SPECIAL REPORT Chalmers said the NTIA report proves his in-vehicle product


could work. But certification standards would also need to be de- veloped, and this responsibility would fall on the FCC’s shoulders. Te company petitioned the FCC in September 2009 to allow


the technology, testifying that the signal emitted only jams the unwelcomed electromagnetic spectrum inside the vehicle and creates “virtually” no outside interference. But because the FCC had yet to respond to Trinity Noble’s petition, federal legislation would be required to make FCC act. Meanwhile, attendees at the NAPT Summit in Portland, Ore.,


this past fall came across an alternative. CellControl was on hand during the trade show demonstrating a solution for distracted driving caused by cellular phones and other mobile devices, such as laptops and handhelds. CellControl directly integrates any vehicle’s onboard diagnostics computer with software on the mobile phone/device to stop texting, e-mailing, web browsing and phone usage while the vehicle is in motion. Te product differentiates from Trinity Noble’s solution in that


CellControl is software that is downloaded into cell phones at the network-level, meaning only those handsets with downloads are affected. Chuck Cox, CellControl’s CEO, says a school district would need to adopt a mobile communications usage policy for “company phones” handed out to drivers and for “personal phones” that employees agree to allow the district to control.


CellControl integrates with the vehicle’s onboard computer


system using a proprietary 2x1.5x0.5-inch rectangular trigger unit that can be installed in a school bus in about 15 minutes. In addi- tion to telling a CellControl-enabled mobile device that the vehicle is moving, thus activating a protection halo, this trigger also reads and transmits vehicle performance data via a unique Bluetooth signal. While it currently reports speed, mileage and idling time, Cox says the company is expanding its character string to allow for more dynamic and expanded reporting in the future. “Our solution is simple: CellControl keeps drivers from doing


something they should not do and allows everything else,” he adds. “We do not jam and do not endorse any jamming technol- ogy for many reasons, most notably due to the inability to dial emergency numbers. In addition to creating a potentially lethal communication block, jamming also impinges upon individual liberties and privacy. Tese are very complicated legal issues, and it’s probably good that they exist.” ■


What Do You Think?


Should technology be equipped in school buses that pro- hibit cell phone use by drivers? Vote in the STN Web Poll at www.stnonline.com.


28 School Transportation News Magazine January 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60