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

Tip of the iceberg

[johnny5555]

Seems like a LOT of businesses do this, unless it's a coincidence that I lose service right after stepping inside tons of different stores.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[jamiedolan]

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.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[verifine]

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

[johnny5555]

I'm sure that's true in many cases -- but I still think there are a lot more businesses out there jamming signals than we realize.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[DavidRawling]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[Sipper]

...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

[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

[Austerity Empowers]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[johnny5555]

Exactly. Especially with smartphone features like the Amazon.com app, where you can scan a UPC or take a picture of a product, and it shows you Amazon's (almost definitely lower) price for the same product.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Jane Q. Public]

"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: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

[Jane Q. Public]

Passive reflection and "screening", as you put it, are not even close to the same as "jamming". They're just not the same things. Jamming is something you pretty much have to do actively and on purpose.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[cheater512]

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

[tlhIngan]

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.

Commercial buildings have a LOT of RF shielding. First, the studs are normally steel studs. The roofs are steel, the wall is usually concrete with steel rebar. And the windows are normally silvered to reflect light and the heat out so the interior stays cool and the A/C is used less.

Heck, in an office building I worked at, the 2nd floor you couldn't get a cell signal at all. But when they expanded on the third floor, full bars. Perhaps it was also why the third floor A/C was always inadequate.

Re: Tip of the iceberg

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Any signalling regardless of frequency/modulation/encoding and informational content is forbidden on my property .. But thats a moot point because I will shoot you first for trespassing and then piss on you for bringing a radio.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[phantomfive]

As a mobile developer, I've found cell phone blockers are one of my favorite things. It lets you test out-of-coverage scenarios so much more easily.

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 have to move all your stuff inside. There's nothing as nice as being able to turn on and off cell signal at a touch of a button.

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.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[ColdWetDog]

Just use an iPhone and hold it wrong.

Easy peasy. Legal, even.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Glendale2x]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[retchdog]

while assuring that none of their blocking methods impact any portion of neighboring property.

or, rather than deal with the inevitable headaches (or at least significantly increased expense) which the enforcement of this would cause (think about urban areas if you haven't already), we just have a blanket ban.

it works well enough, i would even say very well. why fix what isn't broken?

you'll just have to deal with the oppression of rf waves contaminating your precious bodily fluids.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[mrbluejello]

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: Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

That made me chuckle. I can't come up with a reason why I'd personally care but I could envision someone who found it important. It's more an exercise in deciding where to draw the line for freedom.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

What's funny is the people in the thread who are proposing that companies build entire new buildings as Faraday cages as their solution to blocking cell phones. I didn't bother replying to them.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

True, it is a headache but it is a question of freedom. I can't think of any reason that I'd personally have for blocking/jamming cellphone communication so it is mostly a question for the sake of some mental bubblegum.

I guess if I were going to actively hunt someone down and kill them I'd not want them to be able to use a cellphone to call emergency services...

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[gordo3000]

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

[shentino]

I think the cell phone companies have more steal in them than the businesses in question...

Re: Tip of the iceberg

[jxander]

There's a grocery store in my area that's definitely using a jammer of some kind. Inside, and even out to the first few rows of the parking lot ... complete dead zone. Across the parking lot, perfect LTE coverage.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

I'm aware that blocking or jamming is currently illegal. That's not in question. My question is concerning the correctness of that fact. Basically, should it be illegal?

Assuming that it is possible without harming any signal on neighboring property should someone have the right to jam cellphone (or any RF) on their own property?

Hell, I can't even think of a reason why someone would want to do so on their personal property. I'm just not sure if it should be illegal. I can't personally come up with a good reason to block RF on your private property - not even a single good reason. I can't come up with a good reason as to why it should be illegal to jam (again, assuming no impact on neighboring properties) either.

It's mostly mental bubblegum that this article and some comments made me think about. I don't actually want to block someone's signal. I'm aware that it is illegal. My question concerns whether it should be illegal and where the line concerning freedom is drawn.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[mwvdlee]

Can these transmitter guarentee their jamming signal never reaches outside their property?
It should definitely be illegal to transmit such a signal outside your own property.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

It is a fictional device in my scenario (one which specifically ensures that the jamming doesn't impact any neighboring property at all) so yes they're guaranteeing it.

I agree that it should end at the property line, if not then it should be illegal unless (of course) you get a crazy neighbor who doesn't mind but it should be illegal by default as one shouldn't be able to hinder what another person does on their property. That's why I included this caveat: "This is, of course, assuming one manages to do so without impacting any neighboring property."

I still can't think of a reason as to why someone would want to restrict this on private property. I can think of a few places where it would be nice where there is public access. It does, though, seem a strange restriction of freedom to outlaw the devices entirely.

I could see a jamming device that had an adjustable power output where you'd put it in the center of your domicile and then adjust the output until it reached the edge of your property but, at the same time, I could see the market for said device being limited to three crazy guys in Alabama.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[queazocotal]

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

[evilviper]

Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?

In what context? If I'm a renter, yes, I have certain legal rights, and a few are RF-related.

If I'm a casual visitor, no, not really. However, YOU STILL CAN'T USE JAMMERS, no matter what. The FCC has made this very clear, and they have extremely good reasons:

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement

Your purely theoretical argument is pretty contrived, and pointless, as the reality of the situation is that you can NEVER block RF signals on your property in any way that will guarantee that you aren't interfering with your neighbors. Even with "passive" methods like faraday cages around buildings, you're creating a large obstacle to any RF coming from that particular direction. You have the right to do that, though. With jammers, not only can you do far more damage very easily, there's also practically no way you can mitigate the risk... RF isn't static, and every little temperature or humidity change can suddenly cause your weak little signal to interfere with folks many miles away.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[thegarbz]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[queazocotal]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of bars you get doesn't represent a measure signal strength but the ratio of signal to noise. High noise can result in having no bars just as easily as having a weak signal.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[heypete]

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

[bbelt16ag]

i am looking at you walmart..

Re: Tip of the iceberg

[smpoole7]

> 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 being a tattletale either (that's why I'd talk with them first), but sometimes, you have to.

I have personal interest in this kind of thing. I have enough trouble ensuring that my *licensed* signals don't bother you (and vice-versa). The last thing I need is an *unlicensed* signal messing with some of my critical studio to transmitter links, which run just above one of the "cell" bands at 940-960 MHz. These foreign-made jammers ain't exactly the best-made and most carefully-tuned devices on the planet. :)

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[quetwo]

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:Tip of the iceberg

[MancunianMaskMan]

wow, if they were real sophisticated their fake cell site would connect to a fake copy of Amazon, where every price check goes in favour of the store you're in!

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Muad'Dave]

... 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?

You use the word "on your property" - do you mean that the signal originates from on your property, or that the signal traverses your property?

In short, shielding is 100% legal. Jamming is 100% illegal. You have the right to eject anyone from your property for possessing or using a radio on your property (just as you have the right to eject them for any other reason at all), and you can wrap your house in tinfoil to block the alien control signals. What you cannot do, however, is (1) transmit any unauthorized or unlicensed signal and (2) transmit any signal that "willfully or maliciously interfere[s] with or cause[s] interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government." You cannot guarantee that you jamming signal does not leave your premises, and don't forget that 'up' counts, too (satellites). Besides, if your goal is to not have RF on your property, transmitting a jamming signal seems counterproductive.

BTW, rights are not 'allowed', rights exist as a matter of natural law and are recognized and protected, not 'allowed' or 'granted'.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Muad'Dave]

[I commented on the original post previously]

There are cases where RF is used in industry in machines that generate and use RF but are not intentional radiators themselves. Another example is your household microwave oven. There are also cases of businesses whose business is designing and testing new (and therefore unlicensed/unapproved) devices. The FCC is ok with that as long as the RF that leaves the facility is within the regs. This usually means a shielded room or building. If you want to expand this concept, I suppose you could run a jammer inside an RF tight building and get it ok'ed by the FCC. I'm not sure how they'd react to a giant tinfoil bubble around the whole of your property, however. :-)

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Muad'Dave]

RF doesn't work that way. Either the jamming is confined to his property or it's not. If it is, it can't interfere with receivers not on his property by definition. RF does not (generally) 'mix' in free space. If it did, radio as we know it wouldn't work.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[FooAtWFU]

If the signal from the real transmitter reaches the location of your jammer, the signal from your jammer reaches outside.

Hello. It sounds like you've neglected the essence of the near-far problem. You can have a very low power jammer block your signal, it just needs to be really close to the phone in question while the tower is far away.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[foghelmut]

(Which is separately illegal)

Unless you're the FBI.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Anonymous Coward]

One bank I used to work for, upon moving in, discovered that signal strength was awful on the floors they'd rented. They actually paid a company to measure signal strength at various points across the floor from various providers. So they then arranged with the major carriers to install antennas inside the building itself, on each floor. Perhaps during trading hours, they simply power down those antennas. But that's a different animal than jamming.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[necro81]

Should I be allowed to block RF...on my land?

In general, I would say no: you can't legally block RF on your own property, if by block you mean "actively jam so that radio devices are rendered inoperable". Why? Because you don't own the rights to the airwaves, even those traversing your property. Blocking by actively jamming tramples all over the airwaves, and you don't own them. The airwaves are a public common, and are held in common ownership by the state for the general use of the public. If by "block" you mean Similarly, you don't have the right to block aircraft from traversing the airspace above your property, nor satellites from flying over.

On the other hand, if you can demonstrate damages of injury from either the encroaching RF or aircraft, then you can try to sue to have them blocked from your property. Unless you happen to own a Delaware-sized portion of world, however, I doubt that you'd succeed purely on feasibility grounds.

If by "block RF" you mean "shield so that nothing gets in or out", then the answer is probably yes. You can build Faraday shielding into the walls of your house if you so choose, though be prepared for lots of snark and annoyance from any visitors or neighbors.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Beezlebub33]

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

[rnturn]

``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.''

Ah... Schroedinger's cellphone.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[JDG1980]

Should you have a right to use a radio on my property?

Yes, for the same reason that airplanes have a right to fly over your property. The bundle of property rights you purchased with your land/house/business don't include the airspace far above the house, nor does it include the right to do anything you want with the RF spectrum within its boundaries. (Of course you can use passive construction techniques that have the effect of screening out certain frequencies, just not active jamming.)

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Sipper]

"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.

You're probably right. "Real" shielded structures (such as anechoic chambers to test antennas) usually have conductive "fingers" in the doors, filters on incoming power lines, screens covering the air ducts... etc. Dispersion, intersymbol interference/distortion, multipath interference... those are more likely.

I didn't want to get into all of that; sometimes I just want to give a more "simple" kind of answer. :-P

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Sipper]

Standing in a Utility boiler (Coal plant) I get full 3g signal (dont have 4g where I live). Fully enclosed and welded air tight, I get better signal inside than out.

That's interesting, and certainly possible.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[interkin3tic]

Maybe instead of sarcasm, you should assume Gordo is not an idiot, and that he would have noticed if all his coworkers simultaneously turned on their phones every day at the same time.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[QBasicer]

A friend of mine got a new house, and the insulation was that foil backed insulation. There was basically no reception in his house, it was like being in a giant faraday cage. On the other hand, it'd be good for wifi.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[DriveDog]

Exactly who I was thinking of.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Etherwalk]

If you actively block (using a powered radio-frequency transmitter) in the USA, you are in violation of FCC regulations.

Actually, it is a violation of federal law, not federal regulations--or at least not only federal regulations.

More concretely, 47 U.S.C. section 333, prohibits willful and malicious interference with licensed stations and was originally designed because of the rise in amateur communications that interfered with police and fire frequencies, according to the Congressional Committee report.

In addition, there is another provision in the Communications Act that prohibits the termination of a common carrier's service without permission from the FCC (and in some cases notification to the Department of Defense).

There is also a section of the act that applies specifically to commercial mobile carriers and provides a third law you are arguably violating.

Finally, if you are a government agent, there are lots of first amendment issues.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[DriveDog]

Quite a few large warehouse-type retail buildings I've been in have 100% shielding everywhere except the doors, and have no windows except in the doors. They use insulation with radiant barrier—metallic faced. These are supposed to be facing open space (or close—air) to work properly, but are sometimes installed wrong or painted over, so aren't always obvious. Mis-installed radiant barriers are less effective than designed at cutting IR transmission, but still work very well at blocking wavelengths in the GHz range. If, as another post suggested, the few windows have metallic tint film applied (usually the cheaper film varieties), that only leaves the cracks or floor for transmission. Going through the ground doesn't usually work well, either (see research on speleonics).

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Bill_the_Engineer]

There was a spot on I-65 in Birmingham where my "Tire Pressure" warning would light up (always near the same mile marker). I recently purchased a new car and no longer experience the problem.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[DriveDog]

I think that hinted at the difference between inside a private home and "on the property." A lot of things, like shooting intruders, are legal inside your house, but not necessarily so on your land outside. A lawyer could convince me otherwise, but right now I don't think it's technically illegal to blast radio waves around inside your house as long as 1) none leak out, and 2) they aren't physically dangerous (enough energy to heat stuff).

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[tomthegeek]

One time is an overload. Every day is a jammer. That many people in one area with that much money could easily get the service fixed if that was the issue. If cell service goes down every day at my job I would be complaining.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Muad'Dave]

... I don't think it's technically illegal to blast radio waves around inside your house as long as 1) none leak out, and 2) they aren't physically dangerous (enough energy to heat stuff).

1) The FCC would beg to differ, I think, since there's no effective way to prevent ALL leakage; and 2) Why should that matter if the other FCC rules don't apply? (The FCC has rules on RF exposure).

It's never been illegal for an individual* to make things that emit RF, they just have to comply with all the regs. The allowed emission levels are very low, but not zero.

*There are additional limits placed on people who make items for sale or more than a few/year.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[ImprovOmega]

Well and that's the thing isn't it. If you're ensuring that no signal is leaking out of your building, then you're already passively blocking cell signals emanating from within your structure anyway so the jammer is superfluous. And if you're letting letting your jammer signals leak out and interfere with your neighbors, then you're an asshole and deserve all the FCC fines you get.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[X0563511]

It could just be EMI, not necessarily intentional jamming.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[quetwo]

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

[Omestes]

But thats a moot point because I will shoot you first for trespassing and then piss on you for bringing a radio.

And I'd wander out and see what your business is. And perhaps offer you a beer if there was something good on the radio.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Jane Q. Public]

That's a good point. But it still isn't most buildings.

I know of a large warehouse-type store near here that is entirely steel clad. I doubt it was their intention to block cell phone signals but it does so quite well. Not entirely... there are doors. Few if any windows. But it still makes the signal weak enough that you might as well not bother.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Jane Q. Public]

It must not be well grounded if at all.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[jamiedolan]

...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.

Yes, correct. That is a more accurate term / description of what is happening.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[johnny5555]

There was an electronics store that really did something like that. Think it was Best Buy. They'd show customers the prices of certain products on their websites, only it would be a different version of the site with higher prices. All to convince the customer to buy the product in-store instead. Wasn't on a mobile phone, it was on their store computers. Still, pretty similar.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[Macgrrl]

Given the signal is probably generally spherical, deforming around any possible deflectors or signal sinks (which probably block cell reception of their own accord), your hypothetical situation would require an oddly shaped property.

I'm reminded of trying to calculate the area of affect for a fireball damage from AD&D 2E.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

LOL That is kind of cute. I read all of the replies but few seemed to actually understand what I'd written so I didn't bother responding to them. I'm thinking adjustable output power placed in the center of a home and fairly low power should do the trick well enough to cover my hypothetical. One could even put receivers around the edge of the property and when they received the jamming signal they'll send a message to dial the power back so it automatically doesn't go beyond the edge of the property even when weather patterns change. It's a perfectly stupid device that I don't want and I can't think of a reasonable reason to acquire but it's a fun exercise about what rights we have and, obviously, don't have.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[wwphx]

I don't have a ink, but I recall reading recently that Microsoft was recently awarded a patent for using geolocation to force cell phones in to silent mode at movie theaters. I think that would be awesome, assuming, of course, that they remembered your previous state and restored it when you left the theater.

It should be legal

[phantomfive]

I think cell phone jamming should be legal. Companies should be allowed to apply for permits to have them and use them reasonably. Theaters are the obvious place, and jails are a second good place. Using a cell phone jammer as a tester is extremely useful as well, and much easier to use than a faraday cage.

And before you talk about doctors or someone who needs a constant connection, well, there are buildings I know of that don't receive cell signals because of their construction. They've been that way for decades, and doctors have learned to cope. They can deal with theaters, too.

Re:It should be legal

[ADRA]

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

Re:It should be legal

[O('_')O_Bush]

In the U.S., you can apply for a permit from the FCC to use jammers. The issue here is that these companies did not, but were jamming anyways.

Re:It should be legal

[ThomasBHardy]

There are devices on the market that block cell traffic except for 911 calls.

Re:It should be legal

[speedlaw]

Sure, but you have to be the CIA to get one.

Re:It should be legal

[the eric conspiracy]

Are you sure? I did a little research and found this:

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf

"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.) "

Re:It should be legal

[chromaexcursion]

No you can't.
but you can get on illegally.
Big difference

Re:It should be legal

[chromaexcursion]

Not that any business could buy.
They are part of the cellular infrastructure.

Re:It should be legal

[bl968]

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

[jklovanc]

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:It should be legal

[MBGMorden]

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:It should be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

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:It should be legal

[PhotoJim]

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:It should be legal

[GumphMaster]

... 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.

Re:It should be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you what... I could, as a 15 year old, walk suburban streets with a .22 rifle to go target shooting in the hills without fear of being shot by the cops or having my parents hauled away for child neglect.

Things have changed (but not really)... and when it this current civilization collapses, as many have in the past, there will be a period of time, in the future when things are fine again... until the next round.

Re:It should be legal

[Austerity Empowers]

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:It should be legal

[Skynyrd]

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

[The Cisco Kid]

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, don't punish everyone for the transgressions of the few.

Re:It should be legal

[rtb61]

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 plasterboard replaced, either that or a second layer of plasterboard over the grounded mesh.

You can clearly see that legally blocking a signal is far more expensive than illegally jamming a signal, not so bad if specifically done during original construction. Cell phone jamming can never be legal unless that right is purchased back off the buyers of those portions of bandwidth.

Re:It should be legal

[AK Marc]

Then let someone outside the premise lodge the complaint. From what I could see, he complaints were only from those within the business.

Re:It should be legal

[AK Marc]

You can never "guarantee" anything. You can set up a transmitter to have a low likelihood of negative effects, but that's not the same thing.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

I don't know who you are to personally decide what is reasonable, but that is what the FCC is for. They can come up with conservative rules for limiting bleed over into neighboring properties. This should be especially easy to do for prisons, who have a distance to their neighbors anyway.

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:It should be legal

[AK Marc]

Why isn't the solution to be having jamming be legal, and require signs indicating the jamming and zones jammed so that a doctor could elect to not enter the jamming zone, if they so chose? Or have the jammers be set up on exact frequencies, rather than wide-band. Wide-band are used primarily because they are illegal, so why play nice? Legal ones would use narrow jamming, so that pagers and police radio would be unaffected.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

Sorry dude, there are already buildings that block cell signal because of their construction materials. It's totally legal and doctors somehow have learned to deal with it.

Re:It should be legal

[BrokenHalo]

By way of an alternative that won't get you into trouble, I was told once by a Telstra RF tech that one of the most intractable problems he had encountered with cellphone reception had been in a small pine forest. Apparently (he supposed) the pine needles form some sort of diffraction grating that make reception really difficult.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

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:It should be legal

[KGIII]

I hadn't read your post when I posted this:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651639&cid=43458461

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 read your post prior to posting mine. I'd have placed it differently though it was their post that made me ponder...

Re:It should be legal

[Jane Q. Public]

"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:It should be legal

[Jane Q. Public]

I should have stated that cell phone jamming is illegal without a permit. I am pretty sure you can apply to the FCC to do it. I doubt they'd give just anyone a permit though.

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

A couple of points to play the Devil's Advocate...

5 digits isn't that much as a rare business expense. The benefit (say a theater) in providing the service may well pay for itself.

As time goes by and as more companies bought these devices the price could drop due to manufacturing scale.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

I don't think chickenwire actually works for blocking cell phones. The faraday cages I've used have had much smaller holes, and you have to be careful for even something as small as a hole for a power wire which can let in signal. I will test chickenwire sometime in the next few months though to make sure.

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

Do you have a right to use your cellphone everywhere you wish?

Should you?

I don't really know but I think it is a question that should be discussed.

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

Think of the children!!!

People are going to die regardless.

People MAY die due to the small delay while someone steps outside to make a phone call or someone disables the jamming device. A free society comes with risks. Would you rather the risks or would you rather a less free society? Are the risks so high that you want to tell people what they can't do on their property?

I ask those questions because I'm curious about your response. I don't expect you to change your view, look at things differently, or suddenly review your entire belief system based on an anonymous online comment.

Re:It should be legal

[Jane Q. Public]

The highest cell phone frequency (in the U.S.) is 2.69 GHz. That translates to a wavelength of about 4.39 inches.

In order to be an effective Faraday cage, a square grid has to be 1/2 wavelength or smaller. So a grid of less than 2.2 inches does the trick.

Most chickenwire I have seen is a hexagonal grid, around 1.5" across a hex or smaller.

It should stop cell phone signals quite well. If grounded.

Re:It should be legal

[tlhIngan]

What happened before cell phones were invented?

Well, on-call people like doctors and surgeons used pagers. Which has the advantage that due to their low frequencies and high power, often has a larger coverage than cellphones.

Everyone else kept in touch with other people. If the parents were going for a dinner and a movie, the babysitter was notified what restaurant and what theatre. Any emergency and the babysitter calls the theatre or restaurant who will send over an usher or a waiter to bring the parents to a phone.

911 - well, there are TONS of phones that can be used. Like payphones. Or the box office. Or the maitre'd. Or neighbouring businesses.

I suppose it's only a recent thing where everything that's not for sale is suddenly off limits to customers to use in an emergency...

Re:It should be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2.4GHz chunk of the spectrum is absorbed by water. The pine needles are loaded with sap, water, etc. I wonder if those particular pine trees the RF tech had problems with also had exceptional amounts of iron in their sap.

I own some annoying red dishes. Whenever I try to reheat something too long in the microwave (dried out food reheats poorly), the plates get extremely hot and their color darkens slightly. These are the only dishes I've ever owned that do this, and I suspect it's something in the ceramic, probably the red pigment they used (iron oxide?). One of these days I'll try putting a cellphone between two plates, to see if it blocks an incoming call. That'd be neat.

Re:It should be legal

[jklovanc]

How would someone outside the building know which building was causing the issue? I don't care who reported it. Did you look at the issues behind jamming in that it can interfere with first responded communication? There are good reasons jamming is illegal.

Re:It should be legal

[ColdWetDog]

There is no guarantee that you can make 911 (or any other call) anywhere, any time. Just get used to that concept, life is easy and serene - just like it's been for the several thousand years civilization has managed to poke along without cell phones.

If you are doing something that absolutely needs real time contact with someone else, stay home, stay at work or figure out some other system.

If you were an AT&T customer, you'd never even begin to think you had access to the network when you needed it.

Re:It should be legal

[Glendale2x]

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:It should be legal

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

I'll try it. I'm not convinced, though.

Re:It should be legal

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminology is important. That link is talking about a jammer in technical terms, i.e. a device which produces radio noise at a particular frequency in order to block transmissions on that frequency. You can achieve the same intended effect however (preventing a cell phone talking to its usual network) by using a device that is not a jammer in technical terms but instead pretends to be the phone's network and informs it that its call cannot be placed whenever it tries to make or receive one. In casual language, we'd call such a device a cell phone jammer, but the FCC would not consider it to be one, and would issue licences to operate one.

Re:It should be legal

[noh8rz10]

Do you have a right to use your cellphone everywhere you wish?

obv not, because on private property the owners can tell you not to do it. But in the US you have the legal expectation to be able to use your cell phone without the signal being actively blocked, because this is illegal.

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

I know it is illegal to jam the signal. Should it be illegal ASSUMING that the blocking, in no way, impacts any neighboring property? That's the point of the "Should you?" I'm a bit up in the air about it at this point but I'm leaning towards saying that it should be allowed so long as it doesn't impact neighboring property in any way. Even though I can think of no justified reason for doing so, I'm still leaning towards private property rights. As such, I'm still very open to other views but, no, I already know that jamming is illegal and that is actually why I ask the question.

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

Freedom to control what happens on your private property.

Re:It should be legal

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, that's theory. Theory does not always translate well into practice. No doubt it would work better if it were copper or silver.

Re:It should be legal

[shentino]

That's why we still have old fashioned telephones.

Re:It should be legal

[ADRA]

The fact that you're building your own cell tower, you'd also need:
1. Buy-in from every carrier
2. Buy an RF receiver/transmitter for every carrier, not just the bands specifed for a single carrier, then pay for the actual routing of said transmissions to said carriers, plus the actual permission from the government to be a telecommunications provider, because you know you'll become one if you provide your own towers
3. Complete and utter shielding from any 'out' zone carriers

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).

To be extra safe to protect against 'rogue' dead zones, there can be a non-profit to share 'good' dead zones (like spam protection) which contain revokable public keys used by these low frequency emitters so that someone can't just wire in their own ad-hoc dead zone. The authorization would be done over 3g or the like before 'turning off' the network / phone service.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

Yeah, and getting a faraday cage right isn't the easiest thing, even if you have the proper gauge of wire

Re:It should be legal

[KGIII]

I like that idea assuming I understand it correctly. It seems odd (I'm absolutely not an expert) that you'd have to get carrier specific equipment. Don't a lot of carriers offer peering with other carriers on their equipment? Does that mean they had to add extra equipment to their towers in order to enable peering? I'd have guessed that just having 3G, CDMA, etc would have been sufficient, those aren't standardized and are carrier-centric? (Much thanks, I value learning things. I know *gasp* that I don't know everything as is customary to pretend online. So, I suck up knowledge any chance I get.)

From what you said, it's do-able though the logistics would make it a bit tough and efficacy mean that someone could bypass it easily enough? I would not be surprised if society decided that, at some point, we'll have to deal with this situation. I could see us deciding that we'll allow businesses and private property owners to jam signals on their property and that legislation will be interesting to look at.

Re: It should be legal

[KGIII]

Rape harms someone else. The two aren't even remotely similar. If you have a logical answer I'm open to it though. "It's illegal because it's illegal, also rape." That's not actually a good answer but if you try again you might do a better job. You may also wish to read the entire conversation, it may help you formulate a better response.

Go get 'em tiger, I'm rooting for your next try.

Re:It should be legal

[fuzzybunny]

Display a prominent notice saying "we block cell phone service". The same as how facilities in Europe that use CCTV cameras must display a notice. Problem solved.

Re:It should be legal

[geminidomino]

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:It should be legal

[Muad'Dave]

I am pretty sure you can apply to the FCC to [operate a jammer].

You are absolutely incorrect.

You cannot get a permit to break federal law. Operating any equipment in a manner that "... willfully or maliciously interfere[s] with or cause[s] interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States Government" violates Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934. They cannot even be imported, much less certified for sale in the US unless they're sold exclusively to the US government. Please read the NAL, particularly section IIIA and related footnotes. They lay out in very clear terms why they're illegal and would never be legally imported or sold, let alone licensed.

Re:It should be legal

[Muad'Dave]

The hole might not be the issue. It could easily be that the signal is being conducted on the power cord that traverses the hole.

Re:It should be legal

[Muad'Dave]

Here's another data point - in the design of mesh dish antennas, the rule of thumb is that the mesh gap has to be smaller than about 1/10 wavelength to be an effective reflector (i.e. not let RF thru the mesh and instead reflect it).

Re:It should be legal

[Hentes]

A condition to get a permit could be to set up an alarm system with emergency phones all over the building.

Re:It should be legal

[faedle]

Not five digits. Low end of four. Actually, if you have a low end PC lying around to act as the softswitch, you can probably do it for under $2,000. Well under if you're willing to make compromises.

You should look at what the GNURadio folks are doing with SDRs. There's even LTE implementations being developed.

Re:It should be legal

[femtobyte]

Some people prepare for civilization's ultimate failure. Others prepare for civilization's ultimate success. Both groups make themselves helpless and terrified should the fantasy of the other come to fruition.

Re:It should be legal

[Tactical Bacon]

Because it would be impractical to expect businesses to do a decent job of checking just how far their jammer causes problems. What'll happen is they'll install a jammer, throw a couple of signs on their front door, and call it a day. Meanwhile the businesses on either side that don't want jamming have lost their signals, as well as a random swath of the parking lot, nearby road, etc. The entire reason these businesses were discovered was because the jamming wasn't limited to their premises. The fact that the FCC had to triangulate their location implies that the complaints were not of a "Business XYZ is jamming my cell" nature, but more of a "somebody on this block is jamming my cell".

Re:It should be legal

[Tactical Bacon]

Jammers would probably not be illegal if they respected property boundaries. I totally agree that you should be allowed to do what you like on your property. But you may *not* do what you like on *my* property. Running a jammer on yours will likely kill the signal on mine. So install any passive blocking you like. Once you go active and affect people around you, that's where you're stepping outside the bounds of personal freedom. Using your example you say that people may die due to the small delay while someone steps outside or disables the jamming device. But what about situations where your location isn't the one doing the jamming? Does stepping outside get you closer or further from the jammer? There certainly will be no way to disable the device since you have no idea who's even running it. That small delay suddenly can get pretty significant...

Re:It should be legal

[ImprovOmega]

Dishes made from melamine look like plastic, but heat up in the microwave (astonishingly quickly actually). Layman's explanation here. I'd be willing to bet if they are melamine that they're tagged "not microwave safe" somewhere on the dish.

Re:It should be legal

[Jane Q. Public]

"You are absolutely incorrect."

No, I am not.

See question 3.

"Section 301 of the Communications Act: âoeNo person shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio...except under and in accordance with [the Communications] Act and with a license in that behalf granted under the provisions of this Act.â 47 U.S.C. Â 301."

Which means it's NOT strictly illegal. The FCC may refuse to give you a license, but that refusal does not imply that it is automatically against Federal law. That's not the same thing. More about this:

"Section 302(b) of the Communications Act: âoeNo person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.â 47 U.S.C. Â 302a(b)."

It doesn't flat-out say they're illegal. It just says they're illegal if they don't comply with the regulations. Section 301 implies that those regulations could include licensing... if, of course, the FCC wanted to do that.

Section 333: No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under [the Communications] Act or operated by the United States Government.â 47 U.S.C. Â 333.

A cell phone is not a "station" licensed by the Act, nor is it operated by the Government. Having said that, cell phone towers definitely are stations. But any law or regulation is subject to interpretation. If Section 333 were to be taken literally, it would be illegal for people to build metal-sided buildings because that would be "willfully" blocking signals.

The point is: jammers may be disallowed by the FCC, but that does NOT mean that the law itself specifically excludes them. It is FCC policy only.

Re:It should be legal

[Lithdren]

Do you have a right to tell someone else where they're allowed to use their cell phone?

Should you?

Way I see it, I dont have a problem with physical shielding to prevent cellphone use. Jammers however are problematic because they are not restricted to your physical premis.

If you, as a company/owner/whatever wish to block RF and prevent cellphone use, i'm cool with that. But if you install a jammer and it affects someone who's standing on the curb outfront your building, you're now in violation and should get taken to court over it. I dont have the right to tell you what you must do on your own property, much as you dont have the right to tell me what I cant do on public property.

Means jammers could never work, unless the building was already jamming singals passively, thus removing the need for a jammer from within the building anyway.

Re:It should be legal

[Muad'Dave]

Unbelievable. I can't even begin to understand how you can possibly get anything you said from the regs.

There is no mechanism to license an illegal activity.

You missed this part of your quote "..except under and in accordance with [the Communications] Act and with a license ...". Your operation must be in full compliance will ALL the provisions of the act as well as be licensed.

it doesn't flat-out say they're illegal. It just says they're illegal if they don't comply with the regulations.
They are not legal to "manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship ... or use" because they CANNOT comply with the regulations. That sounds pretty illegal to me.

1) Jammers are not eligible for certification because their primary purpose is jamming and cannot by design meet emission standards
2) Radio equipment that is not certified may not be imported, sold or used
3) All radio transmitters (a cell phone is most certainly a station) must be authorized or licensed.

In case you missed it, 47 USC 333 is part of the United States Code, you know, federal law? Title 47 CFR is also in play here, of course.

If Section 333 were to be taken literally, it would be illegal for people to build metal-sided buildings because that would be "willfully" blocking signals.

It says "interfere with or cause interference", not "block" - interference is caused by an interfering radiated signal, NOT structures. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/whitepapers/IEEEUSAWP-HarmfulInterference0712.pdf

I don't know if it's true but I heard of a case where a cell tower was required to be taken down when it was determined to be obstructing a point-to-point microwave link, so there is some precedent for protecting narrow RF paths.

Re:It should be legal

[0xG]

Observation: 25 Years ago, nobody had cell phones, except for the occasional suitcase model. 911 calls went through land lines. And now, suddenly, we can't live - or die - without them. WTF?

Re:It should be legal

[AK Marc]

If nobody is harmed, there's no cause to raise an issue. If you violate the terms of entry to a building, then you are committing trespass. A member of the public has no reason to raise a complaint.

Re:It should be legal

[jklovanc]

When a member of the public can not call 911 outside the building due to the jammers there is a problem. Are we to wait till someone dies? They also interfere with first responder radios.

Re:It should be legal

[AK Marc]

First responder radios should not operate on cell-phone frequencies. As for 911, what stops them from having a pay phone on premise. You need 911, use the phone. Worked for the first 100 years of phones. Not being able to call 911 from any particular spot doesn't cause death.

Re:It should be legal

[jklovanc]

First responder radios should not operate on cell-phone frequencies

Well they do and I do not see the need for them to change so some company can enforce a no cell phone policy.

As for 911, what stops them from having a pay phone on premise.

I am talking about people on the street near the building not inside the building. How many pay phones have you seen in the street? In the city I live I know of none. You may say they could go into the building. What happens if they are closed but forgot to turn off the jammers? The 911 operator can also give life saving advice but that only works if the phone is close to the victim. Sure, it "[w]orked for the first 100 years of phones" but I bet more than a few people died due to the time finding a phone. Do you really think looking for a pay phone while someone is bleeding to death is a good idea just so some company can enforce a no cell phone rule in their business? Not being able to call 911 from any particular spot may not cause death but it sure cuts down on the chances of saving a life..

If they could keep the jamming signals inside the building I would not see a problem. But since that is not the case there is a problem.

Re:It should be legal

[rtb61]

Technically difficult as that bandwidth was sold without those conditions hence you would have to pay a proportion back for removal of areas of bandwidth. Next you are interfering with the contract of third parties, that of the supplier to their customer and to which you have no legal right nor contractual access to. Next is exceeding the bounds of your property, limits are something in the order of 50mm for construction and would be similar for a transmitted signal, pretty nigh impossible to control in that regard. So blocking and earthing is your only legal recourse. Cell phone jamming equipment should also be illegal as it is designed to transmit on bandwidths the manufacturers and sellers have no legal right to.

Re:It should be legal

[phantomfive]

Cell phone jamming equipment should also be illegal as it is designed to transmit on bandwidths the manufacturers and sellers have no legal right to.

Right, that is why you change the law. When you change the law, you can make things legal. Saying "it is illegal" is not any kind of barrier to changing the law, we have mechanisms to change the law.

Technically difficult as that bandwidth was sold without those conditions hence you would have to pay a proportion back for removal of areas of bandwidth. Next you are interfering with the contract of third parties, that of the supplier to their customer and to which you have no legal right nor contractual access to.

It could make them upset, but this is not any barrier to changing the law.

FCC=BS

[adamz_myth]

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?

Re:FCC=BS

[roc97007]

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:FCC=BS

[johnny5555]

Cell phone conversations are more annoying to people because our brains keeps trying to figure out the other end of the conversation, and make the conversation seem louder. http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/2013/03/18/study-proves-that-overhearing-others-phone-conversations-annoying/tmCr9o4wDLm7dmGfdybnYN/story.html

Re:FCC=BS

[ThomasBHardy]

There's a distinct and audible difference in the normal murmur of a restaurant that easily blends into a sea of ignorable noise.

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 uncaring of their impact on others, we moved to a far quieter, calmer, place where manners prevail and folks care more about those around them. In restaurants, children are generally well behaved, people mostly take calls in the lobby or outside. Is it really so much to ask that people show this level of common courtesy in other locales? Is being in a polite society such a horrid thing to you?

is it really so terrible for people to hope for a place where interactions are between people instead of devices?

Re:FCC=BS

[ThomasBHardy]

The study you quote did not draw the conclusion you assert.

"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:FCC=BS

[johnny5555]

I must have been thinking of a different study, there have been multiple studies on this subject. Either way, it confirms that cellphone conversations are more annoying than face-to-face, which was my point.

Re:FCC=BS

[ThomasBHardy]

On this I agree :)

Re:FCC=BS

[Chibi Merrow]

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

[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:FCC=BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I paid good money for that companion!

Re:FCC=BS

[ThomasBHardy]

Fault 1: You assume any conversation I have with my table companions must be obnoxious laughing?

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:FCC=BS

[djdanlib]

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:FCC=BS

[mcmonkey]

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:FCC=BS

[AuMatar]

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:FCC=BS

[bzipitidoo]

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 it and I'd feel much too ashamed and angry to ever come back. I'd still feel that way even if it was entirely my fault, but more likely it was something so important I have to leave early anyway. You might think "good riddance", and believe that permanently alienating cell phone "abusers" is a public service. But I think your policy is needlessly rude.

Re:FCC=BS

[Skynyrd]

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:FCC=BS

[AK Marc]

My expereince with theaters is:

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't follow, and no effort to please customers.

Re:FCC=BS

[Immerman]

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:FCC=BS

[Belial6]

At least that is how people like you rationalize for your neo-luddite attitudes.

Re:FCC=BS

[Belial6]

Not unacceptable time and place. It is you are being rude. You are just too self centered to recognize it.

Re:FCC=BS

[johnny5555]

Hahaha. Hoping that was a joke, because otherwise that's the most ignorant thing I've read today. And I was just on Huffington Post.

Re:FCC=BS

[innocent_white_lamb]

I own and operate a "mom and pop" movie theatre in a small town and have done so for 20 years, long before cell phones were an issue.

I've never really had much of problem with "thugs"; if I ask you to leave and you refuse for whatever reason I could always phone the police for assistance. But that has never actually happened.

I really only throw people out for using a cell phone maybe once per year or even less than that; it's not that big of an issue, usually.

Re:FCC=BS

[innocent_white_lamb]

I have simply grabbed a cell phone away from a kid who is using it during the show if his parents aren't around. Then I keep it at my front counter until the parents come and ask for it back when the show is over. That's happened two or three times over 20 years, so it's pretty rare. I've done the same with little flashlights, laser pointers, and chemical glow sticks, too, and probably more often.

As far as your "good riddance" comment... yeah, that's pretty much it. It's my theatre, my personal property in fact, and my rules apply. If you don't like my rules, you're welcome to go to any other theatre. I suspect that some people do exactly that, and it's absolutely fine with me. Really.

The teenagers here know how things work -- I occasionally overhear one telling the other to turn his or her phone off.

Re:FCC=BS

[Belial6]

You keep telling yourself that. It might make you feel better.

Re:FCC=BS

[shentino]

It's private property.

So the definition of what is "irritating" is whatever the manager of the premesis darn well says it is.

He is also within his rights to defer to who he pleases on the matter.

Re:FCC=BS

[caballew]

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.

"Accidently" spill your $10 Jumbo with refill soft drink on his phone and the ID10T. Get refill and enjoy.

Re:FCC=BS

[cffrost]

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.

Heh, an "urban thug?" Are rural thugs comparatively docile, or uncoordinated in their flouting of authority?

Re:FCC=BS

[KGIII]

We all know that this is a persona you use online and that in real life you're a coward at worst and passive aggressive at best. You can save the tough guy talk. Nobody believes you. In fact, you don't even have to do the whole "reply to me and try to pretend to be manly" thing to cover your broken ego. It's okay and we're still not going to believe that you have the courage to disturb anyone.

Re:FCC=BS

[KGIII]

It is a lie. They don't do anything of the sort. Anonymity is second only to alcohol when it comes to faux courage.

Re:FCC=BS

[cffrost]

You don't get to decide when its acceptable or not. [...] I have the absolute right to talk to whomever I want, just as you do.

You're disagreeing with an authoritarian mob with mod points — clearly, your opinion is wrong.

Re:FCC=BS

[voidphoenix]

Did you read the comment? He has a sign outside and plays a policy trailer. That's advanced warning, twice.

Re:FCC=BS

[gnasher719]

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.

It's fine talking to someone who is 3000 miles away. As long as you remember that your voice is transmitted electronically and not by sound waves, so you don't have to shout. A mobile phone has some quite ingenious electronics built in that will amplify the volume of your voice, and filter out noises from your surroundings, even if you talk in a low voice.

Re:FCC=BS

[serviscope_minor]

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 phone "abusers" is a public service. But I think your policy is needlessly rude.

It is a public service and throwing one person out of the film is much less rude than one person runining the film for many.

Re:FCC=BS

[ThomasBHardy]

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument" -William G. McAdoo

Re:FCC=BS

[IndustrialComplex]

Fault 1: You assume any conversation I have with my table companions must be obnoxious laughing?

That's up to him to decide, not you. The point is that you seem to be setting yourself up as arbiter of all that is annoying.

You have the option of not eating at a restaurant filled with people who annoy you. The restaurant owner has the option of kicking out people who are annoying.

You are asking for your own definition of annoying to be forced upon other people in a blanket manner.

Re:FCC=BS

[natophonic]

People like you make me SICK! It's my RIGHT to use MY phone when and where I want in the MAGNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Re:FCC=BS

[Tactical Bacon]

If I saw you kicking somebody out of the theater I was in for cell phone use, I'd make it a point to only go to your theater for every movie from then on... Yeah, you might lose a few customers that get butthurt over there being consequences to breaking the rules - twice - but I suspect you get a lot more repeat and loyal business than you lose.

Re:FCC=BS

[AuMatar]

Nope, I'm talking at a conversational volume. If I am yelling, then you have a right to ask me to quiet down. But not to force me to stop talking.

Re:FCC=BS

[roc97007]

> I can only speak for myself (and my secret army of genetically engineered lemurs, but that's not important now), but I don't care who someone in a restaurant is speaking to, as long as they can maintain what is known in kindergarten as an "inside voice."

I think that's my new favorite quote for this week. Yes, the conversation is not as important as the volume, and dining next to two people shouting at each other can be even more obnoxious than one person shouting into the phone.

(Flash back to the Carter administration, my mother visits me in Silicon Valley, at dinner she starts berating me because I'm still renting and haven't bought a house yet, I say that 13.5 % prime is not a good time to buy a house, she gets louder and louder, I'm looking around me and trying to calm her down, she finally starts shrieking at me "You're STUPID! You're just STUPID!". People around us get up and leave. That scene has stayed with me the rest of my life, and if my dinner companion starts to get loud, I immediately disengage, pay and leave. Girlfriends who wanted an emotional breakup over drinks in a nice place tended to be frustrated by my lack of cooperation. If you're going to yell at me, fine, but it will not be here. Apparently this makes me an asshole.)

Sidebar: I think this thing -- shouting into a phone -- is partially an age thing, (from a generation who grew up when you had to speak loudly into a communication device) and will eventually disappear. Except for hipsters. My observation is that they will continue shouting into their trendy earpiece because it draws attention to how trendy their trendy earpiece is, not because of some racial memory of a time when phones needed volume. But hipsters would find a way to be annoying even in environments where cell phones were not allowed. Or perhaps because of same.

Re:FCC=BS

[poofmeisterp]

You keep telling yourself that. It might make you feel better.

Congratulations. You just made yourself feel better. Want a cookie?

Re:FCC=BS

[roc97007]

> But I'd hope that [a bowel movement] isn't something you'd do in the middle of a busy restaurant

Most restaurants, anyway.

Re:FCC=BS

[AK Marc]

I'd have had to commit assault for that. Are you advocating assaulting everyone that's a rude idiot? I think you'd have more people in jail than not.

Re:FCC=BS

[Skynyrd]

Thanks for the answer. Mom and pop theaters are the only ones I go to, and that's somewhat rare.
The larger the group, the dumber it gets. I avoid crowds.

Thanks for running a good theater.

Re:FCC=BS

[Skynyrd]

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.

Heh, an "urban thug?" Are rural thugs comparatively docile, or uncoordinated in their flouting of authority?

I've lived in small towns, and big cities. Yeah, there's a difference. Mostly, in my opinion, is because in small towns people know each other. The person sitting 3 aisles away in a small town theater may be your girlfriend's boss, or your dad's barber. In a large city, you're anonymous, so there's no public shame in being an asshole.

I grew up 10 miles outside of a town of 13,000 where my mom was an elementary school teacher. I was *always* on good behavior in town. When I moved to a huge city, I had more freedom, but so did everybody else. It's a compromise.

Re:FCC=BS

[bzipitidoo]

The OP made a big deal out of a policy it turns out he has enforced just 3 times in 20 years. He played for your sympathies and hatred of cell phone abuse, and you fell for it.

You think I want to receive a call during a movie? The only reason I would have a phone on during a movie is if I'm on call. No one wants to get that kind of call. But no one had better be jamming or blocking reception in case it is that kind. If a theater is not willing or able to accommodate a need like that, then I simply do not go. Good thing we have such large screen TVs these days.

Re:FCC=BS

[Oloryn]

Just out of curiosity, do you enforce this during the previews? I don't make or take calls in the theatre, but I do make notes during the previews about the upcoming movies I think I might be interested in. Once the previews end, the phone goes off, but cell phones nowadays aren't just phones, they are often our memory.

Re:FCC=BS

[innocent_white_lamb]

If the lobby is clear (all of the customers have gone into the auditorium), then immediately after I start the movie I walk into the auditorium and stand behind the last row of seats for a while, generally for the length of the previews. (I usually play two or three previews, then the feature starts.)

During the time that I'm standing at the back, I watch for things like people talking, cell phones, people with their feet up on the seat backs, and anything else that needs attention.

It also gives me a chance to make sure that my picture and sound are perfect, and that the cues (lights down, etc) worked right.

To answer your question: Yes, I do enforce my cell phone policy during previews. People want to see those too, and they don't need someone waving a bright light around in a dark room while they're trying to do that.

Re:FCC=BS

[Oloryn]

And if someone is taking notes during the previews, with the phone kept low and unobtrusive, what would you do?

Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)

[luckymutt]

They really should title it something like: Announcement Notice of Apparent Liability

Re:Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL)

[ThomasBHardy]

/golfclap

This is awesome

[onyxruby]

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 things....

Re:This is awesome

[epyT-R]

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:This is awesome

[girlintraining]

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. If your neighbor decides to install a high powered hifi audio system that blocks out your wifi and makes it unusuable, you're told to suck it up. And if they don't encrypt it, you're in a legal gray area... etc., etc.

This isn't a clear-cut issue where either the government controls it, or it's public, or it's private sector. All three have legitimate reasons to want to allow or deny access to this resource on their own properties. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on though, it's clear the FCC is a failure as an administrative body -- their rulings are inconsistent, there is no democratic process or any feedback mechanism the public can use to contest it... it's this oblique governmental body that gets to do whatever the hell it wants with this most precious of resources... and as a result, it's become an oppressive regulatory body that infringes on private citizens' rights on a routine basis.

The forced conversion from analog to digital TV netted the FCC a couple hundred billion in spectrum auctioning to large private businesses while the consumers were forced to upgrade to digital televisions that were later determined to have been significantly marked up as a result of collusion by manufacturers to inflate the price. And where was the FCC when the public was getting raped over a barrel on the costs of a new TV? Busy bundling their analog-to-digital converter program so badly that there should be a permanent monument erected outside their offices entitled "Institutional Incompetence" and showing a consumer having a flatscreen TV shoved sideways into their unmentionables.

That said... people shouldn't be jamming the airwaves... but their interests in restricting the use of certain electronic devices (and by extension, wireless spectrum) on their own property, is something the FCC needs to address.

Re:This is awesome

[fredprado]

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:This is awesome

[girlintraining]

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?

Re:This is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you're not familiar with the tragedy of the commons. The FCC exists to regulate the spectrum so that it's actually usable. Without that regulation it's completely unpredictable what exactly you would get, but odds are good that it wouldn't be particularly useful.

Re:This is awesome

[AK Marc]

2.4G is surprisingly usable for being as unregulated as it is. Now imagine how usable the "shared" space would be if there were 100 times as many usable frequencies.

Re:This is awesome

[AK Marc]

The spectrum is "owned" by the FCC. Not the lessee, not the property owner, and not the public. The content of the signal is owned by the sender, even if the use of the spectrum is illegal.

"Shared" ownership only happens in shared space, ISM bands and such where "anyone" may transmit (with an approved device used in an approved manner). And even then it's owned (controlled) by the FCC and FCC alone.

Re:This is awesome

[Glendale2x]

Go read Title 47.

Re:This is awesome

[PPH]

Stingrays operated by company (a major DoD contractor) security services. They can monitor your calls and I'm pretty sure they could shut down calls to a blacklist of devices (or only permit calls from whitelisted devices).

Either the FCC doesn't care or they don't want to cross a major campaign contributor.

Re:This is awesome

[evilviper]

If the store is popular, asking people one at a time to hang up takes up too much time.

Obeying the speed limit takes too much time, too... But guess what? You still have to do it.

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.

That logic will sound great during your "depraved indifference" manslaughter trial, after someone dies in your store, having been unable to call for help. Or perhaps a doctor, police officer, or similar, being unable to receive critical messages, causing someone else to die, unnecessarily.

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.

No, I'd call that they "worst way". Just because you're a control freak doesn't mean you should be allowed to interfere with legal, licensed communications. I'm glad the FCC has a blanket ban on jammers, so utterly insane folks like yourself can't do the kind of uncontrolled damage they feel entitled to do.

Selling merchandise takes up too much time. The best way is to draw people into your store, and then have robots go around, stealing their wallets. If customers don't want to have their wallets stolen, they're free to just not come into my store... Damn the FCC!

Re:This is awesome

[msauve]

2.4G is very regulated, under Part 15 of the FCC rules. Perhaps most important of which are the limits on actual and radiated power, which allow coexistance based on range.

"Unregulated" is very different than "unlicensed."

Re:This is awesome

[Muad'Dave]

Interestingly, the FCC is not the primary authority for federal use of the radio spectrum - the OSM is (part of NTIA). Use of the stingrays under the aegis of the federal government is not regulated by the FCC. This handy-dandy wall chart shows what spectrum is used by whom and for what (unless it's classified).

Re:This is awesome

[Hatta]

If the spectrum were truly open, it would be chaos; completely unusable for all but local communications.

Then how does Wifi work?

Re:This is awesome

[fredprado]

Your answer is: no you do not. Even if you can restrict the scope of the transmissions to your property by shielding it you still cannot legally do it without FCC authorization. You can only use FCC approved equipment within FCC restraints as you can do outside your property. Obviously within a shielded property nobody will likely know what you are doing, and you will likely get away with it, but you are still doing something illegal.

Re:This is awesome

[compro01]

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:This is awesome

[compro01]

If the spectrum were truly open, it would be chaos; completely unusable for all but local communications.

Then how does Wifi work?

By not being truly open. WiFi is unlicensed, not unregulated.

Here's the regulations on unlicensed intentional radiators, such as WiFi equipment.

Re:This is awesome

[SmurfButcher Bob]

When I fire up my 500KW transceiver within 50 miles of you? Not very well.

Re:This is awesome

[Macgrrl]

In the late '80s some friends of mine were living half a block from a CB radio (and gun) shop. On of these friends was a bit of an audiophile with a stupidly expensive HiFi system.

It was no uncommon for his speakers to pick up transmissions from the CB shop, even when the tuner and amp were switched off.

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:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[horm]

From what I've read regarding unlicensed broadcasting and pirate radio, it seems that a lot of the FCC's enforcement of RF regulations begins with (anonymous) tips.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[AuMatar]

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:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[girlinatrainingbra]

That makes sense also. But I also think that there's a possibility that they're working off of a sales list from the manufacturer.

Re: Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[Mabhatter]

The Black Vans with antennas all over phone them in!

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure there's any way to get a cell phone jammer than overseas. For all we know they might have brought them in suitcases.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[fliptout]

Make one? The jammer schematic put out by Lady Ada several years ago was basically a CW transmitter and an amp.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[KGIII]

If they want to block cell phones signals so bad they can get a permit and have their setup done properly to ensure no one gets affected that shouldn't be.

If I'm reading correctly that's exactly what they can't do.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[GWBasic]

I have a feeling they probably pissed off a few employees when they installed the transmitters.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[gl4ss]

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?

[dissy]

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.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[KGIII]

When they said "permit" they implied something active, to me at least. No specific permit is required to have it happen due to happenstance which makes me think they were speaking specifically about jamming. I don't suppose they'll return to clarify.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[cffrost]

Quite a few industrial buildings constructed with steal walls already do this inadvertently, and there is nothing illegal about it.

I'm pretty sure wall theft is illegal. :o)

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[dissy]

I suppose I was unclear too.

You are correct there is no such thing as a permit to jam, and that they can't actively jam.
But to the issue of if they want to block it, there are other means to do so and those means are fine.

I mean to point out that the desire to block the radio signal isn't the problem and can even be done the right way. It was specifically the active transmitting that was the problem.

Which really is the best way.

With how people treat property, I can see some people desiring to prevent particular RF upon it. And as long as they don't affect or interfere with anyone else at all (intentionally or otherwise) I don't really see any moral issue with letting them do so.

Of course active jammers simply blast out RF at high wattage, typically bleeding over into other frequencies. There's just few realistic ways to use one and NOT affect someone else.
Those few exceptions are the only reason the devices shouldn't be out right illegal to buy.

As with all good things in life, it's how you use it that counts.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[squiggleslash]

Why would an overseas manufacturer cooperate with an FCC investigation that would hamper their ability to obtain new customers for their products?

A disgruntled employee of the company with the jammers (or maybe even a customer who doesn't want to be bothered by submitting his or her name and is fed up of constant call drops) seems way more likely.

Re:Interesting coincidence? or purchase tracking?

[Rich0]

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 was frustrated with their signal quality. They happened to work for an electronics test equipment vendor, and grabbed some equipment designed for TV signal testing and hooked it up to their home feed. They then called up the cable company and pointed out that half of their channels failed to meet FCC specifications. The next day they turned on the TV and noticed they had access to all the premium channels.

So, the problem doesn't always get fixed in the way that is best for consumers, but companies do have a fear of the FCC.

There is another way

[chromaexcursion]

Perhaps you've heard of a Faraday cage?

Build a metal box, approximately ... there are some important details
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

[Mabhatter]

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.

Re:There is another way

[morgauxo]

>>It's not that hard.

Ok. Let's see you do it. Pick a comercial building, even a small one. Go buy enough metal to make a box around it. Move every thing in the store or other business around, maybe close the place for a week or two to do this. Of course.. you have to make it pretty or you start losing shoppers. So.. probably you need to tear out all the drywall, add your metal layer, now put in new dry wall. Oh, it's plaster? That will be fun. I hope you really like dust! Hey, there isn't any asbestos in it is there?

Oh, and by the way, you got permits for that right? Everything you did is up to code right? Has the inspector been out to see it yet?

Gee, that was fun. How much did you spend by the way? How much business was lost during the construction?

Now go do it with a bigger building.

See... what would be easy to do in your garage on a small scale as a simple experiment is not necessarily so easy for a real world application.
This is why a little inconspicuous box that only needs sat somewhere and plugged in is so much more attractive to actual business owners. Unfortunately, that really is illegal for a good reason. If radio waves from the cell tower can get in your building your jammer signal can get out. Even if you take care to adjust the power output so that it isn't a problem today, radio waves are finicky things and tomorrow you might be blocking the neighbor's 911 call.

Re:There is another way

[Overzeetop]

Oh that's easy...try getting a good shield at the storefront (windows)!

Re:There is another way

[chromaexcursion]

Foil faced insulation and a metal roof.
I used to work in a building that had no indoor cell service because of that.
to code, cheap, simple.

It really isn't that hard.

Re:There is another way

[morgauxo]

Sure. And purchasing new insulation and a new metal roof only requires pocket change right? Oh.. and new siding too since the old will have to be ripped off to get at the insulation.

And then it's an easy one afternoon project that the building owner can get his teenage son to do for mere allowance money right?

Definitely not very hard for a contractor who is getting paid his living for doing it. It's quite a different thing to be at the other end of that transaction.

Still can't see why it would be very tempting to go out and buy a jammer?

Not just cellular-affecting

[kf4lhp]

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.

The reason people talk loudly on their cell phones

[the_rajah]

In contrast to typical land-line phones, cell phones have no "side-tone". Side-tone is the portion of the audio signal from the microphone routed to the receiver (earpiece). By having side-tone we have feedback relating to how loud we're talking and the signal going to the other end. Without the side-tone, there is a natural tendency to talk louder. I don't know why cell phone designers have not incorporated side-tone. The amount of power it would consume is very small.

Just put a tinfoil hat around your building

[davidwr]

OK, that may not work in an outdoor area like an oil-well site or industrial plant and you might have to turn your nice windowed office into a windowless fortress, but it is possible to stop cell phones without resorting to jammers.

Tinfoil hat = cellular-blocking paint or other building-covering. It's not necessarily cheap but it's probably cheaper than FCC fines.

Blocking cell phones doesn't block 911

[dutchwhizzman]

The land lines in that building aren't going to be jammed, so 911 is still reachable.

Re:The reason people talk loudly on their cell pho

[Lord_Jeremy]

I think that depends on the phone. My iPhone 4S most definitely has what you describe.

The Black Vans with antnnas all over phone 'em in!

[girlinatrainingbra]

re: The Black Vans with antennas all over phone them in!

But I thought that vans were from Flowers By Irene? [sorry, there's no screen cap of the Simpon's Flowers By Irene van at that link]

How many people have died?

[dutchwhizzman]

How many people have died as a direct cause of 911 being actively blocked? Someone might have died in a cinema. It may even have been that people that noticed the person not being well tried calling 911. It may even have been that they were unable to reach 911. That may even have been because the cinema was blocking cell phone reception. The blockage may even have been on purpose. But would this person have survived if 911 could have been reached? I doubt there is any solid research done on this. "The ability to call 911 on your cell phone" is the most stupid argument to forbid blocking ever and it's the best people can come up with. 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.

Also, if you care about this, learn how to administer CPR. That will be literally be thousands of times more effective than calling 911 and wait for the paramedics to arrive. The first few minutes after someone has a heart failure are much more important than what happens after 10 minutes, when the paramedics arrive. If the first few minutes aren't critical, you have plenty of time to walk outside and make your call there, or get someone from the store call 911 for you.

Re:How many people have died?

[Skater]

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.

Time to compromise?

[GWBasic]

I think its time to dedicate a very narrow-band low-frequency for a polite "bit." Any business should be able to apply to purchase a transmitter with a 25-foot radius that sets cell devices to silent or vibrate. Perfect for restaurants and theaters, yet it still allows people to use their devices.

Re:Time to compromise?

[BetterSense]

It's the bright screens that are disruptive in a theater, not just the ringers.

Also, can everyone quit pretending that vibrate is actually silent? I swear it's an elaborate distributed attempt at trolling me, how everyone pretends that placing their phone on vibrate is a magical cloak that I can't still hear from 6 rows away.

Re:Time to compromise?

[Bigby]

Same idea could be applied. A single could be sent that describes that you are in a "quiet", "low light", or other situation. The phone can then adjust to the request automatically.

Re:How is this any different...

[1s44c]

I'm guessing they didn't stop 911 calls in Boston, just all other calls.

That really sucks for someone trying to call their loved one to check they are OK.

Tip of the iceberg

[obatjaya]

thank you http://www.obatvitalitassex.com/ pin bb : 32041AF3

Re:The reason people talk loudly on their cell pho

[jonwil]

My Nokia N900 also has side tone support (through a Nokia closed-source PulseAudio module)

Low hanging fruit

[stevegee58]

The FCC went after 2 large businesses with fixed jammers. What about the people with little personal jammers to shut up annoying cell phone yakkers in restaurants and subways? They'll never catch them.

Hang Up

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

Maybe that's Karma telling you to hang up and drive, Mr. More Dangerous Than A Drunkard.

Re:The reason people talk loudly on their cell pho

[Rich0]

Good point. I know that back in the day when digital phones were being developed another concern was "comfort noise." With a digital transmission you want to filter silence on the transmitter so that you conserve battery and bandwidth. That would result in completely dead silence on the receiver when the other party isn't talking. That tends to make people think the phone isn't working right, so you can instead just inject noise on the receiver that never actually goes over the network. I'm not sure if it was ever implemented - clearly I hear noise on my phone but I don't know how aggressive the filters are.

Re:How is this any different...

[Phreakiture]

They didn't shut it down. It got slashdotted.

does this count?

[slashmydots]

This is a 67 year old solid metal building I work in. Does that count? Actually I have US Cellular so I get signal and nobody else does, lol. I don't know if CDMA has better error correction or the tower is just closer but I do find it comical since I don't really like GSM.

Wow, that's illegal?

[gravis777]

i worked for a government subcontractor a few years back, and one of our buildings was a top-secret area. The building was constructed with certain building materials and laid out so that it blocked all wireless radio frequencies in and out of the building - especially cellular traffic. If that is not illegal, I don't see how cellular jamming wouold be illegal.

I guess I could go RTFA and see if it states WHY they were blocking said frequencies, but if you are providing landlines and / or company-provided communication devices that can make emergancy phone calls, I don't get how cellular blocking within your business or organization could be illegal. In fact, I wish more places would use cellular jamming (especially movie theaters)

Re:Wow, that's illegal?

[ShaunC]

The building was constructed with certain building materials and laid out so that it blocked all wireless radio frequencies in and out of the building - especially cellular traffic. If that is not illegal, I don't see how cellular jamming wouold be illegal.

Think of it like this. Suppose you're worried about intruders on your property. It's perfectly legal to put up a 10 foot tall fence topped with concertina wire, build your walls out of 5 foot thick concrete, and place some angry rottweilers around the perimeter. But it's not legal to erect a couple of rotating Gatling guns firing rounds out from the property to keep people away.

Re:Wow, that's illegal?

[compro01]

Compare

1. Soundproofing a building
2. Setting up a massive audio system to blast white noise at 194dB and drown out all other sounds.

The former is legal, the latter will get you cited for noise violations. The former only affects your property, the latter extends beyond it.

A cell jammer is exactly the same thing.

Stores losing my business

[morgauxo]

I can totally understand brick and morter stores not wanting their shoppers to come in, look at goods, only to do their actual purchasing online from someone else.

But..

I also use my phone in the store for other kinds of research. Stores selling computer parts and even hardware should try to make it easy to get online. On more than one occasion I have not bought things because I couldn't get online to see it it was compatible. This has happened with computer parts, I wanted to see if there were Linux drivers. It has happened with electronic components.. which part did I need again... The schematic is online.

Re:Stores losing my business

[couchslug]

I can't be bothered to use brick-and-mortar stores for computer equipment anyway.
What I can research online I can buy online, 24/7/365, without wasting time and burning petrol.

Call quality

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I pick up a call and suddenly I'm back in the 1960's.

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) and the system that backed them up produced high-quality sound relative to the crap we put up with today.

Hell, I'm still pissed that I had to give up my outdated StarTac when the cell technology changed. Cell call sound quality was acceptable before that. Now it's all crap, all the time.

Re:Faraday cage

[compro01]

The spooks I knew used to spoke of "CRT-TV" as they could readily pickup the RF emissions of monitors outside the building where they were located, permitting the remote viewing of the monitor screens.

Yes, it's called Van Eck phreaking. It's not exactly new.

Re:Where is the Due Process?

[Hatta]

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to notice this, and that it was an AC, who hasn't been modded up at all. Whatever your feelings about cell phone jamming, "forfeiture" is a legal fiction. The FCC can either prosecute these companies and prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or they can flout the rule of law and engage in thuggery. They chose the latter.

Re:Faraday cage

[Jane Q. Public]

"The spooks I knew used to spoke of "CRT-TV" as they could readily pickup the RF emissions of monitors outside the building where they were located, permitting the remote viewing of the monitor screens."

Yes, it's called Van Eck phreaking. It's not exactly new.

It also does not work worth a damn in most circumstances.

It takes specialized equipment, and even then you almost always have to be no more than a few feet away (like on the other side of the wall it's sitting near).

It's a neat little toy, but in nearly all cases it is of little practical value because the signal to noise ratio is awful. That's a matter of physics and even expensive equipment can only do so much about it.

Re:Where is the Due Process?

[EmagGeek]

Sad, isn't it? Even Slashdot has become increasingly statist over the years. When I first joined 10 or more years ago, not only would someone not have been afraid to post that with their name on it, but it would have been instantly modded up to 5.

Unfortunately "civil forfeiture" is being used regularly in the United States - "just be thankful we didn't prosecute you under the criminal code."