Cell Jamming Legislation Raises Debate on Interference
Senate legislation (S-251) to legalize jamming of cellphone signals in prisons will face opposition from critics who say public safety could be at risk at a hearing set for Wednesday. Nine public interest and consumer groups sent the Senate Commerce Committee a letter Tuesday saying legalized cellphone signal jamming could create more serious problems, such as blocking emergency calls and risking the use of jamming technology by bad actors. CTIA also has concerns about the bill and believes there are alternative solutions, a spokesman said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“The proposal to end the more than 75-year ban on deliberately interfering with authorized radio communications” would place commercial and public safety communications at “needless risk,” said the letter. Alternatives exist and should be explored, said the letter. It also urged Congress to address the “real problem” of overly expensive telephone calls from prisoners to their families. Legalizing jamming “places this entire system at risk,” the letter said. “History has shown that permitting the legal manufacture and sale of devices -- even for limited purposes -- will inevitably result in their becoming available on a mass consumer basis.”
“There is widespread agreement on the problem” caused by illicit use of cellphones in prisons, said CTIA spokesman John Walls. But jamming technology creates new problems, and there are alternative solutions that could work. One would be use of cellphone detection technologies, which could locate and identify contraband devices when they're powered on. Another approach would be use of software that monitors cellphone signals within targeted areas. This would enable a prison administrator to block use of phones found to be illegitimate while giving the go-ahead for permissible devices, he said.
A new working draft of S-251 that circulated last week would allow the FCC to give prisons a 5-year waiver to permit installation of jamming devices within the geographic boundaries of the correctional facility. All carriers operating in the vicinity of the prison would have to be notified, and the FCC would have to maintain an electronic database containing a copy of each petition for a waiver and how it responded. The commission would have to act on requests within 60 days of receiving petitions, and would need to weigh whether any emergency communications could be harmed. Interested parties could submit evidence for the record on what they think might be the potential interference of devices under consideration in an application.
Institutions that are granted waivers from FCC rules would have to operate the device “at the lowest possible transmission power necessary” to jam inmate phone calls, the draft bill said. Those granted waivers also would be required to operate devices on a “directionalized basis, by utilizing all other interference-limiting capabilities available” and only in the frequencies necessary to jam signals. Waivers could be revoked for “willful or repeated violations,” the bill said. The commission would have to adopt rules setting criteria for manufacture and sale of the devices, and conduct field testing through a public process.
FCC rules would limit marketing and sale of approved devices only to parties authorized by commission waivers, the bill said. The agency also would be required to maintain a list of all approved devices on its Web site with information on the make, model and technical specifications.
The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International opposes cellphone jamming until vendors can prove there’s no negative impact on public safety and 911 networks, the group said in testimony prepared for Wednesday’s hearing. CTIA believes that if jamming is to be considered, the proper approach is for the FCC to conduct “rigorous” lab and field testing, involving industry engineers, followed by the establishment of rules that would govern the use of certified, tested equipment, said prepared testimony of President Steve Largent.
Corrections officials say there’s a need to test jamming technologies to see whether concerns over interference are merited, according to a Commerce Committee staff memo preparing members for Wednesday’s hearing. Demonstrations of the technology currently are prohibited under the Communications Act. “Effective use of jamming equipment must strike a delicate balance of using signals strong enough to cover every corner of a prison but not so strong that it impacts legitimate wireless communications outside the facility,” the memo said. Scheduled to testify are: Texas State Sen. John Whitmire (D); APCO President-Elect Richard Mirgon; Gary Maynard, secretary of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; CTIA’s Largent; and John Moriarty, inspector general, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.