Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited CTStechnologys.com
Aiswa.com Shenzhen C.T.S Import and Export Co., Limited Shenzhen,
Guangdong, People's Republic of China ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.:
EB-SED-12-00005692 NAL/Acct. No.: 201432100017 FRN: 0023572043
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER
ILLEGAL MARKETING OF SIGNAL JAMMING DEVICES
Adopted: June 18, 2014 Released: June 19, 2014
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this landmark enforcement action, we aggressively address the
illegal marketing of GPS, cell, and other signal jamming devices to
U.S. consumers over the Internet. Jamming devices pose tangible
threats to the integrity of U.S. communications infrastructure. They
can endanger life and property by preventing individuals from making
9-1-1 or other emergency calls or disrupting the basic communications
essential to aviation and marine safety. We find that C.T.S.
Technology Co., Limited (C.T.S. Technology), a foreign manufacturer,
illegally marketed nearly 300 models of signal jamming devices to
consumers in the United States over more than two years. In some
cases, the devices sold by C.T.S. Technology not only jammed the
communications signals advertised, but also were potentially much more
harmful, blocking communications far beyond the scope of those listed
in their advertisements and marketing materials. C.T.S. Technology
also apparently misled consumers, falsely claiming on its websites
that certain signal jammers were approved by the FCC for consumer use.
As confirmed by proactive market surveillance and an extensive
undercover operation conducted by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, these
apparent violations are egregious, escalated over more than two years,
and continue as of the date of this action. We therefore propose the
maximum penalty permitted by statute of thirty-four million nine
hundred and twelve thousand and five hundred dollars ($34,912,500).
Given the relative ease with which U.S. consumers may purchase illegal
jammers over the Internet, we will aggressively target the retail
platforms, like C.T.S. Technology, that are conducting and enabling
illegal activity.
2. Signal jamming devices (also referred to as signal jammers) operate by
transmitting powerful radio signals that overpower, jam, or interfere
with authorized communications. While these devices have been marketed
with increasing frequency over the Internet, they have no lawful
consumer use in the United States.^ Jammers are not only designed to
impede authorized communications and thereby interfere with the rights
of legitimate spectrum users and the general public, their operations
also place the safety of the public at risk. For example, jammers can
disrupt critical public safety communications, placing first
responders like law enforcement and fire fighting personnel--as well
as the public they are charged with protecting--at great risk. In
order to protect the public and preserve unfettered access to and use
of emergency and other communications services, the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), generally prohibits
the importation, use, marketing, manufacture, and sale of jammers in
the United States.^
3. In issuing this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order
(NAL), we are mindful that jammer retailers and
manufacturers--especially some based abroad--aggressively target U.S.
consumers, offering free and expedited shipping deals and discounted
prices, as well as incorrectly claim that jamming devices are legal in
the U.S. Indeed, our market surveillance efforts reveal that these
jammer retailers market devices that specifically jam U.S.-only
wireless frequencies and misstate the intensity of the power levels
and the frequencies of the signal jammers they offer. We are also
aware that virtually every jammer available in this country originated
elsewhere. Foreign entities therefore play a critical and primary role
in facilitating the harms jammers cause domestically. It is thus
critical to enforce our rules against offshore retailers and
manufacturers who offer and sell such devices to consumers in the
United States.
4. In addition to paying or contesting the proposed forfeiture, C.T.S.
Technology should immediately implement any necessary measures to
ensure compliance with the Act and the Federal Communications
Commission's (Commission or FCC) rules (Rules). Without limiting the
measures C.T.S. Technology can take, such compliance measures may
include removing jamming devices from online displays that are
accessible to U.S. consumers; expressly excluding consumers in the
United States and its territories as potential customers in any online
or print marketing material; implementing technical limitations that
prevent any order processing system from accepting U.S. addresses for
shipment; declining to otherwise complete any sales transaction
involving consumers in the United States and its territories; and
removing statements on its websites, directed to U.S. or other
consumers, that the signal jammers it advertises for sale are
certified or otherwise approved by the FCC, when, in fact, they are
not. ^ ^
5. We also again warn U.S. consumers that importing a cell, GPS, or other
signal jamming device (i.e., purchasing such a device online and
having it shipped into the United States via the U.S. mail or other
transport or courier service) is unlawful and may subject them to
civil and criminal penalties.^ While the Commission has typically
issued a warning to consumers who violate its importation rules, in
the case of signal jammers, the Communications Act permits us to take
a more aggressive approach--imposing monetary penalties in the first
instance. We are prepared to do so.
II. Background
6. C.T.S. Technology is a manufacturer and retailer of wireless
communication products, including signal jamming devices.^ C.T.S.
Technology advertises these products on the Internet through websites
such as CTStechnologys.com and Aiswa.com, and on various third party
platforms.^ As part of its market surveillance efforts, the Spectrum
Enforcement Division (Division) of the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau)
observed numerous cell phone jammers and other signal jamming devices
manufactured by C.T.S. Technology and offered for sale on the
Aiswa.com website. C.T.S. Technology has also increased threefold the
number of signal jammers it has advertised for sale to U.S. customers,
first marketing 78 signal jammers, then 113 and, in September 2013,
increasing to its current total of 285 different models.^ The company
has even gone so far as to falsely claim in its marketing materials
that certain of its signal jammers have been approved by the FCC.^
7. These product offerings include GPS blockers for vehicles, high-tech
signal blockers with remote control capabilities, jammers disguised as
cigarette packs, other small, easily concealable cell phone jammers,
as well as high-powered industrial jammers that have the potential to
disrupt radio signals spanning areas larger than ten football fields.^
In its online marketing materials, C.T.S. Technology emphasizes that
its 100 watt GPS jammer is effective up to a distance of 1000 meters,
which is more than one-half mile.^ C.T.S. Technology further claims
that the signal jammers it offers target various frequencies,
services, and/or technologies, such as GPS, vehicle tracking systems,
satellite radio, Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System
for Mobile Communications (GSM), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS-3G), Long Term Evolution (LTE-4G),
Integrated Digital Enhanced Network (iDEN), the Personal Handy-phone
System (PHS), Digital Cellular Service (DCS), and General Packet Radio
Service (GPRS).^ And, it expressly claims specialized expertise in
manufacturing cell phone jammers, touting its success in delivering
such devices to consumers in the United States.^
8. In addition to aggressively advertising illegal signal jammers to U.S.
consumers, C.T.S. Technology also sold illegal signal jammers to
undercover Division personnel. Specifically, in 2012, Division
personnel--using various aliases and posing as U.S. consumers--ordered
a total of 10 high-powered signal jammers from the Aiswa.com website,
providing U.S. billing and delivery addresses. C.T.S. Technology
completed the online transactions, accepted payment, and shipped the
signal jammers to the United States. Upon receipt of the signal
jammers, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
conducted detailed tests of the signal jammers' capabilities and
confirmed that the devices blocked authorized communications signals.
Additional forensic testing conducted by external engineers also
confirmed that the devices blocked authorized communications signals,
including some frequencies beyond the scope of those listed in the
advertisements.
III. Applicable Law and Violations
9. Federal law prohibits the advertising, sale, importation, and
operation of signal jammers in the United States.^ Section 333 of the
Act states that "[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."^ Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[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."^
10. The applicable implementing regulations regarding the marketing and
use of radio frequency devices, which are set forth in Sections 2.803,
2.805, 2.807, 15.1(c), 15.3(o), and 15.201 of the Rules, operate
together to create a broad and robust framework to prevent the
manufacture, importation, marketing, distribution (by sale or
otherwise) and use of RF-generating devices, such as signal jammers,
that can cause harmful interference to radio communications.^ Section
2.803(b)(1) of the Rules provides in relevant part that:
No person may market a radio frequency device unless . . . [f]or devices
subject to authorization under certification, the device has been
authorized in accordance with the rules in subpart J of this chapter and
is properly identified and labeled as required by S 2.925 and other
relevant sections in this chapter.^
11. Moreover, pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, intentional
radiators^ like signal jammers cannot be marketed in the United States
or its territories unless they have first been authorized in
accordance with the Commission's certification procedures.^ Section
2.803(a) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or
offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or lease,
or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling
or leasing or offering for sale or lease."^
12. Signal jammers, however, cannot be certified or authorized because
their primary purpose is to block or interfere with authorized radio
communications. Indeed, Section 333 of the Act clearly prohibits the
use of devices designed and built for such a purpose.^ Thus, signal
jammers such as those offered by C.T.S. Technology cannot comply with
the FCC's technical standards and therefore cannot be marketed
lawfully to consumers in the United States or its territories. We
again emphasize that under Section 302(b) of the Act, radio frequency
devices like signal jamming devices are per se illegal because they
are designed to compromise the integrity of the nation's
communications infrastructure.^ As such, signal jammers may only be
marketed pursuant to the narrow statutory exceptions in Section 302(c)
of the Act.^ Furthermore, as the manufacturer of devices that require
Commission authorization, C.T.S. Technology is obligated under our
Rules to ensure that the devices complied with the Rules prior to
marketing the devices to U.S. consumers.^
13. The evidence gathered by the Bureau in this case demonstrates that
C.T.S. Technology marketed 285 models of signal jamming devices to
U.S. consumers via its Aiswa.com website^ over an extended period of
time, utilizing a variety of advertising venues, including its
alternate website CTStechnolgys.com. C.T.S. Technology indicates on
the websites that it will ship (and has shipped) signal jammers to
consumers within the United States.^ In fact, the evidence shows that
C.T.S. Technology completed the sale of 10 high-powered signal jamming
devices to undercover Division personnel posing as U.S. consumers, and
successfully shipped the devices into the United States. Extensive
testing of these devices confirmed that they were indeed signal
jammers that in some instances disrupted signals even beyond their
designated frequency bands. Accordingly, we find that C.T.S.
Technology apparently violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections
2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Rules by willfully and repeatedly marketing
illegal radio frequency devices to consumers in the United States.^
IV. PROPOSED FORFEITURE
14. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully^ or
repeatedly^ fails to comply substantially with the terms and
conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply
with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or
order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a
forfeiture penalty.^ Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the applicable base
forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment involved
in this case is $7,000 per violation.^
15. The Commission retains the discretion, however, to issue a higher or
lower forfeiture than provided in the Forfeiture Policy Statement or
to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the
statute.^ Pursuant to this statutory and regulatory authority, the
Commission has promulgated (consistent with the requirements of the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996^) different maximum
forfeitures, depending on the type of violator and violations.^ The
maximum for violations of the signal jamming prohibition (including
the marketing at issue here) is $16,000 for each violation.^ As
provided in Section 1.80(b)(7) of the Commission's Rules, in the case
of a continuing signal jammer prohibition violation, the Commission
may impose up to $16,000 for each day of such continuing violation up
to a maximum forfeiture of $122,500 for any single act or failure to
act.^ For instance, the Commission may impose separate forfeitures for
each signal jammer marketed and/or for each day on which a signal
jammer is marketed, but only up to these statutory limits.
16. We are mindful of the serious public safety risks posed by the
marketing of signal jamming devices and of the apparent need to
provide greater incentives for individuals and businesses to cease
marketing them to U.S. consumers altogether.^ Accordingly, we propose
a separate forfeiture for each model of jamming device that was
advertised for sale in violation of the Act and our Rules.^ Further,
we will assess this forfeiture for each day on which the illegal
marketing activity continued, up to the maximum forfeiture amount
permitted by statute.
17. Consistent with this approach, we find that C.T.S. Technology
apparently committed 285 separate violations of the Act and our Rules
through its documented advertisements to U.S. consumers. Based on the
evidence in the record, we further find that the online jammer
advertisements are continuing violations, with many lasting more than
two years.^
18. In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for this misconduct, we
must take into account the statutory factors set forth in Section
503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the
violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.^ C.T.S.
Technology marketed to U.S. consumers multiple radio frequency devices
that are inherently illegal, designed for no purpose other than
performing functions that violate U.S. law, and expressly prohibited
for consumer use in the United States. These signal jammers could pose
a critical public safety hazard by potentially blocking authorized
communications, including essential 9-1-1 calls and law enforcement
communications. Furthermore, C.T.S. Technology marketed several
extremely high power jammers, including a 100 watt GPS jammer and a
180 watt cell phone jammer with ranges exceeding 3,200 feet. And, even
more troubling, C.T.S. Technology sought to mislead U.S. consumers,
misrepresenting in its online marketing materials that certain of the
devices were approved by this agency. We find this continuing
misconduct to be particularly egregious and harmful, warranting a
substantial upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount.
19. Therefore, applying the approach used in three recent Notices of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture involving the operation of signal
jammers and reflecting the discretion afforded us by the Forfeiture
Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory
factors,^ we propose the maximum forfeiture authorized by statute for
each of the 285 marketing violations. Specifically, consistent with
Section 503(b)(2) of the Act, which authorizes separate forfeiture
penalties for each day of a continuing violation, we will apply the
$16,000 statutory maximum to each day on which these 285 violations
continued up to the statutory maximum of $122,500 for each of the
continuing violations.^ We therefore conclude that C.T.S. Technology
is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of
$34,912,500 for its apparent willful and repeated violations of
Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the
Rules.
20. C.T.S. Technology should immediately implement any necessary measures
to ensure compliance with the Act and the Commission's rules.^ Without
limiting the measures C.T.S. Technology can take, such compliance
measures may include removing jamming devices from online displays
that are accessible to U.S. consumers; expressly excluding consumers
in the United States and its territories as potential customers in any
online or print marketing material; implementing technical limitations
that prevent any order processing system from accepting U.S. addresses
for shipment; declining to otherwise complete any sales transaction
involving consumers in the United States and its territories; and
removing statements on its websites, directed to U.S. or other
consumers, that the signal jammers it advertises for sale are
certified or otherwise approved by the Federal Communications
Commission, when, in fact, they are not.^
21. In addition, we direct C.T.S. Technology to submit the information
requested in non-public Appendix B hereto concerning C.T.S.
Technology's signal jammer distribution channels and sales, including
the purchasers of each illegal signal jamming device sold to consumers
in the United States or its territories, the websites that C.T.S.
Technology has used to market the devices to consumers in the United
States or its territories, and the corrective actions C.T.S.
Technology has taken, is taking, or will take as required by this
NAL.^ We direct C.T.S. Technology to submit its response within
forty-five (45) calendar days after service of this NAL.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited is hereby NOTIFIED
of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
thirty-four million nine hundred twelve thousand and five hundred
dollars ($34,912,500) for apparent willful and repeated violations of
Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and
Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Commission's rules.^
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days after the service
of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, C.T.S.
Technology Co., Limited SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed
forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
302(b), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,^ and
also Sections 2.803 and 15.201(b) of the Commission's rules,^ C.T.S.
Technology Co., Limited SHALL COMPLY with the directive set forth in
paragraph 20 above; and within forty-five (45) calendar days after the
service of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order
SHALL SUBMIT the information requested in non-public Appendix B hereto
concerning C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited's signal jammer distribution
channels and sales, including the purchasers of each illegal signal
jamming device sold to consumers in the United States or its
territories, the websites that C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited has used
to market the devices to consumers in the United States or its
territories, and a detailed statement about the corrective actions
C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited has taken, is taking, or will take as
required by this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
Order. Further, the required written response (as well as any
correspondence with the Federal Communications Commission concerning
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order) shall be
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau,
Spectrum Enforcement Division, ATTN: EB-SED-12-00005692, 445 12th
Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554. C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited
also shall e-mail the written response to: jammerinfo@fcc.gov.
25. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number
and FRN referenced above. C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited. shall also
send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
jammerinfo@fcc.gov. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC
Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing the
FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
(payment type code). Below are additional instructions CTS Technology
Co., Limited should follow based on the form of payment it selects:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via
overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the
wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a
completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at 1-314-418-4232 on the
same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
26. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment
plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.^ If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
27. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission's rules.^ Mail the
written statement to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement
Bureau, Spectrum Enforcement Division, ATTN: EB-SED-12-00005692, 445
12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554 and, include the NAL/Acct.
Number referenced in the caption. C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited. also
shall e-mail the written response to: jammerinfo@fcc.gov. The
Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices (GAAP); or (2) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
documentation submitted.
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture and Order shall be served on C.T.S. Technology Co.,
Limited in accordance with U.S. and international law at 3F, OCT
Building, No. 2010, Shennan Road E., Shenzhen, Guangdong, Peoples
Republic of China, 518000 and to C.T.S. Technology, Co., Limited at Rm
4B128, Pacific Security Market Bldg, Huanqiang Rd (N.), Futian,
Shenzhen, 518031, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX A
Sample of Illegally Marketed Jamming - AISWA.COM
Marketing Image Product Name/ Description Marketed Frequency/ Services
Jammed Date Marketing First Observed
GPS GSM JAMMER CTS-3000A FOR GPS L1/ L2 GSM /CDMA /3G GPS, UHF, LoJack,
3G, GSM, CDMA, DCS, WiFi 10/14/2011
1~5m 5-Band Cigarette Cell Phone Jammer EST-808SC GSM, DCS, PHS, 3G, CDMA
10/14/2011
Super GPS Jammers 100W output up to 500~1000M range GPS, GSM 10/14/2011
32w High Power Cell Phone Jammer GSM, CDMA, PCS, DCS, 3G 10/14/2011
100m Shielding Range High Power (45W) Indoor mobile Phone Jammer CDMA,
GSM, DCS, 3G 10/14/2011
High power 25w GPS Jammer - Anti tracking GPS 10/14/2011
24/7 working 5 bands GPS GSM/CDMA JAMMERS CTS-JX5000E with built-in
battery GPS, GSM, CDMA 10/14/2011
150W Powerful Cell Phone Bomb Jammer/blocker CTS-VIP150 CDMA, GSM, DCS,
3G, GPS 10/14/2011
180W High Power VHF UHF Jammer Bomb Jammer GSM, DCS, 3G 10/14/2011
25W 6 bands FM 434 868 MID 433/868 MHz Cell phone Jammers FM, GSM, CDMA,
3G 10/14/2011
70W High Power Cell Phone Jammer for 4G Wimax with Omni- directional
Antenna CDMA, GSM, DCS, PCS, 3G, 4G 6/9/2013
Car remote control Jammer 303MHz/335MHZ/315MHZ/433MHz/868MHz 6/19/2013
40W GPS L1 L2 GSM 3G Full bands Jammer GPS, GSM, CDMA, 3G 6/19/2013
UHF VHF Jammer walkie-talkie Jammer with battery VHF, UHF, LoJack
6/19/2013
High Power 8 Antenna Cell Phone, 3G, WiFi, GPS, VHF, UHF Jammer CDMA, GSM,
DCS, PCS, 3G, GPS, WiFi, VHF, UHF 6/19/2013
Waterproof 75W High Power 3G Mobile Phone Signal Jammer CDMA, GSM, DCS,
PHS, 3G 9/11/2013
120W High Power Cellular Mobile Phone Jammer GSM, CDMA, PCS, DCS, 3G
9/11/2013
Waterproof Cell Phone Jammer (Worldwide use) AMPS, N-AMPS, NMT, TACS, GSM,
CDMA, TDMA, IDEN, UMTS 9/11/2013
Mini Medium Power Cellphone Jammer CDMA, GSM, DCS, PCS, 3G 9/11/2013
70W High Power Cell Phone Jammer for 4G LTE with Omni-directional Antenna
CDMA, GSM, DCS, PCS, 3G, 4G 9/11/2013
Powerful Golden Portable Cell phone & Wi-Fi & GPS Jammer GPS, CDMA, DCS,
GSM, CDMA, WiFi 9/11/2013
Customized 5-Band Painting Cell Phone Jammer for 2G & 3G Network GSM,
CDMA, DCS, PHS,3G 9/11/2013
Adjustable 3G 4G Wimax Mobile Phone WiFi Signal Jammer with Bulit-in
Directional Antenna GSM, CDMA, DCS, PCS, 3G, 4G WiMax, WiFi 9/11/2013
Ultimate 8-Band Wireless Signal Terminator 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, UHF, VHF,
GPS, LoJack 9/11/2013
Portable GPS Jammer (GPSL1/L2) GPS 9/11/2013
High Power 6 Antenna Cell Phone GPS WiFi VHF UHF Jammer GSM, 3G, WiFi,
GPS, VHF, UHF 9/11/2013
7W Powerful All GPS Signals Jammer (GPS L1,L2,L3,L4.L5) GPS 9/11/2013
High Power Portable GPS (GPS L1/L2/L3/L4/L5) Jammer GPS 9/11/2013
3-Band Civil GPS Tracker Preventer GPS 9/11/2013
Vehicle Car Anti Tracker Mini GPS Jammer Blocker GPS 9/11/2013
^ We note, however, that there are several narrow exceptions that apply
outside the context of U.S. consumer use. See 47 U.S.C. S 302a(c); 47
C.F.R. S 2.807(b), (d). For example, in very limited circumstances and
consistent with applicable procurement requirements, jamming devices may
be marketed to the U.S. federal government for authorized, official use.
See id.
^ See 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 302a, 333. As noted above, the Communications Act
makes an exception from these prohibitions for devices to be used by the
United States Government, and for devices manufactured solely for export.
47 U.S.C. S 302a(c).
^ We note that the term "consumers," as used herein, refers to
individuals, businesses, organizations, and state and local governments,
among others.
^ See, e.g., Phonejammer.com, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
25 FCC Rcd 3827 (Enf. Bur. 2010). See also 18 U.S.C. S 1362 (prohibits
willful or malicious interference to U.S. government communications;
subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or both); 18 U.S.C.
S 1367(a) (prohibits intentional or malicious interference to satellite
communications; subjects the operator to possible fines, imprisonment, or
both).
^ See C.T.S. Technology website, available at
http://www.CTStechnologys.com (last visited June 18, 2014); Aiswa website,
available at http://www.aiswa.com (last visited June 18, 2014).
^ C.T.S. Technology also operates through the CTStechnologys.com website
and markets its products on YouTube.com and Made-in-China.com.
^ C.T.S. Technology has maintained jammer advertisements targeted at U.S.
consumers for more than two years and has continually increased the number
of jammer offerings. A sample of the 285 signal jammers illegally offered
for sale to U.S. consumers by C.T.S. Technology is provided in Appendix A
to this NAL. See also Aiswa website, available at
http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited
June 18, 2014).
^ C.T.S. Technology lists in its specifications for a number of its signal
jammers that they are "Approved: CE/FCC". See, e.g., Aiswa website,
available at http://www.aiswa.com/goods-4760-High+Power+Cellular+Signal+
Remote+Control+Jammer+.html (last visited June 18, 2014). As detailed
infra, the signal jammers offered by C.T.S. Technology cannot be certified
or authorized because their primary purpose is to block or interfere with
authorized radio communications.
^ The signal jammers offered for sale by C.T.S. Technology on the
www.Aiswa.com website include models described as "6 bands 25W waterproof
GPS L1 L2 L5 GSM 3G Jammers," "5 Antenna Cell Phone jammer + Remote
Control (3G, GSM, CDMA, DCS)," "Super GPS Jammers 100W output up to
500-1000M range," "15-20m Portable WiFi and 3G Cellphone Signal Jammer,"
and "Big power 3G Cell phone jammers with Battery."
^ See Aiswa website, available at
http://www.aiswa.com/goods-1466-Super+GPS+Jammers+100W+
output+up+to+500~1000M+range.html (last visited June 18, 2014) ("[Jams] up
to a distance of 500-1000M. It simply plugs into an ordinary cigarette
lighter socket and is active immediately blocking all types of tracking
and navigational devices.").
^ See Aiswa website, available at http://www.aiswa.com (last visited June
18, 2014).
^ See, e.g., Aiswa website, available at
http://www.aiswa.com/article-75-60W+Military+Communications+
Jammers+Backpack+Jammer+CTSVIP6.html (last visited June 18, 2014) ("C.T.S
Technology Co., Limited is a professional Military Jammer manufacturer and
exporter in China. We are specializing in Military Jammer, Cell Phone
Jammers and so on. These products are been delivered to Europe, United
States, Asia, the Middle East, Russia, Africa etc. countries.").
^ Section 302(a) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to
"make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of
devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency
energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to
cause harmful interference to radio communications." 47 U.S.C. S 302a(a).
Section 302(b) prohibits the advertising, sale, importation, and operation
of any communications device that does not comply with the regulations
adopted by the Commission pursuant to Section 302. 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 333.
^ Id. S 302a(b).
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 2.805, 2.807, 15.1(c), 15.3(o), 15.201.
^ Id. S 2.803(b)(1).
^ An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and
emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." Id. S 15.3(o).
^ See id. S 15.201(b). Section 15.1(c) of the Rules also states that "the
operation or marketing of an intentional . . . radiator that is not in
compliance with the administrative and technical provisions in this part,
including prior Commission authorization or verification, as appropriate,
is prohibited under section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and [the Rules]." Id. S 15.1(c).
^ Id. S 2.803(a).
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 333. We note that numerous other countries also restrict
civilian use or operation of signal jammers, including Canada, the United
Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia.
^ See The Supply Room, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4981, 4983-84, para. 7 (2013) (Supply Room NAL);
Taylor Oilfield Mfg., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 4972, 4975, para. 7 (2013) (Taylor Oilfield NAL).
^ See supra note 1.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 2.803; see also infra note 30.
^ See infra Appendix A (sample of signal jammers marketed); Aiswa
website, available at
http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited
June 18, 2014). In this regard, we note that C.T.S. Technology advertises
in the English language, quotes prices in U.S. currency, accepts mailing
addresses within the United States for the delivery of purchased goods
through selection using a drop down menu and utilizes U.S. payment and
delivery facilities to complete sales to individuals located in the United
States. We also note that C.T.S. Technology consummated the sale of 10
jamming devices to undercover Division personnel located in the United
States.
^ See supra note 12.
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.201(b).
^ Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
Section 312 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections
312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982) (Conf. Rep.), and the
Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context. See
So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
4387-88, para. 5 (1991) (Southern California), recons. denied, Memorandum
Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
^ Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, defines "repeated" as "the
commission or omission of [any] act more than once or, if such commission
or omission is continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(2);
see also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b). The Act provides that parties who engage in
activities for which an authorization is required may be subject to a
forfeiture without a prior citation. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5) (citation not
required where "person involved is engaging in activities for which a
license, permit, certificate, or other authorization is required."); see
also Syntax-Brillian Corp., Forfeiture Order and Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, 6326, para. 8 (2008)
(Syntax-Brillian FO) (noting that equipment certification is a "license,
permit, certificate, or other authorization" for purposes of the exception
to the citation requirement in Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications
Act).
^ The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons.
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80. In 2013, the Commission
adjusted many of its base forfeiture amounts to account for inflation, but
did not adjust the base forfeiture amount for marketing of unauthorized
equipment. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules,
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 28 FCC
Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (2013 Amendment to Section 1.80(b) Order).
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8), Note ("The Commission and its staff retain
the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the
guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or
additional sanctions as permitted by the statute.").
^ See Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 5, 26, 28, 31,
and 41 U.S.C., including 28 U.S.C. S 2461 Note) (DCIA).
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b); see also 2013 Amendment of
Section 1.80(b) Order, supra note 31. Specifically, as applicable here,
Section of 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act initially established that "the amount
of any forfeiture penalty determined under this subsection shall not
exceed $10,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation,
except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not
exceed a total of $75,000 for any single act or failure to act . . . . "
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D). Pursuant to the DCIA, federal agencies, such as
the FCC, are required to adjust civil monetary penalties at least once
every four years to account for inflation. See supra note 33. Based on
this statutory authority, the Commission has adjusted for inflation the
statutory maxima in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act by amending Section
1.80(b) of the Rules over the years. Currently, under Section 1.80(b)(7),
"the amount of any forfeiture penalty determined under [Section 1.80 of
the Rules] shall not exceed $16,000 for each violation or each day of a
continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing
violation shall not exceed a total of $122,500 for any single act or
failure to act . . . ." See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(7). See also Section 2013
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) Order, supra note 31.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(7); see also supra note 34.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503; 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(7). see also supra note 34. These
amounts are subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture
amount applicable to any violation will be determined based on the
statutory amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S
1.80(b)(9); see also supra note 31.
^ Cf. Phonejammer.com, 25 FCC Rcd 3827, supra note 4. In Phonejammer.com,
the Bureau upwardly adjusted the base forfeiture of $7,000, which is
applicable to typical equipment marketing violations, to $12,500 due to
the retailer's continued marketing of signal jamming devices after its
receipt of a Citation. Id. at 3834, para. 13. The Commission is taking
more aggressive action in the instant case because vendors and
manufacturers have not taken corrective action and continue to market
signal jammers in violation of the Rules. We also note that the instant
case is especially egregious given the lengthy duration of the violations,
the high power level of some of the signal jammers offered for sale, and
the number of signal jammers marketed and actually sold into the United
States.
^ We assess the present forfeiture on a per model basis, as we have in
other equipment marketing cases, to better reflect the seriousness of the
violations and deter future misconduct. See Hauppauge Computer Works,
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 24 FCC Rcd
5272, 5278-79, para. 18 (2009) ("We find that calculating forfeitures for
violations of the DTV tuner requirement involving television receivers
without an associated viewing screen on a per model basis will result in
forfeiture amounts that reflect the seriousness of the violations will
deter future misconduct."); Syntax-Brillian FO, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, supra
note 30; Regent U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
22 FCC Rcd 10520 (2007); see also San Jose Navigation Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2877, para. 14 (2006)
(finding that the marketing of each separate unauthorized model
constitutes a separate violation); ACR Elec., Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22293, 22302, para. 23 (2004) (same),
forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 3698 (2006) (forfeiture
paid).
^ Illegal marketing was first observed on C.T.S. Technology's websites on
October 14, 2011; was continually observed on numerous occasions
throughout 2012 and 2013; and continues as of the release of this
enforcement action. A sample of the 285 signal jammers illegally offered
for sale to U.S. consumers by C.T.S. Technology is provided in Appendix A
to this NAL. See also Aiswa website, available at
http://www.aiswa.com/category-18-b0-RF+signal+jammers.html (last visited
June 18, 2014).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).
^ See Supply Room NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4986-87, para. 14; Taylor Oilfield
NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4977, para. 14; Gary P. Bojczak, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 11589, 11592-93, para. 10 (2013).
Accord R&N Manufacturing, Ltd., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 3332 (2014) (R&N Manufacturing). See also 47 C.F.R.
S 1.80(b)(8).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2). C.T.S. Technology has marketed a large number of
signal jammers to U.S. consumers for well over two years. The most recent
violations, involving 285 jammer models, have been ongoing for over eight
months or 240 days, which yields a forfeiture calculation of $16,000 per
day x 240 days = $3,840,000 per model (reduced to $122,500, the statutory
cap) x 285 models = $34,912,500.
^ See R&N Manufacturing, 29 FCC Rcd at 3332, para. 3 ("We expect
individuals and businesses, like RNM, to take immediate steps to ensure
compliance and to avoid any recurrence of this type of misconduct,
including ceasing operation of any signal jamming devices that may be in
its possession, custody, or control."); Supply Room NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at
4982, para. 3 (same); see also TD Spot Inc. dba Spy Spot Investigations,
Citation and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 7642, 7642, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2012)
(ordering retailer of jamming devices to "take immediate steps to come
into compliance and to avoid any recurrence of [the] misconduct, including
actions such as removing illegal signal jamming devices from displays and
declining to sell signal jamming devices in the United States").
^ See Illegal Marketing of Signal Jamming Devices, Omnibus Citation and
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13565,13566, para. 2 (Enf. Bur. 2011) (Omnibus Citation)
("Each Online Vendor must take immediate steps to cease marketing signal
jamming devices to consumers in the United States and its territories and
to avoid any recurrence of this misconduct. This may include actions such
as removing the illegal signal jamming devices from online display,
expressly excluding consumers in the United States and its territories as
potential customers, and declining to sell signal jamming devices or
complete any sales transaction to consumers in the United States and its
territories."). See also Behringer U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1829, para. 24 (2006) (ordering
retailer to produce an affidavit within 30 days confirming compliance with
the Act and Rules with respect to each model of unauthorized radio
frequency devices that it was found to have been illegally importing and
marketing in the United States, and if not, providing plans for full
compliance); St. George Cable, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 11447 (2012) (proposing a forfeiture
against cable operator for failing to comply with prior order requiring
installation of an operational Emergency Alert System equipment, that it
operate its cable system within required signal leakage limits, and to
immediately suspend operations until it received written authorizations
from the Commission; further order issued requiring operator to confirm
within 30 days that it was now in full compliance with FCC rules).
^ We order the production of this information pursuant to our authority
under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. SS 151,
154(i), 154(j), 403. See Supply Room NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4982, para. 3
(seeking information concerning the source from which it purchased or
received jamming devices); Taylor Oilfield NAL, 28 FCC Rcd at 4973, para.
3 (same); Omnibus Citation, 26 FCC Rcd at 13566, para. 3 (seeking a report
on the specific actions taken to correct the violations; information
concerning signal jamming device suppliers, distribution channels, and
sales; and information on websites that have been used to market the
devices in the United States or its territories). See also Behringer
U.S.A., Inc., 21 FCC Rcd at 1829, para. 24; SBC Communications, Inc.,
Notice of Apparently Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 19091,
19126, para. 27 (2001) (ordering carrier to file detailed reports
regarding future compliance).
^ 47 U.S.C. SS 302a(b), 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 1.80, 2.803, 15.201(b).
^ 47 U.S.C. SS 151, 154(i)-(j), 302a(b), 403.
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.201(b).
^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
(Continued from previous page)
(continued...)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-92
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-92