RE: Marriott wifi blocking

["Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund () medline com>]

Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety functionality.  It really does not even 
matter who owns the repeaters.  Let's say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to 
purposely deny public service.    You can almost guarantee that an FCC enforcement action will result because carriers 
have a public safety responsibility.  The state communications commission could even pull your license for that and the 
FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum licenses for using a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public.  
BART disrupting cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to disrupt 911 service which is illegal whether you 
own the gear or not.  I don't know what the exact rule currently is but I'm sure it would take someone like Homeland 
Security to shut down a cellular network for "national security" reasons.  For example, interrupting a cellular bomb 
detonator or a coordinated terrorist attack.  The legal concept of "greater good" comes into effect at that point.

As a common carrier, I know I would not shut down anything that affects 911 service deliberately without either the 
proper notifications taking place or a federal court order in my hand (and it better be federal because those are the 
laws you are asking me to throw out here).  The funny thing about cell service (or repeaters in this case) is that 
there isn't usually a mandate to provide coverage in any particular area but once you provide it you are on the hook to 
maintain it and not purposely disrupt it.  Again, it is the intent in this case that matters.  If BART had a 
maintenance problem or the equipment was damaged, they would be off the hook but they purposely interrupted the service 
to deny communications services to a group of users.  Cell sites go down all the time for maintenance scheduled or 
otherwise but if you are doing it to purposely deny service, it's another story.   Again, intent matters...a lot.

I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itself, but not nice for sure) and for sure civil 
liability, not so much a 1st Amendment issue since the government is under no real obligation to give you the means to 
communicate (like repeaters).  It's the 911 service disruption that is most criminal here.

Steve


> However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this case, repeaters with unclear ownership 
> operated by cellular providers were shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's not active 
> jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other >areas of concern, however, such as 1st amendment 
> violations, abuse of authority, potential civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected manner, etc.

> Owen