[175162] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Naslund, Steve)
Thu Oct 9 18:02:51 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 22:02:43 +0000
In-Reply-To: <E5157F60-1D1F-45A8-8003-0AA2F4B8940D@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safet=
y functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. L=
et's say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites =
to purposely deny public service. You can almost guarantee that an FCC e=
nforcement action will result because carriers have a public safety respons=
ibility. The state communications commission could even pull your license =
for that and the FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum licenses for using=
a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public. BART disrupting =
cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to disrupt 911 service w=
hich is illegal whether you own the gear or not. I don't know what the exa=
ct rule currently is but I'm sure it would take someone like Homeland Secur=
ity to shut down a cellular network for "national security" reasons. For e=
xample, interrupting a cellular bomb detonator or a coordinated terrorist a=
ttack. The legal concept of "greater good" comes into effect at that point=
.
As a common carrier, I know I would not shut down anything that affects 911=
service deliberately without either the proper notifications taking place =
or a federal court order in my hand (and it better be federal because those=
are the laws you are asking me to throw out here). The funny thing about =
cell service (or repeaters in this case) is that there isn't usually a mand=
ate to provide coverage in any particular area but once you provide it you =
are on the hook to maintain it and not purposely disrupt it. Again, it is =
the intent in this case that matters. If BART had a maintenance problem or=
the equipment was damaged, they would be off the hook but they purposely i=
nterrupted the service to deny communications services to a group of users.=
Cell sites go down all the time for maintenance scheduled or otherwise bu=
t if you are doing it to purposely deny service, it's another story. Agai=
n, intent matters...a lot.
I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itself, b=
ut not nice for sure) and for sure civil liability, not so much a 1st Amend=
ment issue since the government is under no real obligation to give you the=
means to communicate (like repeaters). It's the 911 service disruption th=
at is most criminal here.
Steve
>However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this =
case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were =
shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's not acti=
ve jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other >areas of con=
cern, however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority, potent=
ial civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected manner=
, etc.
>Owen
