On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehau...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >>>> On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said: >>>>>> The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty >>>>>> sure. >>>>> >>>>> However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an >>>>> expectation >>>>> that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>> Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract? >>> >>> Obligated by the FCC license >> >> Hi Larry, Roy: >> >> 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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
