[175042] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Oct 8 18:47:39 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <35458.1412732186@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 15:41:53 -0700
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>=20
>> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
>> of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
>> phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special"
>> local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by
>> default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not
>> receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent.
>=20
> I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by =
doing that.
>=20
BART experimented with something even safer than this (hosting provider =
microcells
in the underground bart stations on the condition that bart could cut =
them off when
they determined it was =93in the interest of public safety=94).
The first time BART exercised this =93turn-off=94 capability, it drew =
quite a bit of fire from a
number of directions and complaints were lodged with the FCC. FCC =
doesn=92t appear to
have made any ruling on the matter as yet (at least none that I could =
find), but the
wording of the various initial responses definitely didn=92t seem to =
favor the idea of
allowing cellular service disruption at the whim of a local transit =
agency.
Owen
