In the aftermath of yesterday's tragic bombings at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, there were reports that cell phone service in the region had been cut off to avoid the detonation of another bomb via cell phone.

Ultimately, those reports were unfounded. Mobile networks were simply jammed as people frantically tried to get in touch with friends and loved ones.

But in an age when our smartphones are a constant companion, what is the protocol for shutting down wireless networks in an emergency? Is it allowed, and would it even help?

Back in July 2005, after several bombs rocked the London transportation system, authorities in the U.S. shut down cellular service in the areas around the Lincoln, Holland, Queens, and Brooklyn Battery Tunnels in New York City.

The move was intended to prevent someone from using a mobile device to set off a bomb in one of those major transportation arteries, but it was done rather haphazardly and without any warning to the wireless carriers or citizens.

As a result, the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) set up a task force in Aug. 2005 to come up with the best way to handle wireless network shutdowns. The result was something known as Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 303, which was approved in March 2006.

Under SOP 303, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes the lead on private wireless network shutdowns, whether it's confined to a tunnel or affects an entire city.

"The decision to shut down service will be made by state Homeland Security advisors, their designees, or representatives of the DHS Homeland Security Operations Center," according to a 2009-2010 review of NSTAC.

When a shutdown request is made, DHS notifies the carriers and questions the person making the request to make sure the move is truly necessary. DHS will also handle the call to bring networks back online.

Should the FCC Step In?

The issue of wireless shutdowns made headlines again in 2011 when the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) shut down cell phone service at select stations to minimize the impact of planned protests over a shooting involving a BART officer. Many of the protestors were organizing via social networks, which they accessed on their phones. The move sparked controversy, prompting the Federal Communications Commission to open a public comment period in March 2012 that solicited input on how and when organizations can interrupt wireless service.

An FCC spokesman said today that the commission is still accepting comments on the issue. But a number of wireless firms and public interest groups have submitted their comments to the FCC.

AT&T and Verizon argued that DHS should continue to handle the issue under SOP 303, and urged the FCC not to step off.

"Multiple processes among the various (Federal, State, local) jurisdictions will inevitably lead to confusion and inconsistent requests where multiple authorities may be involved," Verizon said.

"Wireless carriers need a process where the request comes from a single, trustworthy source," Verizon continued. "Carriers should not be put in the position of having to sort through multiple communications from multiple government entities."

AT&T said it agrees with CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, which said that "it is not necessary for the [Commission] to undertake a substantive proceeding on these issues at this time, given that protocols for wireless service interruptions are already in place."

MetroPCS, meanwhile, argued that "whenever there is insufficient time for court process, the FCC is empowered to make the decision to order a shutdown with input from public safety agencies according to the established protocol."

The carriers agreed that wireless shutdowns should be an absolute last resort. MetroPCS said it should be used under "very narrow and compelling circumstances," while AT&T and Verizon said it should be a last resort.

"Wireless service is no longer a luxury; it is essential to our daily lives," AT&T said.

Infringing On Our Rights?

Another issue to consider, according to public interest groups, is whether SOP 303 infringes on our First Amendment rights to free speech.

SOP 303 "fails to satisfy the procedural requirements that must be met when the government engages in a prior restraint of speech by initiating a wireless service interruption," according to a joint filing from the Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Supreme Court precedent dictates that officials need court permission before pulling the plug on wireless networks, the groups argued. In the event of a major disaster, when time does not allow for a court order, the shutdown "must be brief" and should be followed by a judicial review, they said.

As it stands, "there is no court in the loop at all, at any stage in the SOP 303 process," they said. "The executive branch, untethered by the checks and balances of court oversight, clear instruction from Congress, or transparency to the public, is free to act as it will and in secret."

Further Reading