[175168] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paige Thompson)
Thu Oct 9 19:13:35 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:12:14 +0300
From: Paige Thompson <paigeadele@gmail.com>
To: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B40124FB9DB4@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public s=
afety functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeate=
rs. Let's say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cel=
l sites to purposely deny public service. You can almost guarantee tha=
t an FCC enforcement action will result because carriers have a public sa=
fety responsibility. The state communications commission could even pull=
your license for that and the FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum li=
censes for using a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public.=
BART disrupting cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to d=
isrupt 911 service which is illegal whether you own the gear or not. I d=
on't know what the exact rule currently is but I'm sure it would take som=
eone like Homeland Security to shut down a cellular network for "national=
security" reasons. For example, interrupting a cellular bomb detonator =
or a coordinated terrorist attack. The legal concept of "greater good" c=
omes 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 becau=
se those are the laws you are asking me to throw out here). The funny th=
ing about cell service (or repeaters in this case) is that there isn't us=
ually a mandate to provide coverage in any particular area but once you p=
rovide it you are on the hook to maintain it and not purposely disrupt it=
=2E Again, it is the intent in this case that matters. If BART had a ma=
intenance problem or the equipment was damaged, they would be off the hoo=
k but they purposely interrupted the service to deny communications servi=
ces to a group of users. Cell sites go down all the time for maintenance=
scheduled or otherwise but if you are doing it to purposely deny service=
, it's another story. Again, intent matters...a lot.
>
> I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itsel=
f, but not nice for sure) and for sure civil liability, not so much a 1st=
Amendment issue since the government is under no real obligation to give=
you the means to communicate (like repeaters). It's the 911 service dis=
ruption that is most criminal here.
>
> Steve
>
>
>> However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In t=
his case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers=
were shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's =
not active jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other >ar=
eas of concern, however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of autho=
rity, potential civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an e=
xpected manner, etc.
>> Owen
>
see if you can get tor browser to work... download it from torproject.org=
