Here are the comments I filed with the FCC on the prison phone jamming NPRM.

GN Docket No. 13-111

Comments of Richard Bennett[1]

I. Introduction and Summary

This is a reply to comments by AT&T Services Inc., Commissioner Gomez, and similar parties who argue for a pilot program before new jamming regulations are enacted. I agree with their suggestions.

II. Background

Contraband is a major problem in US prisons today, spanning the range from drugs and weapons to cell phones and other communication devices. Prisons are porous and efforts to eliminate smuggling are often unsuccessful. This is unfortunate as communication devices in particular enable inmates to actively participate in and even manage criminal enterprises while incarcerated.

The ideal method of interdiction would include detection, location, and seizure of contraband devices at point of entry or, failing that, on first use. This avenue has not been fully explored since jamming was adopted by in 2009 by New Zealand and other countries.[2]

Originally, prisons and jails relied on “brute force” jamming that had a number of problems, including an over-broad impact on wireless systems of all kinds.[3] This approach has been discarded and current jamming efforts emphasize focused approaches known as micro-jamming.

Prisons, especially low security ones, are often located in urban and suburban areas very close to schools, athletic facilities, retail, and residences. My route to the local Costco passes the Englewood Federal Correctional Facility in Jefferson County Colorado, between Lakewood and Littleton.

It currently houses a number of child pornographers such as former Subway Sandwiches spokesman Jared Fogle and corrupt former policeman Michael Slager.[4] Notable alumni include Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, and Q-Anon Shaman Jake Angeli.

As the following satellite photo indicates, the facility is bordered by a sports complex, two schools, retail, and a golf course, and is literally just across the street from a residential neighborhood. Parts of the prison are closer to residences than to other parts of the prison.

Figure 1 Englewood Federal Correctional Facility

The proximity of such facilities to housing raises interference concerns and highlights the opportunities for inmates to use alternate forms of wireless communication such as Wi-Fi and satellites for contact with the real world.

The NPRM asks a plethora of questions that demonstrate the wealth of unknowns regarding detailed implementation of micro-jamming techniques. The Commission has an enormous task simply in filtering through its massive set of options for specific implementation models and the regulations that govern them.

The Commission also has an enormous hill to climb with respect to digital interdiction systems such as managed access systems (“MAS”) of at least two generations. Digital interdiction is a complement to analog micro-jamming systems. Its main benefit is the ability to identify and locate contraband devices as well as to take them offline.

It’s quite likely that future contraband device interdictions will combine analog and digital approaches.

III. Argument

The NPRM seeks comment on 193 questions on micro-jamming, including issues of law, policy, and technology. This indicates that the technique itself is quite broad and largely unexplored. Narrowing the range of options to a more manageable dozen or two will take a lot of time and effort.

The task before prisons, the Commission, and the wireless industry is to devise practical, cost-effective systems that make an impact on contraband device usage without impairing legitimate uses of wireless technology inside and outside prison boundaries.

A number of promising approaches have been proposed, largely drawing on the realm of theory. This is not an uncommon situation for wireless technology. We designed the first cell phones to operate on analog networks and the first wireless local area networks employed some radio frequency devices and some infrared systems. The first satellites we geosynchronous analog systems but today we increasingly rely on low earth orbit digital networks.  

Furthermore, the field of micro-jamming is quite abstract, consisting more of theory and speculation than of empirical data. The problem of interdicting wireless devices cries out for data to guide the next generation of theory.

I doubt that the FCC has ever issued an NPRM with so many questions that immediately led to enforceable regulations without some intermediate steps. But I could be wrong.

I would like for the FCC to convene a panel of stakeholders representing Department of Corrections personnel, wireless technology experts, network service providers, state and federal lawmakers, and civil society tasked with seeking proposals for whole systems that combine analog and digital solutions.

Inventors who are pushing the boundaries of interdiction would offer up practical systems to the panel based on experimental licenses for evaluation in realistic scenarios.

Within two to three years, we should be much better equipped to understand where the lines are best drawn between systems that will or may work in the real world and those that absolutely won’t.

Following a half dozen or a dozen trials the Commission can issue a slimmed-down NPRM that puts us much closer to the implementation of practical systems.

IV. Conclusion

Solutions to the wireless contraband problem in US prisons are likely to require revisions to the Communications Act as the very intent of such systems is to interfere. Before seeking such revisions, the Commission needs to be equipped with hard data demonstrating a practical system that disables contraband devices without compromising the safety and security of prison personnel, the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, and the communication needs of nearby residents.

The NPRM puts all the questions on the table and serves as a good starting point for gathering the data that will ultimately lead to workable systems. 

---

[1] The commenter is founder and president of High Tech Forum, an educational initiative that improves policy-maker understanding of the technology issues underlying public policy debates. He was an SGE at the FCC assisting drafters of model municipal codes for broadband in 2017-18 and an invited witness at the Cambridge Field Hearing that kicked off net neutrality rulemaking at the Commission. His amicus brief was cited by the DC Circuit in the Mozilla v. FCC case, where he argued in support of the Commission. His experience with wireless networking began in 1990, when he devised an alternative to the then-official IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol for the maker of the first wireless LAN, Photonics Corp. Recent advances in Wi-Fi enabling frame aggregation, mesh networking, and prioritization descend from that alternative. He comments in his personal capacity.

[2] John Shaffer et al., Cell Phone Jamming Technology for Contraband Interdiction in Correctional Settings (Urban Institute, 2023), https://www.urban.org/research/publication/cell-phone-jamming-technology-contraband-interdiction-correctional-settings.

[3] “Costly Cellphone Jamming Technology Ditched in All Prisons | Stuff,” accessed January 12, 2026, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/130732335/costly-cellphone-jamming-technology-ditched-in-all-prisons.

[4] “Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood,” Wikipedia, December 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Institution,_Englewood&oldid=1328829012.