Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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. Owen
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that? They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc. on BART trains. You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. You are prohibited from operating a radio in a manner that is disruptive to other passengers just as on almost any other form of public transit. If you’ve got headphones/earbuds/whatever and use them in a way that doesn’t subject the people around you to the noise coming out of your electronics, then rock out to your heart’s content. Owen
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote: As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that? They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc. on BART trains. You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. You are prohibited from operating a radio in a manner that is disruptive to other passengers just as on almost any other form of public transit. If you’ve got headphones/earbuds/whatever and use them in a way that doesn’t subject the people around you to the noise coming out of your electronics, then rock out to your heart’s content. OK. Not relevant to the discussion then. (I was once told not to drink from what I was carrying. And told I could take a cup of coffee aboard. But the was long ago.) -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote: 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote: 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 translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for that translator. Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or form, though they usually were one and the same. Owen
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote: 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 translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for that translator. Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or form, though they usually were one and the same. Was the translator operator obligated to carry everything from the source station, or could they turn the translator off if they wanted to? -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote: On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote: 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 translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for that translator. Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or form, though they usually were one and the same. Was the translator operator obligated to carry everything from the source station, or could they turn the translator off if they wanted to? I honestly don't know what the license terms were. I am also not aware of any circumstances where that issue was at all likely to come up. Owen -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you outlined. Dan On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote: I have a question for the company assembled: Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property. What would change in the several arguments that have been presented? -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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.. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
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.engehau...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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.engehau...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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 entirely clear how that works. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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 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 entirely clear how that works. Regards, Bill Herrin
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin 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 entirely clear how that works. Several things fail the entirely clear test. (I'm not entirely clear on where the interruption was, but the pictures made me think San Francisco. And I'm too lazy to look it up.) In San Francisco, the Muni is in a pipe above (if I remember correctly) BART--did they interrupt cell service there as well? I wonder if there is any leakage. As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that? -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/8/2014 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote: 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? Which, if unlicensed, brings us back to the question of by what authority, other than popular rioter opinion, are they REQUIRED to provide the service?. -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote: I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods. Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive behaviors --- also, if there are other businesses nearby, it could lead to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this giant faraday cage.The local authorities might eventually require some modifications. :) Actually, if you turn your building into a faraday cage, I’m not sure there’s any legal basis on which to tell you that you have to permit RF through, even if it blocks the signal downstream. Creating a shadow is very different from actively emitting “harmful interference” and I don’t know of any laws or regulations which could be used to prevent you from doing so. Owen
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said: The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that. BART experimented with something even safer than this (hosting provider microcells in the underground bart stations on the condition that bart could cut them off when they determined it was “in the interest of public safety”). The first time BART exercised this “turn-off” capability, it drew quite a bit of fire from a number of directions and complaints were lodged with the FCC. FCC doesn’t appear to have made any ruling on the matter as yet (at least none that I could find), but the wording of the various initial responses definitely didn’t seem to favor the idea of allowing cellular service disruption at the whim of a local transit agency. Owen
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
I have a question for the company assembled: Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property. What would change in the several arguments that have been presented? -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods. Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where the mobile carrier is the primary or secondary user. [name of company] has no right to even use the frequencies in question. Seems pretty consistent to me. K On 10/07/2014 05:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: I have a question for the company assembled: Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property. What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote: I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods. Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive behaviors --- also, if there are other businesses nearby, it could lead to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this giant faraday cage.The local authorities might eventually require some modifications. :) Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where It's even worse these frequencies are licensed, and willfully transmitting into the frequencies with enough power to block cell calls from an unauthorized station has severe penalties, even if it never interferes with a single phone or the licensee's use of the restricted frequencies. If it DOES interfere, then you have two potential violations (Unauthorized emission PLUS Interference) and there are likely more stations they would be interfering with than WiFi APs, so there are more violations and more complaints likely to be generated. And these violations are more severe, since they can interfere with emergency communications (E911); I think it's fair to say penalties would likely be larger. The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. -- -JH
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said: The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that. pgpzFMrgHoGBz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php On 10/7/2014 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said: The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote: The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php I see that as a fundamentally very different mater. If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment that they were under no obligation whatever to provide. A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through. -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said: The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved special local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that. Getting paid by third parties to abuse your customers seems to be working well for certain other industries. - Matt -- You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. -- Inigo, The Princess Bride
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote: The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php I see that as a fundamentally very different mater. If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment that they were under no obligation whatever to provide. A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through. BART's equipment was licensed by the FCC with a main reason being 911 access.
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote: On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote: The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php I see that as a fundamentally very different mater. If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment that they were under no obligation whatever to provide. A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through. BART's equipment was licensed by the FCC with a main reason being 911 access. OK--not a Marketing idea, maybe. But still, all the options are in BART's hands--they have emergency phones and people everywhere. The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure. -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
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. pgpz6n3Z670ZN.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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? -- 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
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote: On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@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? I lived in the area and worked in San Francisco when BART was built, and while I never rode BART regularly, I have no recall of cell service on BART or MUNI being a safety issue or advertised as such. -- 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
