[alexkus]

One of the last things I'd want is lots of drivers near me to be even more distracted saying "Hello? Hello?" into their phone and repeatedly looking at it to see if they're still connected or still have a signal.

Also, good luck if you're in an accident as no-one nearby can call the emergency services.

[mhurron]

I would add someone going around blocking emergency radios to that last things list.

http://tbo.com/news/business/fcc-seffner-man-was-using-cell-...

"When Hillsborough County Sheriffs deputies stopped the SUV, their own two-way radios were jammed."

[mikestew]

By default I assume law enforcement is exaggerating for effect, but lot of emergency radios are on 800Mhz, AT&T (as one example) uses 850Mhz, so it wouldn't be hard to imagine a radio transmitter that cuts a wide swath (e. g., jammer) and interferes with other radios.

[InclinedPlane]

Do you not understand how jammers work? They are not narrow-band devices.

[rcxdude]

This depends on the jammer. They range from jam-almost-everything, to jamming only specific wavelengths (configurable or not), to jamming only specific protocols (which is more technically a DOS attack, but still functions like jamming).

Assuming the driver was using a wavebubble, it's likely that it would jam police radios as well (depending on configuration).

[mikestew]

I understand how they work just fine. Which part of my statement implies a narrow-band device? Perhaps I was unclear, but I think that I worded it such that a wide-band device was implied ("wide swath").

Regardless, jammers can be narrow-band or wide-band depending on the goal. The device in the article sounds to be wide-band, but that doesn't define the entire category.