Comments Received on Gazette Notice No. DGTP-002-01

Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications)

Comments received from May 26, 2001 to July 11, 2001 ------COMMENTAIRES REÇUS À LA SUITE DE L'AVIS DE LA GAZETTE DGTP-002-01

Consultation publique sur les neutralisateurs de cellulaire (dispositifs pouvant brouiller ou bloquer les communications par téléphone mobile)

Commentaires reçus du 26 mai au 11 juillet 2001 ______

As a government employee working in Client Services, I can safely say that cell phones are disruptive and annoying. There are no rules of etiquette regarding them. When interviewing clients, I have often been interrupted by both husband and wife cell phones. Without any rules established, this will get worse. Some sort of cell phone free zones need to be established. Not only that, some employees also have cellphones which go off in the office. These are personal calls, and they are disruptive and counter productive j.jones

Let me brief. The use of cell phone silencers must not be allowed, legalized or condoned in any way. It is potentially dangerous.

Imagine this scenario.

A obstetrician on call expecting a difficult delivery sometime in the next 24 hours goes to the opera with his PAGER in vibrate mode. What he does not know is that there is a cell phone silencer in operation which is also blocking his pager as it uses a frequency very close to that of a cell phone.

He does not receive the page requesting his presence. Another doctor cannot be located in time. The baby dies.

The same scenario applies to a cell phone used in vibrate mode where the jamming device is across the road or next door to the theatre. Or where patrons are not sufficiently warned of the danger.

Rude behavior is not an excuse for draconian legislation. Please do listen to the manufacturers of this jamming equipment who have only their own interests at heart.

James Burrett and Associates Comments -Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01" June 11, 2001

This letter is in response to Industry Canada’’s solicitation for comments on the use of cell phone jammers.

As can be seen from existing opinions there are clearly two camps when it comes to the use of cell phone jammers. In one camp we have cell phone users who think they have divine right to receive and place calls anywhere and everywhere they like. Existing cell phone users have clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to follow any procedure or practice when it comes to cell phone use, even if their life could depend upon it.

As an example, every cell phone manufacturer ask that users not place or receive calls while driving. The recommended practice is that cell phone users should pull over to the side of the road and park the car while engaging in the phone conversation. I’’ve never seen a driver follow this procedure yet, despite acknowledgements that this does contribute to accidents which will injure and kill people.

It might also be pointed out that cell phone users expect, even demand, complete RF coverage everywhere for placing and receiving their calls. Existing comments to this solicitation by cell phone users clearly demonstrate their desire not to have their RF coverage affected in any way.

Those knowledgeable in RF propagation would be quick to point out that cell phone coverage does not exist everywhere as some areas are difficult provide. Examples of poor coverage areas are underground parking lots, some elevators, under the cell tower and behind concrete buildings or in tunnels with sufficient rebar and remote rural areas. Clearly cell coverage does not exist everywhere, though cell phone service providers are doing a remarkable job of trying.

In the second camp are people who desire a right not be disturbed in some settings. While these people would likely be understanding and tolerant of cell phone calls by say a doctor or heart transplant recipient in a life threatening emergency, such calls are extremely rare! Clearly most cell phone calls are not about life threatening emergencies and this is what causes the problem.

I would like to ask that a balance be considered which respects the rights of both parties. I ask that cell phone jammers be allowed in some specific areas and subject to certain requirements.

These specific areas where cell phone jammers would be allowed are theaters, closed restaurants, and other such applications where people desire an uninterrupted local.

The requirements for the placement of a jammer, perhaps subject to licensing, could be the following:

- The Cell phone jammer not produce more than a specified amount of RF power so as only to radiate in the intended space

- The Cell phone jammer be equipped with an antenna that covers only the affected area to the greatest extent possible (very directional antenna).

- The Cell phone jammed locations be clearly marked indicating the affected area is a cell phone free area. Users unwilling to accept this term can then go elsewhere.

A final argument for the allowance of cell phone jammers, is that theater owners or restaurant owners could legally construct an RF shield preventing all RF from entering their location (Faraday cage). While such a construction is possible it complicates architecture and is fairly expensive. The point being however is that there is no law prohibiting RF restriction.

In summary I ask that a balance be provided that allows people who desire piece and quiet a reprieve from cell phones, while meeting the wants and needs of cell phone users in most other areas.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter.

M. Wilde, P. Eng.

In considering the environmental effects of cellular phones one has to look at two issues: the noise they produce, and the radio waves they transmit. In restaurants, theatres and concerts we are more concerned with the noise of their ringing and the disruption of other people's enjoyment. This aspect has been discussed extensively in the responses already submitted. However, there has been scant reference to the other issue.

A cellular phone is quite a powerful radio transmitter, and the only time it's radio quiet is when it's switched off. There are environments where the presence of these transmitters can be hazardous to others, such as in close proximity to aircraft, where they can disrupt the operation of aircraft systems. This is why strongly-put instructions to switch off these devices is given at the beginning of all commercial flights. Certain types of medical electronics can also be interfered with - not by the ringing sound, but by the radio tranmissions from the phone, which are taking place as long as the device is switched on.

I am one of the staff at a government research facility which concerns itself with measuring extremely-weak, naturally-occurring radio signals. These measurements often take hours or days to make. We estimate that we could pick up a cellular phone if it were on Mars. We therefore do all we can to deter the operation of cellular phones anywhere on the site.

The preferable way to get the noise down in the theatres and the interference down on our research site is through public education. If we can achieve our objectives with a polite "Turn off your cellular phone" sign, then that is the best measure to follow. Jammers are not a good idea unless they are very carefully controlled and licensed. It's therefore not clear how they can be implemented on a restaurant by restaurant basis. The presence of such a device should be announced with a "cellular phones will not operate in this restaurant, theatre or whatever" sign, so that prospective customers can make their own decisions. For larger sites, such as this one, which is well outside densely-populated areas, it is possible to have the provider stop non-emergency calls to or from from such locations from being serviced. Ordinary wire phones do not make

The best thing is education rather than regulation. It needs to be made clear how offensive cellular phones can be to other people in environments where quiet is a key element. This will take time, but in the end, a polite "Turn it off please" is a preferable solution in most cases. If we're really worried about losing a valuable order, then the concert hall is not a good place to be.

Ken Tapping Dear Sir or Madam:

As the primary Disaster Services contact for the Red Cross in Southeastern Alberta, and the First-Aid Coordinator for the local Search & Rescue team, I would be very opposed to any device that prevented either of these teams from contacting me at any time.

Preventing emergency response teams from contacting their members is a very dangerous proposition. I would consider the benefits of these devices to be dramatically outweighted by the hazards.

If these devices are permitted, I would ask IC to require that PROMINENT warnings be displayed. This would allow me to avoid businesses that would jam my phone.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer you my feedback.

Sincerely,

Donovan Hoggan, R.S.W. Outreach Coordinator Medicine Hat Area Office Canadian Red Cross Society

As an advocate of etiquette in public places, this type of policy is favourable in places that would legally have the right to do this and legislation would be required. This limits the availability of such devices and allows the discretion of such operation to be in the courts hands. Since this infringes on the carriers license to operate and impacts their system. The government must bear all cost which would eventually be passed on to the taxpayer.

As well the government would have to refund a portion of the money the operators payed for spectrum re-estate since they have basically allowed others to step on that property without prior notice to the sale of such re-estate (~$xx million). This may also be passed on to the taxpayer.

It's a quality of life question which the government is very poor at managing especially with the numerous levels that this issue would touch upon. If the cost is too high, than it would have to be self-regulated in that people must be told when to not use their cell-phones. I know when I'm in a movie I turn mine off. I've been educated to do such things. Sam Luu

I read with great interest on this subject and I have some, hopefully received as level- headed, comments on the subject.

1. Jammers are usually a bad idea in any cases. This is due to the nature that jammers are notoriously difficult to control. Let's say that it is specified that the range is 40 feet. In truth, the range might be less or worse, more. Consider your common cordless phone set, what is the range? Is it exactly the range the manufacturer says?

If I have one or more jammer, then I would put them everywhere, my store, my office, my car, etc. Then I would put in MY payphone and charge people a dollar a call. Isn't it nice? It's probably tax free too. After all with so many jammers I can jam more than a city block, especially near wide open spaces like airports, seaports, parking spaces, legislature buildings, convention center, etc.. Since I know where the jammers (I put it in, right?) are, I can put my cellphones -to be rented at a substantial price, where it would work. This is a nice business and the politicians would probably support me too, after all some of them would probably have some kind of interest in this type of business and its associated lobby. Of course, some one else might have the same idea with the result that probably the entire Toronto GTA would be jammed- oh, what fun.... Oh, by the way, it is quite easy to build a jammer and you don't need a license to build one (but you do if you are going to operate it, hahaha, after all until the first time power is inputted, its just a collection of components). You can even, theoretically, convert your cellphones into a jammer. Of course, it would be against the law now but if you are then allowed to buy and operate jammers, well.....?

2. Are we actually solving a problem here by jamming? My neighbors upstairs annoys me when he goes thump, thump- walking at night. Could I get a jamming device for the noise? (at this point, some people I know suggest a gun, which is effective if a bit messy) Could I also get a jamming device for all the loud-talking people I know? It would also work for my muffler so that would be nice (and drive the muffler business into the ground and create unemployment, but who cares right?). The fact that none of these type of problems have been solve tells a lot of things - the most being that it doesn't work well in real life. At least try to solve the problem by not legislating it to death. I know this would create more employment to the politician and also the communication board, but it would create unemployment since people would use less phones and eventually not use them at all- no more stores selling the phones, Nortel, bell, telus, etc would go down and maybe bankrupt- some politician would also be unemployed (after the fact, of course). In real life, everybody lose, so what's the point in jamming the phones? Try thinking of something else people, you are not creative enough or else your solution is not elegant enough - you are basically bulldozing the problem.

3. What is the difference between I call you on your phone and I am shouting at you across the hall so I can get to and talk to you?

As I have said above, we are not being creative enough. While we are at it, can we ban land-line phone, mail, smoke signal, carrier pigeons, and our own throat? Humans are social and we will talk and talk and talk. It makes no difference how we do it. By the way, carrier pigeons are jammed by shooting them down (that's probably why they not used in a lot of places, especially if the stupid humans below are hungry). Smoke signals can be jammed by skyscrapers and other smoke (chimneys, etc.) Land-line phone are jammed by cutting the line or discontinuing your service (you didn't pay the bill right?).

4. A word for the telecom companies: Jammers in the digital system can be made selective. It can, with sufficient processing and programming, be set to jam only calls from certain companies. Worse, it can subtitute messages such as 'leave company A, use company B for clearer reception and availability'. This can also be made into the phones itself, especially considering very few phones are actually made in Canada. This is the same technology that is used to eavesdrop on phone calls so it is already existing now. Remind me to buy stocks in jamming companies - I might profit quite substantially. Also I have to sell stocks in the telecom companies too since their value would be junk when the phones don't work due to the jamming (read city wide jamming above).

5. Just in case, there are patriots out there. Within 20 years of jamming, Canada would be left as a backward country since we couldn't even solve a simple problem. Consider the case of the Avro Arrow and the story of Canadian airlines where we try to solve problems by introducing bigger problems. So, my point is just don't let anyone use jammers and we don't have to do anything about it anymore. We don't have to spend money and time on legislature that would be ineffectice and cost even more to enforce. Oh, just in case, the people who build those things think that I am cutting their business off, please build something else - one that would receive and send better so I don't have to shout into my phones and disturb everybody else.

Other than that, I think we are a sufficiently advanced people to consider other people's feeling when using cell-phones. If we don't, we might as well not put toilets in public places (after all it is not my responsibility that the people out there don't go to THEIR toilets before they left home, hahaha - let's ban toilets in public places, school, theaters, offices, etc. - they do disturb people by flushing, odor, permission, etc.).

Just somebody who is amused. Frank NG

Re: Canada Gazette Notice reference number DGTP-002-01 I am a wireless phone user, and I do not agree with the use of cell phone jammers. The article I read stated that only law enforcement agencies have used this device. The only other agency I would consider this device useful for is health services (hospitals). As I understand it, cell phones can interfere with medical equipment.

I have a cell phone. Whenever in a public place, I have my phone set to vibrate when it rings. The primary use of my cell phone is for emergencies concerning my daughter. I do not want to have my service interrupted for no other good reason that somebody else does considers my cell phone use rude. I am a courteous cell phone user.

A couple of weeks ago, I was in church with my daughter. My cell phone rang. But nobody heard it. Not even the people sitting beside me. I did not answer, as my daughter was with me, so it could not be an emergency concerning her. Should my daughter not have been with me, I simply would have looked at the call display, and it was from a number where my daughter was, I would have discretely left the area to answer the call.

I am annoyed by people in theatres when their cell phone rings. Especially when they make a big deal out of the fact that they have a cell phone and have received a call. Are they trying to act like a hot shot or do they just not realize that they are being a rude cell phone user? I am sure some are trying to be a hot shot, but others just don't realize that they are disturbing others Out of all the cell phone users out there, only a few are rude.

I was in a restaurant a few weeks ago. I noticed a gentleman take a cell phone out of his jacket pocket and put it to his ear. I could not hear what he was saying. I did not hear the phone ring. He looked at his watch. I saw him laugh and nod his head and then hang up the phone. I noticed this only because I happened to be looking in his direction. How did that interfere with any of my rights? How are other people offended by this mans use of his cell phone? His phone was not loud. He was not loud.

Public education for the polite use of cell phones is a much more preferred method of cutting down annoying interruptions. When I purchased my cell phone, I told the sales person not to show me any models of phone, whatsoever, that did not have a vibrating ringer. Do other cell phone consumers do this? Do they know even to ask if the phone has a vibrating ringer? Or do they realize it when the bring their new phone home and read the instructions? Does the salesperson know to point out that a phone has a vibrating ringer and the advantages of this to a potential consumer?

My primary reason why I have a cell phone is so I can be contacted concerning my daughter. I am divorced from my wife, but I am not a part time father. I am as much in my daughters life as I possibly can be. My cell phone plays a role in my involvement as her father. My ex-wife has my cell phone number. My daughters babysitters have my cell phone number. My daughters school, gymnastics club and anybody else who has anything to do with her have my cell phone number. Whether I am in church on a Sunday morning, having a nice meal in a restaurant, watching a movie at the theatre or I am anywhere else, I do not want my right to be contacted to be violated. Chris Lipscombe

"Industry Canada has been seeking public advice on the possible licensing of cell phone jammers (silencers) in Canada" ???

Don't spend your time.

Jamming radios, cellular, liberty of expression, etc?

Just vote to declare Canada as

"The Communist Republic of Canada" and everything will be OK !!!

Runaway people, escape who can! VIO

I do not believe jamming cell phone signals is a smart idea. Maybe educating people who use them would be a better solution, as having a cellphone handy might be for emergency use. wes

I am writing this message to address my concerns with the new proposal to introduce devices capable of interfering with or blocking mobile (cellular) telephone communications.

I am strongly against the idea of having any (active) devices to interfere and/or block any mobile communications including cellular telephones and pagers.

I understand the concern with the misuse of such communication mediums but stronly believe the importance of rights and freedom in accordance with Canada's system of law (and freedoms, as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

For very specific applications and locations, such as specific rooms in hospitals and the cabin-only (ie. non cockpit) of airborne vehicles ("airplanes"), I believe that passive obstruction of such communication signals through devices such as a 'cage' can be built upon approval on a per-application basis.

These applications should be made available to the public for questioning and comments when applied for by specific businesses.

Active devices may infringe on the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens and may be a contributing factor to unwanted situations.

Along with other members of the community, I respect the surround environment. I turn down (or silent) or turn off any pagers and/or mobile telephone devices when deemed necessary, as in theaters or dining. Turning down the phone allows me to receive calls but does not require me to answer them. There have been situations where prompt action was required and therefore taken through use of such mobile communications. Removing the ability to receive and screen calls removes the ability to react to various urgent/emergency situations.

Preventing mobile communications is taking a step back in terms of progressing technology. Educating the public is an effective way of preventing unneccesary usage of such mobile communications and would be much more effective, while encouraging and progressing technology.

Exceptions for using such active devices would be granted to government and/or military groups only with special permission and/or incorporating usage only through legislation of the equivalent of the "War Measures Act".

Active devices that may "jam" the signal imposes negative ideas on the public. Proper and thorough education may provide encouragement instead of discouragement to cooperate and follow proper etiquette.

Further, the public may be encouraged and therefore have increased use with their mobile devices (contrasting to the decreased use with negative ideas), economic effects could be most beneficial. Increased corporate revenues will, in turn, increase the amount of tax paid to the government.

If for no other purpose, this funding can be rolled back into research and development, implement new technology and increase international compatibility and be more competitive in the international market. Such technology as 3G is already being pushed and funded by various governments in other countries. Perhaps Canada may be able to do the same.

In summary, though there are advantages, and worse, disadvantages to introduce active devices to prevent mobile communications, there are many more advantages when active "jamming" devices are not in use. In addition to economic advantages, any urgent/emergency messages/calls can still be received. Proper and thorough education to the public will increase etiquette and the respect for any environments, decreasing the amount of improper or unwanted calls. For specific per-applications basis only, passive "jamming" of "essential" services may be affected, such as machinery in hospitals.

Along with many others, I am against all active devices as I believe it is not practical to risk (literal) damage, yet provides economical stimulation and encouragement to developing technology.

"Jamming" devices should be banned.

Thank you. Brian T.

Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch

Shortly, BAN - do not jam. here is why I do believe that banning is a better choice than jamming:

Jamming:

- would block cellular phones - they should be dual band as wireless phones are - they would be expensive, at the expense of the customers in that particular area, same ones that request the privacy.

- would NOT BLOCK CDMA phone that are made BY DESIGN to work in conditions of interference.

- would interfere with sensitive instrumentation/monitoring apparatus (hospitals, airport control towers); I do not believe that for the sake of "privacy" we should randomly kill someone.

- their effects would not be confined to a given area/space, the propagation of jamming signals would not be controllable - you may get undesired effects few hundreds feet away or the hotel room just above the restaurant that you want to keep silent.

- legalizing their use would make impossible the control of their usage. It lets open the door to abuse. It is a powerful device that I would not want in the wrong hands?

- Thinking of it, I feel that somebody tries to force me shut-up.

Banning:

- It is much easier to control/enforce/change as it involves the right parties in controlling their use (Theaters, Hospitals, Restaurants, ...)

- It has TOTAL effectiveness (including CDMA) - you do not want that a phone call to cost you, say $100 fine.

- It becomes much cheaper on everybody - no need for devices or licensees

- It proves being a working model (i.e. hospitals/airports)

- It helps educating rather than racing to develop new devices to go around the jamming system

If you really want to do something, please BAN their use where appropriate, let establishments decide if they want to ban the use or not, set the legal system so banning works.

Do not let jammers be around. There was much thought put in the Radiocommunication Act, by people all around the world, and I believe that the most important thing of it is making the radio space a civilized world, not a wild one.

Think of jammers as a new type of gun, that once legalized for any usage, makes it much easier to get and use for illegal purposes.

Please,

BAN - do not jam.

Regards,

Marian Iordan Comments - Gazette Notice No. DGTP-002-01 dated March 9th, 2001 - Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications) On behalf of Environment Canada's Environmental Emergencies Program, I am pleased to submit the following comments regarding the public consultations on cell phone silencers.

We do not believe it is in the public's interest to pursue the licensing of jamming devices in public areas. In fact, we deem that public interest is better served if the signals are not jammed except for uses currently allowed (e.g. police operations).

Pagers and cell phones play an important role in our preparedness and response during environmental emergency situations. Environment Canada's Environmental Emergency Officers, who are on call during their "off duty" hours, rely on pager and cellular signals throughout Canada in order to provide advice and recommendations to first responders in the event of a release or a potential release of a contaminant into the environment.

Cell phone silencers could potentially hinder our capability to respond rapidly and efficiently during emergency situations. Furthermore, they could impair our capacity to prevent a situation from escalating and becoming a catastrophe. Some examples of preventive actions include the provision of safety and security information regarding chemical substances, their reactivity and the behavior of a contaminant in the environment. A delay in obtaining information can be critical when it comes to being able to effectively respond to environmental emergencies. It is possible that cell phone silencers could further compromise such response operations by delaying the transfer of key information between parties.

Should cell phone silencers equipment be licenced and used in Canada, we would have no recourse but to require our duty officers to stay clear of any and all public areas (e.g. schools, parks, theater's, restaurants, churches, public libraries, art galleries, etc.) which might be affected by such equipment in order to ensure proper communication. We do not consider this to be a viable option.

Wireless communication is relatively new. In light of the above noted concerns, we are of the view that there is still room for improvement in terms of educating individuals to carry the proper etiquette when using such devices in public areas and that this is the preferred approach to the problem.

Tom Foote Director Environmental Emergencies Branch

* CCRA is of the view that the impact of the use of Cell phone jammers would be considerable. It would not only interfere with communications in the building where it is installed, but will interfere for a target area. The jammers would interfere not only with the emergency and public safety communications, but on all general communications, especially in large cities where many jammers could be installed in the same area of the city. That means a major impact for Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, which is a major user of wireless communications for business. * CCRA is of the view that raising public awareness and promoting the courteous use of wireless phones and pagers, balances the rights and needs of all Canadians.

Marcel Frappier Industry Canada Re: Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01, Public Discussion of Cell Phone Silencers

Dear Sir/Madame:

I have not been following the recent debates or interest by various groups to licence cell phone jamming technology. Nor do I even own a cell phone. I am however, concerned enough to write to you today. Specifically I am concerned about the use of such jammers in theatres, restaurants, libraries, sporting events, and other public places.

While it is my belief that supporters of jammers are primarily concerned with the annoying ringers of these phones, I can sympathize. I have yet to meet anyone who welcomes an inopportune ring during a movie or at a funeral for example. However what if that call is from a police officer or a doctor concerning a loved one. Cell phone users rely heavily on the knowledge that we can all be contacted at a moment’’s notice.

It is my belief that Cell Phones are a relatively new addition to our society. As with any new technology there is a learning curve. Consideration for others in public places should be encouraged through a cell phone etiquette ads. Cell phones come equipped with noiseless options like vibrate instead of ring and most people know to use this when they are in a truly inappropriate place.

During a recent movie I attended, a phone rang and many people around the culprit let him know of their disapproval. Peer pressure is the best way to deal with what is, in reality, a social problem. If a rude cell phone user bothers you, tell them what you think of their behavior.

In conclusion, I do not support the public sale and installation of radio jamming technologies. Instead I think cell phone etiquette ads and peer pressure are all that has to be done.

Yours truly,

Marc Medwid

I am against any and all use of jamming devices, cellular or otherwise. No jamming device can be limited to the confines of a room or building. Even a Faraday Cage casts a "shadow" beyond its bounds. As a result, legitimate and potentially emergency use of wireless communication can be compromised outside of 'licenced' areas.

Security in boardrooms etc. can be achieved by scanning for signals without blocking.

Restaurants and theaters can post signs that cellphones / pagers are not allowed (or set to silent/vibrate) and remove offenders if neccessary.

Ian McLaughlin

June 29, 2001 Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada, Spectrum Management 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8

Dear Mr. Helm,

This has reference to the Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01 regarding public comments related to devices capable of interfering with or blocking mobile telephone communications. Please note that this response represents the position of various entities of the Government of Ontario, including the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Ontario Provincial Police, Criminal Investigation Services Ontario, Emergency Measures Ontario and the Ontario Office of the Fire Marshal) as well as the Ministries of Health and Long Term Care, Correctional Services, Transportation and Natural Resources. While we will also be formally responding via the Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC), it is important to us to re-affirm the position of the Government of Ontario with Industry Canada.

The Government of Ontario is opposed to changes in legislation that would permit the influx of these radio-jamming devices into Ontario. These devices will likely have significant technical and operational impacts on use of radio equipment currently being used by emergency services in Ontario.

From a technical perspective, the proliferation of jamming devices would create a significant number of communication “dead zones”, which would affect emergency response and on-scene communications. These devices could cause both intentional and unintentional in- band interference, and unintentional out-of-band interference. The in-band interference would affect the cellular and paging devices often worn by emergency personnel responding to incidents, who may utilize these radios for their operational communications. Out-of- band interference could create desensitization, transmitter noise, and intermodulation interference to adjacent bands, including potentially the 821-824 MHz / 866-869 MHz public safety sub-band. To implement additional transmitting devices in the 800 MHz band would increase the potential for harmful interference to the critical communications of police, fire and emergency services.

From an operational perspective, these devices could seriously affect the ability of emergency services to respond to an incident. As an example, an on-scene response at a particular location where a cellular silencer is in use could seriously affect radio communication at that location, potentially placing police, fire, ambulance and/or other emergency service personnel in jeopardy, along with members of the public who are also on- scene. Since radio transmissions often propagate beyond the desired coverage area of a transmitter, and since emergency response or police investigations occur virtually anywhere, there is a significant potential that these silencers could affect public safety communications.

During the RABC teleconference of April 6 th, 2001 related to the use of cellular silencers in, for example, restaurants or other public areas, the concept was put forth that a land- line telephone could suffice as the only possible form of communication for an emergency at a given location. We do not feel that this proposal is feasible, nor in the best interest of the public in that it could potentially affect emergency response times. We are further concerned that these devices, once installed, will not be maintained or inspected on a regular basis, to ensure proper operation. In addition, we are concerned that these devices could appear in close proximity to critical areas where cellular devices could assist emergency services. With regards to emergency management, the proliferation of these devices could negatively impact community and provincial emergency operation centres. Examples of these centres include the Ontario Government’s Provincial Operations Centre (POC), the Ministry of the Environment’s Spill Action Centre, MNR’s Forest Fire, Flood and Aviation Centre, the OPP Emergency Operations Centre and Mobile Command Units, etc. In addition, the use of these devices could have an impact on the numerous on-call Duty Managers / Duty Officer systems at both the municipal and provincial levels whereby notifications of both nuclear and non- nuclear emergencies are sent via cellular phone. There is also a potential for impact on volunteer organizations such as volunteer fire departments or the Red Cross Emergency Response teams that utilize cellular phones in “on-call” scenarios to receive notifications of emergencies, and/or to utilize phones for operational communications where there may be two-way mobile coverage deficiencies.

Cellular silencing devices could also impact Correctional Officer and Provincial Bailiffs who utilize cellular phones as a legitimate security tool while they provide escort or bailiff functions in the community. This type of uninterrupted communication is critical to the protection of Correctional Officers, Bailiffs and the Ontario Public. Use of silencing equipment in locations that could limit the use of cellular phones by Correctional staff would be a serious concern – for example, the intentional silencing of cell phones in hospitals is a serious concern, since inmates are often escorted to community hospitals to receive medical attention.

Having stated our position with regards to the use of these units by the general public, the Government of Ontario has a requirement to utilize a very limited number of these units in certain tactical situations. The use of these units would be very limited, and only under certain conditions. The controlled use of these units would allow law enforcement agencies within the government to control on-scene communications in high-risk environments.

As you are no doubt aware, Section 9 (1) (b) of the Radiocommunication Act currently states that “No person shall, without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication”. We do not feel that the intentional jamming or silencing of signals in order to reduce the inconvenience of hearing cellular phone ringers constitutes a “lawful excuse”. We respectfully request that this section of the Act remain unchanged, and that Industry Canada retains the status quo with regards to legislation, policy and current practice with respect to the installation, operation or possession of these interfering devices.

Thank you for allowing the Government of Ontario the opportunity to comment on this issue. We hope that our concerns will be taken into account in your review due to the potentially significant impact to the Government of Ontario. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Lou Battiston of my staff at 905-890-9836.

Regards,

John Paul Hayward

I think that Canada should follow suit with the UK and the US and NOT allow any further licencing of jamming devices, passive or non-passive.

The ban of hand-held cellphone use in cars in NY State is justified, substantiated and long overdue as it is in Canada. I think that the advent of additional licencing of jamming devices is an overreaction to problems with the flood of wireless devices on the world market and would hinder the advance of wireless technology.

Most of the Usenet posts I have read of late are strongly against such devices and could pose a serious threat to the cellphone and wireless marketplace.

As with many new technologies, wireless communication is here to stay and will find it's rightful place within our culture, whether we like it or not.

Randy Knobloch

______

June 29, 2001

Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada 16th floor, Jean Edmonds Tower North 300 Slater St Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8

Dear Sir:

The Manitoba Federal Emergency Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FEPCC) has reviewed the proposed plan to permit the use of silencers. On their behalf, I would like to voice our concern. These silencers could interfere with the reception of cell phones and pagers that are used extensively by our emergency responders.

We are concerned that emergency responders would be inaccessible if they were at one of the locations where a silencer was in use. The impacts on emergency responders would be considerable and could result in loss of life. Further, the potential for malicious and premeditated interference with cellular phone communications is of concern. It is imperative that we are able to contact emergency responders in case of emergency and it is clear that silencers would jeopardize their accessibility.

As FEPCC members, we do not think that regulatory controls on the use of silencers by Industry Canada would be sufficient to avoid problems and that a ban on their usage is the only way to proceed. We do, however, believe that there is value in an educational campaign encouraging cell phone and pager users to employ the vibrator function when they are in a quiet public area. Emergency preparedness and response is a timely and important aspect of society that would be negatively impacted by the imposition of silencers.

Andrea L. McDonald Good Morning. After reading your web site, I have the following suggestions/comments;

(a)(i) What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market applications (e.g. to increase security in boardrooms or to preserve “quiet zones” in public venues)?

-I believe that there are defiantly areas in the public that such a device would be useful. Such areas as a movie theater for example.

(ii) If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

-If IC considers permitting such a device, the ONLY device that should be permitted is either such a device that actually talks to the cellular base station telling it that the users phone is in 'quiet' mode. Perhaps having some kind of "Please be advised, you are in a quiet zone. Please refrain from using your phone except in an emergency" message played before the call is completed.

OR make it mandatory for any new mobile phone to have a special feature that enables such a device to put the phone in vibrate only mode.

(iii) What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

-I suppose the largest risk of such a device would be that if such a type that is a passive jammer (faraday cage), or an actual RF jammer, phones would not work in case of emergency, as well, there is the potential that public safety radios would not operate properly.

(iv) What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

-Again, the issue of using a phone for an emergency, as well as a no-interference to 2-way radio clause. They should also not interfere with such devices as pace-makers or medical telemetry devices. (b) What is the distinction, if any, between the use of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

-Private places refer to private property. They should be in a building, as, if a device is placed externally, there is the possibility of it effecting phones outside of the desired area. As well, they should only be permitted in an area where use of a phone would be a nuisance, such as opera house, movie theater, etc...

(c) If Industry Canada permits these devices:

(i) on a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what frequency bands?

-License considerations should be done on a case-by-case basis. Each applicant should be required to submit why he or she believes such a device would prove useful in their establishment. If a suitable justification is not provided, a license is not awarded.

(ii) under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed?

-I believe there should be very strict limitations, such as those imposed to FRS radios - a very specific power output, fixed antenna, etc.. Not doing so would introduce the possibility of abuse. This isn't to say abuse won't happen, because it will - but at least it leaves IC with all the legal authority to fine, and or revoke the license for the device.

(iii) are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

-I suppose a built in GPS could allow for this, however that is rather impractical. I suppose just having very stringent power output regulations, that way, even if the device were moved somewhere else, it's operation area would be limited. Perhaps, say, 500 square feet or so

Thank You for the opportunity to submit my views

Mike Iszak Canada Gazette Notice reference number: DGTP-002-01

Re: Cell Phone Silencers

I am submitting on behalf of the Canadian Police Association (CPA). The CPA represents 30,000 frontline police personnel from all provinces. We advocate for our members in all matters concerning labour relations and criminal justice reform. In our capacity as the umbrella group for national and provincial police labour organizations we have been asked to respond to public consultations on this issue by the Police Association of Ontario following a presentation by Industry Canada to the Ontario Police Joint Health and Safety Committee. We view this as an officer and public safety issue.

Having reviewed the information supplied by Industry Canada the CPA takes the position that status quo is appropriate. The technology as it currently exists is not foolproof and the risk of well-intentioned property owners interfering with public safety communications as a result of spillover or other technology shortcomings is very real. In addition to accidental interference with emergency communications, general licensing opens the door for abuse of this equipment by criminals who have obtained the equipment by legitimate or illegal means. In my reading of the material the technology cannot prevent this type of abuse and once the equipment is obtained a regulatory authority cannot guarantee this type of deliberate abuse will not occur. In our view, this alone is reason enough for limiting access to this potentially dangerous equipment to law- enforcement agencies.

We appreciate being included in the Industry Canada consultations on this equipment. This has the potential to be a serious health and safety concern for our members. I trust your consultations included police service management. They are responsible for operational policing issues such as telecommunications. If you have not already done so, I recommend you contact the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at their Ottawa office, 233-1106 and speak to interim Executive Director, Peter Cuthbert.

Once again, thank you for including police labour associations in these consultations. If you have any questions or need clarification on our position, please contact the undersigned. Please acknowledge receipt of this submission.

Respectfully yours,

Dale Kinnear Gazette Notice reference number DGTP-002-01

1- Silencers will not guarantee that they will not affect calls within a close proximity to a movie theatre. They could disrupt a call in progress from someone near, but not inside the movie theatre. A 911 call for example, may not be able to be completed because the call is close to the theatre. As the theatre is not a faraday chamber, the zone established for the theatre will not only be restricted to the theatre, but will extend its pattern outside the area. It could disrupt a call in progress by just walking near to the theatre. 2 - Why should someone like a police officer, fireman, or other emergency officers be precluded from going to a theatre. These people are quick to react to the ringing of a phone and their disruption, if any, would be very brief. 3- In the event of an emergency and there is a need to contact an individual due to an illness in the family, death, etc. they should be able to be contacted. Similarly, if there is a need to place a 911 call within the theatre, this should not precluded. 4- Notices, prior to the start of the movie can be posted, and those that are not part of the emergency community should turn off their phones. 5- Lastly, many of the current phones can be placed on vibrate or silence mode and this to me would be the best overall solution.

This is my personal opinion! John Kluver Canada Gazette Notice reference number DGTP-002-01

I oppose the use or licensing of cell phone silencer.

Technically, there will be many problems associated with such silencers. Of the five types of silencers mentioned in the gazette, only the jamming devices are likely to be used. The others are either too expensive (Faraday Cage) or won't be available in the foreseeable future (Intelligent Beacon Disablers - there is no existing standard protocol).

And in order for the jamming device to work on all networks including CDMA systems, it has to be a broadband transmitter. And the interference it can cause on other electronic device would be significant. The effective area of the jamming device is also difficult to predict and control; and the perimeter of the jamming device working area would likely be affected. And this may block cell phones for users totally unaware that there may be a jamming device nearby (for example, someone walking outside a cinema or a restaurant). And I cannot see the rationale of the use of jamming device in sensitive electronics area such hospital, airplane etc, when the interference caused by the jamming device is going to be much higher than that of cell phones.

Apart from technical difficulties, I do not see the need of such device when the alternative is so much simpler - turn the phone off or put in silent mode! Why should the ability of us being contacted for emergencies be taken away just for a few inconsiderate individuals? A reminder before the movie or a written warning in the first page of the restaurant menu should be sufficient. Those inconsiderate individuals who ignore these warning could be invited out of the premise; like spectators who interfere a baseball game (or should we take drastic action and reduce the viewing pleasure for everyone by installing fences or removing the first five rows of seat next to the playfield?)

Everyone likes to enjoy our favourite movies or meals at peace; but cell phone silencer will not stop the person talking behind you, or the person who keeps squeezing through to go to washroom. The price of having a cell phone going off inappropriately is no more than a moment of frustration for people close by. But alternatively, the price of missing an emergency call blocked by cell phone jammer is too high to pay. I certainly like to have the peace of mind that my family could contact me wherever I am at any time.

Here are my comments on the questions posted in the gazette:

(a)(i) What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Departments occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market applications? The public interest in the ability of emergency contacts is much more important than those who prefer a few quiet moment; considering that all cell phones have silent mode, which is designed specifically for these situations in mind.

(ii) If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

I do not think any applications should be considered.

(iii) What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

(iv) What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

The use of such device could block emergency calls, not only in the jamming device operating area, but in the perimeter as well, where users may not be aware that jamming has occured. High power broadband transmitter jamming device could cause significant interference to other electronic device.

(b) What is the distinction, if any, between the use of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

Neither should be considered. If someone want it bad enough, they can build a Faraday Cage now in their private premise; and this should not contravene any existing regulations.

(c) If Industry Canada permits these devices: (i) on a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what frequency bands? (ii) under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed? (iii) are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

All these restrictions will not address or overcome the problems I have described. This is like trying to find solutions to limit the damage to a problem we created in the first place. The only sensible answer is to ban cell phone silencers altogether.

Lawrence Kwan Toronto, Ontario Question: How do drug dealers do business? Answer: By cell phone

Question: If a drug dealer who has set up in a neighbourhood can't use his cell phone will he move? Answer: Yes

I won't go into the debate about restaurants and cell phones. I want to talk about the reality of drug dealers and marijuana grow operators who move into a home rental and take the neighbourhood or apartment building over. They attract the trashiest of society like a dump attracts rats. Police are limited what they can do.

Cars come at all hours of the day and night. The way the dealer knows he has a buyer outside is through a cell phone call. The drug buyer calls the dealer inside the house so he knows its not the cops knocking at the door. Or, the buyer pulls up in the car and using a cell phone calls the drug dealer's pager with a "code word or number" indicating it is a "safe buyer outside". The buyer then goes to the door, the door opens, the deal is done and the whole transaction is complete in under 3 minutes. Barely enought time to call the cops. These guys must be really important because they have 3 cell phones going off at once. One phone is probably for the drug buyers, the other phone dedicated to the drug suppliers and the third cell phone is for the girls he is pimping. Not a pretty picture huh! They never used line phones because they can be bugged. So, they are a step ahead of the cops and society. They feel and are totally immune to the law.

If the neighbours around a drug dealer or grow operation all had cell phone jammers, then the dealer would have to move on. A cell phone jammer would be like a bright light in the ally. A cell phone jammer anonymously would send the message, "Move on, scum!" without the reprocussions of the dealer. Face it...if you confront the dealer head on...they kill you. If you testify, they kill you or your family. They don't care. They are immune to laws that regular citizens follow. Besides, you're dead and they move on to another place. And, as far as prosecuting them in the courts..haa haa..what a joke. There are about 15 - 30 people in any drug operation. You can't get them all and they know where you live. They live by the law of the street...not the law of the courts.

Cell phone jammers would give the power back to the people and the neighbourhoods. If you have ever lived in a neighbourhood or apartment building where a dealer has moved in, you know the frustration trying to get them to move on. If all the neighbours put up motion lights in the ally and had cell phone jammers, it would deal with the problem. I would be willing to have my cell phone inoperable to put the scum out of business. I bet no one else has sent you an email from this angle. If you don't want to sell them in Canada, then give them to the police. The police can then lend them to neighbours who want to move a drug dealer along. If you want to talk with me about this, please use this email account. This isn't a bogus email.

I am very concerned about what is happening in Canada. You have no idea how frustrating this is and I think a cell phone jammer is an anonymous way to make the neighbourhood or apartment building unfriendly to drug dealers. Please render a quick decision and please put me on your email distribution list. Thank you for asking for the public's opinion.

Regards,

Luc59 Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada Jean Edmonds Tower North Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0C8 July 4, 2001 Dear Sir/Madam:

Thank you for providing a public forum to air views and comments on the use of cellphone jammers. This is a timely topic. All of us as consumers must create a balance in our wireless lives between privacy, annoyance, safety and convenience.

This balance has been difficult to maintain. Up to now, the only way to achieve any manner of blocking or intentional interfering with wireless communications has been via active devices such as jammers. These active measures clearly have a place with the military and other government agencies. However, jammers and similar devices present problems to the unknowing and unprotected public. Specifically, jammers introduce a new source of radio frequency radiation into the environment.

I am writing to tell you that there is an alternative to such active measures. We, at CellNo, are developing technologies that are non-intrusive in the public space, use naturally occurring, environmentally safe materials and do not emit any type of radio frequency radiation whatsoever. Our technology, unlike that of beacons, disablers or jammers, is passive in operation. Furthermore, CellNo products will not discriminate among commercial wireless providers. They are totally controllable in their use and because they are passive in operation, do not have any regulatory or environmental impact. Our supplemental services will allow for the reception of emergency calls.

We are pleased to tell you that CellNo products are currently in advanced stages of development and our patent is pending. We hope that CellNo will offer a balanced approach to the combined problems of “second-hand conversation” and exposure to radio frequency radiation.

Very Truly Yours,

Al Messano Chief Operating Officer

File: CANADA-1 Before

Mr. Michael Helm Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch, Industry Canada 300 Slater Street, Ottawa Ontario, K1A 0C8

In the Matter of

Public discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Canada Gazette Notice No. DGTP-002-01, Mobile Telephone communications) 2001-03-09 To: Industry Canada

COMMENTS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC-SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OFFICALS OF CANADA (APCO CANADA) IN RESPONSE TO INDUSTRY CANADA, SEEKING PUBLIC ADVICE ON CELLULAR PHONE SILENCERS OR JAMMERS

Robert Lévesque, Chair Spectrum Management Committee And 2nd Vice President APCO Canada 810 rue Saint-Antoine Est Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1A6 July 12 2001

The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials of Canada (APCO CANADA) hereby submits the following comments in response to Industry Canada seeking public advice on cellular phone silencers or jammers APCO Canada also respond herein to the questions raised by Industry Canada to establish whether the public interest would be served if the present occasional authorization of these devices, for law enforcement and public safety purpose, were to be broadened for wider niche market and location-specific applications. 1- Background

As mentioned in the Gazette Notice, there are five types of known devices currently capable of blocking or interfering with wireless communications, and they have been described as follows:

(1) Jamming Devices - By way of radio frequency interference, the device prevents pagers and mobile phones from transmitting or receiving calls by transmitting a jamming signal. (2) Intelligent Disablers - By way of a signal detection function, the device communicates with the base station of the mobile phone users’ wireless service provider indicating that particular mobile phone is in a quiet zone and consequently communication is not established.

Page 1 of 6 (3) Intelligent Beacon Disablers - By way of beacon-like operation, the device instructs any compatible mobile phone to disable its ringer, turn down its volume or to switch the phone to a vibrate-signalling mode. (4) Direct Receive and Transmit Jammers - By way of base station-like features, the device interacts with the operation of local mobile phones in its proximity to break or unhook the communications link, before returning to a passive mode. (5) Passive Jamming Devices - By way of electromagnetic interference (EMI) suppression techniques, a defined space/room is constructed in a way that prevents the transmission or reception of radio signals within the shielded space/room (commonly know as a Faraday Cage).

Generally speaking, the use of any of these five devices would place a mobile phone user in the same position as if they had, for example, moved outside of mobile phone coverage, or simply had their phone turned off. In most instances, a message would inform the calling party that the user is currently unavailable and the voice-mail feature would consequently be activated.

2- Problem Statement

APCO Canada believes that the perceived problems fall into several categories but will discuss only the category related to public safety and emergency communications, i.e., the fundamental issue with radio emissions from a portable device. In such cases, the radio energy from a jammer may cause miss-operation of nearby public safety radio equipment.

Many proposed jammers would degrade EMC-related issues by increasing the RF energy at the target area. Public safety (Police, Firefighter, EMS, etc) use the same spectrum (821-824 MHz Band and 700 MHz Band in the future) as the one used by cellular/PCS.

Therefore, at this time it is difficult to make any informed comment regarding the technical performance of these devices, particularly the extent of the leakage of radio waves beyond the target area, which may cause unintentional harmful interference to public safety radio systems users.

Identification of emergency calls is extremely difficult and we doubt that any of these techniques can permit all emergency call (through cellular/PCS, public safety radio communication) and reliably prevent unwanted communications.

One of the greatest concern arise from blocking emergency calls, whether these are related to 9-1-1 calls, originating or receiving calls dues to emergencies, originating or receiving calls to other emergency numbers, such as normal 7 or 10 digit phone numbers to police, fire, ambulance and other medical services. Emergency is not just dialling 9-1-1.

Another serious problem could arise from the leakage of RF emission beyond the targeted area. Such systems can allow leakage that extend beyond the target area and could cause interference (including desensitization of radio equipment) to adjacent public safety radio systems thereby blocking call. For a better in-building penetration, technology is presently in use to Enhances in-

Page 2 of 6 building wireless coverage. How can we be sure that those jamming signals won’t go through bi-directional amplifiers or similar technology and leak beyond the targeted area?

Cellular/PCS equipments may react to jammers by triggering escalation of base an terminal transmit power to overcome poor propagation by rising the level of RF signal in that area with the risk to cause more interference to nearby public safety radio equipment.

Public safety and law enforcement personnel (emergency, police, fire, EMS) also use cell-phone during their handling of an emergency. Some police department (some in the Toronto area) are presently using the dispatch function from a Cellular/PCS carrier (operating on a public network as their only radio communication system). It is essential that their equipment is not impeded by any local use of jamming technology.

APCO Canada opposes certifying or licensing cell-phone silencer/jammer/disabler devices. In Montréal, firefighters are required, by a court decision (CSST), to have radio equipment on them while fighting a fire. That court decision is being extended to all other fire department of the Province of Québec. That court decision also mentions that the firefighter’s radio is an essential part of their firefighting apparatus like their boots, coat, fire hat, breathing equipment etc., and that they can legally refuse to fight a fire if they do not have their radio in operation with them. All firefighter’s radio possesses an emergency button for asking help when necessary. It is for them a matter of life or dead. What will happen if firefighters refuse to fight a fire when their radio stops to operate or their emergency button does not work because of jammers?

If jammers become legal equipment easily available, some could think of using them for illegal purpose like jamming police radio communication around a bank to perform a robbery, etc.

3- Conclusion

APCO Canada believes that Industry Canada existing policy of refusing to exempt, certify or licensing cell-phone silencers/jammer/disabler devices continue to be appropriate.

From a public policy perspective, the greatest concern with theses devices arises from the potential for intentional or unintentional blocking of emergency calls, whether these are:

(1) Originating or receiving calls to 9-1-1; (2) Originating or receiving calls to/from other emergency (Public safety and law enforcement personnel also use cell-phone during their handling of an emergency); (3) Interfering (including desensitization) to adjacent public safety radio equipment; (4) Real and substantive question concerning legal liability associated with the use of such devices would also arise for the various parties involved in their deployment; (5) In addition, the implications of allowing the use of such jammers would create problems in several areas: a. Difficulty in controlling the blocked coverage area so that to avoid “split over” to areas where blocking is unintended, undesired and not authorized;

Page 3 of 6 b. Once jamming begins, escalation to counter-jamming and counter-counter jamming is likely and may cause additional interference to public safety radio systems; (6) The concept of allowing third parties to jam a licensed public safety service also has many regulatory and legal implications and difficulties.

Public safety is spending a lot of tax money to put in place radio communications systems. Industry Canada should not allow a third party to interfere with public safety radio communications.

APCO Canada continues to believe that the current practice that only allows for the temporary use of some forms of these devices by authorized law enforcement agencies under exceptional circumstances in the public interest should be maintained. Broadened licensing of these devices beyond the current policy and/or practice will place the Government and Industry Canada in the position of attempting to address social behaviour issues by regulatory fiat.

4- Invitation to comments on the following questions

(a)(i) What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and Public niche market applications (e.g. to increase security in boardrooms or to preserve “quiet zones” in public venues)?

APCO Canada considers that there is no public interest that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market application in light of serious implications:

(1) Blocking emergency calls (cellular/PCS and radio); (2) Lack of controlling RF leakage; (3) Legal implications of allowing third parties to jam public safety communications.

APCO Canada continues to support the current conditions in the Radiocommunication Act prohibiting the use of jammers and does not see a valid need for change at this time. (ii) If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

APCO Canada support limited and temporary applications for Law Enforcement in certain circumstances for the prevention of criminal activities. As outlined above, APCO Canada considers that there is no public interest that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices

(iii) What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

The risks are as indicated earlier:

(1) Blocking emergency calls (cellular/PCS and radio); (2) Lack of controlling RF leakage; (3) Legal implications of allowing third parties to jam public safety radio communications;

Page 4 of 6 (4) Inability to make or receive phone calls or radio communications, even if these are urgent, life-critical, safety related or time sensitive; (5) With time, even properly installed equipment may fail and cause unexpected interference, unless carefully maintained.

From a public policy perspective, the greatest concern with these devices arises from the potential for blocking emergency calls, whether these are:

(1) Originating or receiving calls to 9-1-1; (2) Originating or receiving calls to/from other emergency (Public safety and law enforcement personnel also use cell-phone during their handling of an emergency); (3) Interfering (including desensitization) to adjacent public safety radio systems.

APCO Canada believes that there may be a significant risk of uncontrollable explosion of devices in the “grey market” with the risk of deployment by unskilled hands that could lead to emissions outside the desired coverage area or used in illegal activities.

(iv) What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

APCO Canada does not believe that Industry Canada should be establishing conditions of use.

(b) What is the distinction, if any, between the uses of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

APCO Canada does not see any difference between the uses of these devices in private places as opposed to public places. The need for emergency calls (cellular/PCS and radio) covers both public and private places.

(c) If Industry Canada permits these devices:

(i) On a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what Frequency bands?

Law enforcement already has special abilities. No one else should be authorized to transmit in licensed bands without authorization by those holding the authorization in those bands

(ii) Under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed?

The following operational conditions should be required of such devices:

Page 5 of 6 (1) Support for emergency calls (9-1-1, other emergency phone number, public safety radio system) is required for both incoming and outgoing calls; (2) Specific tight constraint are required on jammer spillage outside the designated target zone; (3) Permission must be for specific area and/or time limit; (4) Public safety agencies must be informed of the location where the devices are in operation (5) Proper maintenance/monitoring is required of the units to ensure continued compliance, specifically any repair must be done by qualified personnel, who are capable of verifying emission compliance in adjacent areas after the repair is completed; (6) Self-test functionality is required to identify fault and disable any transmissions from the unit until repaired; (7) Units must not be portable or mobile; (8) APCO Canada does not approve of third party jammers, but if licensed, jamming must not affect public safety emergency communications of all kinds.

(iii) Are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

No known protocol will ensure that usage constrained within specific boundaries. Any jammers should employ internal monitoring logic, which causes them to disable their emissions, if any failure is detected.

To prevent accidental or deliberate moving of devices from one (permitted) location to a second (unauthorised) location, the jammer should be forced to automatically call a control centre for an “enable” code any time the device is moved.

Page 6 of 6 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

Comments – Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01

July 12, 2001

In March 2001, Telecommunications Services conducted a broad study of cellular phone products and subsequent ramifications. In this study, cellular phone silencers were acknowledged as a potential concern however the study also concluded, as does the Radiocommunication Act and Industry Canada’s request for public advice, that cellular phone silencers are illegal in Canada and only law enforcement and public safety officials are permitted to use them.

Administrative Telecommunications Services does not have a position on cellular phone silencers at this time. Wireless devices however, are an integral part of our business and any interruption in wireless services would highly impact critical client services such as: business resumption planning; field agent operations; on-site; emergency; and external operations. For these reasons, it is in our best interest to remain informed concerning any new legislation, permits or standards of practice concerning cellular phone silencing devices.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments and we look forward to any subsequent information, progress or decisions regarding cellular phone silencers. Brian Klotz

File: 3500

2001-07-12

Director General, Telecommunications Policy Branch, Industry Canada, 300 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C8

Dear Mr. Helm:

RABC Comments - Canada Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01, 2001-03-09: Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications)

The Radio Advisory Board of Canada provides Industry Canada with the following comments on the use of cell phone silencers / radio jamming devices. The Board issued a report on this topic in October 19991 and then updated the report, which was released in January 20012.

In both these reports, the Board expressed strong reservations on the use of such devices. The Board supported the retention of the existing policy and the refusal to exempt, certify or licence jammer / disabler devices. The Board understands the possible frustration and inconvenience that inappropriate and thoughtless use of cellular phones can engender, however, in spite of the flurry of news items occurring recently, the Board still sees no valid rationale to modify its stated position. The device descriptions in these news items have not resolved any of the concerns raised previously by the RABC.

In the following paragraphs, the Board responds to the specific questions raised and highlights appropriate technical rationale.

1 “Use of Jammer and Disabler Devices for Blocking PCS, Cellular & Related Services”, RABC, M&PC Committee, October 8, 1999 2 “Use of Jammer and Disabler Devices for Blocking PCS, Cellular & Related Services”, RABC Publication 01.3, M&PC Committee, 10 January 2001

Radio Advisory Board of Canada Conseil consultatif canadien de la radio 116 Albert Street, Suite 811 ℡ Phone: + 613 230 3261 Ottawa, ON * E-mail: [email protected] K1P 5G3 7 Fax: + 613 230 3262 :Web site: http://www.rabc.ottawa.on.ca/

Conclusions

The RABC believes that the Department’s existing policy of refusing to exempt, certify or license cell-phone silencer / jammer / disabler devices continues to be appropriate.

The RABC understands the possible frustration and inconvenience that inappropriate and thoughtless use of cellular phones can engender in some circumstances. In our response that follows we believe that it is largely a behavioral issue for which there are alternative preferred solutions to the proposed use of 'silencers', which themselves can introduce other undesirable and even potentially dangerous problems. The RABC believes that this behavioral issue is being addressed by appropriate education by the cellular industry.

The Board believes that DGTP-002-01 is attempting to solve four distinct types of perceived problems (EMC issues, audio-ringer issues, industrial espionage issues, security issues) and each needs to be individually assessed as to the most appropriate resolution.

From a public policy perspective, the greatest concern with these devices arises from the potential for intentional or unintentional blocking of emergency calls, whether these are:

· Originating calls to 9-1-1,

· Originating or receiving calls to / from other emergency numbers (such as the normal phone numbers for police, fire, ambulance, poison control center and other medical services),

· Originating or receiving emergency calls between private individuals.

Except when dialing the digits 9-1-1, it is technically extremely difficult to correctly determine that a call is an emergency call and permit the call, while “silencing” non- emergency calls.

Real and substantive questions concerning legal liability associated with the use of such devices would also arise for the various parties involved in their deployment.

In addition, the implications of allowing the use of such jammer/disabler devices for blocking mobile phone calls go far beyond its intended “silencing” application. Such implementations would create problems in several areas:

· High potential for unfair discrimination to various service providers and users (e.g. difficulty in making sure jamming is done equally to all service providers and private users, including cellular, PCS, paging, 2-way radio, cordless phones, licence-exempt phones, Bluetooth phones, etc.);

Page 2/22 Dated 2001-07-12

· Difficulty in controlling the “blocked” coverage area so as to avoid ‘spillover’ to areas where blocking is unintended, undesired and not authorized;

· The total power emitted by some broadband jammers and aggregated power of co-located jammers may exceed safe thresholds, if in close proximity to the public.

· Once jamming begins, escalation to counter-jamming and counter-counter- jamming is likely.

The concept of allowing third parties to jam a licensed service also has many regulatory and legal implications and difficulties:

· Complex licensing issues – licensed or unlicensed, fee-based or free, location known or arbitrary, frequencies of operation, emitted power

· Enforcement issues – permitted or not, RF spill-over, moving & removing equipment, who monitors, enforces, investigates

· Certification issues – what standards are met, who monitors continued compliance, who is responsible to repair

· Liability issues – what is the liability of manufacturers, operators or regulators if “authorized” jamming causes a call to fail and thus exacerbates some form of injury.

The industry has been working hard and has made significant progress in raising the awareness level and in educating the public regarding responsible wireless etiquette. In addition, it is expected that non-audible alerting, such as handsets that vibrate, and short messaging services, available on handsets, will allow users to deliver and receive important calls without disturbing others. The public is already benefiting from vibrating pagers and cellular/PCS handsets that do not disrupt meetings, performances, etc. Furthermore, the use of such technologies and services is likely to accelerate with the FCC’s recent adoption of rules and policies. This FCC action will now require manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and providers of telecommunication services to ensure that such equipment and services are accessible to and useable by persons with disabilities, if readily achievable.

Indeed, non-audible alerting and text messaging can have a double benefit. They can end concert hall disruption, while also making sure that calls get through to people in high-noise environments, like football or basketball games.

The Board continues to believe that the current practice that only allows for the temporary use of some forms of these devices by authorised law enforcement agencies under exceptional circumstances is in the public interest and should be maintained. Broadened licensing of these devices beyond the current policy and/or practice will

Page 3/22 Dated 2001-07-12

place the Government and the Department in the position of attempting to address social behaviour issues by regulatory fiat.

Page 4/22 Dated 2001-07-12

Contents

1 Background ...... 6 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 6 1.2 Problem “Solutions” ...... 7 2 Device Description...... 8 2.1 Equipment Device Types ...... 8 2.1.1 Type “A” Device (Broadband Jammers) ...... 8 2.1.2 Type “B” Device (Intelligent Cellular Disablers)...... 8 2.1.3 Type “C” Device (Intelligent Beacon Disablers) ...... 9 2.1.4 Type “D” Device (Direct Receive & Transmit Jammers)...... 10 2.1.5 Type “E” Device (EMI Shield - Passive Jamming)...... 10 2.1.6 Type “F” Device (Detector) ...... 11 2.2 Evaluation of Jammer/Disabler Technology...... 11 2.2.1 Overall Assessment of the Silencer/Jammer/Disabler Technology...... 12 2.2.1.1 Summary...... 13 2.2.2 Potential Service Implications ...... 14 3 Specific Comments ...... 16 3.1 DGTP-002-01, §1. Intent...... 16 3.2 DGTP-002-01, §2. Background ...... 16 3.3 DGTP-002-01, §3. Invitation to Comment...... 17 4 Summary...... 22

Page 5/22 Dated 2001-07-12

1 Background It is important to uniquely identify the perceived problems and then assess the positive and/or negative impacts of possible resolutions for each identified problem. In some cases, the Department will clearly have responsibility and need to dictate the resolution, while in others, a voluntary usage resolution may be more appropriate. 1.1 Problem Statement The Board considers that the perceived problems fall into 4 independent categories and notes that the focus of most of recent newspaper articles and of DGTP-002-01 is in the second category:

1. EMC-related, i.e., there is a fundamental issue with radio emissions from a portable device. In such cases, the radio energy may cause mis-operation of other equipment. Cited examples include:

o Use of radios near sensitive medical equipment

o Use of radios in aircraft affecting navigation equipment

2. Audio-ringer related, i.e., the fundamental issue is that the audio ringer will cause acoustic “discomfort” to other people in the immediate vicinity. Cited examples include:

o Use during a theatrical or orchestral performance

o Use during a religious service

o Use in a quiet restaurant

3. Industrial espionage, i.e., the fundamental issue is use of radio equipment to eavesdrop and / or record conversations without the knowledge of the parties involved.

4. Security related, i.e., when cellphones are used by criminals in the commission of a crime either for communication or to set off an explosive device.

NOTE that the second category may be focussed on publicly available equipment using cellular, PCS, SMR, licence-exempt and / or paging bands. The other three categories are much more broadly-based, and also include equipment using licence-exempt bands, amateur radio bands, ENG bands, etc., i.e., any band in which transportable equipment can be deployed. Those involved in industrial espionage may deploy equipment with “low-probability-of-intercept” capability, which makes jamming a difficult challenge.

Page 6/22 Dated 2001-07-12

Note also that a “solution” for one category may worsen the problem in another category. For example, a simple RF high-power jammer may solve categories 2 and 3, but will exacerbate category 1 concerns. 1.2 Problem “Solutions” Many proposed jammers would degrade EMC-related issues by increasing the RF energy. Even quiet-room “Faraday cages” may degrade situations as terminals within the Faraday Cage may increase their power trying to “punch-through” the blockage. User etiquette and appropriate signage may be the ONLY viable solution to EMC.

Use of radios near sensitive aircraft navigation equipment is already well taken care of by administrative means, i.e. Transport Canada and airlines do not allow the use of cell phones onboard aircraft in flight.

Various research institutes including McGill University and Health Canada have studied the subject of EMC between wireless devices and medical equipment. It was found that the actual risk of wireless devices causing medical equipment malfunction should be very low based on extensive review of reported EMI cases. With increasing awareness of the issue, it is believed that the risk can be minimized further. For example, sensitive medical equipment can be identified and placed at locations with good separation from RF sources and wireless devices and this sensitive medical equipment may be limited to use in non-critical care units. Improved EMC design is also expected with new medical equipment that should have better shielding and immunity performance.

Although annoying and undesirable, audible-ringer issues are most visible to the general public, but are not sufficiently crucial to REQUIRE active jammer technology – issues can be minimized, by use of vibration–ringers, etiquette and signage. Active jammers are like using a proverbial “sledge-hammer to crack a nut” and also incur major negative implications.

Industrial espionage is already illegal and further legislation is not needed. It is possible that “experts” would use other frequencies than public cellular/PCS channels, therefore any jammer must cover extremely wide bands and especially the licence-exempt bands, which would degrade everyone’s performance. “Faraday cages” and / or RF detectors may be the only viable solutions (and neither need licensing), but Faraday cages will restrict legitimate emergency access, therefore signage will be important.

Uses preventing criminal activity are already covered by existing rules for authorised law enforcement agencies.

The total power emitted by some broadband jammers in close proximity to the public may approach or exceed safe thresholds. Note that the power may be aggregated from multiple transmitters.

Page 7/22 Dated 2001-07-12

2 Device Description

2.1 Equipment Device Types

The earlier reports of the Board addressed the five known device types indicated in DGTP-002-01 and described below, and a sixth “detector” type has been added.

2.1.1 Type “A” Device (Broadband Jammers)

This type of device comes equipped with several independent oscillators transmitting ‘jamming signals’ capable of blocking frequencies used by paging devices as well as those used by cellular/PCS systems. With some technologies, the traffic channels must be jammed whereas with others only the control channels needed for call establishment / alerting need to be jammed. When active in a designated area, such devices will (by means of RF interference) prevent all pagers and mobile phones located in that area from receiving and transmitting calls. This type of device transmits only a jamming signal and has very poor frequency selectivity, which leads to interference with a larger amount of communication spectrum than it was originally intended to target.

This technique could be implemented without cooperation from PCS/cellular providers, but would negatively impact PCS/cellular system operation. Once jamming begins, escalation to counter-jamming may result, either by deliberate action or by autonomous response of power control systems within a PCS/cellular system.

One other area of concern is the raising of the general RF noise floor in the neighbourhood as a result of a Type “A” device. Many communication systems are required to work in all types of buildings under very low signal conditions and the raising of the noise floor by various jamming transmitters in the same band and vicinity could make the difference between receiving or not receiving a crucial message in permitted areas.

It is possible that the aggregate power emitted from such devices would cause safety hazards if in close proximity to the general public.

2.1.2 Type “B” Device (Intelligent Cellular Disablers)

Unlike jammers, Type “B” devices do not transmit an interfering signal. The device, when located in a designated ‘quiet’ area, functions as a ‘detector’. It has a unique identification number for communicating with the cellular base station. When a Type “B” device detects the presence of a mobile phone in the quiet room, the ‘filtering’ (i.e. the prevention of authorization of call establishment) is done by the software at the base station.

When the base station sends the signaling transmission to a target user, the device after detecting simultaneously the presence of that signal and the presence of the target

Page 8/22 Dated 2001-07-12

user, signals the base station that the target user is in a ‘quiet’ room; therefore, do not establish the communication. Messages can be routed to the user’s voice-mail box, if the user subscribes to a voice-mail service. This process of detection and interruption of call establishment is done during the interval normally reserved for signaling and handshaking.

For ‘emergency users’, the intelligent detector device makes provisions for designated users who have emergency status. These users must pre-register their phone numbers with the service providers. When an incoming call arrives, the detector recognizes that number and the call is established for a specified maximum duration, say two minutes. The emergency users are also allowed to make out going calls. Similarly, the system is capable of recognizing and allowing all emergency calls routed to “9-1-1”.

It should be noted that the Type “B” detector device being an integral part of the cellular/PCS systems, would need to be provisioned by the cellular/PCS service providers or provisioned by a third-party working cooperatively with full support of all the cellular/PCS service providers.

2.1.3 Type “C” Device (Intelligent Beacon Disablers)

Unlike jammers, Type “C” devices do not transmit an interfering signal. The device, when located in a designated ‘quiet’ area, functions as a ‘beacon’ and any compatible terminal is instructed to disable its ringer or disable its operation while within the coverage area of the beacon. Only terminals which have a compatible receiver would respond and this would typically be built on a separate technology from cellular/PCS e.g., cordless wireless, paging, ISM, Bluetooth, …. On leaving the coverage area of the beacon, the handset must re-enable its normal function.

This technology does not cause interference and does not require any changes to existing PCS/cellular operators. The technology does require intelligent handsets with a separate receiver for the beacon system from the cellular/PCS receiver. It will not prevent normal operation for incompatible legacy terminals within a “quiet” coverage area, thus effective deployment will be problematic for many years.

While general uninformed users would lose functionality, pre-designated “emergency” users could be informed of a “bypass terminal key sequence” to inhibit response to the beacon. With this system, it would be extremely difficult to control misuse of the “bypass key sequence” by users.

Since not all users “wear” their handsets, they would need to be notified that their devices were no longer in the ring mode or were no longer operational. This notification may be of more annoyance than a potential ringing phone.

Incompatible legacy equipment would not be controlled and it would be difficult to establish regulations requiring compliance in the near-term.

Page 9/22 Dated 2001-07-12

Assuming the beacon system uses a technology with its own licensed spectrum (or in the licence-exempt band), no change to the regulations is apparently needed to deploy such a system. However such techniques may still contravene the Radiocommunication Act section 9.(1)(b), which states:

No person shall without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication.

2.1.4 Type “D” Device (Direct Receive & Transmit Jammers)

This jammer behaves like a small, independent and portable base station, which can directly interact intelligently or unintelligently with the operation of the local mobile phone. The jammer is predominantly in receive mode and will intelligently choose to interact and block the cell phone directly if it is within close proximity of the jammer.

This selective jamming technique uses a discriminating receiver to identify the interfering mobile and target a compatible jamming transmitter to interact with the mobile, reducing the overall emissions. The benefit of such targeting selectivity is much less electromagnetic pollution in terms of raw power transmitted and frequency spectrum from the jammer, and therefore the jammer is much less disruptive to passing traffic. The jam signal would only stay on as long as the mobile tries to make a link with the base station, otherwise there would be no jamming transmission – the technique forces the link to break or unhook and then it retreats to a passive receive mode again. In most cases, the mobile will continue to scan for valid control signals, and as soon as one is detected, it will again try and access the correct base. Thus the jammer may be forced into active transmissions for much of the time.

This technique could be implemented without cooperation from PCS/cellular providers, but could negatively impact PCS/cellular system operation. This technique has an added advantage over Type B in that no added overhead time or effort is spent negotiating with the cellular network. As well as Type B, this device could discriminate and permit explicit “9-1-1” calls (but not other emergency calls).

2.1.5 Type “E” Device (EMI Shield - Passive Jamming)

This technique is using EMI suppression techniques to make a room into what is called a Faraday cage. Although labour-intensive to construct, the Faraday cage essentially blocks, or greatly attenuates, virtually all electromagnetic radiation from entering or leaving the cage – or in this case a target room.

With current advances in EMI shielding techniques and commercially available products one could conceivably implement this into the architecture of newly designed buildings for so-called “quiet-conference” rooms.

Emergency calls would be blocked unless there was a way to receive and decode the 9- 1-1 transmissions, pass by coax outside the room and re-transmitted.

Page 10/22 Dated 2001-07-12

It is unclear whether or not such techniques may still contravene the Radiocommunication Act section 9.(1)(b), which states:

No person shall without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication.

In addition, municipal or provincial building code by-laws may or may not allow this type of construction.

2.1.6 Type “F” Device (Detector)

A “detector” device passively detects the existence of nearby cellphones etc. and alerts users (or building owner) that such usage is occurring and not permitted in a specific area. Note that such devices will probably not detect receive-only devices (e.g., basic pagers), therefore they may not solve all the audible-ringer problems. This device type is currently legal in Canada. 2.2 Evaluation of Jammer/Disabler Technology

Several manufacturers of jammer/disabler technology have appeared in the marketplace with their devices yet none have proven to be selective enough. The main problems with cellular telephone jamming are blockage to emergency calls and electromagnetic spillage into areas where it was not intended to go. Currently ALL technologies suffer from these problems.

Detailed technical specifications and operational performance parameters for available devices are not yet available from their manufacturers. Further, since these devices have yet to be accepted for legal use by any country, information on actual operational performance of such devices is unknown.

Therefore, at this time it is difficult to make any informed comment regarding the technical performance of these devices, particularly regarding the extent of any leakage of radio waves beyond the target area, which may cause unintentional harmful interference to legitimate cellular/PCS systems and users, or other wireless systems and services.

Since RF leakage is not totally deterministic / controllable without very detailed analysis and construction, it is unlikely that any of these techniques can reliably prevent unwanted communications within a specific confined area without some spillage.

Identification of any type of emergency calls (except “9-1-1”) is extremely difficult and it is unlikely that any of these techniques can permit all emergency calls and reliably prevent unwanted communications.

Page 11/22 Dated 2001-07-12

2.2.1 Overall Assessment of the Silencer/Jammer/Disabler Technology

The overall assessment of the technology is summarized as follows:

The greatest concerns arise from blocking emergency calls, whether these are related to 9-1-1 calls, originating or receiving calls due to family emergencies, originating or receiving crucial business calls or originating or receiving calls to other emergency numbers (such as the normal 7-digit phone numbers for police, fire, ambulance, poison control center and other medical services). Emergency is not just dialing the digits “9-1- 1”. It should be noted that there may be legal liability involved as a result of blocking or interfering with legitimate emergency calls, such as those to “9-1-1”. For example, in support of transplant patients, doctors, relatives of donors and potential recipients must be urgently contacted.

Since the Type “A” device would block all calls, including emergency calls, the RABC believes that the use of such devices would be totally unacceptable.

In the case of Type “B”, “C” and “D” devices, although they have intelligent capabilities for catering to registered emergency users, non-registered users could not make emergency calls. Therefore, with some sophisticated implementations, the Type “B”, “C” and “D” devices are improvements over a Type “A” device for registered users, but do not fully satisfy the objective of enabling the placement and receipt of emergency calls.

Furthermore, the implementation complexity for Type “B” devices is cause for concern. For example, serious complications would arise in coordinating with several service providers the installation of at least seven or more Type “B” devices (seven for catering to 2-cellular services, 4-PCS services, 1-ESMR service plus several more for paging services) at a target location. Therefore, the RABC believes that Type “B” devices would not be acceptable.

Successful implementation of Type “C” devices depends on widespread deployment and use of Type “C” receivers in most terminals and will thus take many years to become established due to the large number of incompatible legacy terminals. Furthermore, if this type of device were used for silencing a handset it would also need to notify the user who might be counting on a ring from a purse or coat pocket. Type “C” devices which disable calls would have the same issues as types “B” and “D” devices.

Implementation of Type “D” devices require a discriminating receiver(s) capable of detecting multiple air interface standards and then transmitting appropriate jamming signal(s). One challenge is for the receiver to detect the cessation of the original signal while the jamming signal is present. Typically when the jamming signal is removed, the mobile will detect a valid base station and re-attempt communication. Intelligent jammers also have similar problems.

Page 12/22 Dated 2001-07-12

Another serious problem could arise from the leakage of RF emissions (Type “A”, “C” & “D” emissions or Type “B” & “D” detection) beyond the targeted blocked area. Such leakage could be reduced through the use of directional antennas or “leaky coax” type of technology, but if not designed and installed proficiently, such systems can allow leakage that extends beyond the target area and could cause interference to adjacent parts of cellular/PCS/ESMR networks, thereby blocking calls to their regular users. This could reduce the quality of service provided and leave customers with a negative perception of a supplier even though the reduction in quality is beyond the suppliers’ control.

Type “E” facilities block all transmissions, however they are passive and do not currently need regulatory approval. They would have minimal “spillover” (i.e., impact on adjacent areas). However, if poorly installed, they may simply attenuate signals and trigger escalation of base and terminal transmit power to overcome poor “propagation”.

The use of Type “A” devices (and to a lesser extent Type “D” devices) could trigger a deliberate transmitter power escalation from an autonomous system response attempting to overcome the interference, which would affect the interference and power control abilities of PCS/cellular technologies in adjacent areas, impacting users over a wider area than intended.

The use of Type “F” devices is acceptable as they do not interrupt legitimate communications and simply make the use more visible. However, Type “F” devices will also “complain” about phones in “vibrate-only” mode. Their use may thus be counter- productive in situations where the “audible ringer” is the problem being resolved.

Public safety and law enforcement personnel (emergency fire, medical) may use cellphones during their handling of an emergency “call” to consult with colleagues – it is essential that their equipment is not impeded by any local use of jamming technology. For example, paramedical personnel currently use cellphones to call an emergency room doctor for instructions/treatment – their usual dispatch equipment is not suitable for such a dialogue.

One suggestion from the proponents of “silencers” is that the cellphone should be left at a reception desk and any incoming calls would be answered by a receptionist and the owner fetched. This may be viable in a small restaurant, but in a concert hall would necessitate the use of ushers, whose appearance and interruption during the performance is less desirable than a vibrating phone solution. 2.2.1.1 Summary

While the RABC opposes certifying or licensing cell-phone silencer / jammer / disabler devices, we were explicitly asked to classify our level of concern with each device type. Several different orderings are possible depending on metric selected. However, based strictly on the needs of emergency calls, the acceptability of the above six device types

Page 13/22 Dated 2001-07-12

gives the following order along with a brief rationale (Note that type C and Type E occur in two places depending on their abilities):

Least obnoxious:

· Type F Detector – it does NOT block any emergency calls

· Type C Intelligent Beacon disabler – if it enables vibrate mode, and alerts the user of the change in mode

· Type E Passive – if emergency calls are actively detected and “piped” out of the room, but with no spillover and no spectrum pollution.

· Type B Intelligent Cellular Disabler – as it will permit some emergency calls, but have spillover problems

· Type C Beacon and Type D Receive/Transmit – as it will permit some emergency calls, but have spillover problems and cause spectrum pollution

· Type E Passive – as it blocks all calls, but with no spillover and no spectrum pollution.

· Type A Broadband Jammer – as it indiscriminately blocks all calls

Most obnoxious:

2.2.2 Potential Service Implications

The denial of service (especially emergency service) may have legal repercussions on the service providers, Industry Canada, the jammer provider and the public venue operator (concert hall, etc.), where some perceived harm or loss has occurred, particularly in situations where lives could have been or were lost.

Service providers may be faced with serious legal issues of liability should customer problems arise due to jammers. Addressing this concern could require the government to permit wireless carriers to limit their liability as a consequence of the decision to approve these devices. While not yet addressed in Canada, the FCC in the U.S. has not been prepared to approve such limitations of liability for U.S. wireless carriers, even for “9-1-1” calls.

Either by deliberate action or accidental implementation, there is a high possibility for unfair discrimination between the operators, due to the impact on coverage area and service availability with any of these disabling devices. Jamming technology could force visitors to a hotel or hall to call via wireline or payphone service from which the facility owner derives revenue, and at the same time deny revenue to a legitimate cellular/paging service provider.

Page 14/22 Dated 2001-07-12

Certification, licensing and enforcement of conditions on third-party jammers could be very complex. Even if it is possible to develop regulations to mitigate the technical issues, these will not mitigate the business and service issues and it will be difficult to guarantee compliance without regular re-testing and re-certification.

If jammers are permitted and installed and then later Industry Canada releases more spectrum for emerging services and / or similar PCS/Cellular service delivery (e.g. IMT-2000 technology) or new air interfaces are deployed, who would be responsible for ensuring that existing jammers are modified in a timely fashion to provide equivalent “jammer service” to this new application as well as previous generations of services?

Spectrum would be devalued if the technology (particularly of the Type “A” variety) was permitted as the market opportunity would be correspondingly reduced. This may be particularly relevant as the jammed areas may be potential high revenue generators (e.g., large public events). The 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia provides an example of the demand for wireless service during large public events. During the games, wireless service provider Telstra enabled approximately 720,000 minutes of telephone conversations daily3. During the opening ceremonies alone, approximately 125,000 calls were connected inside the Olympic Stadium. This extraordinary usage demonstrates the desire of individuals to receive ubiquitous service of high quality.

In any future bidding on spectrum, the spectrum would also be of lesser value, because bidders would know that jammers were permitted in the market and could pre-empt carriers' use of the spectrum and reduce potential revenue generation.

The use of jammers could significantly increase the calls to customer service related to service coverage inquiries and billing credits, which would be a financial hardship to the carriers. The carriers may have had to pay a high price in spectrum auction and in licence fees, and then potentially be forced into providing billing credits because someone else is interfering with the service.

Overall customer perception of cellular/PCS coverage would diminish if the jammer spillage and 9-1-1 breakthrough issues are not dealt with and may potentially impact customer acceptance of cellular/PCS service.

Society has evolved to expect universal coverage of cellular/PCS type technologies. It would be a backward step to return to the need for ushers and bellhops searching for a guest when an urgent message arrives at a hotel, restaurant, concert hall, etc. People with loud voices will still exist even with wireline phone or cordless phones. If people with phones are inconsiderate and rude, jammer technology is unlikely to improve their behaviour.

3 Sybase and Compudigm Earn "Gold Medal" for Helping Monitor Wireless Traffic During Sydney Olympics, October 11, 2000 (http://www.sybase.com/detail/1,3693,1010826,00.html)

Page 15/22 Dated 2001-07-12

3 Specific Comments

3.1 DGTP-002-01, §1. Intent The Board is pleased to note that “the Department is not prepared to address a licence- exempt status for these devices”. A “licence-exempt” status could lead to widespread, uncontrolled deployment of such devices and completely defeat one of the major advantages of cellular/PCS/paging/SMR services, that of connectivity anywhere, anytime. Such status would have a major negative impact on Canadian wireless operators, manufacturers and the general public. Licence-exempt status for battery- powered jammers could lead to extremely arbitrary call-blocking by someone who is walking nearby and make it virtually impossible for carriers to ensure adequate quality of service. 3.2 DGTP-002-01, §2. Background The Board acknowledges that the Department has a duty to balance the needs of Canadian user communities, manufacturers and entrepreneurs and to resolve issues so as to maintain an appropriate balance.

With some of these types of jamming device, a mobile terminal could be made to believe that it is outside of system coverage, however in other cases, the terminal would “appear” to be fully functional and indicate that it is within reach of a base station and yet still be incapable of making or receiving calls. Therefore, the Board does NOT agree with the DGTP-002-01 comment:

Generally speaking, the use of any of these five devices would place a mobile phone user in the same position as if they had, for example, moved outside of mobile phone coverage, or simply had their phone turned off.

The Board also believes that there is a major difference between a user choosing to turn off his phone versus the phone being made inoperable by a third party, probably without prior warning. We also note that not all mobile users have a voice-mail subscription.

The Board agrees that education on voluntary phone etiquette, a vibratory ringer and local signage requesting patrons to turn off audible ringers are valuable and equitable resolutions for the majority of “audible ringer” problems.

We confirm that our major concerns with many potential implementations of jammer technology are:

· The blocking of emergency calls

· Unfair discrimination in blocking among service providers and users.

· Difficulty in controlling RF leakage; and

Page 16/22 Dated 2001-07-12

· The regulatory/enforcement and legal implications of allowing third parties to jam licensed services.

o Legal liability

o Certification issues

o Licence devaluation

· Increased customer service calls and potential for churn to competitive services

· Customer perception of service coverage area

As noted above the Board continues to support the current conditions in the Radiocommunication Act prohibiting the use of jammers and does not see a valid need for change at this time. 3.3 DGTP-002-01, §3. Invitation to Comment (a)(i) What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market applications (e.g. to increase security in boardrooms or to preserve “quiet zones” in public venues)?

The Board considers that there is NO public interest that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorizations in light of the serious implications outlined above, in particular in Section 3.2 and restated in (iii) below.

Jamming is unlikely to solve EMC-related issues and only resolves the simplest of espionage issues. The Board recognizes the occasional need to authorize Law Enforcement and Public Safety organizations to use jamming technology, but we do not support broadening such specific applications. We note that many Public Safety representatives (firemen and paramedics) use existing cellphones to consult with colleagues when “on a call” and would probably unexpectedly lose this ability, if jamming is deployed. For boardrooms, detectors or Faraday cages may be the only solution – neither of which needs Industry Canada approval. Note that Faraday cages may cause problems for Public Safety representatives. We believe that using jamming techniques to solve audible-ringer problems is unacceptable due to concerns highlighted earlier.

(ii) If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

The Board supports limited and temporary applications for Law Enforcement. The status quo should remain with respect to the limited use of these devices, in certain circumstances for the prevention of criminal activity. Section 9 (1) (b) of the Radiocommunication Act should remain intact, as should the intention, policy and

Page 17/22 Dated 2001-07-12

current practice regarding possession, installation and operation of these devices in special instances by the public safety community.

As outlined above, the Board is also of the opinion that there can be no public interest demonstrated for broadening the present policy. However, if any other applications are approved, then the Board believes that the applications should be for very limited area and / or limited time and comply with tightly enforced constraints (see below).

(iii) What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

The risks indicated earlier are:

· The blocking of emergency calls, whether to report an emergency life-threatening situation through 9-1-1 or other emergency numbers such as direct lines to police, fire ambulance, poison control centre or other medical services, calls to or from doctors, police requirements and any other emergency communications using public facilities.

· Unfair discrimination in blocking among service providers and users.

· Difficulty in controlling RF leakage; and

· The regulatory/enforcement and legal implications of allowing third parties to jam licensed services.

o Legal liability

o Certification issues

o License devaluation

· Increased customer service calls and potential for churn to competitive services

· Customer perception of service coverage area

These risks have three timescales:

· Immediacy – inability to make or receive phone calls or messages, even if these are urgent, life-critical, safety-related or time sensitive.

· Medium term as issues such as compliance to power and RF leakage issues are addressed on a specific device basis or legal liability issues are pursued through the courts

· Long-term – public perception of poor service or poor coverage impacting the financial health and rate of growth of Canada’s wireless industry. With time,

Page 18/22 Dated 2001-07-12

even properly installed equipment may fail and cause unexpected interference, unless carefully maintained.

These risks will significantly impact the marketplace and substantially increase both business risk and potential life/safety risks from lost emergency service.

From a public policy perspective, the greatest concern with these devices arises from the potential for blocking emergency calls, whether these are:

· Originating calls to 9-1-1,

· Originating or receiving calls to / from other emergency numbers (such as the normal 7 digit phone numbers for police, fire, ambulance, poison control center and other medical services),

· Originating or receiving emergency calls between private individuals.

Except when dialing the digits 9-1-1, it is technically extremely difficult to correctly determine that a call is an emergency call and permit the call, while “silencing” non- emergency calls.

The Board believes that there is a significant risk of an uncontrollable explosion of devices in the “gray market”. If equipment is permitted for use in specific cases, then by deliberate or accidental action or by equipment theft, the devices will also be used in non-permitted cases and such activity would be difficult to control.

If a jammer is modified, moved or becomes faulty, there is a risk that deployment by unskilled hands (for example, in a restaurant, concert hall, or similar venue) could accidentally lead to emissions outside the desired coverage area.

(iv) What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

As outlined the Board does not believe that the Department should be establishing conditions of use. In the event that the Department does begin the process of conditions of use, given the concerns and risks outlined above the Board recommends that the Department undertake a separate public consultation on such conditions, including the remedies required to address the identified adverse impacts.

If such devices are deployed, existing licence holders should be entitled to a reduction (or refund) in licence fees, due to the diminished value of the spectrum – how will this be addressed?

How will non-discriminatory jamming of spectrum be maintained if new air interfaces and / or spectrum are deployed? Who is responsible for upgrading the equipment?

Page 19/22 Dated 2001-07-12

(b) What is the distinction, if any, between the use of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

There is no difference between public and private venues. The need for emergency calls covers both public and private venues. The public may not realize when they are in a public or private venue and expect ubiquitous coverage.

(c) If Industry Canada permits these devices:

(i) on a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what frequency bands?

Law enforcement already have special abilities. Wireless service providers already have the authority to constrain their own coverage area. No one else should be permitted to transmit in licensed bands without authorization by the wireless service providers holding the authorization in those bands.

(ii) under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed?

Passive devices do not require licensing and are generally more benign than active transmitters. Such devices, which detect and advise of inappropriate behaviour (not block), may be acceptable, if not too obtrusive. Note that detection systems may “complain” about phones in “vibrate-only” mode and be counter-productive if the basic problem is the audible ringer.

The following operational conditions should be required of such devices:

· Support for emergency calls (both to 9-1-1 and other non-obvious emergency phone numbers) is required for both incoming and outgoing calls.

· Specific tight constraints are required on jammer spillage outside the designated target zone.

· Visible signage is required, advising the public that service may be impacted.

· Permission must be for specific area and / or time limit

· Proper maintenance / monitoring is required of the units to ensure continued compliance – specifically any repairs must be done by qualified personnel, who are capable of verifying emission compliance in adjacent areas AFTER the repair is completed.

· Self-test functionality is required to identify faults and disable any transmissions from the unit until repaired

Page 20/22 Dated 2001-07-12

· The affected operators (cellular, PCS, paging, …) must be informed of the location of the devices so that customer problem reports can be correctly assessed. This requirement includes the maintenance of a public database containing all installations and authorizations.

· Units must not be portable or mobile.

· Units must NOT be permitted when the purpose for installation is to discriminate and move traffic from existing operators to competitive communication facilities for any reason and especially if the jamming unit owner gets financial benefit from jamming.

· The Board does not approve of third-party jammers, but if licensed, jamming must be applied equitably i.e. non-discriminatory basis, to all wireless service providers in any band (cellular, PCS, satellite, SMR, cordless phones, wireless PBXs, radio amateurs, pagers, license-exempt bands, and including future technologies such as IMT-2000, Bluetooth)

· Units must be upgraded if new spectrum or air interfaces offering advanced services are deployed so as to maintain the non-discriminatory usage.

(iii) are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

No known protocol will ensure that usage is constrained within specific boundaries, however, RSS-118, RSS-128, RSS-129, RSS-132, and RSS-133 already document Cordless-Mode Cellular Base Stations (CCBS) – intelligent “Direct Receive & Transmit” jammers could conform to these requirements, in addition to the previous operational conditions and provide some degree of control.

Any jammers should employ internal monitor logic, which causes them to disable their emissions, if any failure is detected.

To prevent accidental or deliberate moving of devices from one (permitted) location to a second (unauthorized) location, an etiquette similar to the non-nomadic licensed- exempt PCS (UTAM) etiquette could be used. This would force the jamming device to “call-home” for an “enable” code any time that the power supply has been interrupted (e.g. by removal & re-installation of the device).

Page 21/22 Dated 2001-07-12

4 Summary The Board supports the retention of the existing policy and the refusal to exempt, certify or license jammer / disabler devices. The Board still sees no valid rationale to modify its stated position and does not believe that any change would assist the Canadian people.

The Board believes that many “solutions” proposed for market tackle the “symptom” and do not tackle the underlying “cause”, with the consequence that these solutions have significant drawbacks.

The Board believes that the best solution to the audible-ringer issue is public education and the responsible use of vibrate-ringer mode on cellphones.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

Yours truly,

R.D.C. Coles President

Page 22/22 Dated 2001-07-12

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police The RCMP supports the RABC recommendations and report as submitted to Industry Canada on the public discussion on cell-phone silencers of GN DGTP-002-01.

The views expressed in the report are representative of the law enforcement issues related to the approval and the use of such devices in Canada. The concerns of missed emergency calls and the difficulty of containing the blocked coverage area of such devices are very real with our organization as they would impact directly our ability to fill our mandate with the public and various governmental jurisdictions.

We are of the opinion that it is not in the public interest of the broadening the authorisation jammer/disabler devices in Canada from the current practice of allowing occasional use under exceptional circumstances for law enforcement and public safety purposes.

------

Once again, the Board thanks the Department for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Yours truly

E.R. (Ted) Campbell

General Manager TELUS Mobility Floor 16 200 Consilium Place Scarborough, Ontario Canada M1H 3J3

Ed Prior 416 279 7523 Telephone Director, 416 279 3166 Facsimile Government & Regulatory Affairs [email protected]

July 12, 2001

Michael Helm Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada Room 1642-B, 300 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8

Dear Mr. Helm:

Subject: Response to Canada Gazette Part I Notice DGTP-002-01,“Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or blocking Mobile Telephone Communications)”

TELUS Mobility is pleased to provide comments to the Department in response to Canada Gazette Part I Notice DGTP-002-01, “Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications) – the “Jammer Notice”.

The questions raised in the Jammer Notice are extremely important to TELUS Mobility, the Canadian Wireless Industry, the Canadian Public Safety Community and all Canadians either currently owning a mobile telephone or contemplating the acquisition of one. TELUS Mobility commends the Department in publicly consulting on such an important matter.

TELUS Mobility has been closely involved in developing and fully supports, both the comments of the Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC) and the comments of the Canadian Wireless Communications Association (CWTA) in response to the Jammer Notice. In concert with these organizations, TELUS Mobility opposes any move to exempt, certify or license any form of jammer or silencing device in Canada. We recognize that under certain, special, circumstances law enforcement and national security agencies have been granted authorizations by Industry Canada to use these devices. TELUS Mobility does not oppose these special authorizations.

As outlined in both submissions referenced above legalizing the use of jammers in Canada is an attempt to deal by government fiat with what is primarily a newly emerged etiquette issue. In this case, the cure is very much worse than the problem it purports to address.

Proponents for the legalization and proliferation of jammers typically raise two issues. The first is behaviorally based, the second refers to specific and infrequent instances of criminal use of cellular telephones. This second case can continue to be addressed by the special authorizations already discussed, the first through education, direction and technology. Canada’s wireless industry has and continues to sponsor educational programs for wireless telephone users. These programs focus on safe and considerate use of wireless devices in all public situations. They 2

remind users to use the vibrate or other silent alert features of these devices and to avoid loud or lengthy conversations where these might disturb others. These programs appear to be working. Widespread wireless telephones are a recent phenomenon and it has taken time for society to evolve an acceptable code of conduct concerning these devices. This code seeks to balance the need for anytime, anywhere communications with the right not to be unnecessarily disturbed by other people’s communications. This trend is evidenced by the emergence of so called “quiet cars” on commuter trains that allow riders to choose whether to use the commute to relax or connect. Manufacturers are abetting these developments by the introduction of more comprehensive silent notification and message handling and storage capabilities in all new wireless devices.

Bad manners in any form will never entirely disappear. There is no need to attempt to regulate its disappearance. Such a public policy approach is completely contrary to the Government’s and the Department’s de-regulatory policy platform. Attempting to regulate social behaviour by legalizing jammers opens Pandora’s box of problems. These problems span among other areas those of legal liability, public safety and the perceived benefits of wireless communications. This latter concern during a time of economic uncertainty could damage the current growth projections for Canada’s wireless industry.

In summary, there are no public policy reasons for legalizing jammers and many not to do so. As the CWTA has concluded, “The most reasonable public policy decision is to maintain Industry Canada’s current policy regarding jammers and allow society to adapt behaviour to accommodate this new technology.” TELUS Mobility completely supports this conclusion and trusts that the Department will do the same.

Yours truly, (Signed by Ed Prior)

Ed Prior Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

July 9, 2001

Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada 300 Slater St. Ottawa, Ont., K1A 0C8

Ref: Comment - Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01

Gentlemen,

Attached is our response to the Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01 regarding cellphone silencing.

Cell Block Canada Ltd. is a technical services company located in Stittsville, Ontario. We specialize in a patent-pending technology to control wireless abuse in restricted areas.

Our main product is called the Cell-Block-R System. Versions are designed for Security, Safety, and Privacy applications.

This letter and the attached document were prepared in Microsoft Word 2000. A hard copy is being delivered via surface mail and an electronic copy is also being delivered via e-mail to [email protected].

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Yours truly,

A. Pickering Managing Director

103-67 Iber Road Stittsville Ont. Canada K2S 1E7 TEL 613.295.6444 [ Fax 613.836.5734 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

Notice No. DGTP-002-01 — Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications)

1. The following submission is made by Cell Block Canada Ltd. and its parent corporation Cell Block Technologies Inc. (“Cell Block”). Cell Block has developed patent-pending Cell-Block-R Systems, which are directly affected by this consultation paper and as such, Cell Block has a direct interest in the outcome of this process.

2. Cell Block believes that this initiative that has been undertaken by Industry Canada comes at an important juncture in the evolution of the cellular/PCS telephone industry (referred to as ‘cell phones’ in this submission for ease of reference). As the price of these phones continues to drop and their variety continues to expand, they have long since ceased to be business-only luxury items. They have become ubiquitous.

Cell Block’s Position

3. Cell Block’s position in this proceeding is that, in an appropriate licensing context, cell phone silencers have an important and welcome role to play in Canada. However, there is a considerable amount of confusion in the marketplace as to the capabilities of the various alternatives. Therefore, it is essential that any debate on this topic have a clear understanding of the terms that are used.

4. Perhaps a recent editorial in the National Post best illustrated the confusion that exists in the minds of the public today on this topic. The editorial, which appeared in the Saturday, March 10, 2001 edition, was entitled “Hope you like jamming”. While it was supportive of a change in Industry Canada policy, the editorial implied that the only solution under consideration was a variety of actual jamming techniques that would forcibly interfere with the normal operation of cell phones.

5. Cell Block believes that this focus may give the public and commentators in this proceeding the incorrect impression that jamming is the only solution to blocking or interfering with wireless communications. However, as the Department has noted in its Notice, there are also disablers that can achieve the same result in a less intrusive manner.

6. Cell Block presents a third alternative, one that is not a jammer and is not a disabler, but rather an intervenor. As will be seen from the comment below, this is an important distinction. Throughout this submission, Cell Block will refer to its particular form system as a wireless intervention device.

Page 2 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

7. However, before commenting on the specific issues set out in the Notice, Cell Block would like first to outline its understanding of the various silencing alternatives and Cell Block’s method of operation.

8. Cell Block is a responsible player in this industry. Its senior executives have more than 50 years experience in the radiocommunication business, in a wide range of responsible positions of authority, from RF Engineer to complete oversight of the Canadian Industrial TEMPEST Program for the Communications Security Establishment of the Canadian Government.

The Alternatives

9. In its Notice the Department has set out a number of different approaches to blockage or intentional interference with wireless communications. They can be summarized as: interference (active or passive); and intervention (with or without carrier-based involvement). In addition, detection is another alternative.

10. Detection involves identifying the presence of cell phones. An audible alarm sounds if a cell phone is present. This audible alarm could be a buzzer or a recorded message. While detection appears to be legal in all jurisdictions, it provides no assurance that a user will turn off a phone or refuse to use it.

11. Interference, also known as “jamming” (as described in the Department’s first, fourth and fifth alternatives in the Notice), involves a process whereby signals are disturbed by other signals. Typically, jammers use a high radiation signal to effectively “scramble” a cell phone signal. They are generally very diffuse and can potentially cover large areas.

12. Intervention (as described in the Department’s second and third alternatives) involves direct communications with cell phones, normally unattended by the cell phone user. Carrier-based methods would be considered intervention. Some detection systems interact with radio-link systems in public places and are designed to automatically silence cell phone ringing. Other systems communicate with cell phones to turn down their ringers or limit reception to the use of a vibration rather than the ringer. It should be noted that this method requires that the hardware manufacturer of the cell phone device participate by including hardware that can receive these communications.

13. Cell-Block-R Systems carry out bi-directional communications with cell phones to advise them that they are in a wireless controlled zone. They are then taken off the standard cell phone network and placed within a private network where they

Page 3 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

will neither receive calls nor be allowed to call out. While on the Cell-Block-R Systems network, normal voice mail activities take place in the phone’s home network. There is no requirement that the phone manufacturers participate in the program.

Cell Phone Operation and Interaction with Cell-Block-R (CBR)

14. There are three principal reasons why a wireless intervention device might be required:

1.1 The first is to create a “quiet zone”, mainly for the benefit of individuals within that zone (e.g. patrons at a theatre or fine restaurant).

1.2 The second is to create a “safety zone” where activities or instrumentation that may be adversely affected by cell phone operation are protected from unauthorized cell phone radiation.

1.3 The third reason is to create a “secure zone”, mainly for the benefit of the site owner/operator (e.g. a corporate headquarters or government repository of sensitive information).

15. Despite their differing goals, these are valid reasons for the use of wireless intervention devices. For ease of reference, Cell Block refers to the affected areas as “controlled zones”.

16. In Cell Block’s respectful submission, the second of these reasons is justification for the use of a device that would prevent the unlimited and unrestricted use of cell phones. There is very little argument to be made, even by the most ardent proponent of cell phone usage, against restricting cell phone use in cases where radio signals may interfere with hospital equipment or aircraft avionics.

17. In response to these separate demands, Cell Block offers two types of CBR Systems: 1) for Privacy; and 2) for Secure Environments. The Privacy version is a subtractive derivative of the Secure Environments version.

18. CBR Systems consist of two types of devices: 1) Control Unit (CU); and 2) Remote Management Unit (RMU). Each Remote Management Unit will manage multiple CUs.

19. RMUs are connected to and powered by standard AC (110v/220v) house current. RMUs for Secure Environments are designed to connect also to a Personal Computer (PC) to off load data collected from the CUs. RMUs collect this data

Page 4 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

from the CUs over the AC circuits in the building. CUs contain both a radio transmitter and a receiver.

20. CUs must be attached to standard AC (110v/220v) house current. CUs contain a power supply, which will convert the AC current to DC low voltage current.

21. When a cell phone is turned on it ‘pings’ and begins the process of establishing communication with the strongest signal. The phone is then placed in a wait loop while awaiting either an outgoing or incoming call. During this time, the phone continues to ping to make certain that it remains in communication with the strongest signal.

22. When either an incoming or outgoing call is requested, the base and phone establish a channel exclusive for that phone during that conversation in that cell. The call is processed uninterrupted unless the phone determines that the base station servicing the cell is no longer the strongest signal, in which case a new protocol is established and the conversation is handed off to the new base station with the strongest signal.

23. A standard cell phone, when “pinging” is using approximately 1.5 milliwatts to reach towers up to a mile or more away from its line-of-sight. The Cell Block CU will be placed within 10 feet of the cell phone, so power requirements are minimal for the transmitter in the CU. The radio transmitter in the CU will be powered in the 1 – 50 milliwatt range.

24. By design, the CUs will radiate in only one direction. For example, if the unit is placed in the ceiling, it will only radiate downwards towards the floor. The purpose of this is to allow a CU to be mounted on the ceiling without affecting the space on the floor above it.

25. The controlled zone will extend a distance of up to 10 feet from the device. At a distance of 10 feet, the designed coverage will be a circular area with approximately 6-foot radius, totalling 100 sq. ft. This small-targeted area is intended to allow a proprietor of enclosed space to fine tune exactly which areas are to be controlled. This small-targeted area also prevents overlap or “spillage” of the controlled zone into adjacent space.

26. CBR Systems are designed to be used in enclosed space that has standard AC (110v/220v) house current available. It is assumed that such a facility will have standard telephone systems installed and available for emergency communications. Typical examples would be office buildings, restaurants, churches, and theatres.

Page 5 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

27. The CBR control unit waits to receive a ping from a nearby phone. The CBR control unit responds to a ping in the same fashion as a base station. Phones that are pinging outside of the range of the CBR control unit will not receive the CBR response.

28. Phones within the controlled zone of the CBR control unit will determine that the CBR response signal is the strongest and will therefore establish communication with the CBR control unit. Once the phone establishes protocol with the CBR control unit, the phone is “captured” by the CBR System.

29. Once the phone is captured by the CBR, the CBR is able to exploit control features built into the cellular system to prevent phone conversations from taking place. The first step is to instruct the phone to turn its power level down to minimum. This feature was built into the system to allow the phone to transmit with the minimum amount of power required to establish acceptable communications in order to conserve the phones battery power.

30. Next, the phone is instructed to wait for incoming calls at an unused channel. The channel will be one that is programmed into the phone but not used by the phone system in the range of the CBR. Incoming callers will be informed by the cell phone system that the cellular subscriber they are attempting to contact is not presently on the system.

31. Phones within the controlled zone of the CBR will not be able to establish contact when they send out a phone number. Signals from the phone will be too weak and at an unused frequency and will therefore not be picked up by the cell system. Once the phone leaves the controlled zone of the CBR a normal base will pick up its ping and normal service will be established.

32. It should be noted that the CBR Systems work only with the control channels in a cell phone and do not work on voice channels. In practical terms, this means that privacy of any voice communications (for example, a caller to a cell phone within the controlled zone leaving a voice mail) is absolutely assured. It also means that any “stray” phone calls, such as those originating outside the controlled zone, cannot be listened to or otherwise “tapped” by the cell phone within the controlled zone.

The Cell Block System

33. The philosophy of Cell Block is that the proprietor of the enclosed space where CBR Systems are installed should provide notice to the inhabitants of and visitors

Page 6 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

to that enclosed space that their cell phones will not work in the designated controlled zone. Cell Block will provide various standard format signs and decals using its trademarked logo.

34. Notice signage will allow for customized text to advise the inhabitants of and visitors to the controlled zone that emergency calls - both in and out - can be handled in special areas, along with instructions as to how that can happen. Alternatively, the proprietor may set aside cell-enabled areas or suggest that ‘valet parking’ of the cell phones is offered.

35. CBR Systems will treat all known cell phone protocols the same, addressing each individually. The devices would not meet the criteria of security concerns if they were to discriminate for or against specific protocols. As new protocols are introduced, they will be added.

36. As an interesting aside, it is Cell Block’s belief that the use of CBR Systems will, in practice, increase the value of the radio spectrum to wireless carriers. If a call is made to a cell phone located in a controlled zone, the phone will not respond. However, the originator can leave a voice message. The wireless carriers would receive revenue from airtime to place voice mail messages, from airtime to retrieve the voice mail messages, and again from the return of the original call by the called cell phone, upon leaving the controlled zone. This could potentially generate three times the revenue as before the zone was controlled and a phone call was received.

Specific Issues

37. Industry Canada has invited comments on a number of specific questions. Each is dealt with below.

What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Department’s occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market applications (e.g. to increase security in boardrooms or to preserve “quiet zones” in public venues)?

38. In Cell Block’s view, the market for any broadened licensing regime will always be – as the Department has correctly noted in its question – a niche one.

39. Clearly there is a considerable public interest in maintaining security in situations where security is agreed to be a matter of importance. This can include a panoply

Page 7 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

of situations ranging from various government departments to agencies involved in national security to private commercial contexts such as corporate boardrooms. It should not be assumed that those who would not respect such situations will voluntarily abide by some form of code of conduct or notice that cannot be backed up by means of technological enforcement.

40. There is also the consumer market, which is as yet, largely untested. However, based upon its discussions and experience to date, Cell Block believes that there is a potential market for some form of wireless intervention device.

41. The classic example is the more upscale restaurant, in which patrons appreciate the relative calm as much as the dining itself. In that instance, a proprietor may well perceive a wireless intervention device as a value-added service.

42. There are other consumer examples in which silence clearly needs to be respected. Live theatrical performances, movies houses, libraries and churches are obvious examples. However, as a general proposition, Cell Block would prefer not to attempt to outline all possible situations where there might be a demand since that is limited by today’s knowledge. We assume that wherever the public is invited to congregate either to listen to something or with an expectation that there will be a relatively quiet atmosphere, there will be a potential market for this concept.

If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

43. Cell Block does not offer and therefore does not propose to comment on the issue of whether the Department should consider permitting the use of any true ‘jamming’ devices, as defined in the Department’s Notice.

44. However, Cell Block respectfully submits that a clear case can be made for the use of wireless intervention devices such as Cell Block contemplates and as outlined above.

45. The Cell Block Systems are in effect, just another base station in a cell phone system, a base station that effectively takes the cell phone out of the system in a non-interfering, temporary and discrete manner within the controlled zone. Overpowering jamming frequencies are not involved. No adjustments or proprietary hardware or software needs to be incorporated into the cell phone. The intervention is temporary and extremely focussed in geographical coverage (in that each CU covers at most an area of 100 square feet).

Page 8 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

46. There have been a number of concerns expressed with respect to permitting the use of wireless intervention devices. These are set out below. However, Cell Block believes that none of the concerns is applicable in the case of its proposed operations, for the reasons noted.

47. One area of concern is the raising of the general RF noise floor in the neighbourhood of the controlled zone.

48. Jamming technology may have a tendency to trigger a deliberate transmitter power escalation from an autonomous system response, in an attempt to overcome the interference caused by jamming. This could affect the interference and power control abilities of cell phones in adjacent areas, thus impacting users over a wider area than was intended.

49. Since the Cell Block operation does not utilize jamming or produce resultant interference in any form, this objection is not applicable to it. By definition, lower power devices such as CBR Systems do not contribute significantly to the ambient radiation levels. In fact, by preventing the transmission of higher power voice signals, these devices may, in practice, actually reduce radiation levels.

50. Leakage of the radiation control beyond the controlled zone may cause unintentional harmful interference or unlawful obstruction to legitimate cell phone systems and users, or other wireless systems and services.

51. CBR Systems are extremely targeted, designed with only a 6-foot radius of coverage at a distance of 10 feet. As noted above, the targeted coverage is projected in only one direction from the device. In practical terms, this means that if the CU is mounted on the ceiling, the target coverage only goes down, not up through the ceiling. The reverse would hold true if the CU were installed on the floor facing upwards.

52. Because this small, confined area of coverage allows the proprietor of an enclosed space the complete ability to control only his or her own enclosed space without spill-over, Cell Block submits that this concern has been satisfactorily addressed.

53. A major concern of the industry and of the government is the blocking of emergency calls. Cell Block would define these calls very broadly to include 9-1- 1 calls, family emergencies, crucial business calls or calls to other emergency numbers, such as the normal phone numbers for police, fire, ambulance, poison control centre and other medical services.

Page 9 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

54. CBR Systems are intended only for use in small, enclosed spaces. The controlled zone for which the systems are intended, will have standard landline communications available. In addition, since the coverage area of any one CU is so small, the proprietor of the affected space has the freedom to choose to provide control over only a portion of that area. This means that there could be a cell- enabled zone within the enclosed space for outgoing and incoming wireless calls. An analogy might be to designated smoking and non-smoking areas within the same restaurant.

55. Inherent in the Cell Block philosophy is the provision for notice to both inhabitants of and visitors to the space that this is a controlled zone and that the use of wireless devices while in that area is unwanted. Cell phones within the controlled zone will automatically have the message “No Service” or some similar message displayed on their screens, if so equipped.

56. Furthering this philosophy, any inhabitants of or visitors to the controlled zone would be free to advise the proprietor of potential incoming calls and make arrangements for their reception. This concept of “valet parking” will be appreciated by patrons of many establishments as a value added service.

57. Because of the notice provided, together with numerous methods of providing emergency communications coverage, we believe that this concern does not apply to Cell Block’s Systems.

58. There is also a potential for unfair discrimination among the operators of certain wireless intervention devices, as a result of the impact on coverage area and service availability. CBR Systems will treat all known cell phone protocols the same, addressing each individually.

59. Because radio spectrum is a limited resource, governments require some form of payment from commercial interests who wish to use it. The resulting spectrum rights have value to those interests, who naturally do not wish to see that value reduced.

60. For the reasons noted above, it is Cell Block’s position that the use of systems such as the CBR will, in practice, increase the value of the spectrum. Wireless carriers will receive revenue from airtime to place voice mail messages to temporarily disabled recipient phones, from airtime used by the recipient to retrieve the voice mail messages, and again from the return of the original call by the disabled cell phone upon leaving the controlled zone.

61. The view has also been expressed that the use of wireless intervention devices could significantly increase the calls to cell phone customer service from confused customers who were not able to make or receive calls. However, the

Page 10 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

entire concept envisaged by Cell Block contemplates full disclosure of the existence of a controlled zone.

62. Most customers would respond to notices posted by a proprietor of the enclosed space and turn the cell phones off themselves. Those that did not would have the message “No Service” or equivalent in their cell phone display window. This display, coupled with visible physical warning notices should preclude the need for calls to the customer service facility of the wireless carrier. In addition, if the customer is off the wireless carrier’s network, no airtime would be charged.

What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

63. In the context if its operations, Cell Block is not aware of any potentially adverse effects, in terms of health, safety or RF noise.

What is the distinction, if any, between the use of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

64. Again, Cell Block does not see the need to distinguish private from public places, in the context of its proposed operations. Any such distinction would, of course, entail an obligation to define clearly what is meant by each of those terms. That of itself could be problematic.

65. There are operational issues discussed below relating to the potential for discrimination. However, in Cell Block’s view, they should not be defined along public/private lines.

66. The reason for this conclusion is that if a no-discrimination provision only applied in a ‘public’ place – say a baseball stadium – could the same operator then discriminate as to which cell phones would be disabled in a ‘private’ place within the stadium, such as a privately leased corporate box?

If Industry Canada permits these devices: (i) on a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what frequency bands?

67. Cell Block sees no security or other reason that would justify limiting the use of wireless intervention devices, such as it proposes, to security agencies only.

Page 11 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

68. On the other hand Cell Block does see a very strong argument in favour of not limiting their use to wireless service providers. Any such limitation would be an invitation to engage in proprietary technologies designed to advantage the wireless carrier at the expense of its competitors.

69. Moreover, any such limitation would limit the competition in the provision of such devices and result in higher than necessary prices to consumers. It would also limit technological advances to the pace at which those few entities decided to move. They could have a variety of valid or other reasons for not wishing to enhance or expand the capabilities of such devices.

70. With respect to the issue of frequency bands, the Cell Block System is designed specifically to operate within the existing cell phone spectrum that has already been allocated. Therefore, no new spectrum would have to be allocated by the Department. As spectrum comes under increasing demands, this is an efficiency that should not be discounted.

If Industry Canada permits these devices: (ii) under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed?

71. In Cell Block’s submission, there should be two major operational conditions of licence that the Department should address. One is technical in nature and the other is regulatory.

72. The technical issue relates to containment in the operation of any wireless intervention device. Cell Block submits that it should be a condition of any licensing regime that the intervention not exceed a predetermined area or volume. The volume that Cell Block contemplates as being reasonable in the circumstances is in the order of 30 cubic meters or about 800 cubic feet. Typically, this would be the result obtained with a device that was placed 8 – 10 feet above the ground and that had a coverage radius of about 10 feet.

73. There is a compelling need to limit the controlled zone of a wireless intervention device for a number of reasons:

(a) It will be essential to be able to have a granularity that would accommodate areas as confined as corridors and small offices without impinging on rooms or other areas outside controlled zones;

(b) The power required to maintain a controlled zone rises as a square of the linear distance from the device. It is therefore important that these devices not become a significant “power sink”, since that could in turn

Page 12 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

give rise to safety and fire hazard issues; and

(c) Having a device that is itself the source of significant RF energy could ultimately become an argument against the use of such devices. Cell Block submits that it is possible to respond to these power and coverage area concerns and to provide the Canadian public with the many benefits that can flow from licensing these devices.

74. If this technical issue is not dealt with in the initial licensing decision, it would be quite possible for cell phones to be disabled inadvertently. This result could have very serious consequences.

75. At a minimum, users who were inadvertently disabled would likely contact their service providers to complain about unexpected service outages. The service providers would have no way of knowing the cause, but might be required to offer some form of rebate for customer relations purposes or to expend human resources on investigating the reason for service blackouts that ultimately trace back to the use of a wireless intervention device. This would mean additional human and financial resources being spent unnecessarily by the various service providers, through no fault of their own.

76. In addition, temporary outages could come at a critical time, such as the midst of an emergency calling situation. Again, since the caller would have no way of knowing the cause of the problem, it would not be possible to remedy it in a timely manner.

77. As a solution to this potential issue, Cell Block proposes that any licensing regime stipulate, as a condition of licence, that any wireless intervention device operate:

(a) Only on control channels of any wireless device with which they intervene; and

(b) In such a manner that its effective coverage within the controlled zone does not exceed 12 feet in any direction and the device is capable of having a directed controlled zone that precludes influencing cell phones outside the intended area.

78. Cell Block would note that it is not practical to restrict the level of power output by condition of licence, since doing so would provide a simple means of overcoming the intervention device. A service provider which increased its power output by 1 watt would, in effect, nullify an existing installed base that had a fixed maximum power output level set to respond to present maximum levels.

Page 13 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

79. The second issue is regulatory and relates to the potential for discriminatory behaviour on the part of the licensee. Without suggesting that this is necessarily the appropriate wording, Cell Block submits that it should be a condition of licence that any wireless intervention device licensee operate the radio apparatus in such a manner as to intervene or disable all wireless devices in a non- discriminatory manner.

80. This would mean for example, that the operator of the baseball stadium could not activate a wireless intervention device in such a manner as to disable all wireless devices save one and thus be able to extract concessions from that operator (or benefit from being a shareholder in that undertaking).

81. This sort of condition would not prevent certain operators such as airports for example, from employing a wireless intervention device to silence all wireless phones in an effort to drive up the use of landline pay telephones. Operators might be tempted to act in this manner, assuming that they participated in the revenue derived from such sales.

82. However, Cell Block believes that this is not likely to happen for two main reasons. The first is that the public would not easily accept the removal of access to their cell phones in such areas, after having had free access for many years. This is a sound reason for the Department to make the posting of notices that an area is a controlled zone a condition of licence. Such notices will help to ensure that this type of activity does not take place, since the public will immediately know of the site operator’s efforts to channel traffic to its own revenue sources.

83. The second reason is that the nature of Cell Block’s type of service would make such a proposition economically unattractive. As noted, each CU creates a controlled zone of only 100 square feet. This means that an operator of a large area such as an airport would require dozens, hundreds or even thousands of CUs in order to effectively silence the entire area. The combination of cost and anticipated negative public reaction makes such a development highly unlikely.

84. Operation of a wireless intervention device should also be made conditional upon its acting in a binary manner, that is, it is either operational or it is not. This would avoid the possible situation in which a licensee agreed not to disable any device whose maker gave the proprietor some consideration.

85. The reason that this is different from the no-discrimination requirement is that a licensee could, for example, agree not to disable any device if the maker paid a predetermined amount of money or other consideration. On its face, that would apply equally to all makers and thus would arguably not be discriminatory. However, the effect from the consumer’s perspective would be discriminatory in that some but not all devices would be disabled and the intended benefit of a

Page 14 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

controlled zone would be lost. This would be particularly important in areas in which the public would expect a quiet controlled zone, e.g. a live theatrical performance.

86. Other operational conditions would include a requirement that a licensee:

(a) post in a prominent place or places (depending on the size and layout of the premises involved) notice advising that wireless devices will be disabled;

(b) make available reasonable access for emergency communications;

(c) confine any disabling to defined controlled zones; and

(d) not use any wireless intervention device that has not been licensed by Industry Canada (assuming that any licensing documentation would prohibit radio apparatus that materially increased radiation levels within the controlled zone or posed some other health or safety risk).

If Industry Canada permits these devices: (iii) are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

87. Cell Block notes that since its wireless intervention device is not a jammer, no specific etiquette protocol would be required with respect to its system. We note that the power and antenna design of the Cell Block intervention device limits coverage to approximately 100 square feet, which is a relatively restricted area in itself.

88. The Cell Block CU devices that perform the actual intervention and interaction with the cell phone are designed to be used in conjunction with an RMU. The RMU is intended to be fixed and hard-wired into a facility’s power grid, from which both RMU and CU derive their power. The power grid also acts as a data network, passing information and authorization data between the two systems. It is intended in this design philosophy, to prevent the activation of a CU except in conjunction with a licensed RMU. This approach is designed to prevent a casual user from extracting a CU from an authorized installation and utilizing it in an inappropriate fashion.

89. There is also the possibility of utilizing a technology such as the Bluetooth system. However, there are two major issues with Bluetooth. First, it is not yet here (and there are no guarantees that all affected parties will adopt the technology). More importantly however, the technology requires the cell phone to

Page 15 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

be compliant with Bluetooth and to have the Bluetooth capabilities pre-installed. This would normally be done during manufacture.

90. This is an unacceptable situation for several reasons in Cell Block’s view:

(a) From a security standpoint, it is not acceptable because it requires third party participation.

(b) From a proprietor standpoint it is not acceptable, since it will only provide service (silencing) on cell phones so equipped. Older phones would be unaffected. This could leave the proprietor with only partial effectiveness in his or her efforts to silence phones.

(c) From a Departmental standpoint, this remains an untested technology that is too far off to judge with any certainty in the context of the current proceeding.

91. However, Cell Block would have no objection to the Department setting out minimum requirements for use, as conditions of licence that would accompany any wireless intervention device that was licensed.

92. These requirements could include any or all of the following concepts:

(a) Provision of a Departmental approved user manual.

(b) Posting of notice by the proprietor in a prescribed form.

(c) Perhaps in the first two or three years of operation (until the Department and the affected communities are comfortable with the new licensing regime), the Department could require notification of any complaints, or alternatively require that complaints be sent to the Department itself. Contact information could be included in the posted notices.

(d) The proprietor could be required to notify adjacent proprietors of the use of any wireless intervention device, in case there is spill-over. Such notice would include a reference to making complaints to the Department.

(e) There could be a form that the distributor/seller is required to fill out with prescribed customer information. The form would be sent to the Department for record keeping. However, it should be noted that such a scheme would add expense to the government and would necessitate additional fees.

(f) License the use of the wireless intervention device, not just the device itself. In other words, in order to use it, the proprietor would need to file a

Page 16 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

licence application. The applications could be included with the system when ordered. Again, the use of this alternative should be sensitive to the impact that any licensing fee might have on the adoption of the service by the Canadian public.

(g) Because the wireless intervention devices must be hard-wired into the electrical system, some form of building permit will likely be required. Therefore, there is also the potential for the use of any current building permit rules and regulations. If a licence is required for the use of the wireless intervention device, a copy of the electrical permit (or whatever it might be) could be submitted along with the application for the licence.

(h) Capability for the wireless intervention device system to be easily tested. This can be done internally, such as with Cell Block’s RMU, or externally by random tests with a cell phone next to the space. Penalties for failure would have to be implemented.

To Conclude

93. One issue that has not been raised in the Notice relates to tangible benefits to Canada, in addition to the benefit of having the service itself.

94. Cell Block currently operates in Stittsville, Ontario. In the event that the Department issues a decision to move forward with a licensed regime as contemplated by Cell Block, we intend to expand the Canadian operations to become the world technical centre for the manufacture of the Cell-Block-R Systems.

95. We anticipate that we will be able to benefit from synergies achieved through the use of the existing high tech infrastructure already in place in this region and anticipate that our plan will create 100 direct and indirect jobs in the area.

96. Cell Block therefore looks forward to a favourable determination by the Department and is grateful for this opportunity to submit comments, which we trust have been of assistance. If Industry Canada has any questions or would like further information about anything contained in this submission, we would be pleased to respond.

97. Cell Block applauds the Department’s decision to take the initiative in issuing the above Notice and firmly believes that the Canadian public will be well served by the introduction of a licensed wireless intervention device regime. Cell Block submits that with respect to its form of wireless intervention device, all of the

Page 17 of 18 Cell Block Canada Ltd. “Controlling Wireless Abuse in Restricted Areas”

concerns that have been raised in the past or that have been referred to in the Notice, have been addressed in a responsible and thoughtful manner.

Page 18 of 18

12 July 2001

Mr. Michael Helm Director General Telecommunications Policy Branch Industry Canada 300 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario Don Woodford K1A 0C8 Director - Government & Regulatory Affairs Dear Mr. Helm:

Subject: Canada Gazette - Notice No. DGTP-002-01 - Comments

1. Bell Mobility, on behalf of the Bell Wireless Alliance, is pleased to submit the attached comments to Industry Canada in response to the above captioned notice concerning a Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications), as published in the Canada Gazette, part 1 dated 10 March 2001.

2. If there are any questions concerning this submission, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience.

Yours truly,

Attachment

Bell Mobility 105, rue Hôtel-de-Ville 5e étage Hull (Québec) J8X 4H7 Tel: (819) 773-5575 Fax: (819) 773-4346 Internet ID: [email protected] Canada Gazette Notice No. DGTP-002-01

Bell Wireless Alliance Comments

Concerning

Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications)

Published in the Canada Gazette, part 1 dated 10 March 2001

Comments on behalf of:

Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Mobility Cellular Inc. MTS Communications Inc. MTT Mobility Inc. Northwestel Mobility Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications

12 July 2001 Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary...... 1

Introduction...... 4

Background ...... 5

Current Policies – Domestic and International...... 6

Response to Specific Questions...... 8

Other Issues ...... 15

Conclusion ...... 16 Executive Summary

1. Industry Canada's Gazette Notice invites public views and comments on the use of cell phone silencers also known as jamming devices. Specifically, the Department's notice seeks to establish whether the public interest would be served if the present occasional authorization of such devices, for law enforcement and public safety purposes, were to be broadened for wider niche market and location-specific applications.

2. The Bell Wireless Alliance does not oppose the occasional use of such devices by law enforcement and public safety agencies as is currently permitted. However, the Bell Wireless Alliance strongly opposes the more widespread use of such devices, for wider niche market or location-specific applications, and submits that such a policy would not be in the public interest.

3. The very mobility, which is the value-add of wireless phones, enables them to be introduced into areas where others have a legitimate right to expect that they will not be disturbed. However, the technology itself is neutral in terms of its ability to offend others. Rather, it is our individual use of the technology, appropriate or inappropriate, that is the source of the issue. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that mobile wireless technology is still a relatively new phenomenon in terms of its widespread adoption by the consumer market. As with all new technologies, it is our view that over time and with the assistance of educational programs by the wireless industry, Canadians will evolve appropriate social behaviour with respect to the use of wireless telephones.

4. Domestically, the use of jammers would undermine the achievement of several of Canada's fundamental spectrum and telecommunications policy objectives. Specifically, the widespread use of jammers would infringe on the flexibility, adaptability and ease of access to spectrum enjoyed by Canadians today. Similarly, the Bell Wireless Alliance believes that the widespread use of jammers would seriously undermine the orderly development of a reliable Canadian wireless telecommunications system. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that allowing the use of cell phone jammers would seriously impede the industry's ability to assist government in achieving these objectives. The widespread use of jammers would also introduce an element of interference into the system challenging the continued orderly development of Canada's wireless telecommunications networks ultimately undermining, we believe, Canadians' - 2 -

confidence in the reliability of those networks. The Bell Wireless Alliance does not believe that such results would be in the public interest.

5. Internationally, Canada's current policy of prohibiting the use of jammers is well aligned with the policies existing in most advanced nations. It is in itself a telling observation that Canada would be noticeably out of step, with the vast majority of advanced nations, if it were to adopt a more liberal approach to use of jammers. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that Industry Canada's policy should maintain its alignment with the majority of international regimes, including that of our major trading partner the United States, and continue to ban the use of jammers in Canada.

6. The primary areas of concern associated with the use of jamming devices include:

- The blocking of emergency calls including calls to 9-1-1 as well as the disruption of public wireless communications service used by law enforcement, critical on-call personnel as well as individuals waiting for time sensitive information, such as scheduling of an organ transplant.

- Unfair discrimination in blocking among service providers and users resulting in an opportunity for anti-competitive and discriminatory practices concerning access to telecommunications services particularly in public venues such as shopping malls and airports.

- Difficulty in controlling unintended blocking of other service providers and users including the blocking of service outside the target area.

7. It is also significant that jammers could disrupt wireless communications such as access to the wireless Internet and two-way wireless e-mail. While such services are not offensive to others they would nonetheless be disrupted resulting in lost productivity for users.

8. Moreover, if Industry Canada permits these devices on a broader use basis, the Bell Wireless Alliance believes that the proliferation of jammers in Canada would occur in very - 3 -

short order. A gray market for such devices would likely evolve stimulating the use of jammers in both private and public venues. In such an environment, monitoring and enforcement of jammers will place considerable strain on Department resources. As a result, the Bell Wireless Alliance has serious reservations concerning the Department's ability to restrict, in any real manner, the use of jammers if the current policy is broadened. As noted in these comments, the broadened use of jammers also potentially raises significant issues concerning legal liability associated with the use of jamming devices.

9. On balance, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the costs and risks associated with allowing the use of jammers far outweigh any potential benefits. The Bell Wireless Alliance therefore strongly urges the Department to remain aligned, in this regard, with the majority of advanced nations and maintain its current policy prohibiting jammers. - 4 -

Introduction

10. Bell Mobility, on behalf of the members of the Bell Wireless Alliance, is pleased to file the following comments in response to Notice No. DGTP-002-01: Public Discussion on Cell Phone Silencers (Devices Capable of Interfering with or Blocking Mobile Telephone Communications), dated 10 March 2001 (the Notice). For the purposes of this submission the members of the Bell Wireless Alliance are Aliant Telecom Inc., Bell Mobility Cellular Inc., MTS Communications Inc., MTT Mobility Inc., Northwestel Mobility Inc. and Saskatchewan Telecommunications.

11. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that it is also a party to the comments of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) and the Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RABC), in response to this Notice and commends those submissions to the Department's attention.

12. In its Notice, Industry Canada invites comments on the use of cell phones silencers, which are also frequently referred to as radio jamming devices or jammers. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that "cell phone silencers" would interfere with the operation of all three categories of public switched mobile services in use in Canada today. Consequently, as well as cellular phones, these devices would also interfere with Personal Communications Services (PCS) and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) mobile phones.

13. Industry Canada's Notice seeks to establish whether the public interest would be served if the present occasional authorization of such devices, for law enforcement and public safety purposes, were to be broadened for wider niche market and location-specific applications. The Notice further states that Industry Canada is not prepared to consider, within the scope of this consultation, a licence-exempt status for these devices.

14. The Bell Wireless Alliance does not oppose the occasional use of such devices by law enforcement and public safety agencies as is currently permitted. The Bell Wireless Alliance does see merit in the adoption of a more explicit policy, by Industry Canada, governing the specific circumstances and terms under which such occasional authorization is granted. - 5 -

15. The Bell Wireless Alliance, however, strongly opposes the more widespread use of such devices, for wider niche market or location-specific applications and submits, for the reasons addressed below, that such a policy would not be in the public interest.

16. The Bell Wireless Alliance also supports Industry Canada's position that the Department will not consider a licence-exempt status for these devices within the scope of this consultation.

Background

17. The inherent value of portable wireless services is the very mobility that they confer on users, in both commercial and private applications. Properly used, mobile wireless communications has the ability to significantly enhance the productivity, safety and well being of Canadians. However, as wireless telephones have moved into mainstream use in Canada the issue of the appropriate use of such services in public venues has come to the fore. The same mobility, which is the value-add of wireless phones, enables them to be introduced into areas where others have a legitimate right to expect that they will not be disturbed.

18. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that the technology itself is neutral in terms of its ability to offend others. Rather, it is our individual use of the technology, appropriate or inappropriate, that is the source of the issue. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that mobile wireless technology, although with us since the mid-1980s in its current form, is still a relatively new phenomenon in terms of its widespread adoption by the consumer market. Rather than the purview of upper echelon business executives, mobile phones are quickly becoming a ubiquitous facet of everyday life. As with all new technologies, it is our view that over time and with the assistance of appropriate educational programs by the wireless industry, Canadians will evolve appropriate social behaviour with respect to the use of mobile wireless telephones.

Current Policies - Domestic and International

Domestic Policy - 6 -

19. Domestically, the Bell Wireless Alliance concurs with Industry Canada's interpretation, in its Notice, that the use of jamming devices would currently contravene sections 4 and 9 of the Radiocommunication Act. The Bell Wireless Alliance further submits that the use of these devices would also undermine the achievement of several fundamental spectrum and telecommunications policy objectives of the federal government.

20. For example in A Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada, the Department deemed that radio frequency spectrum represents a strategic national resource. Among the core objectives adopted for spectrum policy included ensuring, "flexibility and adaptability and ease of access to the spectrum resource in response to technological advances, economic, social and market factors; …". The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the authorization and widespread use of wireless jamming devices would seriously impede the achievement of this objective, either in fact or in spirit, by significantly undermining the flexibility and ease of access by Canadians to the radio frequency spectrum.

21. Similarly, mobile wireless services contribute to the achievement of a number of Canada's telecommunications policies as annunciated in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act. In particular, section 7 establishes the "orderly development" of a telecommunications system that enhances the social and economic fabric of the country and its regions. The Telecommunications Act also seeks to render "reliable" telecommunications services to Canadians in all regions. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that allowing the use of cell phone jammers, which would constitute a form of "super licensee" with the ability to interupt all types of wireless traffic, would seriously impede the industry's ability to assist in the achievement of these objectives. Simply put, the use of jammers would, in our view, introduce an element of interference into the system that would challenge the continued orderly development of Canada's wireless telecommunications networks. Similarly, Canadians' confidence in the reliability of public wireless telecommunications could be undermined as the use of jammers interferes, intentionally or not, with the conduct of lawful communications. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that such a result would not be in the public interest of Canadians.

International Policies - 7 -

22. Internationally, it is the understanding of the Bell Wireless Alliance that the majority of major industrialized nations have banned the use of wireless jamming devices.

23. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) notes that the Communications Act and the FCC's rules do not permit jamming devices to be manufactured, imported, marketed or operated within the United States. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that the FCC restated its position, by way of a public notice, as recently as October 1999.

24. In the United Kingdom (UK), the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) is unequivocal in its policy that such devices will not be permitted within its jurisdiction. The RA has noted that the use of such devices in the UK is an illegal offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. As Industry Canada stated in its Notice, the RA has announced its intention to take all necessary steps to ensure that such devices are not used in the UK.

25. In Australia, subsequent to a 1999 public consultation, the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) issued a release advising that it had declared mobile jammers to be prohibited devices under the Radiocommunication Act. The ACA's notice observed that this was the first time the Agency had prohibited the use of a device under the Radiocommunication Act. The ACA noted that, while it recognized that mobile phones can sometimes be offensive or disruptive, it nonetheless considered that this should be dealt with using alternative means, such as encouraging the use of silent messaging capability as well as through prominent signage in sensitive areas.

26. A number of other countries, which include France, Switzerland and Norway, also currently ban the use of cell phone jammers.

27. Canada's current policy of prohibiting the use of jammers, except for occasional use by law enforcement and public safety authorities, is well aligned with the policies existing in most advanced nations. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that it is in itself a telling observation that Canada would be noticeably out of step, with the vast majority of advanced nations, if it were to adopt a more liberal approach to the use of jammers. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that Industry Canada should continue to align its policies with those of the majority of international - 8 - regimes, including that of our major trading partner the United States, and continue to ban the use of jammers in Canada.

Response to Specific Questions

28. In its Notice, Industry Canada identified several specific questions on which it invited interested parties to provide their views and comments. In the following section, the Bell Wireless Alliance provides its response to the Department's questions. a) i) What is the public interest, if any, that could support broadening the Department's occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for other private and public niche market applications (e.g. to increase security in boardrooms or to preserve "quiet zones" in public venues)?

29. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the public interest does not support broadening the Department's policy beyond the current occasional authorization of radio jamming devices for law enforcement and public safety purposes.

30. Concerning the appropriate use of wireless phones in public venues, as noted above, the Bell Wireless Alliance believes that this is a matter of educating and evolving users toward appropriate etiquette concerning the use of their mobile phones. Wireless phones have only recently evolved from a niche service to the mainstream consumer market. Consequently, society is still in the process of developing appropriate rules of etiquette for their use. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that, over time and with leadership from the wireless industry, society will develop the rules of etiquette to self-regulate usage of wireless phones.

31. Moreover, the Bell Wireless Alliance notes that the use of jamming devices, in public venues, raises other concerns such as the legitimacy of intruding on the rights of mobile phone users. Of even more concern is the very real possibility that such devices could inappropriately block legitimate calls for assistance either to 9-1-1 or other emergency numbers. Increasingly these critical calls account for a significant proportion of all wireless traffic. Interference with such calls could occur if the mobile user was the actual target of the jamming device or, perhaps - 9 -

with even more significant ramifications, just happened to be within proximity of a jamming device. In the latter case, mobile users may not even be aware that their communications capability has been disabled. This possibility should raise significant concerns related to liability in the event of loss of life, personal injury or damage to property resulting from the use of jamming devices.

32. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that wireless service providers have a major role to play in educating their customers concerning the appropriate use of wireless devices in public venues. Similarly, we note that public venues, such as restaurants and theatres, can and frequently do remind patrons to silence their wireless devices through appropriate signage. Along with others in the wireless industry, we believe these messages are working and represent important aids in educating users as to what is and is not acceptable mobile usage.

33. Concerning the matter of "corporate security" the Bell Wireless Alliance agrees with the view, widely held throughout the wireless industry, that there is little evidence to demonstrate that the deliberate and intentional use of wireless phones represents a truly substantive threat to the security of sensitive information. Concerning unintentional disclosure, i.e., where information is inadvertently communicated through a wireless phone in the on mode, the Bell Wireless Alliance does not believe that such rare instances warrant changes to the current policy.

34. In summary, the Bell Wireless Alliance does not believe that the public interest supports broadening the Department's occasional use of radio jamming devices for either public niche markets or for private applications. To the contrary, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that such an action works against the achievement of many of Canada's fundamental spectrum and telecommunications policy objectives. In addition interference with lawful communications, including emergency communications, could conceivably raise significant questions concerning legal liability in such instances.

ii) If a public interest is demonstrated, what applications should be considered?

35. On balance, the Bell Wireless Alliance does not believe that the public interest would be served by liberalizing access to and use of jamming devices either in public or private venues. - 10 -

The use of jammers, in the view of the Bell Wireless Alliance, could result in a significant negative impact on the level and quality of mobile wireless service provided to Canadians. Not the least of which could be a significant impact on the ability to access service in times of emergency. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that these considerations are sufficient such that Industry Canada, like its counterparts in other international jurisdictions, should reject any broadening of its current policy.

iii) What are the potential risks, if any, associated with the use of these devices?

36. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that the Department's Notice captures the primary areas of concern associated with the use of jamming devices. These are:

- The blocking of emergency calls; - Unfair discrimination in blocking among service providers and users; - Difficulty in controlling unitended blocking of other service providers and users; and - The regulatory/enforcement, and legal implications of allowing third parties to jam licenced services.

These concerns are further elaborated on below.

Blocking of Emergency Calls

37. Many users cite enhanced safety and the ability to communicate in an emergency as key reasons for acquiring wireless phones. While placing calls to 9-1-1 are an obvious emergency application of wireless phones, it is far from the only such use of these devices. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that law enforcement and emergency response personnel, along with on-call medical professionals and technical support staff are all increasingly employing public mobile wireless services to accommodate critical communications needs. In addition, increasingly individuals waiting for extremely time sensitive information, such as scheduling of an organ transplant, are using the technology to stay in touch and thus freeing them from being confined to home. The enhanced freedom afforded people in such circumstances add - 11 - significantly to the overall quality of life for these individuals. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that jamming devices, intended to eliminate the nuisance of a ringing phone, could interfere with all of these communications. Moreover, it is conceivable that users, waiting for critical messages, may not even be aware that their vital link has been disrupted due to their mere proximity to a jamming device.

38. The Bell Wireless Alliance notes that if jamming devices are permitted, an issue arises as to the liability, of both service providers as well as venues employing the devices, due to interference with critical communications of wireless users. Such liability could encompass occurrences ranging from loss of life and personal injury to the non-communication of both commercial and private time-sensitive information. It should be noted that such liability would increase significantly in those cases where jamming devices interfere with communications outside the intended target coverage area.

39. The Bell Wireless Alliance further anticipates that if jamming devices were permitted, thus likely increasing the general availability of the equipment, it is not inconceivable that criminal elements would also resort to its use to disrupt law enforcement and other emergency communications capabilities.

Unfair Discrimination

40. Jammers, if allowed, could also result in anti-competitive and discriminatory practices concerning access to telecommunications services. Jamming devices could, for example, be used to monopolize telecommunications within a venue or service location, where users essentially comprise a captive market. Typically airports, shopping malls and hotels come to mind as potential areas where such activity could occur. In airports and malls, for example, the lack of wireless access could be used to ensure the use of the facility's owned pay telephone services. Similarly, many hotels charge guests premium rates for local and toll calls made using the hotel's private telephone system. The use of jammers in the case of hotels would ensure that guests' communications requirements would make use of the hotel's private system, resulting in increased costs and inconvenience for wireless users. - 12 -

Unintended Blocking

41. As noted above, jamming devices, even if functioning properly, have the potential to impact on services and users that are not the intended target of the jamming device. In such cases proximity to a jamming device could unintentionally disrupt perfectly legitimate wireless communications.

42. It is also significant that jammers could disrupt wireless communications that are not offensive to others and hence are not the target of the jamming device even within the target area. Such services come to mind as wireless Internet and two-way wireless e-mail. Despite the fact that these services enable users to remain productive, without interfering with others, they would nonetheless be disrupted as a result of the presence of jammers.

Regulatory / Enforcement and Legal Implications

43. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that the regulatory and enforcement resources needed to police a policy broadening the use of jammers, would be considerable and would likely represent a significant resource challenge for the Department. This would be especially so if a gray market for the devices were to develop.

44. Concerning the legal implications, as noted in paragraph 31, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the broadened use of jammers raises the potential of significant legal liability issues associated with the use of such devices.

iv) What potential adverse effects should Industry Canada address in establishing conditions of use?

45. If the Department were to determine that the benefits of allowing jammers outweighs the potential risks and costs of such devices, the conditions of use must address all of the concerns outlined in response to question a) iii) above. Of course, as discussed in paragraph 43 above, the Department would also be required to ensure adequate supervision and enforcement of any new policy and all related conditions. - 13 -

46. While strongly opposed to any broadening of the current policy concerning the use of jammers, the Bell Wireless Alliance notes that any decision by the Department to do so would raise significant operational and enforcement issues as identified in this paper. The specific issues raised would be directly related to the extent of any policy change introduced by the Department. As a result, if the Department were to decide to broaden the current policy, the Bell Wireless Alliance recommends that a separate public consultation be initiated to consider appropriate conditions of use once the scope of any new policy was identified. - 14 -

b) What is the distinction, if any, between the use of these devices in private places as opposed to public places?

47. The Bell Wireless Alliance is of the view that the use of jammers in public places, as opposed to private locations, by far represents the greatest risk of encountering the negative consequences discussed above. The Bell Wireless Alliance also notes that, particularly with regard to public places, the potential for a Charter-based challenge to restraints on freedom of expression becomes an increased possibility.

48. The Bell Wireless Alliance submits that in private locations there is no need for such devices. Appropriate wireless etiquette, in private locations, is easily enforced with a request to turn off a wireless phone. In addition, the owners of private space have well-defined legal rights regarding access to and continued presence within the space they own or rent. Given these circumstances, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that it is neither necessary nor appropriate that owners of private space be given the right to interfere with lawful communications by others through the use of jammers. c) If Industry Canada permits these devices:

i) on a broader basis, should licensing be restricted and if so, restricted to whom (e.g. law enforcement agencies, wireless service providers, or others) and to what frequency bands?

49. If Industry Canada permits these devices on a broader use basis, the Bell Wireless Alliance believes that the proliferation of jammers in Canada would likely occur in very short order. It is also highly likely that a gray market for such devices will evolve stimulating the use of jammers in both private and public venues. In such an event, monitoring and enforcement of jammers will likely place considerable strain on Department resources. As a result, the Bell Wireless Alliance has serious reservations concerning the Department's ability to restrict, in any real manner, the use of jammers if the current policy is broadened. For purposes of clarity, the - 15 -

Bell Wireless Alliance reiterates that it does not object to the current policy of authorized occasional use by law enforcement and public safety agencies.

ii) under what operational conditions and technical restrictions should these devices be licensed?

50. The Bell Wireless Alliance strongly opposes any change to the current policy permitting only limited licensing of jamming devices for law enforcement and public safety applications. In the event that the Department was to decide to permit the broadened use of jammers, it should impose operational conditions and technical restrictions sufficient to avoid the potential negative impacts on all forms of public safety communications, the impact on licensed service providers and concerns relating to anti-competitive conduct. In addition, the legal and liability issues discussed above would likely have to be considered.

iii) are there etiquette protocols that manufacturers of jamming devices could put in the equipment to ensure that each jamming device operates only in the area within which it is licensed to operate?

51. The Bell Wireless Alliance is not aware of any etiquette protocols that could effectively achieve this objective.

Other Issues

52. The Department's Notice also invited comments on any other issues relevant to this consultation. In this regard, the Bell Wireless Alliance has identified an additional issue that merits consideration.

53. The issue concerns the impact on the valuation of service providers' spectrum in the event that the jammer policy was changed resulting in a broader use of the devices. Wireless service providers' incur significant costs, in terms of licence fees and spectrum auction bids, to access Canada's radio spectrum. As noted in these comments, the Bell Wireless Alliance is of the view that jammers will inevitably and negatively affect the orderly development and efficient - 16 -

operation of Canada's wireless spectrum. Moreover, the flexibility with which users will be able to access mobile wireless services, as well as their confidence in the reliability of the public wireless networks could also be undermined, thus decreasing the overall value of the service in their eyes.

54. Given these considerations, the Bell Wireless Alliance believes that a proliferation of jammers in the marketplace would inevitably result in a degradation of the value of wireless service providers' spectrum holdings for both existing spectrum as well as future spectrum acquisitions.

55. If Industry Canada decided to broaden the use of jammers beyond today's occasional authorization, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the resulting negative impact on the economic value of spectrum must be considered.

Conclusion

56. On balance, the Bell Wireless Alliance submits that the potential risks and costs associated with allowing the use of jammers far outweigh any potential benefits that could be derived from their widespread use. The Bell Wireless Alliance believes that user education spearheaded by the wireless industry, rather than government legislation, is the appropriate and reasonable response to this issue. Consequently, the Bell Wireless Alliance strongly recommends that Industry Canada maintain its current policy of generally prohibiting such devices, with occasional exceptions for authorized use by law enforcement and public safety agencies. *** End of Document *** From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 10:59 PM To: Wireless Subject: Comments - Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01

Comments - Gazette Notice DGTP-002-01, Public discussion on Cell Phone Silencers

To all before whom these words may come:

I am very concerned that the use of cell phone silencers will become prevalent in a low-cost form, encouraging not only their placement in improper locations, but also not adequately addressing all the concerns at hand.

There are several inadequacies in the use of jammers that I have noticed. They are intended to cut down on interruptions, yet have no effect on watches beeping or on Palm device alarms ringing. In the cases where they are intended to protect privacy, they fall short on restricting the use of recording devices - a much more prevalent problem.

There is also the issue of unintended blocking. As someone that is required to be on call during certain times, I have taken great care to only purchase devices that have a 'vibrate' mode - and yet the use of jammers would prevent my important calls from reaching me. I always respect the rules of cinemas and theaters, and if it's absolutely necessary that I take a call, I excuse myself before answering.

Should I no longer be able to go to the movies becuase I have to carry a pager or cellphone?

Cell phone blocking is being recommended as an option becuase it is dirt cheap. There are more expensive alternatives that do not have the limitations of simple jamming, and I would propose that they be investigated - not only to ensure that a proper compromise be reached, but also to ensure that jamming devices are not purchased and installed frivolously.

Cell phones and pagers are designed to connect to the closest cell tower available, and route all incoming and outgoing calls through that tower. It is technically possible to construct a small tower to place in a 'quiet location' that all nearby cellphones/pagers would connect to. This small tower would be able to route calls/pages only for devices that had acknowledged they were in a silent or vibrate mode.

To me, the advantages are obvious. Such a device would not only provide for as silent an environment as the jamming type of device would, but it would also provide for accessibility to those people that made use of silent and vibrate features. Further, by not using an active jamming signal, the devices would not interfere with other communications devices such as police radios, or assistance devices for the disabled.

Of course, manufacturers of jamming devices won't be happy because it would make their devices much more expensive to design and manufacture. They'll whine that it'll take a lot of time to develop - until, of course, it's law - and then the devices will appear almost overnight. C'est la vie.

All the above notwithstanding, I'm very much in favour of obvious signs where these jamming abominations are to be used, as well as rigorous testing to ensure that the fields they generate do not interfere with cop radios, pacemakers and the like. And I also think it's a sad state of affairs when manners are mandated.

-- [email protected], Unicorn of Usenet & Bastard of Bandwidth "If my son wants to be a pimp when he grows up, that's fine with me. I hope he's a good one and enjoys it and doesn't get caught. I'll support him in this. But if he wants to be a network administrator, he's out of the house and not part of my family." Steve Wozniak, http://www.woz.org

To: Wireless Subject: Blocking of Cellular Service in Theatres, etc.

Hello, I am writing as a Canadian citizen of the public in response to your request for input regarding how to proceed with respect to balanced the use of wireless devices in our country in venues such as theatres, hospitals where these devices can be very disruptive to the primary function of the venue or their radio transmission can be harmful to sensitive equipment or "embedded devices" such as "pacemakers". I do not represent any company or corporate interest and not endorse any particular product.

My input in the form of this E-mail comes to you so close to the deadline for submissions because I myself have been visiting my wife for the past several days in the hospital where she had to undergo surgery and remain until now.

Let me begin by saying that "JAMMING OF CELLULAR RADIO FREQUENCIES WITHIN A NO TRANSMIT ZONE IS ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE, SHORT-SIGHTED AND INEFFECTIVE FOR EVERY TYPE OF TRANSMITTING DEVICE." I am writing to propose alternative approaches.

The "hospital" is an ideal model for what Industry Canada should be striving to achieve because "within the zone" of the hospital, there exist numerous warning signs and reminders that cellular telephone and two-way radio transmission is forbidden, and that what is at stake is sensitive equipment (and in rare cases free-oxygen that might ignite if sparked.) Spend a lot of time at the hospital and you will recognize what a transmission devoid zone is, and its impact on people.

What a person in a hospital may not recognize is Question: What types of devices are safe to use? Which are not? Answer: Many people forget to turn off or at least not "talk" on two-way radios and MiKEs. Also, people commonly believe that if a cellular telephone isn't in use, then leaving it "power on" is okay. It is not because cellular telephones are constantly "handshaking" with cell sites using "registration" type of messages. Thirdly, people wonder why "pagers" are okay to use (if they are not two-way pagers) but cellular telephones are not.

What about two-way pagers, since they transmit are they okay? Does the "typical Canadian" even realize that two-way pagers even involves radio transmission ??! or do people generally believe that the message remains inside the pager device somehow but is able to respond to the sender! After all, typical Canadians are "consumers", not "broadcasters." So, that brings us to the question of "wireless devices".

Wireless devices nowadays are far more varied that were the "AMPS 800 or 400 Cellular telephones" of fifteen years ago! They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, operate on many different frequencies: 800 Analogue,900 Analogue, Digital, SpreadSpectrum,1.2G, 2.4G, 150-ishMHz, and disguise themselves as Personal Digital Assistants, Palm Pilots, hands-free headsets, cordless inventory computers, and so on. THE SOLUTION THAT IS IMPLEMENTED MUST PUT THE INTELLIGENCE INTO THE DEVICE, AND NOT DEPEND ON THE CONSUMER TO UNDERSTAND THE TRANSMISSION SPECIFICATIONS OF HIS/HER OWN DEVICE/APPLIANCE.

Due primarily to the great number of frequencies involved within different parts of the radio spectrum, and also due to the "brute force, blanketing" approach that a RADIO JAMMING technology would use, I strong oppose and encourage Industry Canada to oppose the use of Wireless Jamming by means of broadcasting on the same frequencies as wireless devices (these I'm heard might be considered for theatres). Think about how such a Jamming transmitter would be counter-productive in a "hospital" environment and would undermine by its STRONG radio transmission the very goal that the hospital zone is intended to avoid.

Instead, I would propose that a new frequency range (a part of the radio spectrum) be licensed/re-licensed specifically for the use of a new standard. I am not entirely familiar with the radio spectrum, but do recommend that a "lower, not higher frequency" be chosen so that it is less likely to interfere with equipment, pacemakers, the cellular transmission itself!, etc. For instance, I propose 85MHz or lower (such as what are used for commercial FM and AM transmission -- definitely not 800MHz or above! so as to not interfere). The frequency chosen for the "notification channel" must be cheap to decode by a device (such as is an FM/AM radio receiver), must have a penetrating propagation property (i.e. through walls, into building interiors without difficulty), be low power of course so as to not energize nearby equipment detrimentally, have an attenuation property that causes its power level to drop-off significantly once beyond the intended broadcast radius (simplified in-zone/out-of-zone detection) and of course be capable of carrying a digital packet transmission.

This standard would be a "wireless device information and notification protocol" intended exclusively for the purpose of "telling wireless devices of all types" that the device is "entering a change in transmission permission zone". That is, the standard itself would be a radio transmission of very-low power (THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT, OR WOULD BE LOCATED SAY NOT WITHIN FIFTEEN METRES OF SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT). All transmitting devices (for consumer or commercial use,even police and fire radios) would "listen" to this "notification channel" in addition to the device's normal function. So if a digital cellular telephone operates on the 900MHz frequencies, then this telephone would also necessarily include a built-in or "(for example) a vibrating battery-type of" add-on receiver that listens on the notification channel. Police and Fire radios could ignore or override the received messages, but would still be required to include the "notification channel receiver."

Included in the proposed digital messages that the "notification channel" transmits would be the following fields: 1. Date of transmission DateTime, (05/01/2002 13:15:23.50) 2. Display Name of Originator Text, ("Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton") 3. Expiry Date of this notification DateTime, (if present, is used to purge the notification from the memory of the device) In the case of a "coverage" transmission, an expiry datetime of two-minutes in the future ensures coverage within the zone, and automatic lifting upon exiting the zone). 4. Transmitter ID (like a MAC address or physical Ethernet adapter address of transmitter) 5. Message Integrity (although I am not proposing digital certificates, I do think that a checksum is needed in case of packet transmission collision) 6. Restriction Information Block Structure (ONE OR MORE OF THESE CAN EXIST AS SEPARATE MESSAGES for easy decoding, or as multiple appended blocks, harder decoding and higher receiver cost) 6.1. Frequency Descriptor ("900 Digital Cellular", "Cellular Digital Data" or "ALL") 6.2. New Transmission Restriction Numeric Limit ("Not exceeding 1uV transmission power") or "Not exceeding xxxx transmission power") or ("Restriction Lifted, all transmission permitted.") 6.3. Should device go into silence receive mode (1-YesSilentMode, 0-NoChange) if above is all transmission permitted (1-NoChange, 0-LiftSilentMode) 6.4.1 Reason For Restriction Text ("Sensitive Equipment Present") 6.4.2 Reason For Restriction Text ("Volatile Gases or Liquids may be present") 6.4.3 Reason For Restriction Text ("Payphones are available in lobby") 7.1 (Optional Extension) AutoPowerOff request 7.2 (Optional Extension) Digital Certificate As can be seen from above, several "Restriction Information Block Structures" are necessary if restriction of several types of transmission are to be enforced or lifted (because these same messages lift restrictions). However, Version 1 of this standard can simply transmit several notification messages back-to-back, one for 900MHz, another for 1.2GHz, etc. rather than formatting multiple structures into one message. Keeping the message format simple and even fixed-byte size, simplifies decoding.

Also, as can be seen, several "Reason For Restriction Text" fields are possible in the message. I recommend that for this purpose, either several notification messages be delivered, or that a fix number, say three, reasons are allocated in every message. A practical limit of reasons would likely three reasons. These fields tell the consumer why it's important to not transmit within this zone.

I recommend that the power level of the transmission be such that the packet received must be of a sufficient power that the receiving device can reasonably assume that the transmission is intended for the device and that the device is "within the restriction zone". Contrasting this, devices should not decode packets that are weaker than a certain transmission threshold. Otherwise, the device may be interpreting a message that was transmitted from another distant restriction zone and does not apply to the device in its current location. SO THE RULE REGARDING TRANSMISSION IS "THE LEAST THAT IS RELIABLE AND NON-INTERFERING, AND YET MORE THAN A WEAK-TRANSMISSION IGNORE-THRESHOLD"

In addition to implementing a transmission power limit within the message packet, the field "6.3 Silent Receive Mode" is recommended for use in theatres. Silent Receive Mode would STOP VOICE COMMUNICATION and STOP TYPING OF RESPONSES, but would ALLOW CallerID, or ShortMessaging to be received by the device so long as it did not make any "noise" (e.g. a flashing lamp or silent buzzer would be okay). This aspect of the above standard allows receipt of "urgent/emergency" messages from outside of the venue (such as from a babysitter at home) while still disabling the user's ability to disrupt any people around him/herself at the venue.

I strongly urge Industry Canada to instruct product/device manufacturers to allow devices to continue to operate when a restriction notification message is received, but that the devices must strongly inform to the user/consumer of a change in status through a ringing or buzzer. This is so that consumers are never surprised by a device's new status five minutes after entering a zone. Without a specific auto power off request, devices can still be designed and built to have user-settable options to power off upon entering a restrictive zone, and to auto power on (i.e. silently listening upon notification channel) upon entering a restriction-lifting zone.

Also, that if the OPTION component 7 "AutoPowerOff request" capability is implemented, a digital certificate whose verification is an additional network service must be included in the packet. The cost of authenticating the digital certificate would be borne upon the originator of the transmission, and would be verified by a reliable body such as RSA/VeriSign. This extra authentication is necessary to prevent "jokers from making their own transmissions" in which devices are instructed to auto power off just for fun.

I am nearly done this E-mail and wish to address the matter of locating these restriction zone transmitters. Returning to the example of a hospital, if your "radio spectrum and transmission power" experts at Industry Canada can determine what is a sufficiently weak transmission power that can provide coverage of an entire hospital site measured in an acre/hectare without spill-over into non-hospital property, then I would recommend that a single (or if oddly-shaped hospital site multiple) "coverage" area transmitter be used to provide restriction coverage throughout the hospital. Such a transmitter would serve well in non-critical settings such as theatres and opera houses where sensitive equipment is not present (only sensitive people/ears are present!)

If in a hospital "coverage area" transmitter is not feasible, then following what is currently done with placards, I recommend that very-weak transmitters be installed at every entrance and elevator lobby. These transmission range of these "perimeter" transmitters would be restricted to 5 or 10 metres so as to not interfere with sensitive equipment. The purpose of the "perimeter" transmitters would be to notify the user/consumer that the user is entering a restriction zone. But, once inside the zone, there would not be any additional notification messages received. The gate at the parkade, or pedestals near every stop sign could house "restriction lifting perimeter" transmitters.

Finally, within respect to "decoding" messages, I believe that at a minimum, detecting the carrier frequency of the notification channel is not enough. It is insufficient, because multiple device types are being notified over a common notification channel. If a different channel and frequency is allocated for every different type of device, and for that matter, separate channels for restriction notices than for restriction-lifted notices, then multi-use devices such an integrated cellular telephone and wireless personal digital assistant, or a tri-mode digital cellular telephone, would be forced to "listen on" multiple notification channels concurrently. So, allocating multiple notification channels WILL SIGNIFICANTLY drive-up the cost of such devices and the COST of implementing this standard. DO NOT DO IT. Instead, use a single, common notification channel for notification of multiple device types as I have proposed from the beginning of this E-mail.

Thank-you for your request for input. I would be very pleased to participate further by expanding upon and/or clarifying any of my above points and concepts upon your request.

Again, thank-you.

Sincerely, Mykola (Mick) Shewchuk Edmonton, Alberta