Slashdot Mirror
BART Defends Mobile Service Shutdown
itwbennett writes "In a filing to the FCC, Bay Area Rapid Transit general manager Grace Crunican defended last August's mobile shutdown, saying that 'a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers.' Taking the opposing position, digital rights groups, including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the FCC (PDF) that 'wireless interruption will necessarily prohibit the communications of completely innocent parties — precisely those parties closest to the site where the emergency is located or anticipated.'"
In the interest of the greater good...
sed 's/a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent/anything that could be bad PR/'
temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers
Even if we accept that premise - who decides if "harm and destruction" is imminent? Oh, that's right, BART decides that. A completely unbiased reviewer, they are.
I don't know what the difference is. There is shitty, background service through about the Montgomery station, with blackout points down below the City (don't do that ride much), and MacArthur through Berkeley is a blackout. I know, bitching about spotty service, etc. but try to get anything done on the train. I just read and don't even bother.
The real reason they shut off cell phone service was to disrupt the electronic communication of the organizers of the protest. If there was a 'safety' reason, it was to disrupt the protest in the interest of safety. Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.
I could see their argument if say they had a credible threat of a cellphone-triggered bomb, but trying to disrupt a protest's electronic communication does NOT cut it.
That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them.
Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a contract dispute.
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Heck, BART didn't even have cell phone service in many parts of their system up until a couple of years ago. Especially in the East Bay.
Exactly.
A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.
Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.
But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.
Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?
Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?
There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters
A felony if I'm not mistaken.
but not technically illegal to unplug them. Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.
Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].
If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.
Et tu, Brute?
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
So for all transit operators out there, the apparent takeaway from all this is to not provide any form of cell service in weak areas. Offering a repeater that you can control, and disabling it can be considered a breech of freedoms and make you liable.
Better to just avoid the whole issue and not do anything that'll make your commuters happier. If they want cell service, they can lobby their cell carriers to point antennas directed into the tunnels themselves. And nevermind emergencies - there's always the emergency phones in the trains.
Anyone who wants to text and use their cellphone, can drive instead.
My mobile never works on the London Underground, protest or no protest.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
By that logic it's quite acceptable to cut gas, water, power and a lot of other things to any place you might wish (provided you're the government), for no other reason than "I wanna", because humanity survived for ages without any of those. Don't like that blogger? Snip his wire!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Living this close to the former iron curtain, I have heard and read that kind of apologies before. Every time there was an unrest in one of those countries, something like this would be sprouted. "For the safety", "to protect order", "to keep people from misusing tools" and "what could have happened if we didn't step in".
So far the difference is still that we don't get shot.
At least not yet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Nobody shut down a cellular site.
Bart shut down THEIR OWN repeaters in the subway. The street level commercial services were not affected.
Now don't you feel stupid for not reading TFA.?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
They don't want you to upload videos of unarmed, handcuffed Black males the BART Police have shot in the back before they have had a chance to confiscate your cell phone.