FCC May Look to Compromise on Jamming Cell Signals in Prisons

Carr’s best option may be a pilot project to test how jamming would work, said Cooley’s Robert McDowell, who faced the issue during his time as an FCC commissioner. When the FNPRM was approved in September, questions about a pilot were added at the urging of Commissioner Anna Gomez, who voted for the item but expressed concerns (see 2509300063).

"A final order would likely be appealed, and many observers think the commission could have its hands full defending that in court," McDowell said in an email. “But with history as our guide, a pilot program, or another initiative that is couched as 'interim,' would have a better chance of survival.” It could prove to be a “win-win if all sides could learn from the experiment,” he said.

“In normal times, this proposal would have no chance,” said Recon Analytics’ Roger Entner. The top reason prisoners have cellphones is that "corrupt prison guards bring them in and sell them to inmates," Entner said. “The idea that law-abiding citizens living next to prisons will have to suffer because law enforcement can’t go after their rogue members is just flabbergasting.” The best prevention program would be arresting and convicting corrupt prison guards, he argued. “That would give both sides what they want.”

Free State Foundation President Randolph May agreed that a pilot may be Carr’s best option. “Sometimes a proposed solution for a goal with the best of intentions produces unintended results,” May said in an email. “This appears to be a case in which a properly constructed pilot program may yield valuable information before implementing a problematic mandate. … I don’t see why Chairman Carr would not want to take that option.”

Among the comments filed in the proceeding (docket 13-111), the Wi-Fi Alliance warned that the FNPRM doesn’t take into account the potential effect of jamming on unlicensed spectrum. Unlicensed systems aren’t “secondary” to “other unlicensed operations and unlicensed bands function … through shared access rules, not hierarchical priority,” the alliance said. Declaring that a jammer using unlicensed spectrum “is permitted to disrupt the communications of another device also operating on unlicensed spectrum is contrary to the foundational principle of Part 15 [of FCC rules], under which all unauthorized devices must cooperate in the use of spectrum.”

Other commenters said contraband interdiction systems (CIS), such as managed access systems (MAS) -- the preferred solution of carriers -- are working. The FCC previously endorsed those solutions, and the wireless industry argued in its comments that they’re improving over time.

CIS solutions “are highly effective tools to address contraband wireless devices,” said the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies. They can block communications from contraband devices “while still permitting communications from authorized devices,” the council said. MAS solutions “also pose little risk of interference to users outside of correctional facilities.”

The FCC hasn’t allowed enough time for existing approaches “to fully develop,” said a filing by CIS providers, which added that they “have developed relationships” with carriers, “executed spectrum leases and renewed them.” The providers have “experienced and resolved interference issues,” the filing said. “Most importantly, they have interdicted contraband wireless traffic in various correctional facilities.”

The Satellite Industry Association objected to the FNPRM’s proposal to include satellite bands on the list of those that could be jammed. “RF jamming devices, even if deployed and ‘implemented properly,’ will cause interference beyond the area within which they are intended to operate,” the group said. “Indeed, the entire point of such devices is to cause interference.”