Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

[Keenan Tims <ktims () stargate ca>]

There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?

K

On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 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