On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@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 -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
