wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

Wed Oct 8 20:37:39 UTC 2014

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 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141008/aeccdbf8/attachment.sig>