Comment by egiva
14 years ago
The justification being that the area isn't "public" so the right to public assembly doesn't apply? I find it really interesting that they have that sort of macro-control on the cell broadcast antennas in the BART stations in order to turn service on and off...that implies a system to control or coordinate wireless broadcast access throughout the system...
"Macro-control" being the power switch?
Yeah, BART probably knows where the power switches are.
it sounds like BART just powered down cell towers in their underground stations. then notified the service providers afterwards.
ability-to-disable seems like a pretty basic provision for allowing others' services into one's facilities.
They don't, I don't think. They contacted the providers directly and asked them to do it. They don't just have a magical pull-switch - they just have phones, and apparently a lot of pull.
Another well-sourced story quotes BART Deputy Chief Benson H. Fairow as saying that the "flip was switched" so to speak under his authority, based on the contract that BART has with its wireless providers:
According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.
"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."
Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php
All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.
Pure speculation on my part, but given the limited suitable equipment space available in each BART station, it's likely that BART has deployed a neutral host (i.e., BART-owned, not carrier-owned) distributed antenna system[1] throughout their stations. In that case, it's easy for them to cut power to the actual RF gear without carrier intervention (and without having to worry about those pesky strings of 48V batteries keeping things running.)
The bigger issue to me is that is almost certainly illegal to willfully disrupt 911 service, and it's unlikely that whoever flipped whatever switch, be it disrupting commercial power to carrier-owned base stations or a BART-owned DAS, was able to disrupt texts/voice calls to other parties selectively without disrupting 911 service.
[1] http://www.infinigy.com/PDF/InfinigyNeutralHostWhitepaper.pd...
That would make more sense - I know from renting commercial space (with cell towers on the roof) that the power and service can be independent of the building (i.e. power comes from the street). Maybe that's not true in BART. I'd agree that their "macro-switch" is probably legal (contractual), rather than a physical switch. I'm interested in hearing a file opinion on this, considering that BART is self powered rather than connected to grid(s) the cities it serves?
I would not be surprised if carriers rented space from BART to deploy equipment and antennas. Which would make BART the landlord, and provider of electrical power.
again, usually cell towers are lease-based and not rented, and the company is in charge of their own electrical power for the tower. The power comes from the street and they have a meter. That being said, maybe BART is different.
Yup and at the same time the trains did not roll for 3 hours earlier in the week because of a 'routing problem' with their system that is from the 1970s.
Good job BART. BART and you're there....if the trains can make it!
And pavel, if you read the article you'll see that BART pulled the plug, not ATT or anyone else.