FCC Issues Forfeiture Notices to Two Business for Jamming Cellular Frequencies 350
An anonymous reader writes "The FCC, responding to anonymous complaints that cell phone jamming was occurring at two businesses, investigated and issued each a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (NAL). You can read the details of the investigation and calculation of the apparent liability in each notice below. Businesses engaged in similar illegal activity should note the public safety concerns and associated fines. From the article: 'The FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order to each business: The Supply Room received an NAL in the amount of $144,000 (FCC No. 13-47), while Taylor Oilfield Manufacturing received an NAL in the amount of $126,000 (FCC No, 13-46).'"
Tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
Many commercial buildings have a lot of steal in the structure / roof ...
Ah, so that's why I can never figure out where all my money goes!
Re: (Score:2)
"Ah, so that's why I can never figure out where all my money goes!"
Yep. That's why they jam the cell phones. Makes the steal that much easier.
Re: (Score:3)
...however many are very likely "passively blocking" phone signals due to the commonly used construction materials in commercial buildings.
Instead of "passively blocking", I think you mean "shielding". As in a " Faraday cage". This doesn't hamper signals outside of the structure.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)
"Instead of "passively blocking", I think you mean "shielding". As in a " Faraday cage". This doesn't hamper signals outside of the structure."
It's mostly due to bad reflections, interference, and simple attenuation. Unless a building is entirely steel clad, modern buildings make terrible Faraday cages.
Even with steel studs at 18" centers, that's more than 3 times the wavelength of 2GHz signals. Aside from studs, beams and girders and the like, even in a building with a lot of them, are nowhere near close enough to make a Faraday cage at those wavelengths.
Re: (Score:3)
Commercial buildings have a LOT of RF shielding. First, the studs are normally steel studs. The roofs a
Re: (Score:3)
I think the cell phone companies have more steal in them than the businesses in question...
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet none of those businesses are theaters.
You really think jamming is widespread, except in places where you'd want it?
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Using a cell phone in a movie theater annoys customers who have already paid. Using a cell phone in a department store may convince you that you should spend your money elsewhere.
Guess who is going to spend money jamming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Informative)
If you actively block (using a powered radio-frequency transmitter) in the USA, you are in violation of FCC regulations. Prepare for the government to come at you and take your money. If you passively block through construction materials and techniques, that is 100% completely legal. There are special wall papers, paints, wall boards and other materials that can passively block radio waves. Also, incorporating steel into the construction also inhibits radio signals.
Re: (Score:3)
In Australia I know of one theatre which I swear must be blocking.
It is between the food court and a exit.
At the exit you get full signal, in the food court you also get full signal.
Walk a couple of metres in to the theatre and you are suddenly down to 1 bar - on multiple frequencies too! (both 2G and 3G)
I did some basic triangulation and figured out roughly where the jammer was. You'd need a frequency analyser to prove it though.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't work that way.
Your phone only indicates strength of the tower it's connected to, not noise.
To show a really strong signal, the theatre would need to be operating a fake cell site.
(Which is separately illegal)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
banks regularly jam signals on the trading floor during trading hours. In NYC I used to get perfect signal until 8:15 (or 8:30) and then got none at my seat until 5 PM every day. I could even tell when they changed settings from pure equity trading hours to CME trading hours. But, if I walked to the lobby of the trading floor I had full signal.
That is one bank and I've been told by friends at other banks it's the same there.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with a higher density of devices and people than what the system in the area was built for... Not at all. It has to mean that they are blocking and jamming the cell service. Yup.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with a higher density of devices and people than what the system in the area was built for... Not at all. It has to mean that they are blocking and jamming the cell service. Yup.
Really? This would be easy to test as a function of the signal versus time. If the signal drops dramatically at exactly 8:15 every day, then it's a jammer. If the dropoff is a ramp, even over the matter of a minute or 30 seconds, then it would be load. I've seen jammers that turn on and off, but I haven't seen any that gradually affect reception. Human beings don't turn things on and off all at the same time.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
Every day at 8:45 my cell phone still has full bars, but can't place or receive phone calls. Turns out a train carrying 600 people is sitting right outside my window at the train stop. 20 minutes later, it get better when it moves on. Trust me, the explanation is often a lot easier if you look at it holistically.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Insightful)
If your business has a steel roof, that's what's doing the jamming. I have no problem if there's a legitimate reason to SCREEN cell phone emissions. You do that by lining your walls with some kind of "chicken wire" appropriate for the frequency the offenders are trying to transmit on.
Funny how this transfers the cost of cell phone use denial to the business that wishes to deny it, and how appropriate. The idea of employing jammers, simply ridiculous. I hear it as the cheapest way to deal with a perceived problem. If you can't motivate your employees, that's not MY problem (should I unwittingly venture onto your property.) Seems to me that denial of 911 access alone would put any of these guardians of all freedom into a painful legal situation.
A-holes on cell phones are the same a-holes that have plagued society since time immemorial. Trying to counter a perceived RF threat with more RF is a strategy destined to failure.
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)
All of what you said is true but it made me think...
Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?
I don't own the spectrum, I don't own the device, I simply own the land. Should I be allowed to block RF (regardless of how beneficial this plan may be, no matter how ineffective, etc - we're simply concerned with rights and not efficacy) on my land?
This is different than a place of employment and I'm not speaking of places generally open to the public. I'm strictly speaking about my property - we can even limit it specifically to an area centralized around my living quarters so as to avoid any blocking from overlapping onto neighboring property. There is no situation where ones blocking should be allowed to impact neighboring property.
Now, I can't think of a legitimate reason to block RF on my land or anything like that - but that's not the point. It seems that I tend to take a rather heavy handed approach when it comes to personal freedom and property rights.
I'm not attempting to be negative nor am I attempting to start an argument. I am unsure of what to think and thus my question - I really don't know. As the spectrum is considered communal property and is regulated as such there is the argument that restricting someone's right to their property (the spectrum they're allowed to use legally) is wrong. Yet, for some unknown reason, one may wish to prevent people from using a ham radio, CB, etc on their property and actively seek to block it. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be allowed the right to prohibit radio communication from their property?
I don't really know - I am leaning towards a, "Yes, they should be allowed to block it on their own private property while assuring that none of their blocking methods impact any portion of neighboring property." Again, I can't think of any logical reason why someone would want to block that so I'm mostly curious as to your (and other people's) opinion on where the line should be drawn.
In fact, all I can picture is some hillbilly drawling out that he "doesn't want none of your radio frequency being utilized on this here property." It's ridiculous at face value but the question remains the same where freedoms are concerned.
Also... We already have national radio quiet zones where anything of the sort is expressly forbidden but I don't think that the reasons they are allowed to enact such regulations apply to private property very well and they aren't actually blocking RF so the two aren't really related. *just wanted to cover that to avoid potential confusion*
Anyhow, yeah - it made me think. I'm unsure and I'm sure I haven't considered everything. Thoughts?
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatives are somewhat painful. The funniest alternative is a box I've seen that is sealed. The signal goes off when your device is inside, but you have no idea how the device responded.
Faraday cage rooms are ok if you can afford one, but even inside a company like Qualcomm, scheduling time inside one can be difficult because they are in demand. And you h
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Funny)
Just use an iPhone and hold it wrong.
Easy peasy. Legal, even.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah... Schroedinger's cellphone.
Re: (Score:3)
Shielding is fine, mostly incidental anyway, and isn't an offense. Transmitting on a licensed band when you're not the licensee, on the other hand, is very illegal. Jammers do not "block" RF; they are transmitters. Unquestionably illegal (the jammer part doesn't even matter, really) unless you're the licensee of whatever it's transmitting on.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that it is illegal. My question is, should it be? This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property. I'm aware that it is illegal and shielding isn't my concern - active blocking and jamming is. I tried to make it clear. It may not have been clear enough.
What happens if your house happens to lie between someone and the remote radio system they're communicating with?
For example: [neighbor]------[your property w/ jammer]------[cell tower]
Even if the jamming was confined only to your property you'd still block that neighbor from being able to communicate with the cell tower, as you are physically in between the two. Even outside of the area of immediate jamming you'd still create a "shadow".
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, but freedom goes both ways. The fundamental problem is that RF is a finicky beast that doesn't have a brick wall fall-off effect to prevent you from exceeding legitimate bounds. It's not illegal to block RF, it's only illegal to spew garbage into the spectrum, and many would probably say that since the enforcement of such effects relies on complaints rather than on compliance monitoring providing you ONLY jam signals on YOUR PRIVATE land, you would never actually get investigated.
The reality though is that attempts to jam cells on your land effectively will nearly always involve some RF noise spewing off your land, in some frequencies maybe even reflecting off the atmosphere and landing elsewhere. I've seen many cases of bizarre RF coverage. Our 2-way system at work with it's omni directional antenna on a tower has problems some 500m down the road with almost line of sight, yet works just fine from my home 13km away in a valley, not on a hill.
RF is in the real world quite unpredictable.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not possible.
Radio waves go both ways.
If the signal from the real transmitter reaches the location of your jammer, the signal from your jammer reaches outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tip of the iceberg (Score:5, Interesting)
>unless it's a coincidence that I lose service right after stepping inside
A typical mobile phone might still show a signal if there is interference; you just wouldn't be able to make a call. (That's basically what "jamming" is: interference done on purpose.) If you're showing *no* signal, that's probably just the building blocking the RF.
Here in Birmingham, AL, there's a spot on I-65 where my phone shows tons of signal, but I invariably lose a call there, because of interference.
Having dealt with the FCC a time or two (I'm a radio engineer, AM/FM), I read the NAL. These yahoos weren't just jamming cell signals inside their facility. That's illegal enough, but the NAL makes it clear that they WERE spilling signal all over the place. The FCC's field engineer was able to triangulate the building's location, getting a positive ID. They should have been shut down.
Look: you can discourage cell use with a faraday cage or other shielding, as some here have mentioned. If you're using a jammer, f'crying out loud, you DEFINITELY need shielding, anyway, or you're going to be interfering with people well outside of your facility.
Hang Up (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that's Karma telling you to hang up and drive, Mr. More Dangerous Than A Drunkard.
Re: (Score:3)
> There's a grocery store in my area that's definitely using a jammer of some kind ...
Here's what I'd do. Go inside and talk to the manager. Just ask him or her if they are jamming cell phones. It *may* just be that they have some equipment in there that's generating a spurious signal. (Happens ALL the time, sigh, I speak from experience, *whimper*.)
But if they are jamming, hand them a copy of that NAL and say, "you might want to stop." If they continue to do it, you should notify the FCC. I don't like b
Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) (Score:2)
They really should title it something like: Announcement Notice of Apparent Liability
Re: (Score:2)
This is awesome (Score:2)
Things in the public domain (like airwaves) belong to the public and private businesses should not be able to simply decide they want to take away from the public domain just because they feel like it. They can always ask someone with a cell phone who is being an ass to leave their premises if they don't like it.
Now if only other government agencies would respect the public domain for things like formerly copyrighted works that were previously released into the public domain and other a whole host of other
Re:This is awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the FCC licensing of the spectrum removes the meat of that claim. If the spectrum is publicly owned, the public shouldn't have to pay for licenses to use it however it sees fit. This is similar to socialist countries calling themselves "The Peoples' Republic of...". On paper it's true, but in reality, it's not. If the spectrum were truly open, it would be chaos; completely unusable for all but local communications.
It's the cell customers who are creating a public disturbance with the cell carriers' service and license. If the store is popular, asking people one at a time to hang up takes up too much time. Passive signs don't work either. The best way to handle it is to jam, preferably with a passive 'faraday cage' when possible. If not, then low power jammers should be used. If customers want to use their phones, they have to go outside. If they don't like losing service while shopping, they can go elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
2.4GHz is not unregulated, it's unlicensed. There's significant amounts of regulation on how you're allowed to transmit on that band, including maximum power. Go read 47 CFR 15C.
Re: (Score:2)
Things in the public domain (like airwaves) belong to the public and private businesses...
Private businesses own the spectrum in question. And other private businesses want to block access to those airwaves on their own property. What you're arguing for is that the government should have the ability to tell you what you can (and cannot) do on your own property with regards to wireless spectrum.
But here's the interesting flip -- if you receive transmissions from, say, DISH Network, and use a secret "pirate" decoder ring to watch the free transmissions coming onto your property, you're a criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Private businesses own the spectrum in question. And other private businesses want to block access to those airwaves on their own property. What you're arguing for is that the government should have the ability to tell you what you can (and cannot) do on your own property with regards to wireless spectrum.
No, they do not own it. Not in any country I know, including US. The spectrum is not ownable. All the EM spectrum is considered a public resource whose use is controlled by the government. The government can grant concessions for people and companies to use parts of it, but even then those parts are still not their property. You can physically block signals within your property by shielding it, but you cannot do that by emitting any signal without authorization.
Re: (Score:2)
You can physically block signals within your property by shielding it, but you cannot do that by emitting any signal without authorization.
Which neatly avoids the question: Do you have the right to do what you want with wireless transmissions occurring on your property? If not, what are the restrictions, and please justify your answers. Now I don't want you to actually answer that -- it's meant to illustrate that the concept of ownership is relevant here; Whether it's a private citizen, or the government; Anything that can be controlled is, by definition, owned. What I'm asking is... to what degree is ownership shared?
Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking? (Score:5, Interesting)
-- 4 were in active use at the time of inspection / catching them
-- 1 was a "backup" in storage at the time
-- both were investigated because of an "anonymous call"
I think it's more likely that the FCC started investigating those companies which had done business with the overseas supplier of the cell phone jammers. Wouldn't that make more sense than "anonymous" tipsters?
Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Annonymous tip= worker who didn't like the policy and found out, or former worker who didn't like the policy or wanted to hurt the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
the chinese supplier wouldn't tell their customers... it's more likely the businesses were ran by inconsiderate assholes, since they obviously didn't mind breaking the law(for little to no benefit) as long as they thought they would get away with it.
it's a simple device to make. you start allowing them you might just as well start allowing anything on any frequency and may the strongest signal win!
if they want to limit use of phones, they shouldn't allow phones in their premises. simple, eh?
Re: Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking? (Score:2)
The Black Vans with antennas all over phone them in!
Re: (Score:3)
In some sense a complaint-driven approach makes sense as long as we're not talking about really serious threats to life/property/etc (which cell phone jamming only becomes if it is epidemic).
It sounds like corporations that deal with the FCC are aware of this as well. If you threaten them with complaints they are more likely to take action.
A little story. Back in the days when cable tended to consist of a lot of no-name franchises (which were later bought up by Comcast/Time-Warner/etc), somebody I knew wa
Re: (Score:3)
They were fined for active jamming. There is nothing wrong with passive blocking.
Quite a few industrial buildings constructed with steal walls already do this inadvertently, and there is nothing illegal about it.
However once you start actively transmitting signals you are not licensed to do, that is when you cross the line to breaking the law.
There is another way (Score:2)
Build a metal box, approximately
RF doesn't get through.
You can stop RF. It's not that hard. And, you don't need to break the law to do it.
Jammers are illegal in the US. Period.
Re: There is another way (Score:2)
Exactly. A Faraday cage effects exactly YOUR PROPERTY. Jammers typically are turned up until the most "durable" device gets its connection broken.. So many Jammers are effecting their neighbors and people in public spaces.
Not just cellular-affecting (Score:2)
Bad thing about a lot of these jammers is they don't just affect cellular but also the 700 and 800 MHz spectrum used by public safety - firefighters and police. There have been jammers seized by LE where they got out on traffic stops and their radios started showing out of range.
Time to compromise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't they just put a damn payphone in each place and leave us in peace to eat or be entertained instead of being interrupted by some idiot yammering on and on with his/her stupid little talking device?
?? As opposed to yammering on and on with his/her dinner companion?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"We didn't study why cellphone conversations are more distracting,"
The difference could easily have been tonal or volume differences of one person on a cell phone versus two people speaking face to face. They stated that they need to do further research to find the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason people talk loudly on their cell phones (Score:5, Informative)
Call quality (Score:3)
Were you alive and using a phone in the 1960s? I doubt it. Back then, connections were all analog and the sound quality was stellar. Deregulation, fragmentation, cost-cutting, the advent of digital, the lowered expectations of cell phone users have allowed ALL phone transmission quality to decline. But if you're old enough to remember, you know that those rotary-dial phones with the 30-foot handset cords (so you could be mildly mobile within your home
Re: (Score:3)
A person speaking on a cell phone however, easily elevates above the steady noise level and is distinct and highly irritating to many. Do you really feel that it's too much to ask folks to go to a lobby area or step outside to take their call if it's so important?
After 35 years of living in South Florida where everyone you encounter is self-entitled, rude and generally unc
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't want people talking on cell phones in your restaurant, then post a sign saying no cell phones and kick people out who disobey.
Don't frickin pollute the already crowded electromagnetic spectrum with a white noise generator, grow a damn spine.
Re:FCC=BS (Score:5, Interesting)
In my movie theatre, that's exactly what I do. I have a "turn cell phones off" sign in my lobby, and I play a policy trailer saying the same thing (within a little cartoon) before every show. After that, if I see the light from your phone I'll ask you once to turn it off. The second time I'll ask you to come to the lobby with me, and will show you the door when you get there.
I have very little trouble with cell phones in my theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I am so sick of people texting during movies. Some of them even turn on the keypad tones on their smartphones. What is the protocol for such a situation? I gave up telling them to turn it off, because they just seem to get indignant about it.
Re: (Score:2)
No refund for people you kick out, I expect. Why don't you confiscate the cell phone for the length of the movie? Or at least, offer that option? And, exercise it the first time? They can always leave if they don't want to check their phones. That way, it's their choice.
When I visit the theater, it's always with others. If I was the offender, and I was subjected to the humiliation of being publicly kicked out, as well as being cheated out of the money I paid for my ticket, everyone would know about
Re:FCC=BS (Score:4, Interesting)
What do you mean "that way it's their choice"? Are you somehow forced to use your phone a second time? If you simply can't resist the temptation to answer then there's an off button or airplane mode that comes standard on every phone. As for being cheated - if the policy clearly states that obnoxious people will be asked to leave then you had fair warning as to the consequences of your actions, and even one personal warning in response to your obnoxiousness is being generous, after all YOU (as the person using their phone) are the one being rude, and your rudeness is impacting every single person within earshot or line-of-sight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I was the offender, and I was subjected to the humiliation of being publicly kicked out, as well as being cheated out of the money I paid for my ticket, everyone would know about it and I'd feel much too ashamed and angry to ever come back.
Well, good. If you're the kind of asshat who thinks using a phone in a movie is a great idea then you're not going to change your mind because there's been plenty of opportunity to do that.
You might think "good riddance", and believe that permanently alienating cell p
Re: (Score:2)
In my movie theatre, that's exactly what I do. I have a "turn cell phones off" sign in my lobby, and I play a policy trailer saying the same thing (within a little cartoon) before every show. After that, if I see the light from your phone I'll ask you once to turn it off. The second time I'll ask you to come to the lobby with me, and will show you the door when you get there.
I have very little trouble with cell phones in my theatre.
Out of curiosity, are you a theater owner or employee?
I've never worked in a theater, but I assume that most people don't make much money. It's rare to see a low wage employee put themselves in a position of potential danger at work - like telling an urban thug to put down his phone, especially if he has friends with him.
How do you deal with a situation like that?
I stopped going to the theater, mostly because of cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
A posted sign "As this is opening weekend, no seat holding or reserving is allowed, please wait for your entire party before taking your seats."
When I went in and there were few seats available, but one guy saving 10 seats for friends he thinks might be coming, I asked moved towards them, and he was beligerant. I left and talked to the manager. "We avoid conflict" was the answer. I got a refund and left.
That's about all I expect from a business, a worthless sign they don
Re: (Score:3)
Fault 2: you assume you cannot have a conversation with your distant loved ones from a quieter spot such as the lobby or outside where you hear them better and they hear you better and you do not generate irritation in the room around you?
You sir, seem to have some latent hostility creeping out.
Re: (Score:2)
1)Since I find people in a group are generally an order of magnitude more annoying than someone talking on a cellphone, yes probably.
2)If you eat in absolute silence, so will I. But if you get to talk, so do I. The fact that I use a cellphone to do so is irrelevant. And if you're about to bring up some bullshit about cellphones being more distracting because you can't hear the other side- you're complaining about me being rude when you're eavesdropping?
Re: (Score:2)
Having a bowel movement is a perfectly natural thing to do. We all do it. There is no reason to be ashamed or embarrassed about it.
But I'd hope that isn't something you'd do in the middle of a busy restaurant.
When you use your cell phone in a restaurant to speak to someone 3000 miles away, you are doing something usually acceptable, but you are doing it in an unacceptable time and place.
Re:It should be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Waits for the first 911 blocked lawsuit to happen in 5, 4, 3 ...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It should be legal (Score:5, Informative)
They are part of the cellular infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm an RF engineer. The device that can decode 2G (GSM and CDMA) , 3G, and LTE signals, understand which are 911 and block the rest, is called a celltower.
The radios and brains to do all three consistently correctly for the full bandwidth of available spectrum would be a toy with a price tag comfortably into the 5 digit range.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'simple' solution to this problem isn't tin foil or expensive infrastructure replacements. Its a simple low frequency signal that all cell phones read which tells them that all outgoing phones are to be disabled baring specific hardware enforced overrides (like 911 service for example). All phone sellers will immediately embrace it if there was a law in the US (even a single large state's law maybe).
Delightful. Because our damn batteries weren't bad enough, we get to suck 'em dry faster for the sake of handing over even more control of "our" hardware to some self-serving corporate scumbag.
Re: (Score:2)
We would never have sensible laws, but I would love to see a voluntary "cell signal ban" at various locations & put up a sign that makes it clear that your electronics won't work.
1) Pass a law that makes it legal.
2) Pass a law that if a posted sign meets certain criteria, no lawsuits can file.
3) Rid the gene pool of anybody who sues.
Re:It should be legal (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened before modern medicine was invented?
If someone dies you can't say "Well, once upon a time they would have died anyways so its not a problem."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's a major inconvenience in modern society, but 20 years ago nobody would have cared because nobody had a cell phone. The amount of people dying because 911 couldn't be called hasn't significantly changed since, or the research indicating just that would be all over the news all the time and nobody in the their right mind would think of blocking cell phone reception.
Except, 20 years ago, there probably would've been payphones in the lobby right outside the theater. Where's the nearest phone now? Snack bar? Manager's office? Where is the manager's office? Not that I in general disagree with you, but I'm just pointing out a flaw in the argument you're making.
Re:It should be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It should be legal (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure? I did a little research and found this:
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf [fcc.gov]
"Jamming devices, however, are ineligible to receive a grant of equipment authorization
from the FCC or an FCC ID. (The FCCâ(TM)s Office of Engineering and Technology oversees
the authorization of non-jamming equipment that uses the radio frequency spectrum.
More information is available at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/equipmentauthorization. [fcc.gov]) "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the jamming doesn't stop at their walls and can negatively affect people who have the right to use their cellphones. Under the part 15 requirements issued by the FCC, (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Re:It should be legal (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue is that jammer signals are not restricted to the building they are in. Radio waves will spill out and cause interference with cell phones of people who have nothing to do with the business owning the jammers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as their jamming signal doesn't leave their building and bleed into other properties, I don't have a problem with it either. The problem is that that is very hard to guarantee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and jails are a second good place.
Seems you and the Australian authorities are on the same wavelength (or perhaps not): Phone jamming trial to start in Lithgow [abc.net.au].
Re: (Score:2)
I think cell phone jamming should be legal. Companies should be allowed to apply for permits to have them and use them reasonably
As long as I get to decide what's reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there have been times I would have been willing to go into the wilderness if it meant I could use a jammer for testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because if theres a fire in the theater, or someone's having a heart attack, we wouldnt want anyone to be able to call 911.
How about this - about the theaters just kick any individuals that are disturbing other movies goers?
And as far as jails, I say the jail should have a special cell/tower that they can monitor. Prisoners should be physically denied possesion of cellphones. Those caught with them would be subject to appropriate penalties.
Take action against the INDIVIDUAL that is causing a problem, d
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone jamming, is the active act of transmitting a signal on a bandwidth that you did not pay for and have no right to. This is completely different to cell phone transmission blocking. Glass windows are the biggest culprit for allowing signals through so mesh over windows. Roofs are arbitrary due to alignment to signal, excluding of course step pitched roofs. External walls require a suitable grounded mesh set in render or internal plasterboard removed and the grounded mesh placed there and the plast
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone jamming can never be legal unless that right is purchased back off the buyers of those portions of bandwidth.
Or we can just change the law so that people are allowed to jam cell signals in certain cases. That is something that can be done, we can change the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't read your post when I posted this:
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651639&cid=43458461 [slashdot.org]
It's some interesting mental bubble gum. My view is private property though I could see legitimately allowing businesses (with posted signs/notification) to do so so long as their blocking methods in no way impact neighboring property. As for the 911 argument, there are other methods of contacting emergency services, areas with no cell phone reception, and it is a moot point in my opinion.
I wish I'd
Re: (Score:3)
"I think cell phone jamming should be legal."
If you have an indoor business, there is absolutely no reason to "jam" signals. You can block and ground them instead with a Faraday cage. Just make sure your walls and ceilings are lined with chickenwire (should work fine for cell phone frequencies), and make sure it is all grounded. Voila. Cell phone no worky.
There is a very big difference between BLOCKING cell phone signals and jamming them. Blocking is legal. Jamming is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter. The jammer is transmitting on a licensed band of which the operator is not the licensee. That alone is illegal in any licensed band irrespective of the jammer part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do people think that doctors run around in random places, poised to react to an EMERGENCY by answering their cell phones and running out the door? It doesn't happen. If your services are that critical, you're there at the hospital. If you need to be called in, the system has already been designed to deal with lack of contact / delayed contact.
Everybody calm down and take a Xanax. It's OK to be disconnected from your cell phone. It's a communication device, not a piece of life support equipment.