Cell Phone Jammers are Illegal in USA

June 9, 2005


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,

formatting link
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.

  1. Senao 668 long range cordless phone. The website indicated that this device has a range of 128 km.

  1. 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.


Kathryn Berthot Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission

Reply to
nick markowitz
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
nick markowitz

FCC, UL, FDA, DEA, ATF, FBI, CIA, USDA, GSA, etc, all assclowns in my book.

Jim Rojas

Reply to
Jim Rojas

Don't forget the biggest assclowns of them all: --DHS--

Check out these series of videos regarding warrantless, suspicionless, and unconstitutional DHS harassment:

(number 14 in the series)

formatting link

Reply to
G. Morgan

I bet it did.

If the feds really wanted to do something about the illegal entry of people at the border, they could. Throwing out a dragnet some 40 miles from the border makes no sense. They are on a 'fishing' expedition, no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion. It is a 4th Amendment issue for me.

Reply to
G. Morgan

Fixing the problem of illegals would be a simple matter of drying up the job market for them. Just make sure that it isn't worth hiring these folks.

Any company found knowingly hiring illegals is seized and put into receivership by the government until it can be sold. The President/CEO/Owner is put in jail and the head of human resources joins him/her.

If the company is public, all stock is declared worthless and if the new owners wish to issue new stock that is up to them.

That way, the big boss will want to ensure that every employee is above board, the person in charge of hiring folks will be careful to vet new employees as throughly as possible and the stock holders will be adamant that the company does not engage in such behavior.

As for hiring illegal domestics, obviously private ci9tizens may not have as much access to systems used to identify possible illegals but even then, if it is apparent that the homeowner knowingly hired an illegal - he/she loses the home.

Such penalties are already in place in other areas of the law so why not here?

As for the road blocks - I found the following:


This is a border-related case that incrementally increased law enforcement?s ability to avoid Fourth Amendment restrictions. The court permits the use of roadblocks several miles inland from national borders under the following rationale:

  • There aren?t feasible alternatives (in their opinion). * It is a known and ongoing roadblock so travelers can avoid it if they want to. * And, supposedly motorist fear and surprise is minimal because this is an established roadblock with clear evidence of enforcement authority.

This is the case that pulls together the two themes that have merged in the dispute over when it is permissible to stop motorists without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The court re-affirmed that individual officers cannot randomly stop motorists, just because they don?t have anything better to do with their time. They must have at least reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle and question the driver.

However, the court volunteered that all the issues that made such random stops ?unreasonable? under the Fourth Amendment could be remedied by setting up formal roadblocks. This was a loud and clear signal from the court that roadblocks were OK as long as they were organized and systematic in their administration and implementation.

I can't find the source anymore but I remember reading somewhere that the courts have determined that such checkpoints must be within a reasonable distance to the border and that such a distance is considered to be 100 miles.

I'm not saying that I think these checkpoints are my favorite things, but since court precedent deems them legal this guys actions smack of useless petulance.

The agents at these checkpoints are not jack-booted thugs. They are just normal guys doing a legal (as deemed by court precedence) job they are told to do. Giving them a hard time and backing up traffic making other people late just so he can post inflammatory videos that do nothing to change the law is childish.

At the very least he could be polite when he speaks to them. It seems his rude and overbearing manner is actively trying to escalate the situation - maybe hoping for a lucrative lawsuit if he is ever lucky enough to run into an agent who is having a bad day.

Better he should be organizing folks to get his state (or federal) congressman or senator to write laws that would change this on the basis that it is a waste of taxpayer money since they are established and easily avoidable by those that need to avoid them.

Reply to

It's not childish to stand up for your rights. The checkpoints that were 'cleared' by the Supreme Court are those which are "Fixed and permanent", not the temporary types that can be removed on a daily basis (such as the one in AZ).

formatting link
You may be thinking, "it's no big deal" just answer the questions to make it easy on everyone. It is a big deal. I don't want to give up my rights for the convenience of those sitting behind me in traffic, or to make the officer's day less difficult. Every little time we waive our rights, we are inviting more opportunity for them to take advantage of us.

I think Ben Franklin said it best: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Reply to
G. Morgan

Per G. Morgan:

Also, now we'd have one more uncertainty factory every time we go somewhere. Will it take the usual 20 minutes? Or will we be delayed an extra 10 waiting in line at some road block?

Reply to

Did you ever wonder what would happen if you answered, "No?"

On my return flight from my first trip to Brazil, not long after 9/11, I did just that. Along with my own luggage I was carrying an extra bag belonging to a Brazilian friend. In it were perfectly legal gift items intended for his family back in the States. I didn't actually pack the suitcase but I was fairly certain nothing in it was prohibited -- a few toys, some cheap jewelry and some herbal medicines which are sold over the counter in Brazil. My only concern was those medicines. Though they were innocuous, I didn't know if US or Brazilian law thought so. I figured by being totally open I'd avoid a hassle if there was some regulation or other. So, when the security agent at Jobim airport asked the question, I said, "No, and I'm not sure what's in it."

Asked who packed the bag, I pointed to my Brazilian friend who was waiting a few feet away and said, "Him." (well, actually I said, "Ele," since the agent was Brazilian. :^)

The next few minutes were umm, interesting. The agent pressed a little button and shortly two very large, well-armed, uniformed men appeared at my side. They asked me about the bag and I repeated what I told the other agent. They politely asked if I would mind if they inspected it. I suspect if I said no they would have dispensed with politeness and done so anyway.

We went into a small office with an X-ray machine. They unpacked the bag and then X-rayed it to see if anything was concealed in the lining. They inspected everything from that bag but never bothered with the ones I packed myself. All the while they were polite and friendly. The fact that I spoke to them in Portuguese may have helped. When I speak to officials in their own language -- even poorly -- there's an appreciation and doors seem to open more readily. At any rate, the whole affair was over in about 10 minutes. As I left one of the security guys offered a "Bom viagem." I think this would have been very different if it happened in the USA.

As to the video, I can't really comment since my PC speakers are currently disconnected. US citizens standing on US soil do not have to answer questions from law enforcement officers, border patrol or military personnel. However, refusing to do so is a good way to get hassled. While it's our right to refuse to answer, it's usually a lot easier to co-operate as long as the officer is being reasonable. If he's being an a$$, feel free to exercise your rights. Then, after he wrecks your day, file a lawsuit. It's the American way. :^)

Reply to
Robert L Bass

I'm of a mind that it doesn't bother me if they want to inspect my baggage of anything that they want to inspect. I'd rather they put me through the minor inconvenience of checking my stuff so that they just might discover something dangerous in someone else's stuff. If they're going to let me though with out checking me out, that means there's a greater possibility that someone will get through with something they're not supposed to have.

Terrorist thrive on the fact that US citizens demand their freedom to do what ever they want to do. Mankinds natural state is to be free. And that's a good thing. But that presumes that there is no bad intentions to do free people any harm. That's the loophole. How do we remain free yet keep people who would use that freedom to harm us? I don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to inspections then demand my "rights". My rights will still be there if I need them but during these times, the enemies of this country are at least on guard.

I just don't feel that I should object to these minor inconveniences on one hand and expect the authorities to protect us on the other hand. I want every would be terrorist thinking that they just might get caught. They should be looking over their shoulder at every turn. I'd say that it would be better to encourage the authorities than to discourage them. It's better that they feel that what they are doing is for the betterment of our security so that presumably they will keep alert, than to feel as if the public is against them and let something get by them.

Those that have nothing to hide ummmm have nothing to hide ... and as inadaquate as shat they do might seem, it's better than pre 9/11 and it could be a lot more restrictive than it is.

Ver ar yough pepperrs.? Hugh kinnot crodss de borderr widout yough pepperrs!!!

Reply to

Sure, it's a minor inconvenience now. In the not to distant future though, left unchecked; these random 'checks' could become much more than just an inconvenience. That's why I feel so strongly about this. If the "sheep" are all just nodding in agreement with everything the Govm't tells them, then we have a problem. Surely I have not been the only one who has noticed the increased "police state" mentality? Am I the only one who can see something very nefarious going on in this country?

Don't even get me started on the FEMA camps.

Thanks for telling me what would happen if I didn't pack my own bag. I guess I'll just lie if I'm in that situation, (shhhhh... don't tell the terrorists about my lying idea, they might use that gem to smuggle nukes on a plane.)

Reply to
G. Morgan

You are about an inch away from telling us all that the twin towers came down by explosive charges which isn't surprising after knowing you all these years

Reply to

I actually looked into all the suposed fema camps here in Pa and found none. along with all the other nonsense. the only legitamate site would be indian town gap thats where the mariel boat lift from cuba peole were held while being checked out.

Reply to
nick markowitz

I worked with a guy who swore one was underground in Denton Texas, guys like G think they are everywhere just waiting to pounce

Reply to

I haven't actually looked at the physical sites myself, so I can't really comment. I'm just going by what I saw on uTube and blogs.

Look at this guys experience:

formatting link

Reply to
G. Morgan

Absolutely agree. I fealt that way long before 9/11. Many years ago when I first started college I got a part time job doing campus security. One day I saw a guy using a coat hanger to open a car window so I questioned him. He said it was his car. When I asked for ID he got angry so I asked, "Suppose someone else was messing with your car. Would you want me to question them?" He took out his driver's license and student ID (with a somewhat better attitude).

I don't know how true that is. Terrorists strike more frequently in places where their freedom is far more curtailed than in the USA. When they do strike, marginal security gives them an edge. That is why we need to actually DO something about our security -- not just talk about it while giving out $billions in no-bid contracts to pals of Bush / Cheney. Fortunately, with the recent arrival of adult supervision in Washington, all that is about to change.

don't have the answer but in the meantime, I'd rather submit to inspections then demand my "rights".

Yep. As long as the person doing the inspection isn't doing so with unmerited malice toward me, I'm fine with a little inconvenience. I just resent the use of "terrorism" as an excuse to bully people based on race. That's why I can't stand the kind of crap that people like Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin spread like maneur on the breakfast table.

There's another side to that argument, Jim. I think the famous Franklin saying goes, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I cherish my privacy enough to resent like hell the idea that Bush ordered his minions to listen to my phone conversations and those of millions of other US citizens. Before we defend this as a measure to protect America, remember that the eavesdropping specifically targeted members of political groups who opposed Bush but were never in any way thought to be possible terrorists. The previous administration was worse than Nixon. Obama can check my bags at the airport if he wants. Bush should have had his bags checked for stolen silverware when he left the White House.

But sir, we *cook everything* with peppers!!! :^)

Reply to
Robert L Bass

Executive Order Number 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies. The bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

Executive Order Number 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and grant the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a

1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis." FEMA's powers were consolidated by President Carter to incorporate: The National Security Act of 1947, which allows for the strategic relocation of industries, services, government and other essential economic activities, and to rationalize the requirements for manpower, resources and production facilities; The 1950 Defense Production Act, which gives the President sweeping powers over all aspects of the economy; The Act of August 29, 1916, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army, in time of war, to take possession of any transportation system for transporting troops, material, or any other purpose related to the emergency; and The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which enables the President to seize the property of a foreign country or national. These powers were transferred to FEMA in a sweeping consolidation in 1979.

Stolen from:

formatting link

Reply to
G. Morgan

Per G. Morgan:

That's the rub with me too.

My belief: left unchecked law enforcement will abuse to the max whatever powers are given them.

Did anybody see the news footage some years back of the (Denver?) police using eyedroppers to place liquid tear gas in the eyes of peaceful protesters who were kneeling and offering no resistance?

Need some overtime? How about a few road blocks?

Reply to

Exactly, that has been shown to be true again and again. Plus, once they have the power they never give it up.

Yes! It was despicable. You can spend hours on YouTube searching the keywords "police brutality".

It's like fishing in a way. Let's go throw out a roadblock and see what we get.

Reply to
G. Morgan

HELLO... Thank you. That's what I've been saying, in fact I posted that quote in this thread. Since Jim is obviously ignoring me, I wish you would engage me further about what is an acceptable level of government intrusion for our "protection". Jim is one of those sheep that believes the government knows best when it comes to controlling the population. Of course, you'll be able to spot him behind the concentration camp constantine wire... he'll be the one yelling obscenities and shaking his cane wildly.

Reply to
G. Morgan

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.