Cell Phone Jammers: No, they are not about making music with your phone

I was talking with my boss about current free speech issues, and he told me about a somewhat new technology that I had never heard of before, called ‘cell phone jamming’. Evidently, you can purchase a device (but not legally) that blocks cell phone signals for a certain diameter surrounding it. Hypothetically, if a consumer had one of these devices: and they did not like listening to another person’s cell phone conversation near them, they could turn the jammer on and the other person would cease to get a signal. This sounds like a nasty little piece of technology, if you ask me. My boss and I got into a discussion about how this relates to our business—we work for Verizon Wireless. It’s bad for our company, because it blocks signals, so customer’s phones will not work, which can in turn cause them to get upset at us for providing ‘poor service.’ It’s not fair to the customer, because they are paying for a service, and others with the jammers are disrupting the customer’s ability to use the service. How do you feel about this technology?

The big issue right now is that businesses are trying to obtain legal use of these jammers to silence the people on their premises. Specifically, in January, the FCC agreed to a demo in a District of Columbia jail. I guess there is a problem of cell phones being smuggled into jails for use by the inmates. “The authorities argued that prisoners with cell phones can cause trouble even when incarcerated, and saw jammers as a solution” (FCC Hammers Slammer Jammer). On the surface, this seems like a decent solution, but the jammers not only affect the inmates’ cell phones; they also affect the workers’ cell phones, and surrounding citizens’ cell phones. Wireless phone companies, including Verizon fought against this proposal, and the ok for the demo was repealed.

Is this a free speech issue? Yes, because the use of a jammer is no different than being forced to remain silent in a certain area. Consumers are paying for their cell phones to work, and others using jammers interferes with their service. Also, “wireless phone companies paid a lot of money for their spectrum… and they are entitled to a say in who gets to use it. There is an exception to non-interfering uses…but a jammer by definition is an interfering device” (FCC Hammers Slammer Jammer). Currently, jammers are illegal in the US. Any purchase of one can be deemed a violation. “Once the FCC starts allowing demos, then importers and retailers can try to argue that their products have a legal application, greatly complicating the enforcement effort.” If these devices are legalized, there will have to be a whole new policy detailing their allowed uses and punishment for illegal use. It will be one more thing we have to regulate. Also, what about 911 calls? “phone-jamming is a safety hazard. You’re risking a wireless user’s ability for a life-threatening situation to be reported as it happens” (Is there a Case…).

There has been talk of using jammers in a plethora of places: theatres, schools, libraries; the list goes on and on. Pretty soon no one will be able to get a wireless signal anywhere! As an agent for Verizon, I personally do not want to deal with customers griping about jammers affecting their service that they pay so much for…nor do I want to have my cell phone service disrupted. Then there is the argument that jammers can be used to stop terrorist attacks. To this I say: maybe. Honestly, if we take away their ability to use a cell phone, if they really want to cause damage, they will find a way to do it without using a cell phone. It’s not fair to silence everyone because of the faults of a few. This is a major free speech issue; I don’t want some random person, or even the government, interfering with my cell phone signal that Verizon Wireless has worked so hard to provide. I don’t want to be silenced just because the person across the bus from me doesn’t want to hear me talk.

I have searched for about an hour now trying to find a court case surrounding the use of jammers, but it is hard to find one since they are supposedly illegal (I'm assuming that’s why). I did find a lawsuit that is taking place where CellAntenna, a maker of jammers, wants the FCC to allow jammers, at least for law enforcement. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 11th Circuit in Atlanta on November 22, 2006. According to CellAntenna’s website, no progress has really been made in the case. The FCC has used the Communications Act of 1934 (Summary) and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Summary)to justify their declaring the jammers illegal (that the wireless spectrum is paid for by Wireless companies [and in turn, their customers], and there shall be no interference with the signals. According to Wikipedia, it is “illegal to operate, manufacture, import, or offer for sale, including advertising, with fines of up to $11,000 and imprisonment of up to one year.” What’s interesting, is that if you look at the Wikipedia site, in a lot of other countries, jammers are legal (in Norway, anyone can own and operate one!). Could this be because it goes against free speech, something that no other country protects like we do?