jammer

Mobile phone signal jammers are used in many places, but they cannot be used immediately after installation. We still need to go through certain testing and acceptance to determine its effectiveness and ensure its effectiveness.

It is very important to ensure whether the mobile phone signal jammers can truly effectively block mobile phone signals. When purchasing a mobile phone signal jammer, testing is a very important step.

1. Test the blocking distance of the mobile phone signal jammer. Don't just try it with one or two network mobile phones. The mobile phone networks used are different, especially the 4G mobile phone network. The 4G network uses a broadband high-speed transmission method. If the mobile phone If the signal cellphone jammer is not powerful enough, it may not be able to block 4G;


2. It is necessary to find all the mobile phones in the current network of mobile communication providers before testing. Make sure that each mobile phone network can meet the needs of at least one classroom to be considered successful. After turning on the phone to test the shielding effect, be sure to ensure that there is no signal on the mobile phone within half an hour and no time appears. sometimes not;


3. Another important point is that if it is a mobile phone wireless signal jammer with a metal shell, touch the front and rear sides of the fuselage with your hands after 1 hour after turning it on. If the temperature is moderate and not hot, there will be no problem. If it is very hot, it will not pass, because the machine continues to heat up. It will cause the power of the mask to attenuate, make it unable to work stably, and easily cause burns.

The main functions of the four major signal frequency bands used by drones

• 1. 2.4GHz frequency band


• The 2.4GHz frequency band is one of the more common frequency bands used in drones. It is a type of radio frequency band used by drones and is mainly used for WiFi and Bluetooth communications. This frequency band has a wider coverage and a faster transmission rate, so it is widely used in remote control and image transmission of drones.


• 2. 5.8GHz frequency band


• The 5.8GHz frequency band is one of the most common frequency bands in drones. It is also used in WiFi and Bluetooth communications, and is also widely used in drone image transmission systems. Compared with the 2.4GHz band, the transmission rate of 5.8GHz is faster, but the coverage range is relatively small.


• 3. GPS satellite signal frequency band-1.5G frequency band


• The GPS satellite signal frequency band is a type of frequency band used for drone positioning. It can accurately locate the position of the drone, thereby enabling flight path planning and tracking. GPS satellite signals are also one of the keys for UAVs to achieve autonomous flight and formation control.


• 4. Remote control signal frequency band-900 frequency band


• The remote control signal frequency band is a type of radio frequency band used for remote control of drones. It connects the drone flight controller to the remote controller to achieve remote control of the drone within a certain range. This frequency band has a smaller application range, but it plays an important role in remote control of drones.

In all types of examinations, it has long been a common practice to install wireless signal jammers in each examination room. However, almost 90% of examination centers choose low-power shielding equipment when selecting equipment. Why did you choose this? There are often high-performance shielding devices on the market, but why are they so common in exam rooms? What if you don't know how to use a high-performance signal jammer?

The answer to this question can be analyzed from two perspectives: one is the product performance and application scenarios of the powerful wireless signal jammer itself, and the other is the design of the examination room.

First, let’s talk about the high-power wireless signal jammer. Its biggest feature is its high transmitting power and wide coverage. However, there are clear reminders in its instructions for use that high-power wireless signal cellphone jammer are mainly used in outdoor open environments. Environments like examination rooms are obviously indoor environments, and they are numerous and densely distributed. , each examination room is also separated by walls. This kind of wall barrier will shield the signal with great error, and it is easy to cause the shielded signal to only cover a local area or floor.

Considering these factors, high-power wireless signal jammers are strictly required not to be installed in buildings, but must be installed at an appropriate distance around a building. Moreover, for a building, at least 2-4 sets of high-power shielding equipment are usually required to basically meet the signal shielding needs.

The high-power wireless signal jammer itself also has the characteristics of large size, heavy weight, high heat dissipation and ventilation requirements, and high purchase cost. These characteristics also determine that high-power models are not suitable for the examination room.

Since high-power wireless gsm signal jammer are larger in appearance and heavier in weight, installation and construction are relatively complex, time-consuming and labor-intensive. Since the purchase cost of high-power wireless signal jammers is much higher than that of low-power shielding equipment, the price ratio between the two can reach 50:1 or even 100:1. We also take a building as an example. Suppose this building There are 50 examination rooms and classrooms in the building. If low-power wireless signal jammers are used, even if one is configured for each classroom, the total number will be 50. However, if you replace it with a high-power wireless signal shielding device, you may need at least 2-4 units. According to the aforementioned price ratio, you can conclude that if you use high-power shielding equipment, the construction investment cost may be Improved by 2-4 times.

Top prosecutors across the country are again calling on Congress to pass legislation that would allow state prisons to interfere with cellphone signals smuggled to inmates. According to lawyers, the devices allow people to plan

violence and commit crimes.

“We simply need Congress to pass legislation giving states the authority to implement cell phone jamming systems to protect prisoners,

guards and the public at large,” 22 prosecutors wrote in a statement. Wednesday's letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Wilson's office said it plans to contact Democratic prosecutors and does not believe the matter is partisan.

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, cites several crimes that lawyers say were orchestrated by inmates using contraband cellphones, including a drug conspiracy in Tennessee and a double murder ordered by an inmate in

Indiana.

They also led a gang siege at a South Carolina prison in 2018 that lasted more than seven hours and left seven inmates dead. One prisoner described the bodies as "literally stacked on top of each other, like a horrible pile of wood."

Corrections officials blamed illegal cellphones for the unfolding violence, the worst prison riot in the United States in 25 years.

“By preventing prisoners from using prohibited cell phones, we can prevent serious drug trafficking, deadly riots and other crimes,” prosecutors wrote.

To render the phones - which are smuggled into hollow footballs, implanted by corrupt employees and sometimes dropped by drones - worthless, prosecutors are asking for changes to a nearly century-old law A historic federal

communications law that currently prohibits state prisons from using signal jamming technology to suppress illegal cellphone signals.

Efforts to crack down on illicit cellphones in state prisons have been going on for years, and South Carolina Corrections Director Bryan Stirling is leading an effort by correctional directors across the country to demand more

technology to combat their use of smuggled phones. the behavior of.

In a progressive victory in 2021, the FCC passed a decision allowing state prison systems to work with cellphone providers to sequentially apply for permission to identify and shut down illegal cellphone signals. South Carolina

was the first state to request use of the technology, but Sterling told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the state has not yet taken any action on the request.

Sterling said federal prisons can jam cellphone signals behind bars, but that is not currently the case.

CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, opposes interference, saying it could impede legitimate calls. However, CTIA told the commission that it has "successfully worked with its member companies" to "cease service for

prohibited devices pursuant to court orders received," according to a 2020 FCC filing.

CTIA and FCC officials did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment on the new wave of subversion.

Congress has previously considered blocking the legislation, but has yet to sign any bill or even hold hearings. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., reintroduced the measure in the last Congress in August.

"We're not going to stop advocating for this," Wilson told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I can only hope that at some point Congress will take notice."

Congressman David Kustoff (R-TN) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) have introduced the Cellphone Jamming Reform Act, a bill aimed at addressing the issue of contraband cellphone use in federal and state prison facilities. The purpose of this legislation is to allow prisons to utilize cellphone jamming systems in order to protect inmates, guards, and the wider public from potential harm.

According to Congressman Kustoff, putting an end to the illicit use of contraband cellphones within correctional facilities will have an immediate impact on reducing crime rates, enhancing public safety, and relieving the burden on our overwhelmed correctional systems. He stresses that this act represents a crucial initial step towards tackling the current crime crisis faced by America. Congressman Kustoff expresses his pride in collaborating with Senator Cotton to introduce such pivotal legislation and urges fellow members of Congress to offer their support.

Senator Cotton highlights how prisoners have been exploiting contraband cellphones for engaging in illegal activities outside prison walls, including orchestrating attacks on rivals, promoting sex trafficking operations, facilitating drug trade, and conducting business transactions. The use of cellphone gps jamming devices can effectively halt these criminal endeavors; however, current regulations under the Federal Communications Act prevent correctional facilities from employing this technology. This bill seeks to rectify this issue so that criminals serve their sentences without posing any risk whatsoever to society at large.

The Cellphone Jamming Reform Act has received endorsements from multiple state attorneys general, including Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor. The Act is also supported by the Major County Sheriffs of America, National Sheriffs' Association and the Council of Prison Locals.

According to Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti

"The only way to stop the illegal use of cell phones in prisons is through jamming signal. When individuals are incarcerated, they should not be allowed to maintain contact with criminal organizations on the outside. I commend Congressman Kustoff for his unwavering commitment to protecting our nation from organized crime."

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin stated

"Congress needs to pass the Cell Phone Jamming Reform Act without delay. Prisoners are using contraband phones to carry out criminal activities from behind bars. We have the technology to enhance security and put an end to this illicit behavior; it's time we utilize it. I haven't heard any valid reasons why we should facilitate criminals and enable convicted felons to continue their criminal enterprises while in custody."

Background:

• The use of contraband cellphones is a pervasive issue within both federal and state prison facilities. Inmates exploit these devices to engage in a wide range of illicit activities, such as orchestrating hits on individuals outside the confines of the prison walls, operating illegal drug enterprises, facilitating unlawful business transactions, promoting sex trafficking, and coordinating escape attempts that put correctional staff, fellow inmates, and the public at risk. Incidents involving contraband cellphones have been reported nationwide.


• Over the past five years in South Carolina alone, there have been four significant cases of drug trafficking where operations were conducted clandestinely within prison walls using contraband cellphones. Notably, the most recent operation was directly linked to a Mexican drug cartel. Furthermore, in 2018, inmates affiliated with gangs orchestrated a merciless assault resulting in the deaths of seven inmates and numerous injuries through their unauthorized use of cellphones in a maximum-security facility.


• In Oklahoma, 69 defendants were found guilty of participating in a "drug trafficking operation that was primarily directed and controlled by incarcerated gang members using unauthorized cellphones from their state prison cells."


• In Tennessee, an inmate utilized an illegal cellphone to orchestrate drug conspiracy deals by sending a package filled with methamphetamine to his significant other.


• In Georgia, prisoners employed illicit cellphones to carry out fraudulent calls, demanding payment and even sending photos of injured inmates to their relatives while requesting money.


• As indicated by the Indiana Department of Corrections, during the previous year (2022), a gang enforcer incarcerated within Indiana Department of Corrections ordered a double homicide through the use of an unauthorized cellphone within prison walls.


• According to The Wall Street Journal's report, Martin Shkreli, the disgraced pharmaceutical executive who was sentenced to seven years for securities fraud, continued making decisions at Phoenixus AG with the assistance of an illegal cellphone.

F.C.C. spokesman Clyde Enslin declined to comment on the issue or the Maryland case.

Wireless carriers pay tens of billions of dollars to lease spectrum from governments as long as others don't interfere with their signals. And there are additional fees. Verizon Wireless, for example, spends $6.5 billion a year building and maintaining its network.

"It is counterintuitive that this type of device has found a market at a time when wireless consumers' demand for improved cell phone coverage is clear and strong," said Jeffrey Nelson, a Verizon spokesman. These carriers also raise public safety concerns: criminals could use gsm blocker to prevent people from communicating in an emergency.

The CTIA, a major cellphone industry association, asked the F.C.C. on Friday to maintain the illegality of the interference and continue to pursue violators. The company said the move was in response to requests from the two companies to allow jammers to be used in certain situations, such as prisons.

The individuals who used the jammers expressed guilt about their vandalism, but some clearly had a mischievous side, and others gloated over the phones. "It was worth it just to watch those stupid teens in the mall get their phone hung up." Can you hear me? Noooo! Nice, "the jammer's buyer wrote last month in a review on a website called DealExtreme.

Gary, a therapist in Ohio, also declined to give his last name, citing the illegal use of the devices. Interruptions are necessary to get the job done effectively, he says. He runs group therapy sessions for people with eating disorders. During one meeting, a woman's confession was rudely interrupted.

"She was talking about sexual abuse," Gary said. "Someone's phone was turned off and they kept talking."

"There's no etiquette," he said. "It's an epidemic."

Gary said that despite the no-phone policy, calls always interrupt therapy. Four months ago, he bought a jammer for $200 and secretly placed it on the side of the room. He tells patients that if they are waiting for an emergency call, they should give the phone number of the front desk. He didn't tell them about the jammer.

Gary bought the jammer from a website in London called PhoneJammer.com. Victor McCormack, the site's operator, said he ships about 400 jammers a month to the United States, up from 300 a year ago. He says more than 2,000 holiday gifts have been ordered.

Kumaar Thakkar, who lives in Mumbai, India, and sells jammers online, said he exports 20 jammers a month to the United States, twice as many as a year ago. Clients include cafe and hair salon owners and Dan, a New York school bus driver, he said.

"The kids thought they were secretly hiding in their seats and using their phones," Dan wrote in an email to Mr. Tarka, thanking him for selling jammers. "Now kids don't understand why their phones don't work, but can't ask either because they'll get in trouble!" It's fun to watch them try to get the signal."

Andrew, an architect in the San Francisco area, said using jammers started out as fun and became a practical way to keep quiet on the train. Now he uses it more wisely.

"At this point, just knowing that I have the power to cut someone off is satisfying enough," he said.

One afternoon in early September, an architect boarded a local train and became a mobile vigilante. He sat next to a woman in her 20s who he said was "chatting" on her phone.

"She kept using the word 'like.' She sounded like a valley girl," said architect Andrew, who declined to give his last name because what he did next was illegal.

Andrew reached into his shirt pocket and pressed a button on a black device the size of a cigarette pack. It emits a powerful radio signal that interferes with the chatterer's cellphone transmissions as well as those of others within a 30-foot radius.

"She spoke into the phone for about 30 seconds before she realized no one was listening on the other end of the phone," he said. What was his reaction when he first discovered he could wield such power? "Oh my gosh! Liberation."

As cellphone use soars, making it difficult not to hear half of a conversation in many public spaces, a small but growing group of rebels are turning to a blunt countermeasure: cellphone jammers, devices that interfere with nearby mobile devices invalid.

The technology is not new, but foreign exporters of jammers say demand is increasing and they are sending hundreds of jammers to the United States each month, prompting scrutiny from federal regulators and the wireless industry last week. new worries. Buyers include cafe and hair salon owners, hoteliers, speakers, theater operators, bus drivers and, increasingly, public transport commuters.

The development is sparking a battle for control of the airspace over the ears. This damage is collateral damage. Insensitive talkers inflict mischief on the defenseless, while jammer device punish not only the perpetrators but also the more cautious chatterboxes.

"If there's one thing that defines the 21st century, it's our inability to back down for the benefit of others," said James Katz, director of the Mobile Communications Research Center at Rutgers University. "The caller thought he was rights outweigh those of those around them, and the disruptor believes his rights are more important.”

Jamming technology emits radio signals so strong that they overload cell phones and prevent them from communicating with cell towers. Ranges range from a few feet to several meters, and equipment costs between $50 and a few hundred dollars. Larger models can be reserved to create no-call zones.

It is illegal to use gps blocker in the United States. Radio frequencies used by mobile phone providers are protected in the same way as those used by television and radio stations.

The Federal Communications Commission says first-time users of cell phone jammers could be fined up to $11,000. His law enforcement agencies have prosecuted several U.S. companies for distributing the devices and are also prosecuting their users.

F.C.C. investigators said Verizon Wireless visited an upscale restaurant in Maryland last year. The store owner, who asked not to be named, said he spent $1,000 on a high-powered jammer because he was tired of employees focusing on their phones instead of customers.

"I tell them, put your phone away, put your phone away, put your phone away," he said. They ignored him.

The store owner said F.C.C. investigators spent a week there, using special equipment designed to detect jammers. But the owner has turned it off.

Verizon investigators were also unsuccessful. "He went to everyone in town and gave them his phone number and said if they had any questions to call him immediately," the store owner said. He said he had stopped using the wifi blocker.

Of course, detecting the use of smaller, battery-powered jammers, such as those used by disgruntled commuters, would be more difficult.

Ensuring the safety and security of both staff and inmates within correctional facilities is of utmost importance. Implementing stringent security measures is crucial to maintain control and prevent dangerous situations from arising. Sadly, the presence of cellphones in prisons poses a significant threat to this goal.

One of the main challenges that correctional facilities face is preventing contraband items from entering the prison. Traditional security measures such as body scanners, metal detectors, and thorough searches often prove ineffective in detecting smaller items like cellphones. Inmates and their accomplices have become increasingly creative in concealing these devices, exploiting vulnerabilities in the system.

Once cellphones find their way into prisons, they become powerful tools for organizing criminal activities within and beyond the facility's walls. Gang leaders, drug dealers, and other inmates can use cellphones to coordinate illicit operations, intimidate others, and even continue conducting their illegal businesses from behind bars.

In response to the Greenville Veteran's Suicide Incident, correctional facilities are under immense pressure to strengthen security measures and address the issue of cellphone access within prisons. The incident demonstrated the urgent need for innovative solutions and strategies to combat this growing problem.

This article was published in partnership with The Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization covering the U.S. criminal justice system. Subscribe to the newsletter or follow The Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.

Shortly before noon on Sept. 11, 2018, a former Army soldier named Jared Johns lay in bed, turned on his iPhone camera, and said goodbye to his family.

Near the end of the two-minute video, Johns' eyes widened as a text message read on the screen: "She's calling the police and you're going to jail," it read.

Johns, who had served in Afghanistan, took a deep breath, placed a 9mm pistol under his chin, and pulled the trigger.

The 24-year-old veteran is one of hundreds of former and current service members who have fallen victim to a "sextortion" conspiracy. The scheme that led to his suicide involved scammers posing as underage girls on dating sites. Prosecutors said they sought to extort men who responded to their solicitations.

But the most startling aspect of the plot in Johns’ case was that it was allegedly carried out by inmates at Lee Correctional Institution, a maximum security prison in South Carolina about 150 miles east of Greenville. And the inmates did it using smartphones — banned devices that should have been blocked by the prison’s $1.7 million “managed access system.”

Now prison officials and some federal agencies have proposed purchasing an even more complex and potentially more expensive technology to stop illicit cellular and Wi-Fi messaging from contraband phones in prison: a jammer that will block all calls within its range.

“Inmates are incarcerated physically, but they’re still free, digitally,” said Bryan P. Stirling, the director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, who has been on a mission to get signal jammers in prisons since 2009.

But some experts warn that jamming technology, which the federal Bureau of Prisons recently tested in a South Carolina prison, could put the public at risk by interfering with 911 calls and other cellphone service nearby. For rural prisons, the concern focuses on drivers on local roads and highways. Plus, they say, the technology probably won’t work.

“They’re taking an internal problem and impacting people who are not involved,” said Richard Mirgon, a former executive at the Association for Public-Safety Communications Officials. “It’s tantamount to saying, ‘Why not jam up the freeway to keep people from speeding in the side streets?’ It’s just so extreme.”

Problems with the best solution

The best solution, according to telecommunications companies and advocates for prisoners’ rights, would be to stop the influx of cellphones into prisons. But that has proven difficult,

especially at a prison like Lee, which has a long history of serious phone-related incidents. Inmates there have used contraband cellphones, for example, to order a hit on a corrections officer who was shot almost to death in 2010 and to publicize prison riots twice in the past four years.

Sex, drugs and cellphones:Relationships between guards, inmates unravel SC prisons

Prison officials at Lee say they have tried to stem the tide. In 2017, the corrections department felled large trees that loomed over the prison to stop drones from dropping off packages of cellphones. That same year, the department spent $8.3 million to install 50-foot netting at the perimeter of its prisons, including Lee, in hopes of stopping couriers from throwing backpacks of cellphones over fences.

Corrections officials say these solutions reduced the number of cellphones in state prisons. In fiscal year 2017, prison guards confiscated 7,482 phones, batteries or chargers in the state’s facilities, which house more than 21,000 people. In the fiscal year that ended in June, officials collected 3,900. Chrysti Shain, a spokeswoman for the corrections department, said that inmates now must spend thousands of dollars to acquire a phone.

Yet, the department acknowledges phones still get inside. Experts point to low-paid guards and prison workers who can augment their low pay by selling inmates contraband.

But even if cellphones get in, there should be no calls getting out. That’s because of the nearly $2 million in technology that Lee officials purchased to block calls from unauthorized phones.

Challenges with cellphone signal blocking

In 2017, after clearing the treeline and setting up the nets, the corrections department hired Tecore Networks, a communications company, to install the system that is supposed to detect and block all calls made from contraband phones. The technology is supposed to work like this: If someone makes a call, the system compares the cell number to a predetermined list of prison staff phone numbers — called a white list —and then either allows the call to go through, or blocks it.

The wireless telecommunications lobby group CTIA, which represents some of the country’s largest carriers and equipment manufacturers, has recommended that prisons use the managed access systems, as they are called. But it’s unclear how many facilities across the country actually do. Shawntech, another private company that sells managed access systems to correctional institutions, says it provides the multi-million dollar systems to close to 350 jails and prisons.

Even engineers who back the system as a solution warn that it’s not a silver bullet to stop all illicit calls, which can circumvent the system because of a very basic rule of how a cell tower works: If you can’t see it, it can’t see you.

When someone inside makes a phone call, the closest cell tower will pick up that signal. In a prison with a managed access system in place, the tower is usually located within the perimeter. But, for example, if an inmate stood behind a wall with water pipes, the cell signal would find the closest tower it could see, which would be outside the prison.

Also, cell companies often change the strength of a signal if customers in an area have bad reception. It’s like listening to two conversations happening at once in the same room; it’s easier for you to hear the loudest speaker. Whenever cell companies boost a signal, cellphones inside the prison will be able to find it more readily. It’s a problem that Tecore flagged in a 2018 press release.

That’s what South Carolina’s corrections officials say happened at Lee, and how the inmates contacted Johns in the first place.

Current and former prisoners at Lee said they could use cellphones easily, even with the managed access system in place. This year, inmates at Lee were caught live-streaming on Facebook.

“Walk into one room, and it’s fine; walk into another and you won’t be able to,” said a current inmate in the prison, who said he has used a prepaid Boost Mobile cellphone to make calls. His identity is not being revealed out of concern for his safety.

Tecore, which manages the prison’s system, did not respond to multiple emails or calls over several weeks seeking comment.

Jamming all calls, even to 911

These problems explain why corrections officials and federal agencies have proposed using technology long opposed by the communications industry: cellphone jammers to stop all calls, even from phones owned by staff or emergency workers.

Unlike managed access systems, which allow people to make calls if their numbers are on an approved list, a jammer is indiscriminate in its reach and power to block all frequencies, including data and Wi-Fi. That’s a problem for the nation’s 911 phone system, which operates on a frequency close to the one commercial carriers use.

Only federal authorities can legally use jammers, and only in limited circumstances involving national security. But with the blessing of the FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai—appointed by President Trump in 2017— and the U.S. Department of Justice, prison jammers could become a possibility.

In September, the department and state officials put out news releases saying that a test at South Carolina’s Broad River Correctional Institution showed that a micro-jammer could block calls inside a cell block while allowing “legitimate calls” a foot outside its walls.

コメント数:(0) カテゴリ：Cell Phone　 12:35:08

We are convinced that this was an act of pure, unadulterated charity, uninfluenced by self-interest. Cellphone jammer maker CellAntenna Corp. is calling on U.S. lawmakers to change federal law to allow law enforcement officers to use cellphone jammers more broadly. We bet you can guess why too – and yes, it’s helpful in the fight against terrorism. Because as we all know, there are a lot of cell phone terrorists out there (in fact, for us, anyone we see with a cell phone is automatically suspect). CellAntenna said in a statement that adding cell phone jamming is "the first step in increasing profits to prevent IED attacks in the United States." How refreshing - a company with a social conscience.

The company is challenging FCC rules on cell phone jamming devices

A small Florida company is asking the Federal Communications Commission to change a rule that bans the sale of cell phone signal encryption equipment to local and state governments.

CellAntenna filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta on Nov. 22 challenging the Communications Act of 1934, which is enforced by the FCC. The 1934 Act and related FCC regulations prohibit the use of cellular and radio frequency jamming devices except by federal agencies. That means local and state officials are prohibited from using such devices, which could be used to prevent terrorist attacks.

CellAntenna contends that the Communications Act and the FCC's interpretation of the law's provisions are unconstitutional because they conflict with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It is well known in intelligence and law enforcement circles that cell phones can be used to remotely detonate certain types of bombs. The electrical properties of most batteries used in today's cell phones provide enough energy to produce the necessary spark or energy to ignite detonators or modified electric matches typically used for plastic explosives. In addition, even low-end mobile phones can use built-in alarm and timing mechanisms, and even the simplest and cheapest mobile devices can be used as bomb detonation tools.

Mobile phones are believed to have been used in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Insurgents have used them effectively to trigger street bombings in Iraq in recent years. U.S. troops in Iraq are using devices made by companies like CellAntenna that jam or block cellphone signals to protect convoys traveling through known trouble spots.

But in the United States, only federal agencies are allowed to use phone encryption devices. The law prohibits local and state law enforcement agencies from obtaining such devices as first responders to domestic terrorist attacks.

"It simply doesn't make sense that the FBI can use these devices but local and state governments, which are considered an important part of counterterrorism under the Homeland Security Act, cannot," said Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna. That makes sense." "We provide weapons and other equipment to local police to protect the public, but we can't trust them to have cell phone wifi jammers devices? It doesn't make sense."

This point is a key element of CellAntenna's case against the FCC

"Whereas the FCC prohibits the sale of radio frequency and cellular jammers to state and local police departments, the Homeland Security Act consistently and repeatedly directs the Department of Homeland Security to take whatever measures are necessary to empower local law enforcement agencies and first responders in the fight against global terrorism."

A resident of the town of Messanges in southwestern France could spend six months behind bars after unwittingly taking down telephony and mobile internet services in his neighborhood with a signal jammers.

Surprisingly, though, his actions were not malicious. He only wanted to prevent his teenage kids from using their mobile devices to go online after bedtime.

Are you a parent struggling to manage your kids creen time?

Bitdefender’s Parental Control feature offers digital help to parents and guardians who wish to ensure extra online safety for children who use internet-enabled devices. The software filters out inappropriate digital content while allowing the parent to limit screen time and keep up with the child’s online activities.

The Parental Control feature can be found in our Total Security product, allowing you to manage and restrict access to the internet and specific apps, especially after bedtime. Check it now for free for up to 90 days with our extended Total Security trial.

According to the French planning and radio frequency management agency (ANFR), a local mobile phone operator filed an unusual complaint this month – just before midnight and until 3 AM every of the week, the residents of Messanges could not use their cellular and mobile internet services.

Following an investigation, the ANFR determined that a signal phone jammer, a device prohibited in many European countries including France, was blocking radio frequencies in the area.

Around 1:30 am, a technician traced the source of the signal to a residence in the coastal town. The next day investigators, accompanied by police, knocked on the door of the man, who immediately admitted he was using a multi-band jammer.

“The gps blocker had been installed by the father of the family to prevent his teenagers from accessing the internet with their smartphone instead of going to bed,” the ANFR explained. “His children had indeed become addicted to social networks and other applications, in particular since the confinement imposed due to Covid-19. After consulting forums on the internet, the father decided that a jammer was the best solution to put an end to his kids’ excessive screen time.”

On top of possible jail time, the illicit possession and use of a jammer bring a financial penalty of up to €30,000.

“The ANFR agent, in addition to demanding that he turn off the wifi blocker and no longer use it, reminded the owner of the equipment of the regulatory framework,” the agency added.

The man also had to pay an intervention fee of 450 euros.

Bluelinx President Jeff Griffin said he is trying to sign up wireless providers as well as venues such as cafes and theaters. He says he hopes to start using the devices in the next few years. Unlike blocker device, he said, his call-blocking system is optional for cell phone users, who can turn it on or off.

Others have the same idea, including companies and researchers who develop or already sell devices that make phones unusable in certain places. Methods include drone jammer that interfere with cell phone frequencies, routing systems that mute cell phone ringtones at specific locations, sensors that detect active phones, and building materials that block cell phone waves.

Mr. Larson of the cellular industry group said that while the industry opposes controls on cell phone ringing, it is not opposed to measures that are left to the discretion of customers. "They're certainly less annoying than wifi blocker," he said.

Netline, an Israeli company, makes a detector called the Cell Activity Analyzer, a handheld device that monitors and detects cell communication activity within a given area. ($2,500 at www.netline.co.il or www.perfectjammer.com.) Other smaller detector models include Suresafe Technology's RF signal detector, which is about the size of a buzzer and costs less than $100. As with gps blocker, the larger the detector, the greater its range.

The site says it has sold thousands of devices to theaters, businesses, military users and individuals. Jammers range in price from $200 for basic handheld models to nearly $10,000 for suitcase-sized devices sold to governments and the military, with prices often depending on signal range and the potential to interfere with cellular activity.

Other methods are also being developed, from devices that simply detect phone usage (and prompt the user to stop) to construction methods that render the phone unusable.

But not everyone sees the trend as encouraging. Cell phone industry experts and federal regulators in particular have derided cell phone blocker as illegal, unethical and even dangerous.

Since January 1, 2018, importing and owning a jammer has been strictly prohibited in Switzerland and the countries of the European Union. The regulations for these devices, which are also known as "signal blockers" or "jammers", have been tightened up because the ban previously only applied to placing them on the market and using them. Jammers can be dangerous because they block all cell phone traffic, making emergency calls impossible. Most of the time, advertisements for these types of devices are deceptive: they give the impression that their use is legal, and fail to make it clear that even possession is illegal.

Previously expensive, bulky and limited to neutralizing mobile phone traffic in the GSM 900 MHz frequency band, portable jammer have followed technological developments. They have become smaller and cheaper and can now interfere with a large part of the spectrum. With some models, not only mobile phone bands (GSM, UMTS, LTE, ...), but also positioning systems (GPS, Glonass, Galileo, ...), data transmission networks (WLAN, RLAN, WiMax, ...) or wireless alarm systems to be disturbed. Utilization has also evolved. While in the past the devices were only used to stop cell phone conversations on trains, restaurants or cinemas, today they are also used for criminal activities: theft of cars or trucks transporting valuable goods (by disabling the vehicle's tracking), theft in houses and homes (by neutralizing the wireless alarm system), etc.

Due to the spread of jammers, the law had to be tightened: When an amendment to the Telecommunications Act (TCA) came into force on January 1, 2018, the import and possession of drone jammer was prohibited. The manufacture, offering, making available on the market, commissioning, creation and operation of these devices also remain punishable.

With the ban of this type of installation on its national territory, Switzerland follows the EU member states and other countries such as e.g. B. the United States.

A security hazard

The use of jammers is strictly prohibited, as they not only cause inconvenience to radio spectrum users and encourage criminal activity, but can also have serious security consequences. In this way, emergency calls in the event of an accident or the alerting of emergency services such as the fire brigade, police or ambulance can be blocked. This can also cause serious problems in civil aviation, which is increasingly using the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) to improve navigation performance and air traffic control monitoring activities.

In the FMG, the use of gsm jammer is tantamount to intentional interference with the radio frequency spectrum, which can be punished with a fine of up to CHF 100,000. OFCOM systematically intervenes in such cases

Jammers for authorities

It is different in prisons. Detainees use their cell phones to organize criminal activities or plan an escape. Another example is defusing explosive objects that can be detonated by radio. The FMG expressly provides penal institutions and police authorities with the option of using jamming systems to prevent mobile phone calls in their vicinity. The operation of such a system must be approved in advance by OFCOM.