San Francisco Subway Muzzles Cell Service During Protest(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
San Francisco Subway Muzzles Cell Service During Protest
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20091822-245/s.f-subway-muzzles-cell-service-during-protest/
20 comments
It was kind of lame that I couldn't read LessWrong on my commute home. I really enjoy that part of my day.
Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.
Otherwise, yeah. The comparisons to Egypt are a little over the top. It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all.
It's awesome that cell phones work in the Bart tunnels at all
Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
Upvote this man (and give me some downvotes if it balances things out for you). Too few see the world this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
In regards to the right to assemble/demonstrate, I personally believe that the public's idea (or at least perception) of what makes an effective (nonviolent) demonstration has changed.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
"Unifying issues" seem to be somewhat of a thing of the past- it is rare you see tens or hundreds of thousands protesting anything anymore. As demonstrators grow more fringe (due to the lack of "unifying issues"- they protest things that interest only a small minority), their numbers have dwindled to the point a traditional protest is ineffective, and in an effort to secure results they have adopted more... radical techniques.
As an example, if the majority of the San Francisco Bay Area really cared about the issue at hand here, it would have been trivial to stage an effective protest. E.g., call for a boycott (effective, easy and captivating, but only if you have a large following). Pack the cars with protesters, so many that regular commuters can't get on, and refuse to get off. Protests are about demonstrating a majority, a plurality, or a very significant minority, not a tiny vocal minority.
On top of that, I have to wonder about the mindset of the protesters. If they protest, and cause an interruption or major inconvenience to me, then odds are I won't care what their cause is, I won't support them. That is no way for them to gain my support. Do something for charity, for the community, or in some other non-disruptive manner, and be respectful of others in the community.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
It's like that band in California that caused the huge traffic jam as a publicity stunt. By doing what they did, they caused huge inconvenience to a lot of people, and got nothing but negative press out of it. They even ended up in court over it. Rightfully so.
If they feel that the only way to get any media attention out of their protest is under the headline of "thousands delayed for hours", then screw them and their cause.
I tend to believe that these disruptive tactics are more to get their name in the paper than to actually try and bring about change.
It was even better when I was in college and protesters trashed campus buildings.
Uhhh, where do you think the money that's going to have to be used to clean up your mess comes from? Yeah, you have not exactly won my support.
Uhhh, where do you think the money that's going to have to be used to clean up your mess comes from? Yeah, you have not exactly won my support.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom to communicate. Given the era of technology has made it such that the communications infrastructure is fundamental to our speech and communication, it could be construed that removing this is violating our constitutional rights.
Does it MEAN that, or simply imply it?
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
I don't think it means that there is a requirement to provide the most convenient method available. Cel phone service isn't even classified as an essential service. Never mind internet access.
They didn't stop communication, they made it less convenient. The protesters had to stay within range of a normal cel tower, rather that use the locally/BART provided repeaters. "Can you hear me now?" "No."
What's next? BART has to provide the paper and photocopying to the protesters for their pamphlets so they can communicate their issues?
"The United Nations has proposed that Internet access should be a human right."
"In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Access_as_a_hum...
"In some countries such as Estonia,[5] France, [6] Spain,[7] Finland[8] and Greece,[9] Internet access has already been made a human right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access#Access_as_a_hum...
Well, as IANAL - I used the word implies as I am not 100% positive...
However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must be properly represented.
I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than white curtains in my townhome.
The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white. Which is what I had.
The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these were not white.
They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking retarded".
I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.
However, I would propose this is one example where the populous needs to start exerting their opinion on how these things should be interpreted. We are far to reticent to express our view and too complacent in accepting the position of the government in matters where it is critical that we remind the government that this is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and as such, our views must be properly represented.
I am reminded of when I had a dispute with my home owners association about a ridiculous rule whereby I was precluded from putting up anything other than white curtains in my townhome.
The rule stated that the externally facing view of any curtains must be white. Which is what I had.
The complaint came that due to me having gold colored curtains on the interior side of my windows, at night, when the lights were on - they could tell these were not white.
They attempted to fine me. We battled for months. I went to several HOA meetings and was confronted with an opinion that "these are the rules, we do them to uphold the property values of the community" -- I emphatically reminded the HOA that not only was this argument ridiculous that WE were infact the HOA and thus WE should change the rules to not be so "fucking retarded".
I ended up winning - but the lesson was that bureaucratic authority applied unnecessarily begets mediocre minds reaching for abuseable power.
I could just as easily say that those same mediocre minds are looking for rights where none exist.
And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)
Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.
And I won't comment on the mindset it takes to move into a place that is controlled by an HOA in the first place. ;)
Complaining about morons on an HOA is like moving next to an airport and complaining about the aircraft that always seem to be around.
Sure, you can claim that assuming you have had prior experience with an HOA or other groups... My problem was that I had no idea this level of ridiculousness existed. So it is not like I entered into that thinking "this time it will be different" :)
Also, Iam trying to point out in my other comments that I am not lokoing for rights where they do not exist, per se, but that I think we as a whole need to be open to the possibility that the framework and definition of said rights need to evolve with the changes in our society, and the expression and level of our civilization.
It appears to me that anyone denouncing those who question the current state refuse to stray from the centuries old definitions.
Also, Iam trying to point out in my other comments that I am not lokoing for rights where they do not exist, per se, but that I think we as a whole need to be open to the possibility that the framework and definition of said rights need to evolve with the changes in our society, and the expression and level of our civilization.
It appears to me that anyone denouncing those who question the current state refuse to stray from the centuries old definitions.
[deleted]
Would you say that airlines are violating your right to free speech because they make you turn off your cell phones in flight?
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
What about all the subway tunnels that don't have cell service - is their lack of cell service unconstitutional, or is it just that once you offer someone cell service, you can never take it back?
is their lack of cell service unconstitutional
As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).
As I understand it, no. The way Free Speech works in regards to newspapers (which are the closest well-established analogue to cellular) is you have the right to say whatever you want, in your own newspaper, because you own it.
You do not own the cellular networks, in the same way you do not own the San Francisco Chronicle, and you do not have the right to have your speech carried by either.
How then does free speech interact with cellular networks? Well, if you owned and operated your OWN cellular network (no matter the size, technology or hardware) the government cannot prevent you from transmitting to others (unless, of course, you are in violation of FCC regulations)
In short, you have a right to speech (broadcast), but there are no requirements that say intermediaries you do not own must pick up and deliver your speech (broadcast).
What about the fact that not only do I own my phone, but I am in a contract with the carrier to provide service for which I pay for. Thus, there needs to be measurable compensation for anytime the contract I pay for service of is inhibited by the carrier or any third party providers participating in the delivery off service governed by that contract.
This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.
The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.
Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?
Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?
We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.
Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.
This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.
This could be an important subject, where the service's impingement could realistically represent a violation of my constitutional rights.
The problem is that is will be argued that using their service is at will, being on BART property is at will etc.. etc.. -- but then this is a farked up loophole to the rights within the constitution whereas we are allowing for the constitution to only be upheld in a silo of presence, property and service I directly own.
Does this mean, then, that if I have a mortgage on my home - that truly it is the banks property and therefore am not entitled to my rights?
Why so, then, would we say that when I am out of my house, on public or private property, that my rights are suspended?
We need to either protect communication and speech throughout - or not. I do not see much middle ground here.
Finally I agree that such efforts to cutoff such a fundamental service is malfeasance in that it would prevent any notification of imminent danger outside the group.
This will likely be fought by only permitting 911 - but what if the threat is from the system itself. This is directly opposed to the constitution which is designed to uphold inalienable rights of the people against tyranical systems of governance... if the only authority you can contact is the one who is directly attacking you - this is entirely flawed.
You honestly think BART is part of your contract with AT&T/Verizon?
You honestly think when AT&T/Verizon inhibits your cellular service, your constitutional rights are being violated? You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?
When you have a mortgage on your home, you own your home. It is simply used as a security, which means if you cease payment it will then no longer be your property. In any case, as your home is not a transmission vector for your speech, unlike air/radio/newspaper, ownership is irrelevant to free speech. However, if you do not own the home, damn straight you don't have the right to assembly there, any more than your neighbor has the right to assembly in your living room.
You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech". Communication is not a right. Recall that the First Amendment has been alternatively dubbed "Freedom of Expression".
I really wish folks would cease with this bandying about how everything should be a right. It is especially ridiculous when it is declared that a service provided by a business is a right, and it makes me wonder if many people are actually familiar with the Bill of Rights. It's hard to imagine you could be, and not understand how fundamentally different those wonderful 10 are from things like cell service and internet.
You honestly think when AT&T/Verizon inhibits your cellular service, your constitutional rights are being violated? You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?
When you have a mortgage on your home, you own your home. It is simply used as a security, which means if you cease payment it will then no longer be your property. In any case, as your home is not a transmission vector for your speech, unlike air/radio/newspaper, ownership is irrelevant to free speech. However, if you do not own the home, damn straight you don't have the right to assembly there, any more than your neighbor has the right to assembly in your living room.
You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech". Communication is not a right. Recall that the First Amendment has been alternatively dubbed "Freedom of Expression".
I really wish folks would cease with this bandying about how everything should be a right. It is especially ridiculous when it is declared that a service provided by a business is a right, and it makes me wonder if many people are actually familiar with the Bill of Rights. It's hard to imagine you could be, and not understand how fundamentally different those wonderful 10 are from things like cell service and internet.
"You are aware that a private party cannot, by definition, violate your constitutional rights, as they are only protection from government, not private parties?"
Superb. That means I can finally ban all redheads from my restaurant.
"You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech"."
Oh go fuck yourself sideways with a cactus, that is the most retarded reading of the the first thatI have ever heard. FURTHERMORE, you make the mistake of thinking that we only have the rights specifically mentioned on some piece of paper. This is not the case.
Superb. That means I can finally ban all redheads from my restaurant.
"You are trying to sneak "communication" in with "speech"."
Oh go fuck yourself sideways with a cactus, that is the most retarded reading of the the first thatI have ever heard. FURTHERMORE, you make the mistake of thinking that we only have the rights specifically mentioned on some piece of paper. This is not the case.
BART is not under contract or obligation to provide you with cell phone service. They offered this as a convenience to their customers, nothing more. They are well within their right, in my opinion, to not provide it. Just because people got used to it doesn't mean it's automatically a "right" of theirs now. (I could go off on a rant about the overly developed sense of self-entitlement that seems to be running rampant, but I won't).
And there is no obligation on their part to provide access to 911. I'm sure there is some requirement for them to provide emergency assistance, but that doesn't mean passengers being able to call on their own.
If anything, I see this as being the end of their deployment of repeaters altogether. "We tried to be nice, people got upset, it became a political shitstorm, so we'll eliminate the problem and remove them so there are no future issues."
And there is no obligation on their part to provide access to 911. I'm sure there is some requirement for them to provide emergency assistance, but that doesn't mean passengers being able to call on their own.
If anything, I see this as being the end of their deployment of repeaters altogether. "We tried to be nice, people got upset, it became a political shitstorm, so we'll eliminate the problem and remove them so there are no future issues."
@ SilverStorm:
My point is that our understanding needs to evolve. While i appreciate your opinion, I think that the definitions you are holding onto so vehemently are outdated.
I am not claiming my statement should be absolute but that these ideas and definitions need to be continuously looked at. The very nature of these concepts are disrupted, adapted and morphed with the growth of civilization, thus the basis of design for societal frameworks needs to be adapted as well.
My point is that our understanding needs to evolve. While i appreciate your opinion, I think that the definitions you are holding onto so vehemently are outdated.
I am not claiming my statement should be absolute but that these ideas and definitions need to be continuously looked at. The very nature of these concepts are disrupted, adapted and morphed with the growth of civilization, thus the basis of design for societal frameworks needs to be adapted as well.
[deleted]
I will add that if BART had instead employed the use of cell phone jammers, this would be much murkier. On the one hand, you could argue a jammer is essentially "intercepting" your transmission. On the other hand (the view that I favor, knowing a thing or two about radio) you could argue the jammer is in reality simply "drowning you out"- which could infringe upon your right to be heard, except I don't know if such a right actually exists.
It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.
It would boil down, I think, to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Personally, while I am in general a "spirit of the law" kind of guy, I find myself falling back on the letter for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Back then they meant what they said, and they said what they meant - with incredible clarity- and it's interesting to see how much sense a rigorous "letter of the law" interpretation of those ancient laws often makes.
An interesting thought: Constitutional rights cannot be violated by private enterprise. They are only protections from government.
Is BART government?
Is BART government?
It's not private enterprise, at the very least.
It is not OK for the government to cut off citizen communications in times of civil unrest or any other time. BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards. While they can prohibit assembly within their stations, disabling communications infrastructure violates people's basic rights.
in this case, legally it is a tricky issue and BART is probably and unfortunately in the clear on this.
BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
BART cut power to the wireless sites in these/tunnels tations - they didn't ask the wireless providers to terminate their services. I suspect that since the wireless sites lease space and consume power from BART operated facilities, BART is well within their rights to terminate power and other services based on existing contractual agreements.
However, that doesn't make what BART did "right." It is downright disgusting and I hope that the wireless providers mount up and put some serious pressure on BART in response. Certainly the providers are paying serious money to BART to lease space to provide service to riders, and the optics of the loss of that will hurt BART far more than it will hurt the wireless providers. At the end of the day, loss of wireless lease would really be a punch in the gut to BART, not to mention the public safety issues.
I don't know that the technical details factor into this -- BART admitted that their intent was to prevent speech and to interfere with communications, therefore it's possible they ran afoul of the First Amendment and/or the FCC. I don't know that we'll find the answer unless someone takes it to trial.
I'm not condoning what BART did, I think it was wrong.
But, if you decided to use HN to organize a response to an issue and HN deleted your posts, that doesn't make HN's actions a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not apply for private institutions that you choose to participate on.
But, if you decided to use HN to organize a response to an issue and HN deleted your posts, that doesn't make HN's actions a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not apply for private institutions that you choose to participate on.
BART is a government agency, not a private institution.
HN has a TOS and is a private institution. Further, HN is not part of our public telecom infrastructure - ie if I'm being stabbed during the protest they were trying to thwart, I wouldn't use HN to call an ambulance.
BART shutting down cell service is irresponsible, deplorable and something we're going to see more and more as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it becoming.
BART shutting down cell service is irresponsible, deplorable and something we're going to see more and more as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it becoming.
...as the first world descends into the kind of place we all see it becoming.
Which is what?
Which is what?
As is often pointed out around here, there's legal, and then there's right.
They don't have battery backups?
Pressure, or perhaps just UPS/battery installations...
I would imagine there is power backup already in place to keep the trains moving under the bay in case of a power failure.
"BART, which has its own police force, must be held to constitutional standards."
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
This sounds nice, but do you actually know what those Constitutional standards are?
First, as you seem to recognize, the area in which cell phone service was disrupted is what is considered a "nonpublic forum." The government has significant latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, especially when the restriction is related to the function of that forum. Here, BART shut down cell phone service because it was informed that a group of "protesters", which had caused disruption to BART service in the past, was going to use cell phones to organize another disruption. According to reports, cell phones were to be used to communicate the locations of BART police officers to maximize the mob's ability to disrupt service.
Second, not all speech is due protection under the First Amendment. There is protected speech, and unprotected speech.Speech designed to incite violence or create a breach of the peace is not protected. There is substantial case law on this. Here, based on tweets like "We are going to show BART (@SFBART) how to prevent a riot #OpBART" and the past actions of this particular group of "protesters", it is clear that BART had a compelling reason to temporarily shut down cell phone service in its stations.
Finally, in this case, BART did not prevent this group of "protesters" from expressing ideas. It simply restricted, temporarily, a particular mode of delivery.
What about those who weren't planning to use their cell phones to incite a riot? Again, there is more latitude to restrict speech in nonpublic forums, and any restrictions here were content-neutral, narrowly drawn in terms of time, place and manner, and were for a compelling purpose (protecting public safety).
Bottom line: this is only a Constitutional issue if you have no understanding of the Constitution and First Amendment case law.
The best part is the idea was originally suggested by BART's public relations department.
They are of course in full backpedal mode on that statement.
This is why government should not be in the cell phone (or tower, or repeater) business. Just as they should not be involved in the newspaper, news reporting or any other business not related to actual governing. Giving any government the power to shut down communication is a nasty, slippery slope. Once it's OK to quash communication in the subway, then it's OK to quash it just outside the subway; then for one block around the subway; then for 10 blocks around the subway ad infinitum.
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
The big problem is that the governing authorities assumed that everyone around BART that day was there for nefarious cause and treated everyone as a suspect, thereby shutting down potential criminal activity, yet depriving law-abiding citizens the ability to communicate freely. If the governing authorities were interested in preserving security, then they should use the means granted to them by the citizens; namely, police officers.
What basic right is that?
Some states seem to have laws preventing this sort of thing since it would interfere with 911 calls. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0891.htm
Not sure about California.
Not sure about California.
Most of the laws (as summarized on the page) seem to address only interfering with a person making a call ("it is a crime for batterers to prevent their victims from making a call for help") or interrupting the service (prank calls?). If BART is the one providing the service (or at least the communications medium), it'd be harder to say they are interfering. They simply stopped offering the service. Also, it's pretty rare for an agency like BART to be charged with crimes.
The worst that's likely to happen is someone sues them, but good luck proving damages.
The worst that's likely to happen is someone sues them, but good luck proving damages.
Didn't you hear? Amendment 28, which establishes cell phone service as a basic human right.
I'm pretty sure being able to use your cell phone to dial 911 is a basic human right in America.
You can pick up any cellphone that has a battery in it, regardless of contract status, and call 911. That is of course unless you ride BART during a protest, a time when you are much more likely to be in need of emergency services.
You can pick up any cellphone that has a battery in it, regardless of contract status, and call 911. That is of course unless you ride BART during a protest, a time when you are much more likely to be in need of emergency services.
Sure, given that you have reception. Is BART obligated to provide you reception?
If you say yes, how about the USFS? When I'm up in the mountains in land managed by the USFS, I cannot always place a 911 call. Can I sue the USFS for obstructing one of my most basic human rights, access to rapid sophisticated medical response?
If you say yes, how about the USFS? When I'm up in the mountains in land managed by the USFS, I cannot always place a 911 call. Can I sue the USFS for obstructing one of my most basic human rights, access to rapid sophisticated medical response?
Do the mountains have cell towers that are shut off when it is politically inconvenient? If it does, then yes, I would recommend legal action if you needed to contact emergency services and couldn't because they went out of their way to shut them off.
BART is fairly dangerous. It has it's own dedicated police force. Is it ok for movie theaters to jam cell phones? What happens when someone dies because they couldnt get thru to 911 during a protest in a major city? What about when they shut the Internet off during a riot in NY?
Does no one else see where this is going?
BART is fairly dangerous. It has it's own dedicated police force. Is it ok for movie theaters to jam cell phones? What happens when someone dies because they couldnt get thru to 911 during a protest in a major city? What about when they shut the Internet off during a riot in NY?
Does no one else see where this is going?
I might be a little more willing to fly into paranoia if I didn't remember that life did indeed exist, and in fact even go on, before cell phones.
Life existed before many things we now consider basic human rights. Safe food, safe vehicles (vehicles at all), etc.
So during the next protest they ban cars, including emergency vehicles? People got around just fine before cars.
I don't think you quite understand, we aren't talking about people not being able to all their friends, we're talking about 911.
So during the next protest they ban cars, including emergency vehicles? People got around just fine before cars.
I don't think you quite understand, we aren't talking about people not being able to all their friends, we're talking about 911.
What's funny about all this is that cutting off communication stops people from calling in emergency, thus preventing life saving services from arriving at the scene in a timely manner. "shutdown the cellphone service for the safety of everyone". Sounds reminiscent of President Hosni Mubarak's plan of stopping the protest by shutting down cellphone and internet.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
We need to hurry up and give our government the ability to have an Internet off switch, you know, for the safety of everyone.
If I buy a cellphone jammer and run it on my property near a government building because there is a protest going on... for the safety of everyone. I would be immediately arrested upon discovery of what I was doing.
The tricky part here is, BART shut off the communications, and told everyone else after the fact.
Didn't Obama recently sign a bill giving him and any future president power to shut off nationwide internet during times of "crisis'?
No.
Are they really concerned about public safety?
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
This is lunacy.
What if, while the cell sites were powered down, a crazed lunatic with a knife started stabbing people on a BART platform or train? How could anyone call for help?
This is lunacy.
From the article:
"In addition, numerous BART police officers and other BART personnel were present during the planned protest, and train intercoms and white courtesy telephones remained available for customers seeking assistance or reporting suspicious activity."
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
So, to answer your question, BART police would have detained him, or someone would have used one of those phones to call for help.
Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
>Regarding your first question, what are you implying was their motive for doing this, if not for safety?
Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.
Disrupting protest would be an obvious motivation. The less effective the protest, the less bad press for the transit authority.
Read what happened last time there was a protest by this group:
http://sfist.com/2011/07/12/bart_protesters_chant_vandalize_...
This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.
I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).
For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.
This is not your typical peaceful protest - BART was probably more concerned about preventing trains from being blocked, vandalism, and safety. And about safety - in this case, it's not some euphemism for control. These are train stations where people stand on a platform inches away from trains going at high speed. A rowdy crowd in a space like that is definitely a threat to safety.
I think of it BART taking away one of its amenities in order to maintain its core services and responsibility to safety than a draconian abuse of force. It's like a coffee shop that turns off its wifi because of abuse. Cell 'towers' placed in BART tunnels and stations are provided for the convenience of customers (as previously pointed out, not for safety).
For what it's worth, I ride the BART twice a day, every week day. I would choose train service over underground cell service any day.
This makes perfect sense to me, and I agree. The crowd that was protesting is just a bunch of 20-something hipsters who see rioting and revolution in the rest of the world and want in on the fun.
If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it. These people are just looking for something to cry over.
To people saying BART did this to prevent bad PR: I'm not convinced of this. Everyone knows that doing this would cause an uproar, simply based on the fact that they get their panties in a bunch over acceptable police action.
If you want to protest, go to the streets. You don't have to clog up commuters' travel and make their day shitty. Kmart doesn't have to let you congregate inside their stores. BART doesn't have to let you congregate in the paid area.
Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people can write off any claim if it has to do with safety. You guys really think that it would be safe to have protesting in a train station?
If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it. These people are just looking for something to cry over.
To people saying BART did this to prevent bad PR: I'm not convinced of this. Everyone knows that doing this would cause an uproar, simply based on the fact that they get their panties in a bunch over acceptable police action.
If you want to protest, go to the streets. You don't have to clog up commuters' travel and make their day shitty. Kmart doesn't have to let you congregate inside their stores. BART doesn't have to let you congregate in the paid area.
Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous that people can write off any claim if it has to do with safety. You guys really think that it would be safe to have protesting in a train station?
>If you threaten the life of a police officer, expect to be shot. That's all there is to it.
If that's what actually happened, sure, but it's interesting that they refuse to release video of the event.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-05/bay-area/29737621_1_ba...
If that's what actually happened, sure, but it's interesting that they refuse to release video of the event.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-07-05/bay-area/29737621_1_ba...
I don't have a position on this, but I don't agree with comparing it to a coffee shop. BART is a governmental entity paid for by taxpayer dollars, shutting off a service that was provided by said mandatory tax dollars is different than turning off an additional service at a private business.
Claiming it's for safety is what we in the business call "bullshit".
They address the safety of people on the platform, but what about people that didn't have a few dozen cops nearby?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
I have ill family members, and need to be able to be on a plane in a few hours notice. Avoiding some bad PR photos justifies missing that important inbound phone call?
Simply put, the primary purpose of bart is to run a train service and maximize availability of that service. Cell service is a non essential (and until a few years ago, nonexistant) enhancement of that service.
The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.
So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.
The theory here is that if they allowed cell service to continue then protesters would have disrupted train service. So then the more pressing issue becomes getting people to the airport, not cellphone availability.
So yes, you missed your important call, but that's better than others missing their important flight.
Your important call would have been cut off as soon as you left the station anyway.
What happens if you need to be on a plane when you're already on a different plane?
People have used subways for over 100 years and dealt with "crazed lunatics with knifes" without cell phones for all but the past 10 of those years. Cell phone != safety
Having worked in emergency services as well as lived in countries without such services, services like 9-1-1 have absolutely increased the safety and security in developed countries. Just because people dealt with things in a less-than-optimal way before is no justification to return to those times.
Cars didn't have airbags and safety belts for a long time, too.
[deleted]
As a frequent public transit rider in SF, and the developer of a popular Muni iPhone app, let me say: If you told anyone in SF thought that there was intentionally functioning cell service in the subway tunnels, they would LAUGH.
My application is supposed to tell you when the train is coming, and it doesn't work once you walk down to the platform due to complete lack of cell service.
I chuckle at the ludicrous idea of "disrupting" something that doesn't actually work to begin with. If it worked, perhaps my app would be more useful.
My application is supposed to tell you when the train is coming, and it doesn't work once you walk down to the platform due to complete lack of cell service.
I chuckle at the ludicrous idea of "disrupting" something that doesn't actually work to begin with. If it worked, perhaps my app would be more useful.
Really just seems like they're adding fuel to the fire. Its kind of a boneheaded move, as people will just organize the old fashioned way the next time around.
Just silly.
Just silly.
When it does succeed while BART is doing this, affected riders will be w/o rail AND cell service.
And many of them will be angry @ BART for disabling their ability to contact friends / family during delay, look up status and alternate routes on the web, etc.
wide ripple to heavy-handed tactics.
And many of them will be angry @ BART for disabling their ability to contact friends / family during delay, look up status and alternate routes on the web, etc.
wide ripple to heavy-handed tactics.
You can simply walk upstairs where there's normal cellphone reception, and you're good to go.
Now if you're stuck on a train in a tunnel because protesters are causing the system to shut down, that's a different situation, but still not decidedly evil or foolish for BART to turn off its cell service. In BART's defense, they did tell everyone earlier in the day to make alternate plans and prepare for delays.
Now if you're stuck on a train in a tunnel because protesters are causing the system to shut down, that's a different situation, but still not decidedly evil or foolish for BART to turn off its cell service. In BART's defense, they did tell everyone earlier in the day to make alternate plans and prepare for delays.
Yes, now I know about it, and I would never have heard about it otherwise.
I'm sure that more flowery rhetoric could be said about the whole business, but I'm going to go with:
Bad BART. Bad. Don't do it ever again.
I'm sure that more flowery rhetoric could be said about the whole business, but I'm going to go with:
Bad BART. Bad. Don't do it ever again.
Was it the underground cell repeaters? Or the cell towers on BART property --for which they lease out the land to telecom providers?
If it's the underground repeaters, that's their business. If it was the towers on Bart property but property of telecoms, then that's problematic -as it interrupts service to non-Bart users.
If it's the underground repeaters, that's their business. If it was the towers on Bart property but property of telecoms, then that's problematic -as it interrupts service to non-Bart users.
They are asserting it's the underground repeaters. Apparently, they approached the telcos and the telcos wouldn't play.
We need to find out who is repsonsible for this. We need public personal accountability for organizational decisions, particularly in the case of public and government services.
We need to find out who is repsonsible for this. We need public personal accountability for organizational decisions, particularly in the case of public and government services.
I believe just the underground repeaters - probably just in San Francisco proper. I had one bar on the east end of the embarcadero station (Verizon), probably from outside, but I couldn't successfully send a text or call. After getting on the train, I figured out they'd shut down the cell service on the platforms/tunnel (no signal until I got above ground at 24th). This was around 4:30pm.
I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
I'm guessing the AT&T customers just figured it was service as usual in SF. :)
Yeah, on AT&T I pretty much give up on using my phone once the train starts moving, even though we're supposed to have service from Civic Center all the way to the Oakland end of the transbay tube.
Additional details on the matter are reported here:
http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-ce...
with BART saying they were within their legal right to shut down the cell service. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
“It’s outrageous that the authorities would resort to the same tactics of the repressive Mubarak regime,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The fact that it was motivated by a desire to stifle free speech raises serious First Amendment problems.”
http://www.baycitizen.org/bart-police-shooting/story/bart-ce...
with BART saying they were within their legal right to shut down the cell service. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation had this to say:
“It’s outrageous that the authorities would resort to the same tactics of the repressive Mubarak regime,” said Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The fact that it was motivated by a desire to stifle free speech raises serious First Amendment problems.”
Isn't it against FCC regs to intentionally cause cell phones to stop working? I remember some prisons wanted to buy cell jammers to prevent inmates from using smuggled phones, but it's illegal.
"Jamming" wireless transmissions does indeed run afoul of FCC regulation; but that's not what they did here.
They disabled the power to the base stations which were deployed in specific locations (locations which are not public property). I assume they argue that they are not under any obligation to provide access to these base stations. I also assume that the base stations in question are either owned by them, or provided by the telcos.
Technically, one of the wireless providers could probably raise a stink that this action made their service look bad, but I seriously doubt they are going to take a stand in this regard.
They disabled the power to the base stations which were deployed in specific locations (locations which are not public property). I assume they argue that they are not under any obligation to provide access to these base stations. I also assume that the base stations in question are either owned by them, or provided by the telcos.
Technically, one of the wireless providers could probably raise a stink that this action made their service look bad, but I seriously doubt they are going to take a stand in this regard.
It's actually potentially more interesting than that.
AM/FM radio stations on licensed frequencies are required to be transmitting. Dead air has to be reported and justified to the FCC, or they can face fines.
I wonder if that sort of thing applies to CDMA/GSM radio towers and repeaters.
I'm trying to ascertain that, but so far lost in a maze of twisty little links on the wireless.fcc.gov site, all alike.
I'd actually be surprised if that was the case though.
I'd actually be surprised if that was the case though.
BART exists to transport people safely and efficiently. I think they do a fantastic job of it. They manage to make BART travel reliable, fast and safe. The presence of a strong and armed police force is necessary and fundamentally a good thing. If disrupting cell service protects riders, then it is the right course of action.
Or would you all prefer BART to protect people's right to tweet at the cost of lives and injuries?
BART rides trough some extremely violent neighborhoods, and carries all kinds of people, rich and poor. The fact that it works as smoothly as it does is a miracle already. Compare it with some of the trashier public transport options out there. Even some MUNI lines have some really creepy things going on on them.
Or would you all prefer BART to protect people's right to tweet at the cost of lives and injuries?
BART rides trough some extremely violent neighborhoods, and carries all kinds of people, rich and poor. The fact that it works as smoothly as it does is a miracle already. Compare it with some of the trashier public transport options out there. Even some MUNI lines have some really creepy things going on on them.
The ability to organize protestations live via cell phones is becoming more popular all around the world.
In response, cell comms are disrupted, of course, by the powers in place.
It is easy to see what the response to _that_ will be... Anonymus showed it brillantly recently at Defcon. Eventually, we will have human-carried miniaturized cell tower repeaters amongst the protesters, insuring local cell coverage.
We live in interesting times...
In response, cell comms are disrupted, of course, by the powers in place.
It is easy to see what the response to _that_ will be... Anonymus showed it brillantly recently at Defcon. Eventually, we will have human-carried miniaturized cell tower repeaters amongst the protesters, insuring local cell coverage.
We live in interesting times...
This is why cell phones need the ability to create a transparent mesh network.
The issue isn't access, it's injustice. Don't let the topic change to some bland consumer access issue -- Why does BART mandate its officers carry lethal force?
>Meanwhile, they also released a digital flyer with the words "muBARTek," "Mystery of Lulz,"<
Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".
Article misquotes. It said "ministry of lulz".
I'm laughing at the fact that BART thinks they can effectively control people with this. This will only make things worse.
I'm speechless. This is insane and I fear it will only get worse.
Apparently the USA is once again taking notes from China and the middle-east.
Wouldn't this effectively be violating freedom of assembly?
Most of the “freedoms” people speak of are really freedoms from government interference. For example, “freedom of speech” doesn’t apply to a symphony hall that requires its patrons to be silent during performances, but it may restrict a government’s ability to enact anti-hate crime legislation.
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
In this case the more interesting issue is that a private entity disrupted telecommunications on its property without notice or warning. In addition to making it difficult for protesters to coördinate their actions, it also made it difficult for people to make unrelated calls, to report crimes, call 911, and so forth.
It might be legal, but I admit I find the idea very unsettling.
BART isn't a private entity, though, it's a government agency.
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
ETA a link to BART's discussion of its formation: http://bart.gov/about/history/index.aspx
Is BART a private entity, or are they state funded/run?
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
I've never been clear on this in most places I've been; I don't know if New York's MTA is part of the city, or if it's a private corporation entrusted with a public utility - and if it is, what are the ramifications?
Most subway systems are actually privately owned/operated, yet state funded entities. Or at least that's my understanding of many of them. The MTA and MBTA are this way I believe.
They're state funded/run given that their officials are voted into office.
If the BART police go around calling themselves "police", carrying side-arms and shooting people, they better be under the state. Plus, they have a ".gov" domain name.
Despite the Republicans wet dreams, we aren't at the stage (yet) where private companies shoot people who don't obey orders or resist.
Despite the Republicans wet dreams, we aren't at the stage (yet) where private companies shoot people who don't obey orders or resist.
I've only lived in SF for 2 weeks, so I wasn't sure if the BART/Muni stuff was public or privately owned.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
Good point though about unrelated calls, 911, crimes, etc. Had something bad happened during that time I imagine they'd be in some (more) hot water right now.
BART's initial statement includes the following:
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.
Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx
The notion that BART areas are not public and subject to the First Amendment ("right to peaceably assemble...") is absurd on its face and in detail.
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...
Of course it's public space. That's where the public is!
And, BART is financed by public money and operated by an agency that reports directly to regional government.
What qualifies as an expressive activity? Saying "I love my friends!" is an expressive activity, and so is saying "BART police shouldn't shoot people who don't deserve to be shot!"
You should definitely be able to "assemble" peaceably and say whatever you want to say.
BART should be within its rights to remove people who actively disrupt the service by blocking platforms or cars or ticket booths, but going beyond that (i.e. removing someone from a train because they were critical of BART or its policies) is too far. If that's what this release is indeed implying...
There is no "the public". There are people with rights going places, which may be publicly or privately owned.
The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
"Macro-control" being the power switch?
Yeah, BART probably knows where the power switches are.
Yeah, BART probably knows where the power switches are.
it sounds like BART just powered down cell towers in their underground stations. then notified the service providers afterwards.
ability-to-disable seems like a pretty basic provision for allowing others' services into one's facilities.
ability-to-disable seems like a pretty basic provision for allowing others' services into one's facilities.
They don't, I don't think. They contacted the providers directly and asked them to do it. They don't just have a magical pull-switch - they just have phones, and apparently a lot of pull.
Another well-sourced story quotes BART Deputy Chief Benson H. Fairow as saying that the "flip was switched" so to speak under his authority, based on the contract that BART has with its wireless providers:
According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.
"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."
Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php
All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.
According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.
"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."
Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php
All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.
Pure speculation on my part, but given the limited suitable equipment space available in each BART station, it's likely that BART has deployed a neutral host (i.e., BART-owned, not carrier-owned) distributed antenna system[1] throughout their stations. In that case, it's easy for them to cut power to the actual RF gear without carrier intervention (and without having to worry about those pesky strings of 48V batteries keeping things running.)
The bigger issue to me is that is almost certainly illegal to willfully disrupt 911 service, and it's unlikely that whoever flipped whatever switch, be it disrupting commercial power to carrier-owned base stations or a BART-owned DAS, was able to disrupt texts/voice calls to other parties selectively without disrupting 911 service.
[1] http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
The bigger issue to me is that is almost certainly illegal to willfully disrupt 911 service, and it's unlikely that whoever flipped whatever switch, be it disrupting commercial power to carrier-owned base stations or a BART-owned DAS, was able to disrupt texts/voice calls to other parties selectively without disrupting 911 service.
[1] http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
That would make more sense - I know from renting commercial space (with cell towers on the roof) that the power and service can be independent of the building (i.e. power comes from the street). Maybe that's not true in BART. I'd agree that their "macro-switch" is probably legal (contractual), rather than a physical switch. I'm interested in hearing a file opinion on this, considering that BART is self powered rather than connected to grid(s) the cities it serves?
I would not be surprised if carriers rented space from BART to deploy equipment and antennas. Which would make BART the landlord, and provider of electrical power.
again, usually cell towers are lease-based and not rented, and the company is in charge of their own electrical power for the tower. The power comes from the street and they have a meter. That being said, maybe BART is different.
News.com still exists?
It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.
It's amazing to me how my primary read for years and years has been totally and utterly eaten alive by tech blogs.
I think that when cell-jammers first became available, the FCC said that they were illegal regardless of whether private citizens used them or municipalities. The FCC is the regulatory body that has the last word on radio technology, and since it is a federal agency the whole area is under federal authority; it isn't an area states and cities can enter into.
This has nothing to do with cell-jammers. BART normally offers cell phone service underground as signal usually can't travel there. They just flipped the switch.
They provided a cel phone repeater as an amenity/courtesy to their passengers. It's not part of their charter to provide cel service.
Their goal is to keep their passengers moving efficiently. By no longer providing that cel service, they disrupted the wannabe disrupters.
Their freedom of assembly wasn't interfered with, they just didn't help it.
If the protesters relied on cel phone coverage to perform their demonstration, then their strategy failed, and they'll have to come up with another way.
They increased the presence of police in the area, so the "how will I call for an ambulance" concern is a bit melodramatic; there were emergency personal already on scene, with non-cel communication capabilities.
Personally, I feel the right to assemble/demonstrate has been extended too far into the area of "I demand the right to fuck up everyone else's day", and applaud BART for doing something about it.