Slashdot Mirror


FCC Issues Forfeiture Notices to Two Business for Jamming Cellular Frequencies

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).'"

7 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Tip of the iceberg by jamiedolan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Many commercial buildings have a lot of steal in the structure / roof which is very difficult for higher frequency radio waves to penetrate. (Concrete and block are also difficult for many signals to penetrate) I highly doubt most stores are actively blocking your signal, however many are very likely "passively blocking" phone signals due to the commonly used construction materials in commercial buildings.

  2. Re:Tip of the iceberg by verifine · · 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.

  3. Re:It should be legal by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Waits for the first 911 blocked lawsuit to happen in 5, 4, 3 ...

    --
    Bye!
  4. Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking? by AuMatar · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  5. Re:It should be legal by MBGMorden · · 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."

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  6. Re:Tip of the iceberg by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, 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.

  7. Re:Tip of the iceberg by queazocotal · · Score: 4, 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)