Are jamming devices needed to put manners on mobiles?

Mobile phone etiquette has become a burgeoning issue in recent times with the growth in the use of phones in public places. The popularity of mobile phones has meant it is common to see people making and receiving calls in bars, restaurants and on public transport. Some people, however, want to ban or jam mobile phones.

Mobile phones have reached mass market popularity faster than comparative technologies like radio, TV and the internet. Many more people will own mobile phones than traditional land-line telephones. The EU Commission predicts more EU citizens will be internet enabled via mobile devices than PCs. Soon there will be an average of one billion daily text messages sent worldwide. MMS or multi-media messaging services, such as picture messaging, are also predicted to become popular.

Despite the penetration and popularity of mobile phones, many people are put out, sometimes justifiably so, by other people using mobile phones in public. Examples include dining out, attending a concert, the cinema or church to name but a few.

As a result many public places now have signs indicating that mobile phones should be turned off. Indeed some authorities elsewhere have banned mobile phones in certain public places. There is yet no clear consensus between these measures and in one case the ban was later withdrawn. Another solution the article highlights is a technical "system of digitally blocking mobile usage in concert halls or theatres". A recent European study found that a large percentage of consumers surveyed favoured such devices.

These are known as mobile jamming devices. They block the radio signals of mobile phones. Therefore, it is possible to prevent mobile phones ringing in concert halls, aeroplanes, schools, restaurants, churches and some have even suggested courts. These devices, however, are not without controversy. Many argue that they could amount to an invasion of personal privacy and free choice. In addition, there is potential interference with mobile and radio devices used by law enforcement and emergency authorities. They may also block signals to mobile phones and other wireless devices (for example Blackberrys, pocket PCs, Personal Digital Assistants) which may use non-audible signals such as texts, emails or even vibrate alerts. What happens if a doctor, or an IT consultant, on call is unaware their mobile phone is "jammed" because there is no warning sign? Potential liability issues arise if an organisation operates a jamming device but the signal drifts and blocks mobile phone signals in adjoining areas.

In addition, as with all areas of new m-commerce services and wireless services, the legality and legal regulation of mobile jamming devices is far from clear. Certain jurisdictions view these devices as unregulated. Others have specifically banned them, one of the most recent being Canada. But other jurisdictions such as Japan, have permitted such devices. Some jurisdictions also feel that existing legislation prohibits the use of mobile jamming devices.

In Ireland the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation appears to believe the use of mobile jamming devices is not permissible. Such a view may be justified by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926. While the Act pre-dates modern mobile phones and new mobile jamming devices, Section 12 of the Act restricts the use of certain apparatus for wireless telegraphy.

The operative section states that it is not lawful "for any person so to work or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy that electro-magnetic radiation therefrom interferes with the working of or otherwise injuriously affects any apparatus for wireless telegraphy in respect of which a licence has been granted under this Act and is in force"

The language used is arguably archaic and overly legal. In layman's terms it appears to prohibit the use of apparatus for wireless telegraphy which interferes with or "injuriously affects" licensed apparatus for wireless telegraphy. This may include mobile jamming devices. Should such an old statute, however, be interpreted to apply to a new and unenvisaged situation? Does it prohibit mobile jamming devices which interfere with certain localised wireless services which may not be licensed, or which operate outside of a public telecommunications network? It may require a technical examination of the operation of mobile jamming devices to ascertain whether actual "electro-magnetic radiation therefrom" interferes with mobile phones. Do these devices "block" signals or actually "interfere" with the working of mobile phones? It also seems more difficult to establish "injurious affect" as opposed to mere interfere. The significance of this distinction in the Act is unclear.

One issue which this continuing debate highlights is the novelty of society's use of new mobile phones and devices, as well as the often complex legal issues which surround new m-commerce and wireless services. One recent analysis forecasts that global m-commerce revenue could reach $225 billion (€225.4 billion) by 2005. Whether or not this analysis is fulfilled we will no doubt continue to see these issues highlighted both from a social etiquette and regulatory point of view.

Paul Lambert is a member of the IT Law Group at Matheson Ormsby Prentice