by Chuck Sharman

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on September 30, 2025, to issue a Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to relax the current ban on using cellphone “jamming” technology in prisons and jails. The Commission’s target: nearly 500,000 contraband cellphones used by 25% of U.S. prisoners and jail detainees, according to a September 2024 estimate from global security firm SOC LLC.

That number may be inflated, of course, to promote the need for SOC’s SignalSecure system, which is marketed to help interdict this flood of contraband. But the Urban Institute, in its own 2024 study, counted 20,000 contraband cellphones seized by 20 state prison systems over the previous year.

Under 47 U.S.C. § 333, anyone who “willfully or maliciously interferes” with FCC-authorized radio communications—including signals to and from cellphones—commits a crime. But prison and jail officials contend that this has handicapped their fight against contraband cellphone use. In response, the FCC proposed to change the definition of an “authorized” radio communication to exclude calls placed to or from contraband cellphones. Those would become “unauthorized” by definition, so they could legally be blocked by use of a cellphone “jammer.”

Currently, officials have more limited ways to fight contraband cellphone use. One involves a Managed Access System (MAS), which requires expending a considerable sum to install additional equipment needed to set up a closed cellphone network within a lockup. Only those cellphones signed up to use the system can access it; all others are denied access—no matter the status of their bill with their cellphone provider. Since the enabling rules were adopted in 2017, the FCC said that 1,900 such systems had been authorized in 31 states.

Another type of Contraband Interdiction System (CIS), which is also fairly expensive, involves the use of scanners to identify contraband equipment by its unique “address” and then using a designated correctional facility official (DCFO) to file a request with telecom providers to deactivate the device from their networks. Since the related rule was adopted in 2021, though, just 16 DCFOs had been approved by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the FCC noted, and “use of a deployed and site-tested CIS” had been authorized at just 34 correctional facilities “for the purpose of submitting qualifying requests to wireless providers seeking the disabling of contraband wireless devices.”

Leery of collateral damage to legitimate cellphone users nearby, telecom providers have consistently resisted introduction of jamming technology, the FCC noted. Of particular concern is any disruption of a 911 call, which was also one of the primary concerns identified in § 333. But under pressure from prison and jail leaders, the FCC collaborated with the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to test micro-jamming at prisons in Maryland and South Carolina. Based on results of those tests, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reported in 2019 that “the technology could be effective in fighting contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities,” the FCC said.

Bills Also Introduced in Congress

Two bills were introduced in Congress in March 2025 which approach the same goal from a different direction; instead of changing the definition of a device to allow its signal to be jammed, the measures would instead simply bar the FCC from prohibiting use of cellphone jamming in prisons and jails. HR 2350, sponsored by Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.), is currently in the Commerce Committee of the U.S. House. Its counterpart committee in the U.S. Senate is considering S 1137, sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Meanwhile the FCC’s notice of its proposed new rule warned correctional leaders that costs of jamming “can rise commensurate with the extensive engineering and ongoing network maintenance,” both of which are required “to limit harmful interference solely to the intended target of contraband wireless devices located in correctional facilities.”

The new rule would first provide a definition of “jamming solution” as the use of radio frequency (RF) transmitters “within a correctional facility to prevent contraband wireless devices from establishing or maintaining a connection with a network.” It is fundamentally different from MAS or other CIS solutions, which disconnect specific cellphones from a wireless network. A jamming solution, in contrast, prevents connection of all cellphones in a geographic area—something that the FCC has never licensed before. That’s because in granting a license to a cellphone provider under § 333, the agency requires it to connect any cellphone that enters the area. Changing the definition of subscribers using contraband devices to “unauthorized” is the legal mechanism that will permit what would otherwise by a clear violation of § 333.

The proposed rule also includes a “safe harbor” provision for wireless providers that ensures they are not held liable when a contraband cellphone manages to connect to their network—unless the provider fails to negotiate “in good faith” with the prison or jail applying for an “overlay” license to operate a jammer in part of the service area.

After periods for public and industry feedback, a final draft of the rule could be ready as soon as the end of 2026, the FCC said. See: In the Matter of Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Device Use in Correctional Facilities, GN Docket No. 13-111, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC (Sep. 2025).

FCC Commissioner Ana M. Gomez voted for the new notice but said that she worried over “the potential unintended consequences of permitting jamming by non-federal actors” like private telecom firms “and permitting jamming equipment to formally enter the American market.” The move is the latest by the FCC that backtracks on prisoner communication access; the agency first in June 2025 postponed for two years a landmark new rule that would cut prison phone and video call rates in half; it then voted to gut the rule altogether in October 2025, as reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, Nov. 2025, p.62.]  

Additional sources: SOC LLC, Urban Institute, WXGA

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login