wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

Wed Oct 8 21:11:34 UTC 2014

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja at 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 ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?