The FCC’s Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture is available here.“We can all agree that hands on the wheel and eyes on the road continue to be critical to safe driving,” he said, adding that cellphones “were never designed to be used while driving.”īut there’s only so much the industry can do, Goodman insisted. Federal agencies such as the FCC and FTC enforce laws with wide-ranging implications and can subject companies in various industries to their jurisdiction. Just because a company is not regularly under an agency’s jurisdiction doesn’t mean it is not subject to the agency’s enforcement powers. Had RNM been using the cell jammer over a longer time period, it could have faced a six-figure fine.įourth, even though RNM was not an “FCC-regulated” entity such as a broadcast station, telecom company, etc., it understood the need to be responsive and to take the matter seriously.
CELL PHONE SIGNAL JAMMER PLUS
A mere 10 days’ use of the signal jammer cost RNM a nearly $30,000 penalty plus likely legal fees and employee time. Outside counsel can also be key here to interact with the agents and help guide the company through the audit. All organizations should have a designated officer or senior employee who is trained to interface with investigators. Second, while companies might not expect an FCC official to show up at their door for an investigation, the agency (like many other agencies) has field agents and they do conduct on-site investigations – including without notice. While jammers are available for purchase online – they are illegal irrespective of what a website might advertise. First, employers seeking to curb employee mobile use should rely on policies and enforcement, rather than “self-help” through installation of their own devices. There are a few important points to note here. While this is not a huge penalty, the FCC noted that it could have imposed a forfeiture in excess of $337,000 had it imposed a straightforward application of the statutory maximum. A formal enforcement action followed.Īfter analyzing the facts and the agency’s forfeiture guidelines, the FCC imposed a forfeiture on RNM of $29,250 for the 10-day operation (and the voluntary relinquishment of the illegal device).
RNM’s CFO confirmed the jammer and promised to discontinue the jammer’s use. The agents subsequently visited the facility to determine the source of the interference and to notify a corporate officer. FCC field agents in Houston conducted an investigation and found strong signals coming from RNM’s Houston facility. The interference can, among other dangers, place first responders and the public at risk if critical communications cannot be transmitted.ĪT&T determined that a signal originating from RNM’s Houston facilities was interfering with AT&T’s signal, and reported the interference to the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau.
Signal jammers typically transmit high-powered radio signals that interfere with authorized communications. The reason behind this prohibition is that jammers can interfere with emergency and other communications services, including GPS. Jammers may be available for sale all over the Internet, but they are prohibited. With very limited exceptions, the Communications Act and the FCC’s rules bar the importation, use, marketing, manufacturing, and sale of jammers. In Houston, Texas learned this lesson the hard way when the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) showed up at its manufacturing facility.Īs background, RNM purchased a signal jammer online in February 2013, to prevent employees from placing wireless calls from the factory, by blocking cell phone communications. While a policy restricting personal phone calls and texting may be acceptable, installation of a signal jammer to prevent employees from accessing the network is unlawful and can subject the employer to significant penalties. Some employers, particularly those in manufacturing, health care, and other situations where mobile phone use could interfere with employee safety, have come up with novel approaches to curbing employees’ uses of mobile phones.
0 kommentar(er)
