Cell-Phone signal blocking

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc. Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

—
Notan

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote:

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

Unless he owns the air, and he doesn’t, it’s not "his private property."

—
Notan

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

Unless he owns the air, and he doesn’t, it’s not "his private property."

Yes, it’s his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn’t share any of it with cell phones. It don’t get any simpler than that.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote in news::

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

Unless he owns the air, and he doesn’t, it’s not "his private property."

Yes, it’s his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn’t share any of it with cell phones. It don’t get any simpler than that.

Actually, it’s not his air.

BTW- if it’s his private property, why does he need to worry about cell phone usage on it in the first place?

In article ,
Scott wrote:

Yes, it’s his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn’t share any of it with cell phones. It don’t get any simpler than that.

Actually, it’s not his air.

You mean, according to some politicians who have muscle behind them.

That’s no different than the mob boss with muscle behind him saying "this is my city". Yeah, yeah, whatever.

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in news::

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

Unless he owns the air, and he doesn’t, it’s not "his private property."

Yes, it’s his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn’t share any of it with cell phones. It don’t get any simpler than that.

Actually, it’s not his air.

BTW- if it’s his private property, why does he need to worry about cell phone usage on it in the first place?

I presume it has something to do with visitors who don’t want to be disturbed. Some people don’t allow photos, some don’t allow tobacco, some don’t allow alcohol, some don’t allow personal fragrances, some don’t allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me. What part of "private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

Look, I’m not going to engage in any debate here about what activities should or shouldn’t be allowed when visiting someone’s private property. Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When they don’t, they can expect to be treated with prejudice. Simple, straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle that just fine, but that’s just me.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote in
news::

I presume it has something to do with visitors who don’t want to be disturbed. Some people don’t allow photos, some don’t allow tobacco, some don’t allow alcohol, some don’t allow personal fragrances, some don’t allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me.

As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that category as well.

What part of
"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

Look, I’m not going to engage in any debate here about what activities should or shouldn’t be allowed when visiting someone’s private property.

Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given situation. Wait- no I don’t. Your ego and inability to live by predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for advice.

Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When they don’t, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.

Or backwoods stupidity.

Simple,
straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle that just fine, but that’s just me.

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

I presume it has something to do with visitors who don’t want to be disturbed. Some people don’t allow photos, some don’t allow tobacco, some don’t allow alcohol, some don’t allow personal fragrances, some don’t allow cell phones. All seem reasonable to me.

As they do to me, as long as appropriate legal protocol is followed. A blood alcohol test would not be an option to those wishing to ban alcohol on theor property. Putting up an illegal jammer would fall into that category as well.

What part of
"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

Look, I’m not going to engage in any debate here about what activities should or shouldn’t be allowed when visiting someone’s private property.

Which is the response I would expect from you- your already documented opinion of lawful living is duly noted. I will concede that you obviously are so much better at determining the right thing to do in any given situation. Wait- no I don’t. Your ego and inability to live by predetermined rules of society makes you the last person to go to for advice.

Everybody has rules and visitors are expected to abide them. When they don’t, they can expect to be treated with prejudice.

Or backwoods stupidity.

Simple,
straight forward, easy to understand by consenting adults. I handle that just fine, but that’s just me.

I can see some still don’t understand the rights of private property ownership. I’ll admit I don’t always agree with them either, but I do respect them.

<sigh>

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you can’t operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can’t violate a seemingly infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even beyond what the law requires.

In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights do not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.

The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the first offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you don’t pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell it to pay them.
See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below for details.

Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat a private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner and ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being fought in the courts with varying outcomes.

FCC RULE:
Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.

Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications services to the American public for business and personal communications. Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices — called

BruceR wrote:

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.

Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I’m somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don’t even involve me. Take a break.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.

Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I’m somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don’t even involve me. Take a break.

Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal (presumably in the US). It’s not. If you can’t stand a challenging reply, don’t post.

BruceR wrote:

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.

Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I’m somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don’t even involve me. Take a break.

Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal (presumably in the US). It’s not. If you can’t stand a challenging reply, don’t post.

If you can’t keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge, I’d offer the same recommendation. So, to help you…

To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Jer wrote in news::

To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.

Too bad we can’t adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of course, you’d have to find something else to do with your time.

You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were, I’d do something about that anger control issue.

FCC regs
and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

Case closed.

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in news::

To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.

Too bad we can’t adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of course, you’d have to find something else to do with your time.
You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were, I’d do something about that anger control issue.

My my my… aren’t we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care for some cheese to go with that whine?

FCC regs
and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

Case closed.

ayup.
–Hank Hill

—
jer
email reply – I am not a ‘ten’

Yes, it’s his property, his rocks, his water, his air and he doesn’t share any of it with cell phones. It don’t get any simpler than that.

Actually, it’s not his air.

BTW- if it’s his private property, why does he need to worry about cell phone usage on it in the first place?

Anyone can block cell phones. Simply take a high powered rifle and drop a few wires from a main electric supply tower. Those wires are often rated at 70,000 volts or more. When they hit the ground, all cellphone use in the area will cease from the powerful electromagnetic pulses they generate. Of course within a short time, the power company will disconnect and restore power and cell phones will once again ring in your ears from all around you. So, if you are going to do this, do it just before a large gathering of people, like when the carnival comes to town. Everyone will be on their cellphones at that carnival when suddenly there will be dead silence and live will go back to being peaceful like it was before these damn cellphones hit the market. If you are real lucky, you’ll be able to celebrate peace and silence from cellphones for an hour or two.

I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
pencildick ass! Run to mommy you fucking whiner!

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.

Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I’m somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don’t even involve me. Take a break.

Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal (presumably in the US). It’s not. If you can’t stand a challenging reply, don’t post.

If you can’t keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge, I’d offer the same recommendation. So, to help you…

To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

—
..

<

Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:

Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that’s possible), let me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It’s a technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
Cheers,

Franz

P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles Dickens)

There are jammers that do work. How well, over what distance, and for how long depend of course on the performance of particular brands of which I’m sure there are several. The ones that the US Government uses (exempt form FCC rules) are probably US made, top quality and top cost. The stuff that comes out of China would be more of a crap shoot as different factories provide varying quality of design and manufacture.

Jer wrote in
news::

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is.

Too bad we can’t adopt the same rationale for morons with computers. Of course, you’d have to find something else to do with your time.
You have not demonstrated either the intelligence or maturity necessary to make decisions for anyone or inflict your will upon anyone. And if I were, I’d do something about that anger control issue.

My my my… aren’t we the grumpy one today. Bwaaaa-aaaaa!!!! Care for some cheese to go with that whine?

Grumpy? Never- you existence and lack of a clue is hardly a reason to get grumpy. In fact, your choice to be your own lawman is rather entertaining. After all, you know more than the rest of us.

FCC regs
and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

Case closed.

ayup.
–Hank Hill

For you, a very appropriate quote source.

"Prof. Franz Blaha" wrote in
news:46929d4a$0$30645$:

<

Scott wrote:

"Prof. Franz Blaha" wrote in
news:46929d4a$0$30645$:

<®©®@®©®.®©®> wrote in message
news:20070709054101.094$

I bet people are shaking in their boots afraid that you will destroy their phone, no way, they are laughing at your
pencildick ass! Run to mommy you fucking whiner!

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Jer wrote:

BruceR wrote:

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but.

Dude, talk to the hand. I made a comment about an issue I’m somewhat familiar with, and now I get a lecture on a buncha crap that don’t even involve me. Take a break.

Accent on "somewhat." The OP wants to know if jamming is legal (presumably in the US). It’s not. If you can’t stand a challenging reply, don’t post.

If you can’t keep up with the thread enough to know who to challenge, I’d offer the same recommendation. So, to help you…
To the OP: These folks say it’s illegal, I’ve already said I don’t know nor care. Right or wrong, cell jammers exist for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Personally, I like the idea of cell jammers because it beats the hell out of destroying the cell phones of ingrates that can’t seem to figure out where the off button is nor where the door is. FCC regs and opinions aside, do whatever you want just like everybody else.

Before the discussion deteriorates even more (if that’s possible), let me point out that the OP said s/he understood "they are illegal in the us (sic!) but they are available overseas," and merely wanted to know if they did what they are supposed to do. It’s a technical question that interests me as well. For legal/moral questions (WHYis it illegal and SHOULD it be illegal?), one could start another thread (which I would also be interested in).
Cheers,

Franz

P.S: Sometimes the law really is an ass (with compliments to Charles Dickens)

The legality question is simple- they are illegal because the frequency ranges they are programmed to operate on have been exclusively leased by companies that derive income from the uninterrupted use of that spectrum by their subscribers. Subscribers pay to have access to that exclusive spectrum. The lease allows the carrier to approve all devices used on that frequency range and all devices used on that frequency range must be approved by both the carrier and the FCC. Also to be considered are the First Amendment implications of selectively targeting specific users with active jamming based on the whims of a third party. As Jer has clearly demonstrated, one does not need a cell phone to be a nuisance or an idiot- what if I were able to jam his internet connection to stop the noise?

What many people don’t realize is that while active jamming is illegal, passive jamming of a signal (most typically through the use of architectural materials and applications) is totally legal in the US. There are countless stories of various businesses building this type of jamming into their walls, thereby rendering cell phones useless in the environment without violating the exclusivity of the spectrum lease.

While incorporating certain passive blockers into actual construction (e.g., wire mesh) can be somewhat expensive, I’ve read about paints that will do almost as good a job and are considerably less expensive.

Regardless of the method used, I think the blocker has a moral obligation to let his/her patrons know. Also, there *may* be legal ramifications in not providing full disclosure, as in the case of an emergency call not getting through.

—
Notan

Notan wrote in
news::

While incorporating certain passive blockers into actual construction (e.g., wire mesh) can be somewhat expensive, I’ve read about paints that will do almost as good a job and are considerably less expensive.

Absolutely right- I forgot about the paint.

Regardless of the method used, I think the blocker has a moral obligation to let his/her patrons know. Also, there *may* be legal ramifications in not providing full disclosure, as in the case of an emergency call not getting through.

I would think that something as simple as a "No Cell Phones Allowed" sign would suffice. Patrons then have the option of going elsewhere.

Scott wrote:

Notan wrote in
news::

While incorporating certain passive blockers into actual construction (e.g., wire mesh) can be somewhat expensive, I’ve read about paints that will do almost as good a job and are considerably less expensive.

Absolutely right- I forgot about the paint.

Regardless of the method used, I think the blocker has a moral obligation to let his/her patrons know. Also, there *may* be legal ramifications in not providing full disclosure, as in the case of an emergency call not getting through.

I would think that something as simple as a "No Cell Phones Allowed" sign would suffice. Patrons then have the option of going elsewhere.

Sounds good to me!

—
Notan

well it aint the governments " air " either…

"Notan" wrote in message

Jer wrote:

Notan wrote:

Jer wrote:

BC wrote:

Hello,

I have been reading about the various devices available for blocking cell
signals in small areas, usually the immediate vicinity. I understand they
are illegal in the us but they are available overseas, England, Europe etc.
Does anyone have any experience with these and do they really work? Any
comments would be appreciated.

BC

A friend of mine in the U.S. has several of these scattered about in strategic locations. My own first hand experience indicates their effectiveness is spot on.

And if you’re caught without the proper authorization, it’ll cost you *BIG* bucks!

It’s his private property, so I don’t think he cares. He figures he’s a lot like the U.S. government – he does whatever he wants – getting caught is someone else’s problem. I’ve seen how he avoids scrutiny, and it’s freaking ingenious.

Unless he owns the air, and he doesn’t, it’s not "his private property."
—
Notan

hey , they have to catch ya first.. i been jammin cell fones for nearly 2 years , right in front of the fcc, and they still cant get me …ha ha

"BruceR" wrote in message

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you can’t operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can’t violate a seemingly infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even beyond what the law requires.

In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights do not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.

The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the first offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you don’t pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell it to pay them.
See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below for details.

Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat a private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner and ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being fought in the courts with varying outcomes.

FCC RULE:
Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.

Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications services to the American public for business and personal communications. Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices — called "cellular jammers" or "cell phone jammers" — designed to deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications. Inquiries about the use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by comments that the use of wireless phones in public places is disruptive and annoying. Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the devices may be used on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other locations the public frequents.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47 USC

mark krawczuk wrote:

hey , they have to catch ya first.. i been jammin cell fones for nearly 2 years , right in front of the fcc, and they still cant get me …ha ha

"BruceR" wrote in message

Scott wrote:

Jer wrote in
news::

What part of

"private property" is so difficult to understand? The front half or the back half?

While you might like to think that one’s home is his or her castle and that such rights are absolute, they are anything but. Just like you can’t operate a meth lab or commit murder, you can’t violate a seemingly infinite number of other other restrictions. In fact, even your deed to the land lays out many restrictions and prohibited uses that may go even beyond what the law requires.

In the USA at least, like it or not, private property ownership rights do not include lots of things including the operation of unlicensed radio transmitters above 100mw ERP and specifically ANY form of cell phone jamming no matter how noble the purpose might be.

The FCC can levy a fine of as much as $11,000 per day including the first offense for the operation or interference of cell phone signals. If you don’t pay the fine, the courts can take your private property and sell it to pay them.
See: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Public_Notices/DA-05-1776A1.html or below for details.

Private property ownership does not grant the owner the ability to creat a private fiefdom where the laws of the land do not apply. The owner and ownership of land are still governed by municipal, state and federal codes, regulations and laws. The dividing line between private property rights and government intrusion or intervention is constantly being fought in the courts with varying outcomes.

FCC RULE:
Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation of cellular and personal communications service (PCS) telephones, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is issuing this Public Notice to make clear that the marketing, sale, or operation of this type of equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution.

Cellular and PCS telephones provide valuable wireless communications services to the American public for business and personal communications. Recently, however, the FCC has seen a growing interest in devices — called "cellular jammers" or "cell phone jammers" — designed to deliberately jam or disrupt wireless communications. Inquiries about the use of cellular jammers are often accompanied by comments that the use of wireless phones in public places is disruptive and annoying. Advertisements for cellular jammers suggest that the devices may be used on commuter trains, in theaters, hotels, restaurants and other locations the public frequents.

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the FCC rules prohibit the manufacture, importation, marketing, sale or operation of these devices within the United States (See Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 302a(b) and Section 2.803(a) of the FCC’s rules, 47 CFR § 2.803(a)). In addition, it is unlawful for any person to willfully or maliciously interfere with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (See Section 333 of the Communications Act, 47 USC § 333). Further, Section 301 of the Act, 47 USC § 301, requires persons operating or using radio transmitters to be licensed or authorized under the Commission’s rules.
Parties violating the provisions of the Communications Act and/or FCC rules mentioned above may be subject to the penalties set forth in 47 USC §§ 501-510. Monetary forfeitures for a first offense can be as much as $11,000 a day for each violation and could subject the offender to criminal prosecution. Equipment may also be seized by the United States Marshals and forfeited to the U.S. Government.

For additional information, contact Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, at (202) 418-1160 or

By the Enforcement Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

What you CAN do, if you are sufficiently motivated, is to construct a Farraday Shield around your premises. This will sharply attenuate or completely block the entire RF spectrum. AFAIK, it’s perfectly legal to do so. You pay the price of losing broadcast radio and television reception (small loss considering the programming!).

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

What you CAN do, if you are sufficiently motivated, is to construct a Farraday Shield around your premises. This will sharply attenuate or completely block the entire RF spectrum. AFAIK, it’s perfectly legal to do so. You pay the price of losing broadcast radio and television reception (small loss considering the programming!).

another option (don’t know how to do it tho, just happened to legally install hem at two places, i love loopholes :), you may notice the regs are ONLY for us property within the us….

FCC RULE:
Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States

note that doesn’t apply to embassies (considered foreign soil) or some indian reservations (again considered foreign soil)… have no clue how to make private property that tho…. Just thought it was interesting that there is a loophole……