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

[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

[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

[Jane Q. Public]

"Instead of "passively blocking", I think you mean "shielding". As in a " Faraday cage". This doesn't hamper signals outside of the structure."

It's mostly due to bad reflections, interference, and simple attenuation. Unless a building is entirely steel clad, modern buildings make terrible Faraday cages.

Even with steel studs at 18" centers, that's more than 3 times the wavelength of 2GHz signals. Aside from studs, beams and girders and the like, even in a building with a lot of them, are nowhere near close enough to make a Faraday cage at those wavelengths.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[KGIII]

All of what you said is true but it made me think...

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

I don't own the spectrum, I don't own the device, I simply own the land. Should I be allowed to block RF (regardless of how beneficial this plan may be, no matter how ineffective, etc - we're simply concerned with rights and not efficacy) on my land?

This is different than a place of employment and I'm not speaking of places generally open to the public. I'm strictly speaking about my property - we can even limit it specifically to an area centralized around my living quarters so as to avoid any blocking from overlapping onto neighboring property. There is no situation where ones blocking should be allowed to impact neighboring property.

Now, I can't think of a legitimate reason to block RF on my land or anything like that - but that's not the point. It seems that I tend to take a rather heavy handed approach when it comes to personal freedom and property rights.

I'm not attempting to be negative nor am I attempting to start an argument. I am unsure of what to think and thus my question - I really don't know. As the spectrum is considered communal property and is regulated as such there is the argument that restricting someone's right to their property (the spectrum they're allowed to use legally) is wrong. Yet, for some unknown reason, one may wish to prevent people from using a ham radio, CB, etc on their property and actively seek to block it. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be allowed the right to prohibit radio communication from their property?

I don't really know - I am leaning towards a, "Yes, they should be allowed to block it on their own private property while assuring that none of their blocking methods impact any portion of neighboring property." Again, I can't think of any logical reason why someone would want to block that so I'm mostly curious as to your (and other people's) opinion on where the line should be drawn.

In fact, all I can picture is some hillbilly drawling out that he "doesn't want none of your radio frequency being utilized on this here property." It's ridiculous at face value but the question remains the same where freedoms are concerned.

Also... We already have national radio quiet zones where anything of the sort is expressly forbidden but I don't think that the reasons they are allowed to enact such regulations apply to private property very well and they aren't actually blocking RF so the two aren't really related. *just wanted to cover that to avoid potential confusion*

Anyhow, yeah - it made me think. I'm unsure and I'm sure I haven't considered everything. Thoughts?

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[smpoole7]

>unless it's a coincidence that I lose service right after stepping inside

A typical mobile phone might still show a signal if there is interference; you just wouldn't be able to make a call. (That's basically what "jamming" is: interference done on purpose.) If you're showing *no* signal, that's probably just the building blocking the RF.

Here in Birmingham, AL, there's a spot on I-65 where my phone shows tons of signal, but I invariably lose a call there, because of interference.

Having dealt with the FCC a time or two (I'm a radio engineer, AM/FM), I read the NAL. These yahoos weren't just jamming cell signals inside their facility. That's illegal enough, but the NAL makes it clear that they WERE spilling signal all over the place. The FCC's field engineer was able to triangulate the building's location, getting a positive ID. They should have been shut down.

Look: you can discourage cell use with a faraday cage or other shielding, as some here have mentioned. If you're using a jammer, f'crying out loud, you DEFINITELY need shielding, anyway, or you're going to be interfering with people well outside of your facility.

Re:Tip of the iceberg

[ColdWetDog]

Just use an iPhone and hold it wrong.

Easy peasy. Legal, even.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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?

[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: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: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:It should be legal

[chromaexcursion]

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.