Re: Cell Phone Jammers are Illegal in USA

[nick markowitz <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 8, 8:19=A0pm, nick markowitz <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> June 9, 2005
>
> VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
> RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
>
> Shaker Hassan,
> Sales Manager, Grand Trades Co.
> 4701 15th Avenue, N.E.
> Apartment 108
> Seattle, WA 98105
>
> Re: File No. EB-05-SE-059
> Dear Shaker Hassan:
>
> This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of
> the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (=93Communications Act=94), 47
> U.S.C. =A7 503(b)(5), for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices
> in the United States in violation of Section 302(b) of the
> Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. =A7 302a(b), and Section 2.803(a) of the
> Commission=92s Rules (=93Rules=94), 47 C.F.R. =A7 2.803(a). As explained
> below, future violations of the Commission=92s rules in this regard may
> subject your company to monetary forfeitures.
>
> By letter dated March 15, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of
> the Commission=92s Enforcement Bureau initiated an investigation into
> whether Grand Trades Co. (=93Grand Trades=94) is marketing in the United
> States unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, cell phone
> jammers, wireless device jammers and long range cordless telephones.
>
> At the time of that letter, March 15, 2005, we observed on your
> website,www.grandtrades.net, your advertisement for sale of the
> following radio frequency devices:
>
> 1. SH-066BM2 A/B-R cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there
> were two models of this device available, including one for =93USA/
> Canada.=94
> 2. SH066PL2A/B portable cell phone jammer. The website indicated that
> there were two models of this device available, including one for =93USA/
> Canada.=94
> 3. GT-200 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
> models of this device available, including one for =93USA/Canada.=94
> 4. SRC300 cell phone jammer. The website indicated that there were two
> models of this device available, including one for =93USA/Canada.=94
> 5. GT300 cell phone jammer. The website described this device as a
> =93Worldwide=94 cell phone jammer.
> 6. 2.4 GHz wireless jammer. The website stated that this device
> interferes with the video signals of wireless cameras and blocks the
> communications of wireless LANs and Bluetooth devices.
> 7. Senao 358 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
> this device has a range of 20 km.
>
> 8. Senao 668 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
> this device has a range of 128 km.
> 9. Senao 869 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that
> this device has a range of 20 km.
>
> Your advertisement of these products specifically listed shipping
> costs to customers in the United States. Your website also listed your
> =93USA=94 business address as 4701 15th Avenue, N.E., Apartment 108,
> Seattle, Washington 98105, and your =93USA=94 fax number as (206)
> 309-0271. Furthermore, your website stated that =93[w]e run the business
> from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA=94 and that =93we
> gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK, Canada, Germany,
> Ireland, France, Italy, Portugal & more.=94
>
> In response to our letter of inquiry, you sent us two undated written
> responses by facsimile, one received on or about March 20, 2005 and
> one received on or about March 30, 2005. In these faxes, you claimed
> that your company is based in Taiwan and Egypt, that you don=92t have
> any import or export business activity or distributors inside the
> U.S., and that you don=92t have an office or branch of Grand Trades or
> hold any inventory in the U.S. You further claimed that Grand Trades
> is =93not directing our business to USA.=94 Nevertheless, you admitted
> that since Grand Trades began its business about five months ago, it
> has sold about 10 cell phone jammers, two video jammers, and four long
> range cordless telephones to U.S. customers. You did not provide FCC
> Identification numbers or other documentation showing that the devices
> have been certified in accordance with the Commission=92s equipment
> authorization requirements. Finally, you stated that you do not
> manufacture the devices and are not aware of the regulations of each
> country.
>
> Section 302(b) of the Act provides that =93[n]o person shall
> manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
> electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
> with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.=94 Section 2.803
> (a)(1) of the Commission=92s implementing regulations provides that:
> no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
> advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
> purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
> frequency device unless =85 [i]n the case of a device subject to
> certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
> accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified
> and labeled as required by =A7 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
> chapter.
> Pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. =A7 15.201(b),
> intentional radiators must be authorized in accordance with the FCC=92s
> certification procedures prior to the initiation of marketing in the
> U.S. Based on your failure to provide FCC Identification numbers or
> other documentation showing that the jammers and cordless telephones
> marketed in the U.S. by Grand Trades have been certified, as well as
> our review of the Commission=92s equipment authorization database, it
> appears that these devices have not been certified. Moreover, it does
> not appear that these devices are capable of receiving a grant of
> certification. In this regard, the main purpose of cell phone and
> other wireless jammers is to block or interfere with radio
> communications. Such use is clearly prohibited by Section 333 of the
> Act, 47 U.S.C. =A7 333, which states that =93[n]o person shall willfully
> or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
> communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
> Act or operated by the
>
> United States Government.=94 A device such as a jammer which
> intentionally interferes with radio communications is not eligible for
> certification. Similarly, considering the long ranges cited in your
> advertisements for the cordless telephones, it appears that they do
> not comply with FCC technical requirements and therefore could not
> receive a grant of certification. Accordingly, it appears that Grand
> Trades has violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
> the Rules by marketing in the United States the nine unauthorized
> radio frequency devices listed above. Finally, we note that the
> evidence before us contradicts Grand Trades=92 claim that it is not
> directing its business to the United States. In this regard, we note,
> among other things, that Grand Trades=92 website advertised =93USA/Canada=
=94
> models of several of its cell phone jammers, listed shipping costs to
> the United States for its products, and stated that =93[w]e run the
> business from more than one location in Taiwan, Egypt & USA=94 and that
> =93we gladly served many customers worldwide from USA, UK,
> Canada . . .=94
> If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the Communications Act
> or the Commission=92s rules in any manner described herein, the
> Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $11,000 for
> each such violation or each day of a continuing violation.
>
> You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this
> letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission=92s
> Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written
> statement. Your response should specify the actions that you are
> taking to ensure that you do not violate the Commission=92s rules
> governing the marketing of radio frequency equipment in the future.
>
> The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Seattle District
> Office, in Kirkland, Washington. Please call Katherine Power at
> 202-418-0919 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You should
> schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date of
> this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of
> the date of this letter to:
>
> Kathryn Berthot
> Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
> Enforcement Bureau
> Federal Communications Commission
> 445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 7-C802
> Washington, D.C. 20554
>
> Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. =A7 552(a)(e)(3), we are
> informing you that the Commission=92s staff will use all relevant
> material information before it, including information that you
> disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if
> any, enforcement action is required to ensure your compliance with the
> Communications Act and the Commission=92s rules.
>
> The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
> concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
> punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. =A7 1001.
>
> Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kathryn Berthot
> Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
> Enforcement Bureau
> Federal Communications Commission

I get people asking me about these units all the time as you can see
above they can bring big trouble.
thought the group might find this intresting.