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).'"

Comments

Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[girlinatrainingbra]

Is it just an interesting coincidence that both are being charged with the importation of cell phone jammers and both "The Supply Room" in Oxford Alabama and "Taylor Oilfield Manufacturing" in Broussard Louisiana had -- 5 cell phone jammers purchased from overseas
-- 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:FCC=BS

[innocent_white_lamb]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[mcmonkey]

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

[Jane Q. Public]

"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:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[smpoole7]

>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.