Kudos to CTIA and Cellular Industry for Haitian Disaster Response

Texting Enables Instant Philanthropy

Faithful readers are aware that this blog has been critical of the cell phone industry and its trade association, CTIA, on numerous occasions.  While your blogger continues to believe that the specific criticisms of the past were well deserved, this week it is time for praise for their leadership in enabling the "instant philanthropy" that has raised at least $5,000,000 so far for earthquake relief in Haiti. (As of 5 PM, 1/14)

It appears that people are more willing to donate money if you can do it instantly without paperwork.  Also the cellular carriers appear to be waiving any fees associated with such texting.  It is clear that AT&T and T-Mobile are not collecting any commission off such donations.  Presumably the other major carriers are  also collecting commissions, but that is harder to confirm.  (T-Mobile and VZW have not updated the top level of their their websites to link to this issue, possibly because of an inflexible approach to web design.)

T-Mobile is going beyond the texting/donation issue by announcing

"For current T-Mobile customers who are trying to connect with loved ones in Haiti during the aftermath of the country’s devastating earthquake, T-Mobile USA is enabling phone calls to Haiti without charges for international long distance through January 31, 2010, and retroactive to the earthquake on January 12, 2010. Additionally, T-Mobile customers who may already be in Haiti will be able to roam on T-Mobile’s partner networks in Haiti (operated locally in Haiti under the names Voila and Digicel) free-of-charge through the end of the month. In both cases, T-Mobile will remove these charges from customer bills accordingly.

T-Mobile has also taken steps to assist with the restoration of the wireless communications infrastructure in Haiti – a key component in supporting the overall humanitarian and recovery efforts. T-Mobile has pledged its support to donate wireless equipment such as generators and phones."

 The Miami Herald  reports that  AT&T "is donating $50,000 to Telecoms Sans Frontieres, a humanitarian organization that has sent an emergency team with satellite mobile and fixed communications equipment to Haiti".  (BBC page on TSF - with videos.)

So our admiration to the cell phone industry for this outstanding job in responding to the disaster in Haiti! 
--------

UPDATE 1/19/10

mocoNews.Net reports that the amount raised for the Red Cross alone so far is $22M.  They add,

One problem with using cellphones is that it takes awhile for the money to get from the carriers to the people in need. However, given the dire circumstances in Haiti, a handful of carriers, including Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA, said they will pass along the money as soon as possible.

VZW has already sent $3M and T-Mobile will forward the money this week.  Both are, in effect, forwarding money they have not received in normal billing cycles.

Cost of Delay and Inaction at FCC

Docket 10-4: "FCC is Finally Moving on Signal Booster Use" Urgent Communications, 1/13/10

On January 6, FCC at long last started to take action on the long standing issue of cellular "signal boosters" or bidirectional amplifiers.  The current management can't be blamed too much for inaction because they inherited this mess and are at least taking action to start solving it.  But there are key lessons to be learned here on both FCC procedures and the cost of inaction to many different parties.

Here are some excerpts from the public notice initiating this docket:

By this notice, we seek comment on three Petitions for Rulemaking and two Petitions for Declaratory Ruling (collectively, Petitions) regarding the proper use of signal boosters on frequencies licensed under Parts 22, 24, 27, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules.
...
On August 18, 2005, Bird Technologies, Inc. (Bird Technologies) filed a Petition for Rulemaking to amend section 90.219 to outline specific technical and operational requirements for the use of signal boosters by Part 90 licensees.
...
On November 2, 2007, CTIA, the Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling (CTIA Petition) regarding the proper use of signal boosters in Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS).
...
On September 25, 2008, Jack Daniel DBA Jack Daniel Company filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeking clarification of the Commission’s rules regarding signal boosters.
...
On October 23, 2009, the DAS Forum (a membership section of PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association) filed a Petition for Rulemaking in response to the CTIA Petition stating that a rulemaking proceeding is needed to address the marketing, installation, and operation of signal boosters used in the Cellular Radiotelephone and Personal Communications Services.
...
On November 3, 2009, Wilson Electronics, Inc. (“Wilson”) filed a Petition for Rulemaking asking the Commission to commence a proceeding to amend Part 20 of its rules to establish standards for the certification of signal boosters for subscriber use on CMRS networks by developing equipment certification requirements to ensure boosters are available to the public.

So FCC has a series of petition on a technical wireless issue going back almost 5 years.  None of these have been on public notice or were even publicly disclosed by FCC.  Indeed, there was little indication other than press coverage that this issue existed.  While the CTIA petition was on its website, the other petitions were nowhere to be seen.  It is for this reason that your blogger has urged FCC to publish lists of all petitions that have been filed.  Note that this suggestion is doing rather well in the voting on the FCC reboot FCC site.  (Feel free to add your own vote!) Some quiet staff review time to decide whether a petition is redundant or not within the Commission's jurisdiction makes sense, but there should be weeks, not years!

We note that the NPSTC (a well respected federation of 13 public safety member organizations) 1/06 Newsletter had a lead article entitled "In-Building Coverage BDA Rule Changes Needed Today".  Yet the previous FCC management was unable to act.  So 2 private firms as well as CTIA and NPSTC urged Commission action years ago and nothing happened.

The recent PN says

When properly installed, these devices, which can either be fixed or mobile, can help consumers, wireless service providers, and public safety first responders by expanding the area of reliable service to unserved or weak signal areas. However, as articulated in the Petitions, improper installation and use of these devices can interfere with network operations and cause interference to a range of communication services.

This is partially correct.  But the issue is not just installation.  Some manufacturers' amplifiers are designed to prevent oscillations which are the dominant cause of interference to cellular systems.  Wilson Electronics states in its petition that all of its amplifiers have used such a design since 2006.  But because of FCC inaction this is not a universal practice.  So the result of inaction on the CTIA petition has been both the continuing sale of designs that are capable of causing interference, the loss of sales to manufacturers making better (more expensive) amplifiers, and capital formation problems for new companies that seek to make noninterferring equipment.  So it has been a lose/lose situation for everyone involved except those making cheap equipment capable of causing interference.

Of course, if CTIA and its membership had been more pragmatic and tried to negotiate a compromise with the amplifier manufacturers to ask FCC jointly for reasonable technical standards then this problem would be much closer to solution.  So there is enough blame to go around.

But the key thing to learn here is that the  3000 pages of FCC Rules deal with a highly technical jurisdiction and that they need fine tuning on a regular basis to address problems that were not considered when they were written or new technologies that might be implicitly forbidden.  This is not as exciting to the 8th Floor as other issues like broadband and broadcast ownership and content  but it also needs timely attention on a continuing basis.  The Commission must find a way to keep working on all parts of its jurisdiction all the time and not get sidetracked by the problem du jour.  So while Docket 10-4 has now started on its way to resolution, we must find a way to prevent future logjams like this.

FCC Acts on CTIA

"Shot Clock" Petition

On November 18,  FCC granted in part the CTIA July 11, 2008 petition on setting "shot clock"-like deadlines for local zoning reviews of cell tower zoning requests.  The FCC said:

On the first issue, we conclude that we should define what constitutes a presumptively “reasonable period of time” beyond which inaction on a personal wireless service facility siting application will be deemed a “failure to act.”  We then determine that in the event a State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period, the applicant is entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).  At that point,  the State or local government will have the opportunity to present to the court arguments to show that additional time would be reasonable, given the nature and scope of the siting application at issue.  We next conclude that the record supports setting the time limits at 90 days for State and local governments to process collocation applications, and 150 days for them to process applications other than collocations.  On the second issue raised by the Petition, we find that it is a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) for a State or local government to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because that service is available from another provider.  On the third issue, because the Petitioner has not presented us with any evidence of a specific controversy, we deny its request that we find that a State or local regulation that explicitly or effectively requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a).

CTIA had asked for limits of 45 days and 75 days, but FCC compromised on 90/150, no doubt due to pressure from local governments.

But the root cause of much of this problem is the design of most suburban cellular towers.  The industry does know how to build towers that fit into their environment when forced to do so, but since the approaches they use are very expensive they generally are content to use towers that "look like they were designed by engineers".  Thus the local government resistance should not be a big surprise.  There is only so far that this "uglification" of suburbia can continue without a massive backlash.

In the next decade, the total requirement for suburban antennas for all wireless systems - not just CTIA members - will probably be 25 transmit/receiver systems (each equivalent to one tower level of the picture at left) per square mile.  I doubt that this can be achieved with the current design concepts in suburbia with any harmony with neighbors. (  This is a uniquely suburban issue. In urban areas, it is easier to hide antennas on buildings and in rural areas there are few neighbors to complain.)

It is time for the various sectors of the wireless industry to look at the big picture and start thinking of new concepts for this type of system as the basic design concept.  Note that at an FCC hearing this summer, Jake MacLeod of Bechtel also stated that we have reached the end of the line for current design concepts.  

I hope that FCC will take a leadership role in this issue in bringing various industry sectors (CMRS, FWA, Part 90, Part 101) together to discuss the need for new design approaches that both provide adequate radio illumination of suburbia and are compatible with their environment.

France's "CTIA"
on
RF Safety Issues

I was visiting France recently, went into a store of one of the major cellular operators and bought a new SIM card to activate my old French GSM unit during my visit. With the card came all sorts of literature, but what caught my attention was the brochure shown at left - the picture is linked to a .pdf of the whole brochure on the website of Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM), the French counterpart to CTIA.

Now, based on my high school French study and 3 years living in Paris, I am not exactly a certified translator, so what follows is the gist of what it says. But feel free to consult the original text with someone of more professional skills if you don't believe me.

The brochure clearly says that the health authorities do not think that cell phone use is a health issue at exposure levels required by governments.







(Actually the French use the European standard of an SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg vs the FCC limit of 1.6 . Furthermore, details of how the European standard is measured actually makes it actually somewhat higher than it would appear numerically.)

So what does the real CTIA have to tell the public about RF safety? Surf on over and see. You will find statements like

To date, the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects. Some studies have suggested such a connection, but their findings have not been replicated or supported in additional research.

You find similar statements on the AFOM site and in this document. But you will also find the section shown at left entitled "Comment réduire mon exposition aux ondes radio quand je téléphone ?" Which your nonexpert translates has "How can I reduce my RF exposure while using the phone?" As I have said before, RF exposure doesn't do you any good, so why not try to reduce it?

AFOM reports that the health authorities recommend using what we would call a Bluetooth headset during calls. Health authorities also advise, according to AFOM, that pregnant women keep cell phones away from their abdomen (" il est conseillé aux femmes enceintes d’éloigner le téléphone du ventre et aux adolescents de l’éloigner du bas ventre. ")

Finally, AFOM tells us that the "health authorities" advise that you should use your phones in areas with good reception, that is more bars. (On the phone, not drinking establishments nearby! In French it is unambiguous.) ("Elles conseillent également de téléphoner de préférence dans les zones où la réception est de bonne qualité. La qualité de la réception est indiquée par le nombre de barrettes sur l’écran de votre téléphone.") That, perhaps should be obvious, but I must admit I have never thought of it before.

So this guidance does not come from some radical left wing tree-hugging environmentalists opposed to capitalism, but from a CTIA-like trade association of major French operators. I agree with CTIA that there is no evidence the cell phones cause health problems, but why not encourage people to think about selecting models with lower SAR, using Bluetooth headsets, and using handsets in areas with better reception?

I note that Verizon Wireless puts SAR date for each cell phone model it sells on the web pages for the models. But the other major operators that are CTIA members do not appear to have the information on their websites - perhaps it is there but hidden in obscurity.

Cell phones are useful devices that have contributed both to economic growth and public safety. It is a shame that CTIA starts acting like the former Tobacco Institute when it concerns any possible negative impact of cell phones.

Cellular Industry on
Driving and Safety

This post has several excerpts from cellular industry websites. They were all downloaded July 31. If they are hard to read, click on them for a larger version. The top post from the CTIA site says

Safe Driving

CTIA Position

When it comes to using your wireless device behind the wheel, CTIA-The Wireless Association® and the wireless industry believe that safety should always be every driver’s top priority.

Wireless devices are one of the best safety tools drivers can have on the road. Everyday more than 290,000 calls are made from wireless devices to 911 or other emergency services. That’s about 200 calls every minute. More Americans are using their wireless device to report emergencies, prevent crimes and to save lives. While mobile phones can be important safety tools, there’s an appropriate time and an inappropriate time to use them.

On July 29, CTIA issued the following statement:

CTIA–The Wireless Association® Statement on Texting While Driving

July 29, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – CTIA - The Wireless Association® President and CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement on texting while driving:

“CTIA and our member companies continue to believe text messaging while driving is incompatible with safe driving.

“We support state legislative remedies to solve this issue. But simply passing a law will not change behavior. We also need to educate new and experienced drivers on the dangers of taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel.

“CTIA and our members have been working to educate all drivers on the dangers of distracted driving for years now and we hope that people continue to learn more.”

For more information on texting while driving, please visit: www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/10369

(Amusingly, as of this writing the indicated link "for more information" just points to a list of all CTIA press releases including this one.) So CTIA is now in favor of laws banning texting while driving. Where are they on laws about cell phone use while driving? Still "neutral"?


Here is an excerpt from the "Safe Driving Brochure" on the CTIA website. It advises not to "take notes or look up numbers while driving". It also advises you to place calls "before pulling into traffic" - does that mean while you are moving?












For reference on major industry players, here is what T-Mobile's website says about driving and cell phone use. Paralleling CTIA it says, "Dial sensibly, place calls when not moving or before pulling into traffic."












Verizon Wireless is more proactive. They announce their support of antitexting legislation. They also state,

"Verizon Wireless broke from the rest of its competitors in the U.S. wireless industry by supporting state-wide hands-free driving laws as early as 2000. Since then, Verizon Wireless has been the only wireless company supporting bans on texting and e-mailing while driving."

So congratulations to VZW for its responsible position on safety.

CTIA Has a Hard Time on Today Show Prison Jamming Segment

On May 12, John Walls, Vice President, Public Affairs of CTIA had a hard time on NBC's Today Show on the topic of cell phone jamming in prisons. The YouTube version of the video is linked to the photo above so you decide for yourself how it went.

Carl Lackl, murder victim featured on Today Show Segment.
His murder was ordered by an inmate over a cell phone.

The segment featured the sister and mother of Carl Lackl, a murder trial witness who was in turn murdered as a result of a hit ordered by an incarcerated prisoner.

At 4:20 of the YouTube clip, you can hear Mr. Walls saying it is "outrageous, actually insulting" that people feel that the cell industry is making a profit on prison cell calls. He also says that there are "other viable legal solutions that should be looked at". So, CTIA, why have you rigorously opposed even the smallest scale test of prison jamming? Why do you cling to an FCC staff interpretation of Section 333 of the Communications Act that does not appear to be consistent with the legislative history of the section - a section requested by FCC itself in 1990 for a different reason?

I suspect the issue is not the revenue from prison cell phone use that CTIA member get. (Although oddly a source that CTIA itself had put me in touch with reported that his monitoring of cell phone use showed that prison cell phone calls may be a big revenue stream for Tracfone - a firm that buys minutes wholesale from the major CTIA members in large quantities and then resells them for prepaid, usually anonymous cellphones.) I suspect the issue is really a "slippery slope" problem where the industry's main concern is that jamming might move from prisons where cell phone use is dangerous to society to other places where it is merely annoying such as restaurants and theaters. Such movement would make cell phones less functional and thus really hurt revenue.

But rather than deal with the slippery slope issue, CTIA has chosen to cling to their Section 333 interpretation and the technological nonsense that any jamming, not matter how well planned, will inevitably result in interference to others. CTIA - if radio propagation in the CMRS bands is so unpredictable, how is the industry been able to achieve such huge increases in frequency efficiency through frequency reuse. Why do femtocells work without causing interference?

Thus we have Sen. Hutchison's legislation, S. 251 and Rep. Brady's House version, H.R. 560.

But maybe FCC can address the root problem of this issue before Congress steps in. A legislative solution will inevitably involve details that will become problematical as the industry and technology evolve in the next few years. An FCC solution should be a lot more pragmatic and CTIA should realize it has a major "home court advantage" in shaping the details if the resolution of this issue is at FCC.

CTIA - this is a blog, feel free to respond. Any language fit for broadcast media will be printed in full.

It's a Busy Week at CTIA
Protecting the Use of
Cell Phones by Prisoners

Don't we all find cell phones convenient? Well incarcerated murderers and drug dealers find them very convenient for continuing their livelihood. Of course, if they are unfortunate enough to be in a federal prison they may not be able to do so because federal prisons have permission from NTIA to jam contraband cell phones. But those fortunate enough to be in state and local prisons are happy to know that their jailers are subject to FCC regulation and CTIA is doing everything it can to let murderers, drug dealers, and other assorted felons keep in touch with their pals.



On Tuesday, CTIA and their fine legal team filed a Petition for Reconsideration of D.C. Wireless Jammer Demonstration that had been authorized by WTB last week for a grand total of 30 minutes tomorrow! Not pleased that FCC did not immediately kowtow to their demand, they went to the federal court today and filed Petition for Writ of Mandamus on Wireless Jammers .



CTIA bases its logic on 47 USC 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 this chapter or operated by the United States Government.

We have heard the court has asked FCC to reply by 8 PM tonight. Jeff Silva at RCR has written a nice article about this. Clearly it got a lot of interest since he got 14 responses posted in the first 2 1/2 hours after its release. Some on each side of the issue.

Does Section 303 unambiguously prohibit jamming by even a state government in an area where it has prohibited any cellphone possession or use? CTIA is looking for a showdown on this issue.

For a trade association that like to be proud about its contributions to public safety this is an odd battle to pick. Wouldn't it be better to sit down with prison management and explore a well engineered prison jamming system that protects outside users and then compare it with other alternatives?

I heard from Chris Guttman-McCabe, VP of Regulatory Affairs, at CTIA.

"While we believe that prisoners should not have access to wireless phones while incarcerated, there are other, non-interfering and legal ways to find and take the phones out of their hands. There are several companies that provide wireless detection systems that can be used by jails to identify and confiscate phones, and that do not interfere with wireless communications. As the FCC previously acknowledged, Congress has been clear in prohibiting the use of jammers in state prisons.”

So why doesn't CTIA fund a demonstration project of their preferred approaches? State and local governments are not exactly overflowing with funds these days.

I predict that this will be a battle CTIA will regret having started. Even if they should win in court, they will get reversed quickly by Congress in a precedent that they will not like.

What is CTIA's real agenda here? Some corrections officials suspect it is to protect the revenue stream of CTIA members from prepaid (e.g. high price per minute) cell phones that are generally used as contraband. I am not so cynical and suspect they are afraid of the "camel's nose under the tent" problem in that prison jamming might lead to restaurant and theater jamming - which are allowed in some countries. But it is a far cry from jamming cell phones in prisons where their possession is illegal to jamming in reaturants where the use is just obnoxious.

WJBF-TV Video coverage of controversy

NewsOXY.com
Reports Progress
on Prison Cellphone
Jamming Issue

NewsOxy.com, "news on the latest mobile phones and advancements in business technology", reported yesterday that FCC may be finally coming to its senses on the prison jamming of cellphones issue that we have previously reported on.

FCC spokesman Robert Kenny, previously ambiguous on the issue, is now quoted as saying, "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin understands the concerns of state and local law enforcement officials and is willing to work with them on this complex issue."

NewsOXY reports, "As part of a pilot program, (S.C.) state officials want to jam wireless signals used for mobile phones in prisons. Officials also want the state's US senators to introduce legislation to allow the technology to be used by local enforcement agencies."

On December 1, South Carolina sent FCC a letter petitioning

"for all necessary changes to FCC rules to allow state and local law enforcement and first responders (including corrections and jails) to use the surgical or directional jamming as needed to protect public safety."

The letter also expressed disappointment that FCC "did not even send a representative to the cell-phone jamming demonstration that we hosted at Lieber Correctional Institution."

Previously, USA Today reported that Mr. Kenny "would not say whether the agency would act against South Carolina authorities" if they proceeded with a one day test of the technology within their prison.

CTIA remains opposed to all actions in this area. On November 12, 2008 CTIA showed its lack of interest in public safety by writing to FCC to oppose a one day test of cell phone jamming at a South Carolina prison.

Personally, while I agree with the intent of the South Carolina petition, I think that it is a little too broad. In most cases prison/jail jamming can be done without interfering with the public if it is done carefully. But I happen to have a client across the street from the Arlington Country (Va.) Jail and a look at that geometry indicates that jamming is not likely to be able to cover the whole jail without interfering with outside coverage. However, this is a result of the jail being in a high rise in a built up area and is not the usual case for the country's prisons and jails. In my previous post I suggested basing regulation of jammers on the rules NTIA has for GPS repeaters in Section 8.3.28 of the "NTIA Red Book" rather than just whether the location is a prison/jail.



CTIA's preferred solution to contraband cellphones in prisons (below)

SpectrumTalk Update

CTIA's preferred solution to contraband cellphones
in prisons (below)

CTIA: Get Real/
FCC: Get Off the Fence
Jammer Petition Has Little to do with Reality/
FCC is Abdicating Leadership on Prison Jamming Issue

Newer Update from Time magazine 11/26/08

"Speaking to TIME from Panama, where he was on a sales trip to Latin American prisons, Melamed said CellAntenna is selling jamming technology worldwide, sometimes with the help of promotional trips arranged by the U.S. Department of Commerce. He calls it ironic that one branch of the Federal Government is promoting jamming while another is blocking it. Across the globe, more and more countries are buying jamming equipment. Britain has embarked on a major study to address the issue."

WJBF-TV Video coverage of controversy

Other news articles on prison jamming
=====================
Today's USA Today has a cover page article on this problem that won't go away even as FCC tries to ignore it:

Smuggled Cellphones Flourish in Prisons

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Thousands of illegal cellphones are being smuggled into prisons, where inmates, including some on death row, use them to threaten victims, conduct drug deals, plot escape and seek legal help, prison officials say.

The phones, most operating on prepaid accounts bought by relatives and friends, often are not caught in searches at visitor entries.

"States are struggling with this," says Eric Schultz, spokesman for the American Correctional Association.

In South Carolina, more than 1,000 phones were confiscated last year, corrections spokesman Josh Gelinas says. In McCormick, S.C., smugglers have used a makeshift launcher to shoot phones and drugs over 12-foot prison fences for inmates to pick up.

Other states reporting problems:

•Florida: Officials seized 336 phones last year, many from violent inmates. Some prisoners used the phones to harass their victims, make drug deals and plan escape, prisons spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger says.

A state law that took effect last month makes inmate phone possession a felony. Next month, the state will assign a Belgian Malinois to roam the prisons and sniff out the phones.

•Texas: More than 700 cellphones have been seized so far this year, up from 580 last year. "We're picking up new cases every day," says John Moriarty, the prison system's inspector general. In one 30-day period, officials traced 2,800 calls and text messages to death row inmate Richard Tabler, who called a state senator about his appeal. Texas is bringing in three phone-detection dogs.

•California: Cellphone seizures in 2008 have topped the 1,400 confiscated in 2007, state prisons spokesman Paul Verke says. An advisory group of state prison wardens is studying the problem.

Some states' prison officials say federal law may actually help inmates by prohibiting the jamming gear that blocks calls. South Carolina authorities planned to test that law Friday by hosting a jamming-technology demo.

Federal Communications Commission spokesman Robert Kenny would not say whether the agency would act against South Carolina authorities. (Emphasis added)

Despite what US Today says, Federal law does not prohibit prison cell phone jamming. Present FCC Rules imply that it would be illegal. However, FCC could address this by either a policy statement or an explicit rules authorizing prison cell phone jamming. As the original post, below said, such an FCC rule could use the technical provisions that NTIA has adopted to protect GPS from GPS amplifiers (that allow normal GPS receivers to work indoors) to protect cell phones outside of prisons. Such safeguards would probably prevent cell phone jamming in urban jails with no buffer around the building, but would allow it in most correctional facilities. Nonincarcerated cellphone customers would not be affected under such reasonable safeguards.

[Original post below]

On 11/2/07 CTIA filed a petition with FCC asking for a declaratory petition to ban all cell phone jammers. (FCC has no jurisdiction over federal agency spectrum use so federal agencies would not be affected by such a ruling.) Wisely, FCC has never taken any action on this petition - not even asking for public comment. While addressing the jammer issue, CTIA gratuitously asks FCC to also ban users' amplifiers that extend the range of their often underbuilt systems as shown below from a previous post. While some amplifiers approved by FCC have a tendency of self oscillation that poses an interference risk, other amplifiers - such as those built by my client Wilson Electronics - have builtin protection. The protected phones gives users a larger service area. So why is this bad?

A contraband prison cellphone

A recent CNN item reports how cell phones in prison continue to be a real security threat. The photo above shows a smuggled cell phone. Prison jammers would enhance public safety. While they may not be practical in urban jails with adjacent buildings, they could be a real security boost for prisons with some land around them.

CTIA, wake up and support the use of jammers in prisons under reasonable conditions, such as conditions analogous to the rules NTIA has for GPS repeaters in Section 8.3.28 in the "NTIA Red Book":


This NTIA rule limits stength outside the building that is intended to be covered by the GPS repeater to that receivers outside the building aren't affected. A parallel FCC rule could allow cell phone jamming in prisons and yet protect cell phones outside the prison. CTIA, doesn't safety to the public and prison staff deserve this limited use of cell phone jamming?


On November 12, 2008 CTIA showed its lack of interest in public safety by writing to FCC to oppose a one day test of cell phone jamming at a South Carolina prison. CTIA suggests that the problem can be solved with "sniffer dogs" and scanners, but offered no resources to prove their hypothesis. Perhaps the CTIA staff would like to do a field test in a correctional facility to test out their ideas?

CTIA: Get Real
Jammer Petition Has Little to do with Reality

On 11/2/07 CTIA filed a petition with FCC asking for a declaratory petition to ban all cell phone jammers. (FCC has no jurisdiction over federal agency spectrum use so federal agencies would not be affected by such a ruling.) Wisely, FCC has never taken any action on this petition - not even asking for public comment. While addressing the jammer issue, CTIA gratuitously asks FCC to also ban users' amplifiers that extend the range of their often underbuilt systems as shown below from a previous post. While some amplifiers approved by FCC have a tendency of self oscillation that poses an interference risk, other amplifiers - such as those built by my client Wilson Electronics - have builtin protection. The protected phones gives users a larger service area. So why is this bad?

A recent CNN item reports how cell phones in prison continue to be a real security threat. The photo above shows a smuggled cell phone. Prison jammers would enhance public safety. While they may not be practical in urban jails with adjacent buildings, they could be a real security boost for prisons with some land around them.

CTIA, wake up and support the use of jammers in prisons under reasonable conditions, such as conditions analogous to the rules NTIA has for GPS repeaters in Section 8.3.28 in the "NTIA Red Book":


This NTIA rule limits stength outside the building that is intended to be covered by the GPS repeater to that receivers outside the building aren't affected. A parallel FCC rule could allow cell phone jamming in prisons and yet protect cell phones outside the prison. CTIA, doesn't safety to the public and prison staff deserve this limited use of cell phone jamming?


UPDATE: On November 12, 2008 CTIA showed its lack of interest in public safety by writing to FCC to oppose a one day test of cell phone jamming at a South Carolina prison. CTIA suggests that the problem can be solved with "sniffer dogs" and scanners, but offered no resources to prove their hypothesis. Perhaps the CTIA staff would like to do a field test in a correctional facility to test out their ideas?

2nd UPDATE: 12/17/08 AP Story

AUSTIN — Texas officials are accusing the Federal Communications Commission of "bureaucratic double-talk" after agency officials just "encouraged" a cell phone jamming test that was cancelled because federal officials would not authorize it, according to a newspaper report.

"Only in Washington can a federal agency encourage conduct it previously said was unauthorized," Jerry Strickland, communications director for Attorney General Greg Abbott, said after the FCC issued a statement encouraging the test.

The test is in response to a deluge of illegal cell phones discovered in Texas prisons. The cell phones first came to light in October when a condemned inmate made threatening calls to Sen. John Whitmire, prompting a statewide prison lockdown and shakedown for contraband that turned up hundreds of smuggled phones. Whitmire is a Houston Democrat who chairs the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

A successful demonstration of the device was recently held in South Carolina.

Because of a federal law that makes jamming of radio signals illegal, Texas officials on Monday cancelled Thursday's demonstration of an electronic device that would do just that. In effect, the device would render a phone inside a prison useless.

But on Tuesday morning, FCC spokesman Robert Kenny surprised Texas officials with a statement proposing that Texas move ahead with the test law or not.

"We recognize the concerns of public safety regarding this complex issue, and FCC Chairman Kevin Martin remains committed to trying to work with public safety officials to address their needs," Kenny said.

Afterward, state Rep. Jerry Madden, of Richardson, planned to proceed with Thursday's test but was rebuffed.

Strickland said "what the State of Texas needs from the FCC is real action ..." the Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday for an online story.

Strickland noted The Associated Press quoted Kenny on Oct. 21 as saying the agency "could not authorize a state to interfere with cell phone signals."

Kenny said that Martin remains "willing to work with (Texas officials) on this complex issue."