Unintended Consequences

The cellular industry brought up the concept of "unintended consequences" in trying to say - without justification - that jamming of prison cellphones would inevitably result in interference to others and adverse impacts on public safety.

While the US cellphone industry has made tremendous achievements in promoting public safety and has had a large economic impact, it consistently turns a blind eye to its own unintended consequences - be they impacts on traffic safety, prisoner use of cell phones, obnoxious usage of cell phones in public areas, or questions of safety from RF exposure. Think how many ads you have seen from the alcoholic beverage industry advocating safe use of its products and keeping them away from teenagers. How many ads have you seen from the cellular industry advocating responsible use of its products?

Today's New York Times has a front page article, covering about a third of the front page in fact as shown at left, entitled "Dismissing Risks of a Deadly Habit".

The article focuses on legislative inaction on this issue, but let me explore industry inaction since I am really a big believer in deregulation. The article has this comment about actions by one big player:

"Verizon Wireless, for instance, posts instructions on its Web sites not to talk while driving — with or without a headset. But neither Verizon nor any other cellphone company supports legislation that bans drivers from talking on the phone. And the wireless industry does not conduct research on the dangers, saying that is not its responsibility."

Here's a quote about CTIA:

"The association (CTIA), a trade group, fought rules to ban phone use while driving until January, when it shifted to a neutral position on the issue. 'I wouldn’t say, ‘Talk on the phone more and have fewer accidents,’ ' Mr. Walls added. 'I’m just saying, ‘How does this square?’ ' "
...
For its part, the cellphone industry trade group said it had dropped its objection to restricting cellphone use by drivers — it now is neutral on the subject — because it decided the industry should play no role in trying to shape public policy on the issue. “The change came after we had an epiphany that, if you will, we’re in the business of providing service, and how they use that service is at their discretion,” said Mr. Walls, the industry spokesman.

Faithful readers may recall hearing from Mr. Walls, Vice President, Public Affairs of CTIA, previously here on the inevitable unintended consequences of prison jamming. (Current CTIA position on "safe driving".)


The Times included on their website a video with useful background information to the cellphone driving controversy.

(Click on photo above to see video.)

Frankly, all technologies have some unintended consequences - especially if we are not careful to anticipate them and address them. Let's hope the cellular industry sees the errors of its ways and finds something more constructive to do than to maintain a neutral stance on cell phone use while driving. They might also want to address the issue of the recent MBTA (Boston subway) accident that injured 49 people that was caused by the operator texting while driving!

I recall that when I returned from Japan in 1999, Chairman Kennard wanted to publicly post at the FCC website SAR data for individual cellphone models that showed how much RF radiation each transmitted into the user's body. The UK had recently adopted such a policy at the time. The industry lobbied strongly against such action, even though the data was already in the FCC website in obscure places. Fortunately Chairman Kennard decided to go ahead and the information is now readily available for the public.

The cell phone industry is probably more concerned about cell phone jamming in schools, theaters, and restaurants where cell phone use is merely obnoxious than they are about jamming in prisons where it is dangerous. Recently FCC gave up on permitting cell phone use in airplanes where it is technically possible (despite FAA paranoia) because of public backlash about how obnoxious it could become. Wake up cellular industry - obnoxious cell phone use is a real threat to industry growth and the public forces that blocked airplane use may someday lead to something like the French law that explicitly permits jamming in both prisons and theaters.

Hopefully the cell phone industry can look to the alcoholic beverage industry for some lessons on civic responsibility.

UPDATE - It Get's Worse

On 7/20 NY Times had a new article that starts:

Driven to Distraction
U.S. Withheld Data Showing Risks of Distracted Driving

In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel.

They sought the study based on evidence that such multitasking was a serious and growing threat on America’s roadways.

But such an ambitious study never happened. And the researchers’ agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, decided not to make public hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers — in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.

Original NHTSA Documents on Cell Phone Safety in Cars Obtained by FOIA Request

7/22 New York Times editorial

The Truth About Cars and Cellphones

An excerpt:

"The (NHTSA) researchers had rightly proposed a warning to state governors about the initial finding that laws mandating the use of hands-free devices did not solve the problem. The conversation is the distraction. This is a finding since confirmed by other studies that show a driver on the phone is four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and is comparable to someone with 0.08 blood-alcohol content, the threshold for drunken driving.

Six years later, the Transportation Department advises drivers to avoid cellphones except in emergencies. But far too many Americans now consider phoning while driving to be standard behavior. The department estimates that roughly 12 percent of drivers are on the phone at any given time — twice the estimate of its own researchers when their effort to document the risks was rebuffed."

Driven to Distraction
Texting Raises Crash Risk 23 Times, Study Finds

NY Times 7/27/09
Excerpt:

The first study of drivers texting inside their vehicles shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research — and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.

The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.

Harold Feld and I Usually Agree on Spectrum Issues

But He Is Wrong on the Prison Jamming Issue

Harold Feld is legal director of Public Knowledge. Until 2009, he was Senior Vice President of the Media Access Project (MAP), a non-profit, public interest telecommunications law firm that promotes the public's First Amendment right to hear and be heard on the electronic media of today and tomorrow. He often represents a variety of liberal groups dealing with spectrum and media access issues, including New America Foundation - a long time client. We usually agree on all spectrum issues. Readers may recall that his video's have appeared - and will continue to appear - in the "YouTube FCC Film Festival" corner of this blog

But recently Harold posted an entry on his blog and coauthored a letter to Congress on the prison cell phone jamming issue. The blog post is entitled "CellAntenna Scam Continues To Gain Momentum — Bummer" (CellAntenna is a manufacturer of cell phone jammers - illegal at present - and a vocal proponent for their use).

Let me say that I have no connection at all with CellAntenna other than having spoken to one of their employees once over the phone. I am working with the South Carolina Department of Corrections on seeking FCC approval of jamming in prisons under conditions that would prevent interference to others. (For those who say jamming is illegal under the 1934 Act, read the petition to see why the FCC has the authority to allow jamming.)

Is CellAntenna involved in a scam? Their apparent ongoing sale of illegal equipment, if verified, would indicate questionable morals. Some of their technical claims seem questionable. Since cell phone jamming is illegal at present, legitimate firms are not active in the area. I believe that legalization with firm and strict rules will clean up the scene and questionable behavior. Of course, FCC enforcement will be needed - something that has been scarce in the recent history.

But the real issue here is CTIA's repeated allegation that prison jamming would inevitably cause "unintended consequences" which is just as unjustified as much as some of CellAntenna's claim. However, I do fully agree that poorly implemented jamming is very dangerous.

Read the South Carolina petition that has now been signed by 28 states for a detailed discussion of the problem and a proposed solution that tries to balance all competing interests. It would not allow jammer sales in Radio Shack. It would draw a clear bright line between prison jamming and jamming in schools, restaurants, and theaters where cell phone use is merely obnoxious not dangerous. (Why doesn't CTIA ever do anything to discourage such obnoxious cellphone use?)

Harold and others place much credence is a comment made in a Wired magazine article

"There are also technical shortcomings: A few layers of tinfoil can shield a phone from the jamming signal."

I am not saying that this is impossible under all circumstances, but theory tells us that it is probably something that will only work on rare occasions and that the geometry of the "tinfoil" will have to change as objects in the area move and change the RF field at the cell phone in question.

The letter to Congress states,

"Cell phone providers can already adjust cell phone networks so that only authorized handsets can connect to the network. This practice, known as 'white listing,' will prevent any contraband phone from functioning without causing any interference to wireless systems. "

CTIA's Steve Largent made the same point at the Senate hearing this week. I haven't heard any proposals about how this will be financed and when CTIA members will offer it to at least prisons with large buffer areas around them.

Prison jamming is not a panacea. It will not solve all cell phone prison problems. It is not even possible in some prisons due to their size and location. But the cell phone use in prison problem is a major issue endangering public safety. Until better solutions are developed, given the real budgets of prisons, jamming will be a useful tool where it can be safely used.

State Correctional Systems Unite,
Ask To Jam Cell Phone Signals

[From SCDC press release today]
Twenty-five other states, the Philadelphia Prison System and D.C. Department of Corrections have signed a S.C. Department of Corrections’ petition that asks the Federal Communications Commission for permission to jam cell phone signals in prisons. [UPDATE: with the addition of Texas, now 26 states.]

The petition was drafted with assistance from Michael Marcus, former associate chief for technology at the FCC, and was submitted today. It explains in technical terms how jamming can be carried out in prisons without interfering with any cell phone signals off of prison property.

The S.C. Department of Corrections hosted a successful demonstration of cell phone jamming technology in November, where members of the media and corrections professionals from around the country saw that surgical jamming technology works: phones inside a prison facility were rendered useless with no interference to phones outside of the facility or to law enforcement radios.

Unfortunately, FCC regulators refused to attend and have yet to even respond to the agency’s request to continue using it.

Jamming cell phone signals is outlawed by present FCC Rules. Already federal law enforcement agencies are exempt from the act’s prohibition.

Prisons, jails and detention centers need the same latitude. Incarcerated convicts are using smuggled cell phones to threaten and kill witnesses, deal drugs and continue other criminal enterprises from behind bars. While cell phone detection devices and search dogs are helpful, they are more expensive and less effective than jamming, they require too much manpower, and cover too little ground to effectively stop inmates in large prisons from using cell phones.

Critics of cell phone jamming in the wireless industry have said they want to work with prison officials to solve the problem. This petition addresses the industry’s concerns with signal interference outside prisons and includes mechanisms to measure and prevent signal disruption.

“Prison systems from every corner of this country, from Georgia to New York to California to South Dakota, have signed this petition,” S.C. Corrections Director Jon Ozmint said. “These are the people who understand prison best and who realize just how dangerous it is for an inmate to possess a cell phone. We hope that the FCC will take appropriate action to allow prisons to jam cell phones. But, if not we expect that Congress will eventually take such action. We only hope that they will do so before more innocent lives are lost.”

========

The petition includes the following proposals to prevent "unintended consequences" that would impact other users:

• Jamming should be subject to a license with strict eligibility requirements which require approval of a coordinator who verifies eligibility, coordinates with nearby CMRS licensees, and reviews the technical details of the proposed installation.

• Jamming must result in no harmful interference on any CMRS users outside the property of correctional facilities. Thus, there will be no impact on E-9-1-1 systems.

• Jamming must result in no harmful interference on any legal non-CMRS spectrum user anywhere - licensed or unlicensed.

• Strict technical standards and equipment authorization procedures should be implemented for all jamming equipment.

• The sale of jamming equipment must be strictly controlled and limited to state and local governments with direct shipment of equipment from the manufacturer/importer to the FCC licensed correctional facility where it is to be used.

• Equipment must be permanently labeled with a warning of criminal penalties if used without a license and a requirement to return to manufacturer/importer for destruction.

• Eligibility requirements should be strict and preclude any "slippery slope" expansion. The cornerstone of Petitioners' proposed eligibility requirement is that the licensee must show that possession and use of cell phones within the area covered by jamming is illegal under state and/or local law. This distinction clearly differentiates correctional facilities from other locations where owners and managers might wish to block CMRS communications for various reasons.

Press coverage:
SC The State
AP
Wireless Week
Wired

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation hearing 7/15/09
(Includes video of hearing)

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.

Prison/Cell Phone Jamming Update

The Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 has been introduced to address the issue of those who interpret 47 USC 333 as limiting the FCC's ability to authorizing jamming in prisons. It was introduced as H.R. 560 and S. 251. As CTIA has correctly noted, FCC staff on numerous occasions has indicated that jamming is not allowed under Section 333. However, sometimes staff interpretations have not always been correct in every detail. The Commission itself has never addressed how to interpret Section 333.

For those searching for the inner truth of this section, as a public service SpectrumTalk has found for its readers the legislative history of the section. It was passed by Congress in January 1990 as part of P.L. 101-396 which mainly deals with FCC authorization. (It also included provisions for the relocation of the Honolulu FCC monitoring station - which still hasn't happened.)

Here are links to the committee reports.

House Report 101-316

Senate Report 101-215

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)