On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..
OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-i...
From the article: "Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking comment is whether it even has authority over the issue."
Also: "The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers that allow for cellphone reception within its network." I'm not entirely clear how that works. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?