PRESS RELEASES

PRESS CONTACT: David E. Johnson
(404) 880-0098 djohnson@strategicvision.biz

Telecommunications Reports International, Inc., by Paul Kirby

November 21 2008

CellAntenna Corp. successfully tested mobile phone jamming equipment at a South Carolina prison today, demonstrating that the technology can be used without interfering with other communications inside or outside the facility, the company and South Carolina corrections authorities said.

Coral Springs, Fla.-based CellAntenna said it plans to conduct more such demonstrations at prisons in Texas, Arkansas, and North Carolina despite a federal prohibition on use of the technology by non-federal government entities, while South Carolina authorities said they plan to petition the FCC for authorization to conduct a pilot program using the technology. They also said they will ask their state’s senators to sponsor legislation to change the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, so state and local law enforcement can use jamming equipment to thwart criminal activity.

“It was great. We proved exactly what we set out to do,” Howard Melamed, CellAntenna’s president and chief executive officer, told TRDaily this afternoon. He said guards at the maximum security prison were able to use their radios without interference and people were able to use their mobile phones outside the visitation room where the demonstration took place, which he said proves false CTIA’s contention that jamming signals aimed at phones smuggled in by inmates would disrupt other communications. “We can stop it right at the wall,” he added.

Mr. Melamed said he had been told that CTIA President and Chief Executive Officer Steve Largent had called South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R.) to urge him to issue “a stay of execution on the jammer” and block the test, but that the governor refused. He said the test lasted a total of about 30 minutes.

Mr. Melamed said his company plans to conduct a demonstration at a Texas prison during the first or second week of December and at an Arkansas prison “as quickly as we can.” He said North Carolina authorities also have expressed interest. Representatives of prisons from the other states attended today’s demonstration at the Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville, S.C. “It looks like the cat’s out of the bag, so to speak,” Mr. Melamed said. “Nobody’s afraid of it.” Last month, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice asked the FCC whether it could be certified to use mobile phone jammers.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections, which invited CellAntenna to conduct today’s demonstration, said afterward that it plans to petition the FCC for permission to conduct a pilot of the technology at one of its prisons. The department also plans to ask South Carolina’s two senators, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R.) and Jim DeMint (R.), to sponsor legislation that would give state and local law enforcement officials the same authority as their federal counterparts to use jamming equipment.

“We have to ask: Is it more important for a federal prison to block mobile phone signals than a state prison? Is it more important for a federal law enforcement agency to block the signal of a terrorist who is about to detonate a bomb with a mobile phone than it is for a local sheriff to do the same thing?” asked South Carolina Corrections Director Jon Ozmint. The department said in a news release that today’s test showed that “this federal law has been outpaced by modern technology.

” The department called inmates with mobile phones “the single most significant threat to security within the modern penal system. Inmates within the South Carolina correctional system have used mobile phones to smuggle drugs, weapons and tools for escape into prisons. They’ve also used phones to conduct credit card and tax fraud, and coordinate successful escapes.” In Maryland and England, murders have been carried out at the direction of inmates with phones, the agency added.

“Chairman [Kevin J.] Martin has publicly offered support to law enforcement and prisons seeking to utilize mobile phone jamming equipment and is willing to work with them,” FCC spokesman Robert Kenny said today, echoing earlier comments on the issue. Regarding South Carolina’s intention to petition the agency, he said, “As with any issue that comes before the Commission, the Chairman indicated that the FCC would give it careful consideration.” Mr. Kenny has noted that congressional action to address the issue may be necessary “given our limited role under the current law.”

“The wireless industry would like more than anything to prevent incarcerated individuals from making wireless calls,” Joe Farren, CTIA’s assistant vice president-public affairs, said today. “However, the use of jammers is both unlawful and wrong-headed. CellAntenna has blatantly violated a federal law and they should suffer the consequences. Jammers are a danger to public and personal safety. Better alternatives are available to addressing the prison contraband issue that mobile phones present. That starts with taking measures to prevent mobile phones and other contraband from being smuggled - often by prison employees - into prisons. Once inside facilities, numerous legal steps can be taken to find and confiscate mobile phones, including mobile phone sniffing dogs, mobile phone detection and location technologies, and other measures. The wireless industry is committed to working with authorities around the country to identify these better, lawful alternatives.”

Asked whether Mr. Largent contacted Gov. Sanford, Mr. Farren replied, “My understanding is that Steve called Governor Sanford - the highest ranking official in the State of South Carolina - to inform him that his prison system was on the verge of breaking federal law. I do not know if they talked.”

In the wake of the announcement about today’s scheduled test, CTIA had asked the FCC to move to block the demonstration and enforce the prohibition on the sale or use of such jammers, except to and by the federal government. Earlier this month, the trade group asked the Commission to take one of two steps to block the S.C. demonstration. It said (1) the Enforcement Bureau could issue an order directing that the demonstration not take place, or (2) the FCC could ask the Department of Justice to file a lawsuit to block the test. Mr. Melamed, who had invited FCC and CTIA representatives to observe the test, had pledged to go ahead with the demonstration even if the Commission directed that he not. He also had said he welcomed FCC action because then he would be able to challenge it in court, adding that “a non-ruling leaves us in limbo.”

In June 2007, CellAntenna, filed a petition for rulemaking asking the FCC to permit state and local public safety officials to use jamming equipment. The company filed the petition after a legal challenge to the FCC’s rules failed due to jurisdictional issues. The company contends that sections 302 and 333 of the Act violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and endanger the lives of first responders in state and local governments who could benefit from the company’s technology. The company contends the Act and the FCC’s rules implementing it conflict with the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which says state and local governments should be empowered to fight terrorism, including through the use of new technologies. - Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com by the federal government. Earlier this month, the trade group asked the Commission to take one of two steps to block the S.C. demonstration. It said (1) the Enforcement Bureau could issue an order directing that the demonstration not take place, or (2) the FCC could ask the Department of Justice to file a lawsuit to block the test. Mr. Melamed, who had invited FCC and CTIA representatives to observe the test, had pledged to go ahead with the demonstration even if the Commission directed that he not. He also had said he welcomed FCC action because then he would be able to challenge it in court, adding that “a non-ruling leaves us in limbo.”

In June 2007, CellAntenna, filed a petition for rulemaking asking the FCC to permit state and local public safety officials to use jamming equipment. The company filed the petition after a legal challenge to the FCC’s rules failed due to jurisdictional issues. The company contends that sections 302 and 333 of the Act violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment and endanger the lives of first responders in state and local governments who could benefit from the company’s technology. The company contends the Act and the FCC’s rules implementing it conflict with the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which says state and local governments should be empowered to fight terrorism, including through the use of new technologies. - Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com