On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety
> functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's
> say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to
> purposely deny public service. You can almost guarantee that an FCC
> enforcement action will result because carriers have a public safety
> responsibility. The state communications commission could even pull your
> license for that and the FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum licenses for
> using a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public. BART
> disrupting cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to disrupt 911
> service which is illegal whether you own the gear or not. I don't know what
> the exact rule currently is but I'm sure it would take someone like Homeland
> Security to shut down a cellular network for "national security" reasons.
> For example, interrupting a cellular bomb detonator or a coordinated
> terrorist attack. The legal concept of "greater good" comes into effect at
> that point.
>
> As a common carrier, I know I would not shut down anything that affects 911
> service deliberately without either the proper notifications taking place or
> a federal court order in my hand (and it better be federal because those are
> the laws you are asking me to throw out here). The funny thing about cell
> service (or repeaters in this case) is that there isn't usually a mandate to
> provide coverage in any particular area but once you provide it you are on
> the hook to maintain it and not purposely disrupt it. Again, it is the
> intent in this case that matters. If BART had a maintenance problem or the
> equipment was damaged, they would be off the hook but they purposely
> interrupted the service to deny communications services to a group of users.
> Cell sites go down all the time for maintenance scheduled or otherwise but if
> you are doing it to purposely deny service, it's another story. Again,
> intent matters...a lot.
>
> I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itself, but
> not nice for sure) and for sure civil liability, not so much a 1st Amendment
> issue since the government is under no real obligation to give you the means
> to communicate (like repeaters). It's the 911 service disruption that is
> most criminal here.
>
> Steve
>
>
>> However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this
>> case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were
>> shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's not
>> active jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other >areas of
>> concern, however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority,
>> potential civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected
>> manner, etc.
>> Owen
>
see if you can get tor browser to work... download it from torproject.org
