> On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
>>> TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
>>> Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
>>
>> The t
On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for
that translat
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin
On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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
On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water,
baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority
to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby
bottles, etc. on BART trains.
You can carry
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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
> As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby
> bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc.
on BART trains.
You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. Yo
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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 co
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>
>> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
>> of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
>> phone companies to allow this, th
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
>> I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
>> likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
>
> Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as l
On 10/8/2014 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
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?
Which, i
On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli 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 equi
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 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
>>> backha
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 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:
>
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy 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,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy 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.
>>>
>>> How
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
expec
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas
WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The
rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you
outlined.
Dan
On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
> I have a question for the compa
On 10/8/2014 00:35, 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 expectati
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'r
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.
pgpz6n3Z670ZN
On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote:
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphas
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recogn
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>
> > The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> > of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> > phone companies to a
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone servic
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special"
> local cell tower all their phone
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
> I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
> likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as
they are not breaking reception to nearby properti
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
the mobile carrier is the primary
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using
their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of
company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone
service they offered and block cell ph
31 matches
Mail list logo
