[175035] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Oct 8 17:12:08 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <5435A093.5070501@bogus.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:11:34 -0400
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja@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@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
