wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joelja at 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.â??

Iâ??m not sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no prohibition against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which is operated by a third party under said third partyâ??s license.

> I'm not entirely clear how that works.

If that were truly the case (and I donâ??t think it is, given BART statements that â??...the cellular providers are basically tenants and are as such subject toâ?¦â??), Iâ??m pretty sure it would be operated by the cellular carrier under their license as a non-owner of the equipment.

Owen