Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehausen@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on that.
Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?
Obligated by the FCC license
Hi Larry, Roy:
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. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehausen@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on that.
Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?
Obligated by the FCC license
Hi Larry, Roy:
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...
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?
There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license, provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel. Perhaps they are operating under these provisions? K On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
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
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
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 sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no prohibition against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which is operated by a third party under said third party’s license.
I'm not entirely clear how that works.
If that were truly the case (and I don’t think it is, given BART statements that “...the cellular providers are basically tenants and are as such subject to…”), I’m pretty sure it would be operated by the cellular carrier under their license as a non-owner of the equipment. Owen
participants (5)
-
joel jaeggli -
Keenan Tims -
Larry Sheldon -
Owen DeLong -
William Herrin