wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

Wed Oct 8 20:29:39 UTC 2014

On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehausen at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks at 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