BART Defends Mobile Service Shutdown 149
itwbennett writes "In a filing to the FCC, Bay Area Rapid Transit general manager Grace Crunican defended last August's mobile shutdown, saying that 'a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers.' Taking the opposing position, digital rights groups, including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the FCC (PDF) that 'wireless interruption will necessarily prohibit the communications of completely innocent parties — precisely those parties closest to the site where the emergency is located or anticipated.'"
Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
Honestly, transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet. While it's nice to have, it's not a necessity and whining about it being turned off to avert what they believed was going to be a bad event really probably wasn't all that terrible of an idea.
That said, your note that you believe the slipp
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
Its increadibly inconviniant, and the airlines are starting to show how unnessessary it is. My own feeling is that they did that in an attempt to conceal the fact that BART was broken again. Had nothing to do with safety.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what I think anyone can object to. If anyone actually believed this was about, "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent", then it'd be understandable.
But that's like... terrorist with a remote trigger wired to a mobile phone. Not, "Aw god dammit, a bunch of stupid college kids are gunna protest something again." Then you're just getting nasty about suppressing something you don't like, and you're inconveniencing a gajillion other people in the process.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
"Its increadibly inconviniant,"
Oh get over it. If you can't go a few hours without phone or net access you need to see a shrink.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
What about a total jamming of all wireless communication in the area? (which may or may not include medical devices). Where do you draw the line?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OMG! Think of the Medical Devices!
Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.
Re: (Score:1)
OMG! Think of the Medical Devices!
Ok, that's a little far-fetched.
How about temporarily booting all parked cars in the vicinity? For everyone's safety, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG! Think of the Medical Devices!
Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.
How many faraday cages do you surround yourself with during the day? I can leave my apartment, take the elevator down to the parking garage, hop in my car, drive to work, take the elevator up to the 3rd floor and walk to my office, all without dropping my phone call. (ok, so I've never don't it all in one contiguous call, but I've used my phone on each of those segments individually)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is separate from the core argument, I don't think anyone would make such a device. However, but a building with metal siding and few windows might be sufficient. Except for the fact that I installed a repeater, some parts of my shop would completely drop detectable signal, other parts too weak to let useful signal through. Some stores are like that too, I can get in the middle of the building and get no signal. This counts a Target, Walmart and a local grocery store. Anyone working in a wa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Temporarily turning off resources to contain mob behavior is not silencing political speech.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Insightful)
Temporarily turning off resources to contain mob behavior is not silencing political speech.
Unless the mob behaviour is protesting against the latest thing the government did but shouldn't have / didn't do but should have.
Or is it really to prevent Western Spring?
(Sorry, forgot to put my foil helmet on this morning)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets look at the other problem, lets say there are mulitple problems, a crash say, and somewhere else close by a mugging in progress. If communications are cut off, no 911 access, no alerting of police. You don't think that knowledge would foster mob action akin to the lootings that happened in cities during the second blackout. The first gave people the idea that and they were prepared to act the during the second.
Here you would have people trapped, and cut off from help. You think that is wise. Bart is j
Re: (Score:1)
transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet.
What kind of screwed up neighborhood do you live in that you go to public places jammed with people to find a quite place? It's like your not even speaking English.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, your note that you believe the slippery slope is coming to reach to turning off the power is a bit much. Yeah you could have been exaggerating for fun but honestly, that's just silly.
So, which is more useful - blocking communications between members of a dangerous mob or blocking communications of potential victims of that dangerous mob to do things like call 911?
Of course that question assumes that you buy the claims that the mob is dangerous to anything more than the jobs of the people turning off the communications.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Informative)
. . .
Honestly, transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet.
. . .
You've never been on BART have you?
BART is the loudest subway I've ever seen and goes over 100 decibels repeatedly.
After riding on quality systems in other places such as Munich I find that BART is just a technical embarrassment.
As far as turning off the cell data coverage... BART consistently has the worst station announcements and the worst station signage. Without the data coverage the only way I can figure out which station I'm at half the time is to get the station map up on the cell and count stops from an identifiable station. I'm really at a loss how a system that big isn't internally audited for simple things like clarity and volume of station announcements. And the lack of clear, obvious, unmistakable station signage is just stupid negligence or apathy on the management's part. 5 minutes on the S-Bahn in Munich will show you how worse then just "Bad" BART is.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
If they had temporarily banned TV news crews from covering the protests "in the interest of public safety" would that be not such a big deal? After all, they are very intrusive, block emergency access, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.
I'm sorry, I just don't see what possible "event" could warrant making the populace unable to communicate with each other, unless said "event" was created by the people who are turning off communications.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:5, Insightful)
You are only listening to the BART side of the story.
First, it's not just data that was shut down, but voice as well.
Second. Imagine if a fire broke out, or you had a heart attack, or somebody was being attacked; How would you report it without your phone working?
Third. The only reason BART shut it down was because they wanted to prevent any kind of protests against them (BART police shot a suspect at point blank range, while the suspect was pinned on the ground by multiple police officers).
Fourth. interfearing with communications are the acts of totalitarian governments around the world, and it is not compatible with Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth. interfearing with communications are the acts of totalitarian governments around the world, and it is not compatible with Freedom.
Best.
Misspelling.
Evar.
Re: (Score:2)
Move along, nothing to see here.
Well, if they shut off the power it'll be too dark to see anyway.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if shutting all communications down in Manhattan in September 11 would had significantly helped as this person is claiming.
Re:Next they'll turn off the power (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is this moderated funny?
Apparently someone already turned off the power to your sarcasm meter.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you assume that "imminent harm" (decided upon without a judge, I am pretty sure) is a good enough reason to kill cell phones.
We're not talking about killing cell phones, we're talking about turning off a signal relay.
Driving a car is a privilege too.
And what you're claiming is that if the government can shut down a road (without judicial review) for safety reasons, then that means they can just take your car away from you entirely. Which is just about as fucking retarded as you can get.
But here's what most of you are missing entirely. The 911 center has a limited capability to handle calls. They have a limited number of incoming trunks and a limited number of op
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the limit is already in place, the need to shutdown the towers all together is?
Re: (Score:2)
Happy trails princess.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this moderated funny?
Sheldon? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
It boils down to what was the intent? BART Police have already indicated that the intent was to disrupt communications because they wanted to prevent an effective protest.
This.
Hard to imagine noble intent from the same group of people that pinned a guy to the ground and shot him in the back, in front of a crowd of people who recorded their crime. [wikipedia.org]
Disrupting the comm system gives them plenty of time to round up all those pesky cell phones before the video can be uploaded. After all, anything in the name of "security," right?
Fixing up the story (Score:4, Insightful)
sed 's/a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent/anything that could be bad PR/'
They are full of crap, of course! (Score:3)
temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers
Even if we accept that premise - who decides if "harm and destruction" is imminent? Oh, that's right, BART decides that. A completely unbiased reviewer, they are.
We can't accept that (Score:2)
So what if harm is imminent? Suppose a train derails or a terrorist bombs it, how is turning the phone supposed to stop the casualties?
But hey I can help them I know first aid! Let's go through the DRSABCD steps.
D - check for Danger. .... does anyone have a working phone?
R - check for Response.
S - Send for help
In any major incident the emergency services would greatly appreciate having eyes and ears on the ground straight away which is exactly what their call centre provides.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that Bart is tasked with the safety of their passengers who would you suggest would be a better choice? Bart did not cut off all protest; they just curtailed protest in a dangerous controlled area. Do you really want hundreds of agitated people crowded platforms with trains whizzing by? The protest could just as well have been done above ground in a much safer manner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual you didn't answer the question but rather decided to troll.
You might also look into the case [wikipedia.org] a little more before making bold statements.
1. There was a near riot going on at the platform.
2. Grant was involved in fighting on the train.
3. Oscar Grant was not restrained as the BART officer never had control of his hands (even the family in the wrongful death suit agrees on this point). He had escaped custody at least once before and returned to the train
4. As Grand never surrendered he was never searc
Re: (Score:2)
You are a twit. Mobile devices are routinely used as detonators, also mobile access./data is not a 'right' but a service you purchase. What are you going to do? crowdsource your threat analysis?
What happens when the mobile device is set to explode when it loses connectivity?
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh...sounds like "Speed 3" has a plot!
That would actually be an entertaining way to solve this problem. If BART says they're going to turn off the cell service, just phone in a bomb threat saying that there's a bomb that will explode if the service is turned off.
Re: (Score:1)
It should be trivial to keep the transmitters running but to stop routing calls. All incoming calls are not getting through, all outgoing calls report "busy" or "no answer."
Re: (Score:2)
Trigger set to a stream of Speed over netflix.
"Pop quiz BART. There's a bomb on your subway. If I don't get to watch my movie it goes off. What are you gonna do?"
Re: (Score:3)
It should be trivial to keep the transmitters running but to stop routing calls. All incoming calls are not getting through, all outgoing calls report "busy" or "no answer."
But my detonator sends a request to a remote server which is supposed to sign the reply using a symmetric cryptographic key whose paired key resides on the detonator. If if doesn't get a correctly signed response after trying for several minutes, the detonator explodes.
If I don't want to buy a data plan for my detonator phone, it can use text messages or DTMF phones over a voice call to contact the other computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Just about any terrorist can make a bomb threat. Even those incapable of making and delivering an actual bomb.
As someone who rides it 5 days a week, (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what the difference is. There is shitty, background service through about the Montgomery station, with blackout points down below the City (don't do that ride much), and MacArthur through Berkeley is a blackout. I know, bitching about spotty service, etc. but try to get anything done on the train. I just read and don't even bother.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rarely take bart, only when I have business in Oakland, and every experience has been from inconvinant to pure hell.
OK, BART isn't exactly an Uber cab but it's hardly "pure hell". I used to commute between Daly City and Embarcadero each morning and afternoon, and it was nothing if not unexciting. The trains departed on time and arrived on time, and the only inconvenience was that I couldn't refresh Twitter or text my wife between stations while underground. Now I frequently ride between Fruitvale and Embarcadero, and the least pleasant aspect is that you get jostled around a little bit on the way through Oakland. I even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I like your spelling lessons, where do I sign up? So far in this thread you've spelt "inconvenient" 3 different ways, none of them correct, and once in ALL CAPS (because we all know CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL).
And spare me the "I'm dyslexic", before you even start. Firefox has a spell-checker BUILT INTO IT these days. You're not dyslexic, you're just stupid. Also, I had a good friend at university who was (severely) dyslexic, and his misspellings were always consistent. Wrong, but consistently wro
So (Score:2)
If I use a personal jammer to silence that idiot yakking away at 120dB about who is sleeping with who and who has the funny sores on them, it's cool as long as I do it so that 'someone' doesn't kick his ass?
Re: (Score:2)
How so? If I can't even cause a 3 second disruption within 20 ft of my location to knock out 1 phone call, why is it OK for BART to black out large areas. Especially considering that I can personally verify that there is no emergency or lost child in range and they can't.
They need to quit the lying (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason they shut off cell phone service was to disrupt the electronic communication of the organizers of the protest. If there was a 'safety' reason, it was to disrupt the protest in the interest of safety. Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.
I could see their argument if say they had a credible threat of a cellphone-triggered bomb, but trying to disrupt a protest's electronic communication does NOT cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of this scenario (the one that BART is afraid would happen);
1. Spotters are deployed to every Bart station and report the number of police at each station to a central command.
2. The central command selects a number of stations and sends a text message to all spotters and protesters to converge on those stations.
3. Hundreds of protesters converge on a small number of stations overloading the platforms.
4. People get pushed off the overloaded platforms onto the tracks where they are hit by trains or kil
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I can fully see how a smart terrorist would concoct a plot to trigger a bomb using an unreliable technology in one of the least reliable places it is likely to work.
Terrorist 1: Today is our day of glory. Those American pigs will feel the full wrath of Allah's glory. Destroy the subway!
Terrorist 2: (Dials Phone) Mwahahahahahaha!
Sexy Voice: "The person you are calling is unavailable, if you would like to leave a message please do so after the beep." *beep*
Terrorist 2: Hello bomb? Please go off when you g
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I'd like to add that even if disabling (read: literally simply turning off some BART-operated bi-directional amplifiers and/or a DAS) cell service does effectively disrupt the organization of an ongoing protest, that this simply moves the protesters into more conventional forms of organization.
Simple audio and both licensed and unlicensed land mobile 2-way radio come to mind immediately as being absolutely useful for such a task. Leaders in the tunnel can communicate with intermediates outside th
Re: (Score:2)
What if they were protesting the protest? Would you deny them their right to protest too?
Re: (Score:2)
Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.
Down that path? That is already the official policy of the US government where Occupy is concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, they advocate for more power for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Convenience only (Score:2, Funny)
Yeesh, whadda think people did before cell phones in an emergency? I believe they used to think, and act (and in that order) -- not just dial 911 and then stand there with a cell phone camera watching the poor bastard suffer. I, for one, wish they'd make the change permanent: Imagine riding public transportation without some obnoxious mouth breather yelling at his girlfriend the entire trip, while you're packed in like sardines with other passengers. It'd be better than Chuck Norris descending from heaven a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeesh, whadda think people did before cell phones in an emergency?
Umm run to a pay phone?
Re: (Score:2)
If I suddenly experience crushing chest pain, I want an EMT, not a helpful bystander. I also want one called as soon as possible, not as soon as someone can find a pay phone.
Re: (Score:1)
If you ride BART, you are subject to their rules. They offer you the FREE service of extended cell antennas, but offer no agreement or contract for them to actually work. If they did, don't you think people would have sued them already for their crappy service?
Reasoning, please... (Score:1)
Subway cars have dedicated telephony. If there's an emergency, and you think that you by yourself on your own cellphone can do you any good (like every other passenger on the train, compared with the authorities in place to deal with it), you're horribly naive (and probably a libertarian.) Cellphones do not have mandated reliability characteristics like landlines, so no rules are being broken here. In the event of an emergency, the passengers will likely clog any femtocells, full cells, or repeaters regardl
Re: (Score:2)
If your subway car is on fire, what the heck is your cellphone going to do for you?
"Goodbye, darling. I won't be coming home again. Tell the kids I love them."
If nothing more practical than that, isn't it enough?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think all emergencies in and around Bart service areas occur within reach of the emergency callbox inside a train, and that those callboxes always work, I'm afraid you're the one being naive.
Frankly Bart doesn't have a justification for cutting off service. Protests like this first occurred decades before cell phones were invented. If people really are rushing the station for a protest, guess what? Stations have doors that can be closed. Big heavy ones that can't be kicked down.
Re: (Score:2)
To turn off the cells in an emergency BART management must know about the emergency. They're quite capable of informing the appropriate emergency services themselves, & probably faster than some random member of the public could.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not what happened. A protest is not "an emergency." Their justification was that too many people might enter the station, not that an emergency had happened.
Kinda like flying (Score:1)
If BART really wanted to they could end the contracts with the communication companies and then you wouldn't be able to use your cellp
In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
So for all transit operators out there, the apparent takeaway from all this is to not provide any form of cell service in weak areas. Offering a repeater that you can control, and disabling it can be considered a breech of freedoms and make you liable.
Better to just avoid the whole issue and not do anything that'll make your commuters happier. If they want cell service, they can lobby their cell carriers to point antennas directed into the tunnels themselves. And nevermind emergencies - there's always the emergency phones in the trains.
Anyone who wants to text and use their cellphone, can drive instead.
Not sure what the problem is? (Score:4, Funny)
My mobile never works on the London Underground, protest or no protest.
Here's a good rule of thumb... (Score:1)
Wither goes local government, wither goes the federal government.
Barring intervention from the supreme court.
Given the feckless state of our current federal legislature, this is why it's important to elect the right person to the presidency: They will pick the next batch to decide this sort of thing.
Disconnect (Score:2)
There's a disconnect between principle and practice here. Authorities should absolutely be able to disable communications in "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent". A cell-phone triggered bomb on the train, for example.
But what does that have to do with last August's shutdown? Harm and violence were not imminent in that case. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that violence was even *likely*.
We have given the authorities tools to use to stop mass violence -- everything from telecomm
You know where I heard that kind of rhetoric last? (Score:4, Interesting)
Living this close to the former iron curtain, I have heard and read that kind of apologies before. Every time there was an unrest in one of those countries, something like this would be sprouted. "For the safety", "to protect order", "to keep people from misusing tools" and "what could have happened if we didn't step in".
So far the difference is still that we don't get shot.
At least not yet.
is it just me or... (Score:2)
If they can do then the bad guys (Score:2)
If BART can do this then the bad guys have half their work done for them, they simply need to get control of this process when they want to cause even more mayhem.
It would seem to me... (Score:1)
No Uploading video of shot unarmed Blacks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them.
Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a co
Re: (Score:2)
"...where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference [wikipedia.org]
It would be interesting to see an analysis of whether civil rights laws were violated.
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, BART didn't even have cell phone service in many parts of their system up until a couple of years ago. Especially in the East Bay.
Re: (Score:3)
By that logic it's quite acceptable to cut gas, water, power and a lot of other things to any place you might wish (provided you're the government), for no other reason than "I wanna", because humanity survived for ages without any of those. Don't like that blogger? Snip his wire!
Re: (Score:2)
What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization [logicalfallacies.info], hasty generalization [logicalfallacies.info], weak analogy [logicalfallacies.info], appeal to consequences [logicalfallacies.info], and slippery slope [logicalfallacies.info] before you lecture anyone about the topic.
I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.
The problem is that it is a service that people rely on. Similar to how we rely on the grocery store having groceries and us not having to stock up on food because they might not. We got used to going there and buying food in case our fridge gets empty. If you take that away, people get into a situation that can be dangerous be
Re: (Score:2)
It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.
It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Another observation I can make is that the overwhelming majority of BART track is above ground, where cell service works fine.
You can draw what conclusions you want--in fact, you can conclude that because people were accustomed to the lack of underground phone service (and the fact that service was still available on most of BART), that the rioters were less likely to be affected than normal riders, so BART's actions did more harm than good. But I wasn't posti
Re:Illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy [wpsantennas.com], which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power. And spare me the claims of BART being a private enterprise - they operate at the will of the public even if they have wrapped themselves in fine print and legalese to try to shirk their responsibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power.
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Re: (Score:2)
You can pronounce it anything you want. It doesn't make it anything more than your personal opinion. Society is not obligated to enable you to foist your opinions on others as if they were facts.
Lol. There are no facts. Everything is opinion. Just some opinions are better supported than others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters
A felony if I'm not mistaken.
but not technically illegal to unplug them. Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Et tu, Brute?
Re: (Score:2)
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.
It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
After all, you don't find Verizon suing Bart do you?
And further, there was no discrimination. Simply a system wide outage.
Re: (Score:2)
It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.
If you provide these services to the general public [which BART did], it is common carrier. Not even BART is disputing this. Their argument is more along the line of the circumstances justified an exception to the rules.
It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.
It is illegal for individuals and businesses to install/use cell repeaters. Only a licensed carrier may do this. That is, if you're a business/individual, the carrier/licensee must install/maintain the repeater for you. A rogue repeater subjects the owner to possible equipment forfeitur
Re: (Score:2)
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:
http://www.repeaterstore.com/applications/small-building.html [repeaterstore.com]
read the FAQ here http://www.repeaterstore.com/support/faq/ [repeaterstore.com]
They are very common in underground facilities and other places where cell reception is difficult.
Once I got thi
Re: (Score:2)
You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.
BART is a common carrier. You're confusing it with a private business. They're not disputing it because they want to be one to get the safe harbor provisions [which I mentioned in my last message, but you chose not to read].
Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:
It's not illegal to buy one. It is illegal to use one unless you have a license. Particularly, if you've set it up incorrectly [and are causing interference], you'll have a representative from your local cell phone company showing up on your doorstep. You must have the consent of th
Re: (Score:2)
The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.
These are fully FCC approved units, just like your wifi router. No license required.
You know, simply stating your ridiculous opinion without bothering to check any facts makes you loo like a total idiot.
Everything on that page is a consumer device approved for installation in the home with no additional license. The FCC id is shown on each product.
Check your facts. They are completely legal.
Re: (Score:1)
There was no jamming of any transmissions, stop trying to change the facts of the situation.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data).
The BART isn't a cell phone operator, telco, or in any other fashion a "common carrier". And even if they were, shutting down a transmitter is not illegal and does not discriminate based on service type as it affects ALL functions. Even then, a signal relay between you and the tower probably doesn't really qualify as a service disruption as the tower is essentially the "demarck" point, not the signal booster.
Seriousl
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage. BART is a governmental agency, with devolved powers from the State of California, its own police force, and a charter. If a city or county cut off wireless communication to prevent a protest, it would fly in the face of our incorporated first amendment rights to speech and assembly. From a legal standpoint, BART is held to the same standard.
Re: (Score:2)
As a government agency, shouldn't their first priority be to maintain order and prevent riots?
I find it very odd this story is posted today of all days. THIS is exactly what Bart was trying to avoid [latimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have edited the constitution. I believe the phrase is "peaceable assembly".
Look at the LATimes link above for an instructive example of what happens when people edit out key words in the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the constitution, bill of rights or anything else mentions tweeting. Care to enlighten us?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where the constitution, bill of rights or anything else mentions tweeting. Care to enlighten us?
I believe the first amendment covers that.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody shut down a cellular site.
Bart shut down THEIR OWN repeaters in the subway. The street level commercial services were not affected.
Now don't you feel stupid for not reading TFA.?