![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"}

May 22, 2008

**[VIA EMAIL AND FACSIMILIE AT 44700-596-8880]{.underline}**

Victor McCormack

Phonejammer.com

> Re: File No. EB-07-SE-031

Dear Mr. McCormack:

This is an official **CITATION**, issued pursuant to section 503(b)(5)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. §
503(b)(5), to Phonejammer.com ("Phonejammer") for marketing in the
United States unauthorized radio frequency devices in violation of
section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b), and section 2.803 of the
Commission's rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. § 2.803, and for failing to
respond to Enforcement Bureau directives to provide certain information
and documents. As explained below, future violations of the Commission's
rules in this regard may subject your company to monetary forfeitures.

By letter of inquiry ("LOI") dated November 6, 2007, the Spectrum
Enforcement Division ("Division") of the Commission's Enforcement Bureau
initiated an investigation into whether Phonejammer is marketing in the
United States unauthorized radio frequency devices, specifically, radio
frequency jammers which can disrupt communications on cellular and
Personal Communications Service frequencies. At the time of that letter,
November 6, 2007, and again on, May 20, 2008, we observed on your
website, www.phonejammer.com, advertisements for the sale of multiple
radio frequency jammers. Your advertisements for the phone jammers
listed shipping costs to the United States and displayed product prices
in United States dollars. In addition, your website provided
testimonials from United States residents who had purchased your phone
jammers.

In response to our LOI, you sent the Division three emails, one received
on November 6, 2007, one received on November 7, 2007, and one received
on November 8, 2007. In these emails, you claimed that your company is
based in the United Kingdom and that you do not distribute, market, or
advertise the phone jammers in the United States.

In a response email sent by the Division, you were instructed to answer
each question in the LOI. Further, the November 6, 2007 LOI directed you
to support answers with an affidavit or declaration to be signed under
penalty of perjury by an officer of the company who has personal
knowledge of the representations and can verify that the company has
produced all the information requested that is within its possession,
custody, control, or knowledge. Though your reply emails indicate that
you received our LOI, you subsequently failed to respond to the
questions set forth in the LOI.

Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "\[n\]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides that:

no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
frequency device unless ... \[i\]n the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and
labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
chapter.

Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.201(b),
intentional radiators[^1] must be authorized in accordance with the
Commission's certification procedures prior to the initiation of
marketing[^2] in the United States. Based on your failure to provide FCC
Identification numbers or other documentation showing that the jammers
you market have been certified, as well as our review of the
Commission's equipment authorization database, it appears the devices
advertised on www.phonejammer.com have not been certified. Moreover, it
does not appear that these devices are capable of receiving a grant of
certification. In this regard, the main purpose of cell phone and other
wireless jammers is to block or interfere with radio communications.
Such use is clearly prohibited by section 333 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
333, which states that "\[n\]o person shall willfully or maliciously
interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any
station licensed or authorized by or under this Act or operated by the
United States Government." Thus, a device such as a jammer which
intentionally interferes with radio communications is not eligible for
certification.[^3] Accordingly, it appears that Phonejammer has violated
section 302(b) of the Act and section 2.803 of the rules by marketing in
the United States the unauthorized radio frequency devices listed on its
website.

We note that the evidence before us contradicts Phonejammer's claim that
it is not marketing its jammers in the United States. In this regard, we
note, among other things, that Phonejammer's website: (1) lists all
phone jammer prices in United States dollars; (2) at check-out has the
United States as the default shipping location; (3) includes
testimonials of United States residents who have purchased its phone
jammers; and, (4) advertises phone jammers intended to interfere with
United States cellular and Personal Communications Service frequencies.

Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act,[^4] afford the Commission broad
authority to investigate the entities it regulates. Section 4(i)
authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not inconsistent with
this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions."
Section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its proceedings in
such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch business and to
the ends of justice." Section 403 grants the Commission "full authority
and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any
case and as to any matter or thing concerning which complaint is
authorized to be made, to or before the Commission by any provision of
this Act, or concerning which any question may arise under any of the
provisions of this Act." Pursuant to this authority, we sent you the
November 6, 2007 LOI directing you to provide certain information and
documents. Your email responses indicate that you received the LOI.
However, your responses failed to address the questions set forth in the
LOI. Accordingly, it appears that Phonejammer has violated Commission
orders by failing to respond to Enforcement Bureau directives to provide
certain information and documents.

A party may not ignore the directives in a Bureau inquiry letter.[^5]
You are again ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j) and 403 of the
Act, to provide the information sought by our November 6, 2007 LOI. You
must provide this information within 20 days of the date of this
Citation. If sent by mail, this information should be sent to Zachary
Rothstein**,** Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 3-A326,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Phonejammer must also transmit a copy of this
information via facsimile to 202-418-7290.

**[If, after receipt of this citation, Phonejammer.com violates the
Communications Act or the Commission's Rules in any manner described
herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed
\$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing
violation.]{.underline}**[^6]

If you choose to do so, you may respond to this citation within 30 days
from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at
the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2)
a written statement. Your response should specify the actions that
Phonejammer.com is taking to ensure that it does not violate the
Commission's rules governing the marketing of radio frequency jamming
devices in the future.

Please call Zachary Rothstein at 202-418-0608, if you wish to schedule a
personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take place
within 30 days of the date of this letter. You should send any written
statement within 30 days of the date of this letter to:

> Kathryn S. Berthot

Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

Washington, D.C. 20554

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material
information before it, including information that you disclose in your
interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement
action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act
and the Commission's rules.

The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn S. Berthot

> Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: Section 15.3(o) of the Rules defines an "intentional radiator" as
    a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency
    energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o).

[^2]: Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "sale
    or lease, or offering to sale or lease, including advertising for
    sale or lease, or importation, shipment or distribution for the
    purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." 47
    C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4).

[^3]: Furthermore, section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides that radio
    frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated
    under the rules "shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
    offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed
    absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special
    temporary authorization issued by the Commission." 47 C.F.R. §
    2.803(g).

[^4]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 (i), 154 (j) and 403.

[^5]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002). In *SBC Communications*, the Commission
    assessed a \$100,000 forfeiture against a carrier for its willful
    refusal to supply a sworn declaration in response to an Enforcement
    Bureau letter of inquiry. The Commission stated: "\[T\]he order here
    was squarely within the Commission's authority and, in any event,
    parties are required to comply with Commission orders even if they
    believe them to be outside the Commission's authority." *Id*. at
    7591.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).