On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@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-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0
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.
What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air TV
when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
--
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
