The Official Word from the F.C.C.
The F.C.C. regulates the airwaves in the U.S.A. Here is their official line on jamming:
The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government.
The FCC (and its counterparts in England and Europe) insists that using jammers must remain illegal because the network operators paid for their licenses to operate the network; and consequently, they acquired certain ‘property rights’ in the process. According to the FCC, jamming the radio signals associated with these operations infringes on those rights, which the regulator is bound by the terms of the license to protect.
Cellphone carriers pay tens of billions of dollars to lease frequencies from the government, with an understanding that others will not interfere with their signals. And there are other costs on top of that. Verizon Wireless, for example, spends $6.5 billion a year to build and maintain its network.
Cellular industry trade associations go farther than does the F.C.C. They insist that jamming cell phones amounts to infringing on the individual rights of the users. The carriers also raise a public safety issue: jammers could be used by criminals to stop people from communicating in an emergency.
The Federal Communication Commission says people who use cellphone jammers could be fined up to $11,000 for a first offense. Its enforcement bureau has prosecuted a handful of American companies for distributing the gadgets — and it also pursues their users.
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 am
Investigators from the F.C.C. and Verizon Wireless visited my favorite upscale restaurant. The restaurant had bought a powerful jammer for $1,000 because the owner was tired of his employees focusing on their phones rather than customers. He told them: put away your phones, put away your phones, put away your phones. They ignored him. The F.C.C. investigator hung around for a week, using special equipment designed to detect jammers, but the owner had turned his off.
The Verizon investigator went to everyone in town and gave them his number and said if they were having trouble, they should call him right away. The restaurant has since stopped using the jammer.
Although some might say that these investigators were unsuccessful — because neither caught the perpetrator — I would would say that they succeeded completely (because the businessman was intimidated into not jamming).
July 12th, 2008 at 5:48 am
It doesn’t make sense that when the demand is clear and strong from wireless consumers for improved cell coverage, that these kinds of devices are finding a market.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:07 am
It would be much harder to detect the use of smaller battery-operated jammers that the restaurant’s customers might use, like those used by disgruntled commuters.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:43 am
@ Doctor
___________________________
Pl. understand the fact that Jammer as a product is hot cake. Network assurance is just one part of the service provider’s liability, however this product can generate huge busines opportunities in countries where it is allowed and even more where it is not.