Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

[Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon () cox net>]

On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy <r.engehausen () gmail com> wrote:
> > On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> > > On 10/7/2014 23:44, Valdis.Kletnieks () 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.
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes