• cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    I lol’d at the “technological means” what are they gonna do, put up jammers? The FCC would be on their ass in no time. Metal detectors? Don’t they already have that? Bluetooth detection? The kids will just turn off Bluetooth widespread.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      hahah these are already in place and in use. they already have cell blockers in many places. this is not new and the fcc knows all about it.

      the ‘new’ hotness is a pico cell that allows for voice/sms but no data

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yea, no. The FCC is quite explicit on this, read for yourself:

        The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.

        • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          cool, every school in my district has zero cell signal the moment you walk in the building. it sure as hell aint the architecture

          im going to investigate… they are using something

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            im going to investigate… they are using something

            Please do and then report their asses

              • cm0002@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                turned it on and off for specific areas of the building as needed’

                Sounds like illegal jamming to me, def collect some evidence if you can and please report them. I bet they have them mounted on/near the ceiling. Maybe a phone with a good zoom could capture some good evidence pics

          • Fondots@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            If it is in fact the moment you walk in the door, then it absolutely is the architecture. If the architecture didn’t have any effect on it, whatever’s disrupting the signal would also interfere with the signal outside.

            Damn near every school building I’ve ever been in is a behemoth of brick, concrete, and cinder blocks. Cellular and other radio signals have a hard time penetrating that.

            Same for a lot of hospitals, big retail stores, and other similar places.

            I work in 911 dispatch, we have caution notes attached to the addresses of a lot of schools, hospitals, various office buildings, etc. in our area that there’s poor cell reception or that our responders can’t get radio reception inside the buildings, so we know how we can or can’t communicate with our units when they’re responding to an emergency there. I can guarantee you those places aren’t purposely jamming police radios.

            I lose my cell signal in parts of several of my local grocery stores, big box retailers, etc. that’s just part of being inside of a big concrete and metal box. Why would they even want to interfere with my ability to use my phone?

            A lot of these buildings were built before cell phones were even a thing, so reception was not a concern in their design. Even in newer buildings, it’s often not a major consideration.

            And as others said, jamming a cell signal is a huge no-no from the FCC. If anything, and I doubt they’re even doing this much, they have picocells (basically tiny cell towers) in the building that they’re turning off at certain times. If they didn’t have them, there would still be no signal in those parts of the building.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m worried it will be something like “you must install this app while on campus and you must sign this waiver to allow us to monitor your phone via the app and we will confiscate your phone if you’re caught without the app.”

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        parents wont go for that. as you pointed out, parents want to be able to access their kids. they are the biggest roadblocks to ‘no phones in schools’. im one of them.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Will I sound like an “I grow up without seatbelts …“ guy if I mention we were OK only having our parents able to call the school? I guess school shootings etc. are more prevalent nowadays.

          Wonder how much bulk dumbphones would cost with a year of service… QVC/HSN sell smart Tracfones for $45 so perhaps that line of thinking is worth including in the debate. Of course any vendor willing to lock down phones to only be able to contact preapproved (parents’) numbers would wet their beak handsomely.