Since the adoption of the signal jamming prohibitions, society has changed so dramatically, and communications technology has become so advanced that constant connectivity to the network has produced, and continues to produce, a slew of negative externalities that are beginning to have serious impacts on public health, individual rights, and free speech privileges. The FCC’s most recent signal jamming warning emphasizes that “federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of equipment that interferes with authorized radio communications,” and that there are “no exceptions for use in a business, classroom, residence or vehicle.” Thus, those connected to the network are prohibited from interfering with their connectivity, regardless of whether there is any legitimate or virtuous reason for that interference.Īs the use of cellphones and the Internet began to rise in the 1990s, and with the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “96 Act”), the FCC received enough inquiries to issue a warning in 1999 that interfering with licensed radio spectrum is a violation of federal law. More specifically, under the current legal framework, the operation, manufacturing, and sale of devices that interfere with licensed radio communications is strictly prohibited. In particular, the FCC set forth regulations that effectively require those with access to the network to refrain from interfering with that access. While the consistency of connectivity would not have been possible without the rapid growth of communications technology over the past few decades, the foundation of its stability comes from FCC regulation. It’s time for the FCC (and Congress to the extent the FCC thinks it may need more statutory authority for more regulatory latitude) to revisit its signal jamming rules, to provide exceptions to, and waivers of, the outright ban on signal jammers, and to allow for a limited right to block mobile signals at least within specific private areas at specific times ( e.g., the dinner table at dinner time). At least the French, with a nod towards a balanced, sane existence, recognize the growing problem and preclude businesses from emailing employees after working hours. Now that we are expected to be “always on,” there are profound and growing privacy and mental health issues at stake. I could try to clear my head without bombardment, or fear of bombardment, by mobile communications and the ever-growing psychological – perhaps neurotic – compulsion to check my phone. I knew for the duration of the trip, I was unreachable. I used to relish my time on an airplane (or even on the subway, if you can believe that). There are essentially no sanctuaries from the “always on” world. Today, it is an understatement to say that mobile communications devices are ubiquitous and that mobile signals penetrate virtually every spot where humans go – our homes, our offices, our bedrooms, our bathrooms, our streets, our subways, our cars, our trains, our planes, our sea-ships, and now even our space-ships. Of course, when the FCC wrote these rules, personal mobile communications devices were simply the pie-in-the-sky dreams of the Jetsons, Star Trek, and Get Smart writers.īut those were different times. More than 50 years ago, the FCC wrote rules broadly prohibiting the use of “Signal Jammers” - devices that block mobile signals. In light of these conflicts between technology, society and the law, Congress and the FCC should revisit its signal jamming rules to allow for a limited right to block mobile signals at least within specific private areas at specific times.Signal jamming technology has the potential to effectively address all of these concerns more effectively than any alternatives.Constant engagement with connected devices is not only a major contributing factor to increases in mental health issues across all ages, but it also interferes with property rights, privacy interests, and free speech privileges.The rationales behind the prohibition of signal jamming over time have weakened as a result of technological advances.Since the U.S.’ adoption of signal jamming prohibitions, society has changed so dramatically, and communications technology has become so advanced that constant connectivity to the network has produced, and continues to produce, a slew of negative externalities.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |