# Cell phone jammer on the same freq as wireless mics?



## Anonymous067 (Nov 7, 2010)

Would using a cell phone jammer in the 700Mhz range also interfere with wireless mics in the same 700Mhz range?


----------



## Edrick (Nov 7, 2010)

They usually block the 800 MHz and up range. Why are you using a cell phone jammer? Some countries it's illegal in and in the US it's touch and go. So I'd recommend against it.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 7, 2010)

Why do you ask?

Active frequency jamming is illegal in the United States and many other countries.

Also, the 700MHz spectrum in the United States is reserved for emergency and public safety communications. If you have equipment operating in this frequency range, you may interfere with communications directly related to life safety and the FCC will want to talk to you (and give you some large fines).


----------



## Anonymous067 (Nov 7, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> Why do you ask?
> 
> Active frequency jamming is illegal in the United States and many other countries.
> 
> Also, the 700MHz spectrum in the United States is reserved for emergency and public safety communications. If you have equipment operating in this frequency range, you may interfere with communications directly related to life safety and the FCC will want to talk to you (and give you some large fines).


 
Well.....

So the facility I work at has REFUSED to replace their 700Mhz gear. Cell phone visibly and audibly interfere with this range (LITERALLY, I CAN SEE RF BARS during a call). So, if I get a cell phone jammer, will it block just the cells, or will it screw up my mics too??


----------



## cprted (Nov 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> Well.....
> 
> So the facility I work at has REFUSED to replace their 700Mhz gear. Cell phone visibly and audibly interfere with this range (LITERALLY, I CAN SEE RF BARS during a call). So, if I get a cell phone jammer, will it block just the cells, or will it screw up my mics too??


As has been stated, using a cell phone jammer is illegal and could land you on the receiving end of a six figure fine from the FCC.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Nov 7, 2010)

cprted said:


> As has been stated, using a cell phone jammer is illegal and could land you on the receiving end of a six figure fine from the FCC.


 
So could using all 24 of my illegal microphones...


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 7, 2010)

I would suggest explaining that to your bosses. Take it up the food chain because very few facilities can afford a six figure fine over the cost of replacing the gear.


----------



## avkid (Nov 7, 2010)

Cell phone jammers go beyond simply violating FCC regulations, they can violate international treaties.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 7, 2010)

Using a few wireless microphones in the 700MHz spectrum will get you a slap on the wrist compared to what you'll get if police, fire, and other public safety services are jammed as a result of your actions. That's an active attempt to inhibit their abilities to perform their duties which puts the lives of people in danger.

The reservation of this spectrum for public safety communications has been highly publicized for the last few years, so don't expect any mercy from the FCC if you're caught using 700MHz gear. "We didn't know" won't fly. Throw an active jammer into the mix and you're looking at some especially serious penalties.

Whatever you're using those 24 wireless systems for isn't worth it.


----------



## Footer (Nov 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> So could using all 24 of my illegal microphones...



From the Wikipedia, 

> For radio communications, it is illegal to operate, manufacture, import, or offer for sale, including advertising (Communications Act of 1934).[8] Blocking radio communications in public can carry fines of up to $11,000 or imprisonment of up to one year.[9] The Homeland Security Act of 2002 may override the Communications Act of 1934.[10]



So, if you are OK getting prosecuted in federal court for doing this and face possible jail time, go for it. I am sure the federal prison system needs some new sound people. Don't screw with the FCC, they will bite you and bite hard. The companies that bought up the 700mhz spectrum spent over 15 billion dollars, they are not about to let some theatre mess with their huge purchase.


----------



## MNicolai (Nov 7, 2010)

Now that the severity of the situation has been pointed out, I'd like to float a reminder that discussion promoting illegal activities violates the ToS:


> You consent, through your use of this service, that you will not use ControlBooth.com to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.



If you want to continue to illegally operate your wireless systems, that's on you, but you won't find any advice here on how to violate the law.

Now if you want to figure out a way to convince your theatre to retire and replace their systems and want advice on what to buy for new equipment, that's something we'd be happy to talk to you about.


----------



## Stookeybrd (Nov 7, 2010)

A cell phone jammer functions by broadcasting on the same frequencies but with a stronger signal than the nearest cell tower. The phone's programming dictates that it connects to the strongest tower(usually, ymmv) and when the jammer is the stronger signal, you trick the cell phone's programing into think. That's the basic concept, but in reality they are much more complicated. 

At minimum, you are creating an impossible RF environment.

I wouldn't publicize that you intend to or currently are breaking any law on a public forum. If I had a nickle for everytime that an Emergency Responder of personnel member left midshow looking at their phone as they left...


----------



## Edrick (Nov 7, 2010)

Here's the thing as mentioned already you shouldn't be using one. To top that off you shouldn't be using that spectrum of frequencies anyway for your wireless microphones. You posted earlier that you wanted to report your venue for using the microphones. I believe you were in a high school environment? So this would cause more issues than a regular venue I would think as Cell Phones are regularly used. I know a few schools them selves have tried to block cell phones from being used via the jammers and get got in a whole heat of trouble. 

If you're not only having issues with interference from cell phones, but also having issues since you're using an antiquated or no longer legal spectrum, wether your school likes it or not it's time to upgrade. The fees you'll face are far higher than what it would cost to update your mics.


----------



## museav (Nov 7, 2010)

So, you're knowingly breaking the law, doing so is causing you operational problems and the proposed solution is to break even more laws? Probably not the approach to take with anything.

Since you are an unlicensed, secondary user, even if the operating frequency was not an issue you would still have to accept interference from all licensed and/or primary users. Thus no matter what, you have to accept the cell phone interference. You really have no legal or reasonable option other than to abandon those systems.


----------



## mbenonis (Nov 7, 2010)

The answer you want: A jammer will jam everything in the band it operates in. Period.

Now, no cell phones are currently operating in the 700 MHz band (at least, at the moment). Verizon may light some LTE phones up by the end of the year though. Other cell phones operate between 800 and 902 MHz, as well as between 950 and 1 GHz, and between 1.8 and 2 GHz, and in the 2.1 GHz bands. So even if you were to buy a jammer, you'd need one for every band that phones operate in.

Sounds to me like you have bigger problems on your hands though.


----------



## museav (Nov 8, 2010)

mbenonis said:


> Now, no cell phones are currently operating in the 700 MHz band (at least, at the moment). Verizon may light some LTE phones up by the end of the year though.


My understanding is that Verizon has been testing their LTE service in some metro areas and currently plans to have it up and running in 38 metro areas by the end of the year, which is not far off. Most of the initial LTE use and devices will probably be for wireless computing, LTE phones seem more likely to hit next year but who knows for sure.


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 8, 2010)

What is long term evolution LTE technology?


----------



## mbenonis (Nov 8, 2010)

Yes, they have been testing it--I suppose my point was that it's not available for consumers. Yet.

LTE is the technology Verizon and AT&T will eventually transition to--they'll call it 4G when they roll it out. (Technically speaking, though, LTE won't be 4G until IMT-Advanced is adopted...). In the US, it will start off in the 700 MHz band that we gave up a few years ago.


----------



## shiben (Nov 8, 2010)

mbenonis said:


> Yes, they have been testing it--I suppose my point was that it's not available for consumers. Yet.
> 
> LTE is the technology Verizon and AT&T will eventually transition to--they'll call it 4G when they roll it out. (Technically speaking, though, LTE won't be 4G until IMT-Advanced is adopted...). In the US, it will start off in the 700 MHz band that we gave up a few years ago.


 
I thought Sprint already had a 4G system?


----------



## Stookeybrd (Nov 8, 2010)

shiben said:


> I thought Sprint already had a 4G system?


 
An informative read. I recommend it for everyone. And if you're really interested.


----------



## mbenonis (Nov 8, 2010)

Only according to Sprint's Ad firm.


----------



## ccm1495 (Nov 8, 2010)

Cell phone jammer + FCC = BAD!! 
700 block mic's + FCC = Bad!!
Problems with FCC = $$$$$ Fines 
Don't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just saying...


----------



## cdub260 (Nov 9, 2010)

From www.fcc.gov:


> Using the 700 MHz Band for a wireless microphone (or similar device) after June 12, 2010 could be extremely dangerous and could even be life threatening. Police and fire departments, and other public safety groups, use frequencies in the 700 MHz Band. Interference from wireless microphones can affect the ability of public safety groups to receive information over the air and respond to emergencies. Harmful interference to these communications could put you or public safety personnel in grave danger. In addition, use of your microphone can cause unlawful interference to consumer services provided using the 700 MHz Band.
> 
> Operation of wireless microphones in violation of these rules may subject the user to substantial monetary forfeitures, in rem arrest action against the offending radio equipment and criminal sanctions, including imprisonment. Because any operation in violation of these rules creates a danger of interference to important radio communications services and may subject the operator to severe penalties, this advisory emphasizes the importance of complying strictly with these legal requirements.



From commlawcenter.com:


> The reason for the FCC's band-clearing effort is to make it available (and interference free) for public safety operations, as well as for providers of wireless service that have acquired the right to use portions of the band. Those failing to cease operating their 700 MHz devices are subject to fines ($10,000 is the FCC's base fine for illegal operation), arrest, and criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, as the FCC notes that "interference from wireless microphones can affect the ability of public safety groups to receive information over the air and respond to emergencies," putting "public safety personnel in grave danger." While it may be tempting to continue using 700 MHz equipment in hopes that you won't get caught, your community theater production does not want the liability of causing interference to a rescue operation by public safety personnel.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Nov 10, 2010)

I'll keep this brief, as this thread has exploded without my tracking it...

I guess I was asking more of a hypothetical question, just about the jammers themselves, not saying I owned one or was using one. Just a "out of curiosity" thing. But...you guys believe what you want...


----------



## museav (Nov 11, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> I guess I was asking more of a hypothetical question, just about the jammers themselves, not saying I owned one or was using one. Just a "out of curiosity" thing. But...you guys believe what you want...


As I've seen time and time again in forums, if something is asked just out of curiosity or as a hypothetical it's best to make that clear, otherwise expect it to be interpreted it as having been serious and an indication of your intent.

I personally believe that many groups still using 700MHz wireless microphones on the basis that they can't afford to replace them are overlooking the eventual 'cost' of setting an example that knowingly breaking the law is okay if it benefits you.


----------



## themuzicman (Nov 11, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> Well.....
> 
> So the facility I work at has REFUSED to replace their 700Mhz gear. Cell phone visibly and audibly interfere with this range (LITERALLY, I CAN SEE RF BARS during a call). So, if I get a cell phone jammer, will it block just the cells, or will it screw up my mics too??


 
Jammers is Jammers. They don't care what they are jamming. They just jam. 700mHz is 700mHz, it blocks everything regardless of what it is.


----------



## epimetheus (Nov 11, 2010)

themuzicman said:


> Jammers is Jammers. They don't care what they are jamming. They just jam. 700mHz is 700mHz, it blocks everything regardless of what it is.


 
Not to harp, but it's 700MHz that's being discussed here, not 700mHz. The devil's in the details, and the notation in this case.


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 11, 2010)

epimetheus said:


> ...The devil's in the details, and the notation in this case.


/off-topic
Since you brought it up, is it 2.4kW, 2.4Kw, or 2.4KW? How about kWh, KwH, etc.?


----------



## Anonymous067 (Nov 11, 2010)

derekleffew said:


> /off-topic
> Since you brought it up, is it 2.4kW, 2.4Kw, or 2.4KW? How about kWh, KwH, etc.?


 
Kw....right?


----------



## GrayeKnight (Nov 11, 2010)

kW and kWh.

Meaning a thousand of James Watt's Watts? And an hour of his little kW's?


----------



## jwl868 (Nov 11, 2010)

Strictly speaking (by IUPAC) (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry), kilowatt is kW. But I can find numerous texts that use kw. (For some reason, Joule and Newton, get caps for their units [J and N], but for some reason, Watt gets dissed and is often lower case.)

For kilowatt-hours, I’ve seen just about all the combinations: kwh, kWh, kw-hr, KWH. All are generally acceptable and most importantly understood and not ambiguous. More importantly, when abbreviations appear in documents, they are usually defined somewhere in the document. (Although in some cases, the reader and writer have the same knowledge and background, and the abbreviation definition may get left out by the writer.)

The case-convention of prefixes by IUPAC, however, must be used. Offhand, I think “m” and “M” are the only duplicate letters. Context means a lot but an errant “m” for an “M” could leave the reader wondering if the writer meant “k”.

In some industries (petroleum and fuels), “M” means “1,000” and “MM” means “1,000,000”. In wastewater, MGD or mgd is million gallons per day. Again, context is everything.


Joe


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 11, 2010)

jwl868 said:


> ...In wastewater, MGD or mgd is million gallons per day. Again, context is everything.


Indeed, context IS everything. MGD=Miller Genuine Draft.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Nov 11, 2010)

derekleffew said:


> Indeed, context IS everything. MGD=Miller Genuine Draft.


 
Certainly in my current location is it.


----------



## epimetheus (Nov 11, 2010)

SI prefix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Y, Z, P, M are all duplicated on the the other end of the SI prefix scale. With non-duplicated prefixes, capitalization is forgivable, such as K vs. k. But m vs. M is one that should not be confused.

BTW, the symbol for watts is W, not w. KW is acceptable, though not preferred IMO, while kw just makes you look unprofessional to me. kW is correct.


----------



## photoatdv (Nov 16, 2010)

Here's an interesting one to add to the debate-- 

YouTube - PCE TV Episode #4 "Wireless Microphones in 700 MHZ" . Shure rep basically says nothing will happen other than 700MHz not working and possibly getting cease and desist orders...

Not voicing any opinion: just saw this online.


----------



## mbenonis (Nov 16, 2010)

photoatdv said:


> Here's an interesting one to add to the debate--
> 
> YouTube - PCE TV Episode #4 "Wireless Microphones in 700 MHZ" . Shure rep basically says nothing will happen other than 700MHz not working and possibly getting cease and desist orders...
> 
> Not voicing any opinion: just saw this online.





Just what we need the manufacturers saying right now...


----------



## museav (Nov 16, 2010)

photoatdv said:


> Shure rep basically says nothing will happen other than 700MHz not working and possibly getting cease and desist orders...


Perhaps some clarification as the reference to Criss being the "Shure rep" may be misunderstood by many. Criss Niemann is an independent manufacturer's rep and as such the link between several manufacturers, in his case including Shure, and numerous local dealers, contractors and consultants. So his comments represent the views of his company Audio Geer and not those of Shure. 

I think that some of his comments are a bit misleading. It is true that the FCC does not have 'police', however field offices of the FCC have the ability to, and sometimes do, monitor, locate and measure transmissions. This is especially true if anyone files a complaint. There is also the aspect with the 700MHz spectrum that some local 'first responder' and life safety organizations are being active in verifying that their frequencies are clear, so a complaint regarding those frequencies may not be uncommon. Also, while the initial result of a valid complaint may indeed be a 'cease and desist' letter, failure to immediately cease operations after receiving such a letter can escalate into large fines.


----------



## necomtelecom (Nov 17, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> Would using a cell phone jammer in the 700Mhz range also interfere with wireless mics in the same 700Mhz range?


 
its can block it


----------



## DiscoBoxer (Dec 2, 2010)

Anonymous067, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that your just exploring for curiosity. I understand the need to work with what you got, within the limits set by the people in charge.

However, in this case (as made very clear above), the law supersedes your superiors in their statements to stick with it. Depending on where you are and what surrounds your facility is going to determine your risk. Say you did either option, run the mics or jam, and you interfered with an emergency communication you are going to be in it deep.

I am not just talking about radio communications and FCC intervention alone in this circumstance. Like mentioned earlier in the post, say you have a doctor or a first responder who cannot receive a call on their mobile or you have a police officer around the block who doesn't receive communication, and the result of these scenarios is the loss of a life, the person in charge of your venue and YOU will be liable in both criminal and civil court. If "John Smith's" mother dies because she could not get help, John is going to sue your organization, the financiers of the organization, and the individuals (like yourself) who knowingly disobeyed the law.

Of course this is a worst case scenario, but is it truly worth the risk? If you feel so, than change the name of John Smith to your own and what would you do then?

My words of advice in your scenario, stop all use of the system and spend your time researching ways to convince your leaders that it is in the best interest of the organization and the public to invest in an alternate plan. If your direct supervisor doesn't listen, you need to escalate and remove your hands as a contributor to the problem.

Likely not what you want to hear, but we are here to help you make the best decision with the information you provide. Good luck!


----------



## dvsDave (Dec 2, 2010)

DiscoBoxer said:


> We are here to help you make the best decision with the information you provide.


 
Now there's a great quote. Very applicable to many conversations on CB!


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 6, 2010)

Cool. And that's fine...really, it is. 

All I'm going to say in response is our mics aren't on the spectrum local emergency response *could* be using. Yes, believe it or not, I've checked.

And for anyone who wants to say I don't understand the emergency response system, I am not only a trained EMT-B, but a first responder TRAINER. 

thank you,


----------



## jstroming (Dec 6, 2010)

Anonymous067,

I'm not one of the die-hard "you must follow this rule or will be thrown in prison" type people (trust me) but there are many federal agencies who could conceivably be involved in your location who I'm sure you didn't call, like Hotch and Gideon from the BAU chasing a serial killer or something.

I agree the chances of getting prosecuted for this are next to nil, unless you're the reason the FBI failed to prevent the next 9/11. Chances are you'll get a C&D letter from some fat-cat government lawyer. At that point go to the "powers that be" in your facility and they'll listen, if it ever comes down to that, which again isn't likely. Don't be malicious and call the FCC yourself because that's dumb, although I'm sure some obnoxious technician somewhere in this country has threatened or maybe even done it.

People still use mics in the 700mHz range, perhaps because they don't know about the ban (not everyone knows about Control Booth unfortunately!) or perhaps because they do traveling shows in and out the same day and the chances of them getting caught are extremely low. Hey, not saying it's moral, but plenty of people do it.

I own mics that span 680-710 (user adjustable) and I didn't get rid of them. I was told by an audio friend that technically the law bans the use of any equipment that COULD operate in that frequency (don't know, didn't read it!) but as an educated professional you gauge the risk and do what you deem necessary. I mean come on who hasn't daisy-chained a power strip!!!


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 6, 2010)

jstroming said:


> Anonymous067,
> 
> I'm not one of the die-hard "you must follow this rule or will be thrown in prison" type people (trust me) but there are many federal agencies who could conceivably be involved in your location who I'm sure you didn't call, like Hotch and Gideon from the BAU chasing a serial killer or something.
> 
> ...


 
FWIW, I try my best not to use the half of my mics that are illegals. I tell people, I push it. I understand the situation.

this "friend" however is incorrect, as there is not "law"-hate to the terminology freak, but law just isn't correct. Mike will be along shortly to give us the correct word, but the FCC doesn't make laws...

I think we're on the same page here, believe it or not.

One last thing, I don't own, nor do I use, a cell phone jammer. If you got this impression, please re-read the thread. You have bad information, if you think I'm using one.


----------



## mstaylor (Dec 7, 2010)

The FCC has Rules and Regulations. Can you get in trouble for breaking them, absolutely.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 7, 2010)

mstaylor said:


> The FCC has Rules and Regulations. Can you get in trouble for breaking them, absolutely.


 
Never did I say you couldn't get into trouble. Just that the FCC doesn't have _laws._


----------



## museav (Dec 7, 2010)

jstroming said:


> People still use mics in the 700mHz range, perhaps because they don't know about the ban (not everyone knows about Control Booth unfortunately!) or perhaps because they do traveling shows in and out the same day and the chances of them getting caught are extremely low. Hey, not saying it's moral, but plenty of people do it.


Advocating "it's only wrong if you get caught" or "it's okay if others do it" philosophies in a forum focused on education is probably best avoided. And while ignorance is not a defense for violating the law, someone continuing to operate 700MHz wireless systems due to ignorance is probably ethically and morally a different situation than someone continuing to do so with the knowledge that the operation is expressly prohibited. Personally, these are the issues that worry me with schools and churches continuing to use 700MHz wireless systems as in many of those situations that is not just a conscious decision, but one may be taken by students and members as reflecting the beliefs and perspective being advocated by the schools and churches.


jstroming said:


> I own mics that span 680-710 (user adjustable) and I didn't get rid of them. I was told by an audio friend that technically the law bans the use of any equipment that COULD operate in that frequency (don't know, didn't read it!) but as an educated professional you gauge the risk and do what you deem necessary. I mean come on who hasn't daisy-chained a power strip!!!


Not all CB members are educated professionals, many are in the process of obtaining that education, some very early in that process. I also believe that many CB members making such decisions would actually be putting others at risk rather than themselves, a factor that should be considered.


People seem to forget that by far the vast majority of wireless microphone systems were not operating legally (or within the rules and regulations) until after the 700Mhz spectrum ban was already in place. The fact is that except for the limited number of licensed users, the FCC didn't really take anything away and nothing really changed with the 700MHz spectrum ban other than the FCC clarifying and enforcing what had always been true, that unlicensed RF system use in that spectrum was prohibited.


----------



## mstaylor (Dec 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> Never did I say you couldn't get into trouble. Just that the FCC doesn't have _laws._


I understand that either can get you in trouble, I thought it was asked why they called their requirements, that would be rules and regs. We live under way more regulations than laws, between the FCC,SEC,NEC and a ton of other code enforcement agencies. Fire, plumbing, building and many others.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 7, 2010)

mstaylor said:


> I understand that either can get you in trouble, I thought it was asked why they called their requirements, that would be rules and regs. We live under way more regulations than laws, between the FCC,SEC,NEC and a ton of other code enforcement agencies. Fire, plumbing, building and many others.


 
My point still stands. I never argued that the FCC can't get you in trouble. Simply that they aren't called laws. Period. That's ALL I said


----------



## DuckJordan (Dec 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> My point still stands. I never argued that the FCC can't get you in trouble. Simply that they aren't called laws. Period. That's ALL I said


 

You are correct they aren't laws, but they are enforced by the law to the extent of the FCC's determination of what should happen if the rules are enforced. But the FCC has a way of being a semi-law because when they dictate that 700mhz systems are not to be used by any civilian for personal use, and basically open it up for businesses and emergency responders to use. It becomes not the rule that you are infringing upon but the law, generally its conscious interference of emergency responders. And just because your local Emergency responders don't use the frequency traveling ones may use it.


This isn't an attack on you, it was never meant to be, its here for educational purpose of letting newer educated youth in the entertainment industry understand that if they get a hold of 700mhz equipment they should not use it. While i did post about upward nose turning a while ago no-one on here has seemed to personally attack you at all.

If I was in your situation, I would be looking for a different job with another company, and when you get the other job you can let your bosses know that you won't work for them while they blatantly ignore safety concerns.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 7, 2010)

DuckJordan said:


> You are correct they aren't laws, but they are enforced by the law to the extent of the FCC's determination of what should happen if the rules are enforced. But the FCC has a way of being a semi-law because when they dictate that 700mhz systems are not to be used by any civilian for personal use, and basically open it up for businesses and emergency responders to use. It becomes not the rule that you are infringing upon but the law, generally its conscious interference of emergency responders. And just because your local Emergency responders don't use the frequency traveling ones may use it.
> 
> 
> This isn't an attack on you, it was never meant to be, its here for educational purpose of letting newer educated youth in the entertainment industry understand that if they get a hold of 700mhz equipment they should not use it. While i did post about upward nose turning a while ago no-one on here has seemed to personally attack you at all.
> ...


 
My remarks regarding the no emergency responders using the frequencies in the area was merely me trying to not feel guilty, if you will. (can't think of a better way to phrase that). I wouldn't knowingly (yeah, somebody will quote this and use this word against me) interfere with them, and I wouldn't encourage other people to do so either.

I do however, find the point that Brad made interesting which is that everybody was actually just as illegal as the 700Mhz "users" prior to the new regulations going into effect, anyways.


----------



## MNicolai (Dec 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> I do however, find the point that Brad made interesting which is that everybody was actually just as illegal as the 700Mhz "users" prior to the new regulations going into effect, anyways.



This was the case because so many people had wireless microphones and while most were for unlicensed use, they were typically ignored unless you were interfering with licensed use. Licensed use was so minimal and isolated (think news stations and football stadiums) that it was usually a non-issue. Most cases resulted in C&D letters, and fines were usually not used unless unlicensed users persisted to interfere after they had already been notified.

The things have changed and made the FCC far merciless towards unlicensed 700MHz operations are:

"I didn't know" became an unacceptable excuse with the high publicity and attention this policy had for the several years that it was in the works.
Interference with licensed users is likely to directly affect communications for people working in public safety positions, where understanding or not understanding the person on the other end of the radio can make the difference between life and death. No longer is interference seen as "just an inconvenience".
The situations where licensed users may be affected is widespread. Before, licensed users were typically found in entertainment facilities like stadiums, news stations, and maybe the occasional opera hall. Now, the licensed users are all over the map. They might be responding to a fire at someone's house, trying to get to someone who has just had a heart attack on the subway, or they could be responding to an emergency in an arena where just a few years ago their fancy new radios would've been picking up the voice of an announcer.

This isn't a simple, "We were blind and now we see" realization that made the FCC suddenly more concerned about 700MHz users. The stakes have risen significantly and what used to be more of an inconvenience now could be the difference between whether or not someone dies. On 9/11, there were plenty of problems with communication and the radios that firefighters had. I guarantee if a tragedy of that scale happened again today and communications problems were the direct result of some community theatre with their wireless mic's turned on, they'd be made an example of they would've wished they had forked over the money originally to have their mic's replaced.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 7, 2010)

I give up, seeing that people have clearly mis-interpreted my intent in my recent posts. 

Whatever.


----------



## mbenonis (Dec 7, 2010)

Anonymous067 said:


> Mike will be along shortly to give us the correct word, but the FCC doesn't make laws...


 
Strictly speaking, the FCC doesn't do anything until it's published in the Federal Register, which typically happens 30-60 days after the FCC makes a ruling. Once it's in there, and don't quote me on this, I believe it does indeed have the full force of law. Government types would probably call it Administrative Law (one of four types of law, as I remember from Government class)

More light reading:
Federal Register - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rulemaking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## museav (Dec 8, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> This isn't a simple, "We were blind and now we see" realization that made the FCC suddenly more concerned about 700MHz users. The stakes have risen significantly and what used to be more of an inconvenience now could be the difference between whether or not someone dies.


Very good points. And while not the same as people's lives, the FCC also received billions of dollars through the auctions of the 700MHz spectrum with the bidders being provided the understanding that they were receiving exclusive use of the spectrum being awarded, so the FCC also added commitments to those parties. So there are indeed good reasons for the use of wireless systems in the 700MHz range now being perceived and enforced differently. My point was that unlicensed wireless system users who seem to feel the FCC is taking away their being able to operate in the 698-806MHz spectrum, and there seem to be many out there, need to understand not only why their operation is being prohibited but also that they never actually had any right to be operating there in the first place. You can't really lose something you never had.


----------



## mstaylor (Dec 8, 2010)

museav said:


> Very good points. And while not the same as people's lives, the FCC also received billions of dollars through the auctions of the 700MHz spectrum with the bidders being provided the understanding that they were receiving exclusive use of the spectrum being awarded, so the FCC also added commitments to those parties. So there are indeed good reasons for the use of wireless systems in the 700MHz range now being perceived and enforced differently. My point was that unlicensed wireless system users who seem to feel the FCC is taking away their being able to operate in the 698-806MHz spectrum, and there seem to be many out there, need to understand not only why their operation is being prohibited but also that they never actually had any right to be operating there in the first place. You can't really lose something you never had.


 
Go ahead and confuse the issue with facts.


----------



## Anonymous067 (Dec 8, 2010)

mstaylor said:


> Go ahead and confuse the issue with facts.


 
How are the facts confusing? I understood what Brad said perfectly fine.


----------



## mstaylor (Dec 8, 2010)

It is a joke that means he is stating the exact truth but people will argue anyway.


----------



## MNicolai (Dec 8, 2010)

mstaylor said:


> It is a joke that means he is stating the exact truth but people will argue anyway.



That sounds about right. When a person spends tens of thousands of dollars on wireless mic's, there's a certain de facto feeling of entitlement that people feel they have to operate that equipment and "not no one, especially not the FCC or the government" has the authority to step in and say otherwise.

People don't think about microphones like they think of guns, but they really are quite similar. Just because at some point you bought a few, doesn't mean you can use them without a license or permit and you especially shouldn't be recklessly waving them around in public unless you fully understand the possible repercussions of your actions. No matter how long you've owned the gear, at just about any point in time the FCC can step in and say, "Stop doing that," and that's about the end of the argument unless you want to spend a lot of time in a court battle you'll probably lose.


----------



## Chris15 (Dec 9, 2010)

So if anyone wanted proof that jammers work on wireless audio as effectively as they do on mobile phones, have a look at the missed heart beats caused at the Commonwelath Games, Norwest Productions, second last paragraph before the credits...


----------



## Edrick (Mar 10, 2011)

*Dont you jam those signals*

I remember a few months back someone here was discussing the use of a Cell Phone jammer to keep phones out of their theater.

FCC going after cellphone jammers, could land users in the slammer -- Engadget

Don't try it! as I'm sure was said in the topic.


<Mod note: This post was moved here from another location.>


----------



## godd2 (Mar 25, 2011)

out of curiosity, i have not done this just wondered about it. what are the laws on creating a faraday box out of a classroom? my classroom gets little cell reception anyway, i wondered what would happen if i put copper or even just simple metal screen in the ceiling if it would eliminate it all from my room. that would not affect any other space but my room.


----------



## avkid (Mar 25, 2011)

If you think you can create a Faraday cage, go for it.
However, you will most certainly go broke buying the sheets of copper.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 25, 2011)

I do believe Faraday cages are legal as they only disrupt outside signals for people within the cage and do not create interference for the general pubic.

Vreating a Faraday cage out of a public assembly space, while probably not illegal, is at least unethical -- it is one thing to do it in a private electronics lab where everyone who enters knows they are isolated; do it in a large facility open to the public and when the fire department shows up to put a fire out, you had better bet there will be problems if they don't know that parts of the facility are isolated and there's no one coming to help them if they find themselves cornered by a fire, calling on the radio for help.

There are paints out on the market now that, to my understanding, do a reasonable job at blocking the transmission of WiFi signals. This is becoming popular in residential settings where homeowners will paint exterior walls with this so that their neighbors aren't mooching their WiFi or hacking into their home networks. I do not know what sort of effect this has on cellular and radio signals, but I've heard it works pretty well for WiFi.


----------



## mbenonis (Mar 25, 2011)

As far as I know, there's nothing illegal about creating a cage to keep signals in. I've never tried myself, but I'd imagine the copper mesh you'd need to use would be pretty darn pricey. Keep in mind you'll want continuous coverage around the room (floor and ceiling too) to to make it effective. Never tried the paints, but I have heard of them.


----------



## Chris15 (Mar 26, 2011)

It becomes a question of what frequencies you want to attenuate. Based on that you work out what size apertures become acceptable in the mesh. To build a broadband effective shield may take multiple layers of different sized meshes and possibly sheets. This is the same idea as different forms of shielding being more effective at attenuating different sources of EMR into a coaxial cable...


----------



## museav (Mar 26, 2011)

I've worked on facilities that used passive and active measures for not only EMI/RFI shielding but also to address other forms of potential eavesdropping such as laser interferometry or tapping into communications lines. Most of these were military or government facilities but some were test and research facilities, 'think tanks' and even some corporate spaces (you don't want your competitors learning that you're planning to buy them out or how much you'd accept in a buyout or any of your plans for the next quarter). In comparison to that, I see potential non-technical challenges to any more general application of RFI shielding, especially for any public venues. With all respect, in most cases a classroom or instructional space does not belong to the instructor, it belongs to the public and could have a not only a different user at any point in the future, but unless it is a dedicated use space also a different use.


----------



## shiben (Nov 9, 2011)

museav said:


> I've worked on facilities that used passive and active measures for not only EMI/RFI shielding but also to address other forms of potential eavesdropping such as laser interferometry or tapping into communications lines. Most of these were military or government facilities but some were test and research facilities, 'think tanks' and even some corporate spaces (you don't want your competitors learning that you're planning to buy them out or how much you'd accept in a buyout or any of your plans for the next quarter). In comparison to that, I see potential non-technical challenges to any more general application of RFI shielding, especially for any public venues. With all respect, in most cases a classroom or instructional space does not belong to the instructor, it belongs to the public and could have a not only a different user at any point in the future, but unless it is a dedicated use space also a different use.


 
I believe one of the more advanced of these was the US Embassy in Moscow during the cold war. Incidentally, I saw this very pretty building at a government contractor's facility recently, and was wondering why in the middle of an airfield and plant they had a giant glass and steel building... Turns out every inch of the thing was designed to make it into one of the most secure buildings on the planet in terms of resistance to eavesdropping. The link to the other building like it is apparently in a pressurized sleeve so as if anyone bothers to drill a hole to tap the fiber they would know... I thought it was a rather ironic thing... Such a pretty building that used a giant glass sheet (or something...) to keep you from knowing what went on inside. I hope it was something funny/ironic, like planning cooking schedules for the kitchen staff. But lets be honest, they dont let any non-US citizen on the facility without multiple (probably armed) escorts, so it probably was more sinister... Still think the best security measure is building your base in the center of a mountain.


----------



## Sayen (Nov 16, 2011)

Just one additional point - the rumor mill out here is that it's not just the FCC you need to worry about, but the cell companies and such who paid for those chunks of the spectrum. As Verizon and crew are driving around checking their networks and coverage, they are supposedly also looking into interference. It's probably a slim chance of them happening to cruise by right as you're using a banned wireless mic, but still, does anyone really want that attention as well as the legal ramifications?


----------



## FACTplayers (Nov 18, 2011)

I'll be the one to say it because I know someone else is thinking it. If I were to ever encounter a cell phone jammer I would promptly report it. Just thought I'd take it past the FCC catching the theatre for using "illegal" microphones.


----------



## tdeater (Mar 13, 2012)

A jammer is busying the frequencies, not blocking them. Think of it like a crowded room. If you are having a conversation with someone across the room and everyone is quiet, you can hear them fine. Now, if everyone is talking, you can not pick out your conversation from all of the rest of them. RF jamming works the same way, it just generates a lot of RF energy to prevent valid signals from getting trough. it is not selective though, so it will jam your mics, public safety, cell phones, and as mentioned in other posts, is illegal in the United States.


----------



## FMEng (Mar 14, 2012)

It's interesting that this topic should be revisited today, as I just saw the following comment on another web site:

"The FCC has become concerned about Jamming devices for Cellphones, GPS and WiFi. So much so, they have released Enforcement Advisory No. 2012-02, which specifies fines in excess of $100,000 per incident."

I think that says it all.


----------



## Chris15 (Feb 22, 2013)

Due to the ongoing exploitation of this thread by spammers, this thread is now closed.


----------



## gafftaper (Feb 22, 2013)

What's the matter Chris? It's only 8 spammers in one thread! 

We should have probably closed this one a while ago.


----------

