Slashdot Mirror
FCC Formalizes Massive Fines For Selling, Using Cell-Phone Jammers (networkworld.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Network World: Two years ago the FCC announced its intention to fine a Chinese electronics maker $34.9 million and a Florida man $48,000 for respectively selling and using illegal cell-phone jammers. Today the agency has issued press releases telling us that those fines have finally been made official, without either of the offending parties having bothered to mount a formal defense of their actions. From the press release announcing the fine against CTS. Technology: "[...] The company's website falsely claimed that some jammers had been approved by the FCC, and advertised that the company could ship signal jammers to consumers in the United States." The company did not respond to the FCC's allegations, although the agency does report that changes were made to its website that appear to be aimed at complying with U.S. law. Next up is Florida man, Jason R. Humphreys, who is alleged to have used a jammer on his commute: "Mr. Humphreys' illegal operation of the jammer continued for up to two years, caused interference to cellular service along Interstate 4, and disrupted police communications." Last Fall, a Chicagoan was arrested for using a cell-phone jammer to make his subway commute more tolerable.
pulse generators count as jamming devices? Or for that matter, anti-cell tower lasers?
The FCC takes very seriously is jamming. I think that the 48K fine might be a record forfeiture.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
These people didn't argue so the fine becomes formal. That's how the process works,
but it neither makes the fine appropriate nor does it set followable precedent.
You can rest easy that "CTS" (the Chinese firm -- not its real name) will continue to sell
the jammers under many many other names and the amount they will pay the FCC will
be somewhere around $0.
You can rest easy that just like prisons want to use cellphone jammers https://gcn.com/articles/2013/...
so too do beat cops who stop a motorist on the road. That way they can prevent that
"call to the lawyer" that might help preserve the rights of the individual.
When law-enforcement plays with these toys, that means they too are interfering with
legitimate signals and communication. That takes all the hot air out of the FCC's
"think of the [adult] children [communicating]!" message.
Nobody will pay a fine.
Cellphone jammers will become more ubiquitous... like drones [UASs] only not so popular.
But hey, headlines.
Ehud
Tucson AZ
Do they start fining Law enforcement?
Oh wait, the law doesn't apply to them...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This incident reminds us why Congress is supposed to make laws and determine penalties for breaking them, not unelected regulators.
Can't we 3D print these things by now?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hey, if other people on the bus or train are annoying you with their chatter or cell phones, just go with a totally legal, oldschool jammer: http://ajournalofmusicalthings...
Oceanians live in a constant state of being monitored by the Party, through the use of advanced, invasive technology.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Doing so will infringe more on others' rights to operate a cellphone than can be justified by allowing any individual the right to jam. That's built into the technology.
This sort of assessment is built into the structure of the laws, and now it has emerged in the form of an administrative measure (backed up by laws that grant the FCC authority to manage wireless spectrum issues),.
You as an individual may or may not agree, but this is just the way the laws are set up ... and now it's backed up by fines.
Arguments about prisons and law-enforcement officers don't cut it, because the same reasoning that found that the interests of would-be jammers are outweighed by those of other members to the public is almost certain to come down on the side of the interest of those with a legitimate interest in jamming cellphone communication.
In other words: law enforcement officers and organisations like prisons are allowed to do what ordinary members of the public aren't.
It can't very well be otherwise, can it? So we'd better get to get used to it.
How about a way to stop idiots blasting terrible music from their phones and annoying everyone else on the train/bus.
These two stories about jammers seem to indicate that the only reason these people got caught is that they had dumb jammers that just continuously broadcast, making their triangulation easy.
Where are the smart jammers that operate at low power thresholds and operate intermittently -- some pattern of briefly on, then off, then on again, in a kind of random backoff cycle before going off? Or have some kind of passive radio detection to not transmit unless there is a nearby handset in use signature?
The idea would be a jammer that produced enough interference to disrupt and discourage use in a narrow local window, but with a limited on profile such that it was much harder to detect.
Smart jammers have been designed and built for decades. Simple barrage or swept frequency jammers are cheap, cheap, cheap and work well if you have a good power advantage over the victim. That's why that's what you're seeing.
Clearly, there *are* people making better jammers - there are a variety of companies that do this mostly for defense dept type applications. There is no legitimate large market for smart jammers, so the jammer makers (e.g. in China) aren't going to invest much money and time in developing them.
The other problem is that as you start having more jammers, the things you are jamming will evolve to have counter counter measures.
try collecting on that...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
to make your commute more dangerous by keeping everyone focused on figuring out why their phone isn't working instead of paying any attention at all to the road?
FIFY
I now average about 6 telemarketer phone calls per day on my mobile, to the point I have to even shut off vibrate along with the ringer. I know this is more of an FTC issue, but this is becoming ridiculous and 'Do Not Call' is a fucking joke (as is my pre-pay carrier that allows me to block a grand total of 5 phone numbers). If DNC and the carriers (which are no doubt making bank off telemarketers) were serious, we would be able to instantly flag a number calling us directly within the phone interface.
I wish there was a black list phone app that would block (as in not even trigger the phone circuitry) any phone number I flag, but I'm sure such a thing would ironically (or regulatory captured) be expressly forbidden by said FCC.
A HAM radio station is an FCC licensed station. They have the right to transmit, and your equipment (and person) must continue to operate properly in the presence of this transmission an FCC part B device. A HAM radio is *not* a part B device, so this clause does not apply to the equipment at the HAM station.
Sorry, buddy. You're SOL.
The cell phone companies also have the ability to determine who was near the jammer when it was turned on- they can, have, and will correlate this data to find the jammer & operator. When a device with a strong signal suddenly drops off the network, that's a giant red flag.
Is Dynamaite really just Dynamite that has been branded for Pirates?
And why would The Drug Enforcement Agency approve something like that?
Well, at least the ads would be great:
Arrr, smoke yerself some new Dynamaite, It'll blow yer mind!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
They have to ban talking loudly and endlessly over a cellphone on public transportation then. It is sometimes unbearable and may even constitute a moral torture.
Quick! Before they make jammers illegal. Oh wait, they already are. Anyway, this reminds me of story some years ago about jammers where someone read of earlier story, went to ebay and purchase one and he mentioned, "Now my wife and I can have dinner at our favorite restaurant in peace."
mfwright@batnet.com
So how come the FCC (and other Gov't TLAs) haven't cracked down on email spammers and telephone scammers as well? Also disruptive to communication. Maybe it will take a real weirdo president to put things into perspective. A couple candidates come to mind. And one of them thinks running one's own email system should be just a secure as what the feds can offer. How did Hillary avoid junk mails?
Operating a radio transmitter without a license is a violation of federal law and international treaty. Certain frequency bands are opened to the general public by licenses, with power restrictions, to the manufacturers who must demonstrate their products comply with FCC specifications.
Common low power devices which have a manufacturer's license and require no personal license:
CB radios
Wireless computer hubs
Radio controlled toys (drones, planes, etc)
RF key fobs
RF remote controls
RFID readers
Modifying a low power device to have a higher power transmitter than the manufacturer was licensed for violates FCC regulations and can get you fines and prosecution under federal law. You will find that most consumer RF devices are limited, by law, to no more than 5 watt transmitters.
NRRPT/RCT