4 ms·
Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.
by akurtzhs 12y ago
Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.
- matthewmcg 12y agoI wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."
- asavadatti 12y agoThat would block cell phone signals as well. Their customers will get angry pretty quickly..
- shagie 12y agoJust need to repaint the walls. http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or appropriately tuned wallpaper http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-wifi-wallpaper-lets-cellular-and-radio-through/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...
- learc83 12y agoAnd then they block cell signals. I don't think anyone would stay at a hotel with zero cell phone reception.
- hellbanner 12y agoSurely that would fall under "interfere" of the law and still earn them the fine?
- superuser2 12y agoIt's about profit, not a pathological desire to prevent you from using WiFi. So, only if the cost of installing a Faraday cage outweighs the loss of revenue to people who opt for cellular data. Also, most of this is done at the behest of an IT contractor, who probably has very little if any influence over construction projects.
- NolF 12y agoSurely that would affect mobile phone reception. I can't imagine anyone being happy about that.
- eslaught 12y agoThe point of the faraday cage is to explicitly allow specific signals by setting up repeaters (i.e. femtocells, or whatever they're called these days) inside the cage.
- learc83 12y agoDo they allow of block data connections over their repeaters? If they block them then customers are pissed. "Why doesn't my email work? Why can't I get picture messages?" If they allow them, people can set up wifi hotspots the same as they were before. Revenue lost from pissed off customers + cost of Faraday cage + cost buying and maintaining repeater network is definitely going to be higher than revenue from selling wifi.
- ptaipale 12y agoBTW, up here (Finland, northern Europe) new construction code for so-called zero-energy houses mandates energy saving structures that almost make houses Faraday cages. Walls are to have aluminum foil in them to reflect radiation and keep heat in. The foil also reflects or blocks radiation from communication devices. Also windows have layers that try to block radiation, except for visible light. So combating climate change shows up in cell phones and modems not connecting, or having poor coverage. People have to go out or keep a window open to make a call. The impact is particularly strong with higher frequencies, so generally, the newer the technology, the worse it is. House owners have started to install repeaters, but FICORA (local equivalent of FCC) says those are illegal. I haven’t heard of solution proposals for this catch-22, government agencies each work in their own silos.
- cesarb 12y agoI have always wondered: would a "passive repeater" (an outside antenna connected directly to an inside antenna through a short coaxial cable, with no active components at all) work in these cases, or would it attenuate the signal too much? I believe such a "passive repeater" would not be illegal in any sane jurisdiction, since it's nothing more than metal bent in a few specific shapes connected by a cable.
- ptaipale 12y agoYes, a passive repeater as you described helps at least in some cases, and they are permitted. And even if the system were insane and they were not permitted, they would be practically undetectable. Active repeaters ones are illegal here. Unfortunately a passive repeater is not always enough.