or is that going too far?

In the second paragraph: "Jamming should be permitted in other places, such as restaurants, museums, art galleries, etc. as long as the policy is clearly made apparent to the patrons or where people may collectively agree, i.e. places of worship." Why should a jamming policy be made apparent when policies asking patrons to please shut off their cellphones be equally apparent? Why should institutions spend money jamming phones when they can ask patrons to turn off their phones for free? Additionally, these institutions can choose to impose a consequence (such as being kicked out) or a fine, neither of which cost the institution nearly as much as a jamming system.

A ringing cellphone causes annoyance. It does not kill. Human beings are social creatures and as such will use all means at their disposal to be social, including cellphones. It is perhaps those resistant to social change, like Anonymous, who are the backwards and outdated Neanderthals.
 

Hopefully, jamming to prevent unwanted cell phone ringing is one day rendered irrelevant by location aware handsets which can check location policies and automatically change the ringtone from Ring to Vibrate.

Social pressure will take care of loud phone talkers unless we care to let it continue unchecked.