  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  FCC on thin ice to do anything
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
 |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: FCC on thin ice to do anything said by Romney2012:If BART had jammed the cell signals, then clearly the FCC would have some authority to sanction BART as jamming is against the law. But all BART did was request that the providers turn off the cell towers in their stations(they all complied). I don't think the FCC has any authority at all to demand specific cell towers be active.
I think BART shut of the repeaters in the stations. I don't know who owns/operates them.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed. | |
|
| | | I can see the merit of what you say, but isn't that an "easy" way to skirt around the rules? | |
|
| | | | Re: FCC on thin ice to do anything said by jjeffeory:I can see the merit of what you say, but isn't that an "easy" way to skirt around the rules?
My understanding was that they just shut off BART provided power to the repeaters. If that is the case, there are no rules to be skirted. There MIGHT be a breach of contract issue with the providers, if a contract exists, but that is about it. This certainly isn't a first amendment issue.
On the other hand, claiming the 1st amendment doesn't apply inside the gates....... well thats just the type of statement that should get someone canned. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I thought BART just turned off the power to the equipment that provides cell service in their system and notified the cell providers of their intent/action. I'm not sure they asked or informed. | |
|
| |
| | | |  Re: FCC on thin ice to do anything
| |
|
|  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
 ·Comcast
| Sorry but to me jamming and or shutting off power to cell sites puts more people at risk then whatever knee jerk reaction they had to a protest and used the public safety argument to justify doing it,the last timed I checked my property taxes help pay for police that are there to keep stuff from getting out of hand. | |
|
| | AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | Re: FCC on thin ice to do anything said by camaro92:...the last timed I checked my property taxes help pay for police that are there to keep stuff from getting out of hand.
But everyone want to take the easy way out. And we don't pay police to get into harm's way.
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed. | |
|
| |  56403739Less than 5 months leftPremium
join:2006-03-08
Naples, FL
kudos:2 | You live in San Francisco? | |
|
| | | camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | Re: FCC on thin ice to do anything I think you get the point of what I was trying to say friend. | |
|
| | Not sure what the big deal is.... I'm normally a big advocate of civil liberties, etc. However, I'm not sure what the big deal is on this one...
Let's say Disney operated wireless repeaters in their parks so that customers could easily use their wireless phones. (I have no idea if Disney does this -- based on the signal strength I get at Disney parks, I am guessing they have some infrastructure support.) One day, Disney decides they want to shut off those repeaters for some reason (high cost, maintenance, aesthetics, terrorism threat, etc).
Has Disney just violated my right to free speech? No. They just shut off a repeater operating within their property. Assuming their contracts with the cellular companies allow this, the action is completely legal.
Now, BART DOES operate wireless repeaters in their stations through agreements with cellular companies. Apparently, their agreements with those cellular companies allow them to disable those repeaters. The fact that BART disabled them to stop a (potential) protest is no different then Disney shutting them off because they need to do maintenance on the structure they are contained in.
If the federal/state/local government had ordered the cellular companies to shut off service for the entire area -- that would be MUCH different. BART just shut off repeaters located within their station.
We can go even further with this -- if Starbucks shuts off their WiFi because people are using it to organize demonstrations, has Starbucks done anything illegal? Absolutely not. They are not required to provide or maintain wireless service.
BART is not required to provide or maintain wireless service in its stations (other then the contacts which they have with the carriers). Therefore, assuming those contracts permit, they can shut off service at any time, for any reason, even if it is just because the damn repeaters are ugly. | |
|
|  KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... I agree with you one hundred percent BSchlinker  . If too much of a fuss is made over this, plan on seeing BART just remove all wireless access. You can't argue that it is a right for you to have wireless access. Wireless access is just a convenience that BART offers.
I do however find it humorous that BART seems to think that it is its own sovereign country once you pass the fair gates. Sorry BART, but I don't give up my rights just to use your services, might want to check with legal on that one.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything? | |
|
| | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... said by Kilroy:I do however find it humorous that BART seems to think that it is its own sovereign country once you pass the fair gates. Sorry BART, but I don't give up my rights just to use your services, might want to check with legal on that one.
Public spaces don't guarantee the rights to hold demonstrations or guarantee free speech. For example shopping malls are open to the public, but they can restrict demonstrations and limit free speech. BART, however is a "transit district" , and they can either be governmental agencies or a chartered corporation. It appears that Bart was organized as a special governmental agency. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_R···vernance
But they are not per se a government. I don't know what the legal implications for free speech are involved with the type of agency they are. I am sure a bunch of highly paid lawyers could fight that out in court for many years.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88 | |
|
| | |  jslikThat just happenedPremium
join:2006-03-17 | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... Agreed with your analysis. As the ban was "content neutral", this should meet the so-called "TPM" standard that the Supreme Court holds in free speech zone cases:The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words. --
If they told you wolverines make good house pets, would you believe them? | |
|
|
1 edit | The big deal is that someone is shutting off your phone service, which is still a little more essential than wifi. All towers are privately owned, often by 3rd parties which lease them to the phone companies, but there is no excuse for arbitrarily shutting down critical infrastructure. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... [EDIT: Nice of you to change your response after I replied.... I'll update my response once yours remains stable]
If the contract with the carrier allows this, sure.
Will I be happy if all of the cell towers in my area are disabled? No. But if my cellular provider (Sprint) was dumb enough to contractually allow them to freely enable / disable the network in the area, then I guess I need to provide a new provider. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... Shutting off common cell services is probably not a good idea. The government in some cases also operates on these cell systems too. Freedom of speech isn't stopped here. My mouth still says what I want it to say. I still with or without a cell device can speak my peace. 1st amendment right though should be absolute being tv, newspaper, media or wireless device. Try and now stop a newspaper. I dare ya. | |
|
| | | | BART or any other Government agency has no responsibility to supply the public with Cellphone service nor is it a violation of ones 1st amendment to NOT ensure Cellphone service. If you want to use your cellphone leave the station and go where you can get cellphone service.
That being said, I don't particularly agree with the decision but then I'm not responsible for the lives and property of BART personnel as well as the public at large. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... Wrong, if I own a movie theater and put ferrite tiles all over to block cell phone usage, and someone needs 911, cannot access it, and is injured, then I can get sued and I would expect to lose.
This is exactly why you do no see such passive blocking techniques being commercialized. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... There is a difference here and I agree with Twaddle. Neither BART or anyone else (beyond the cell providers themselves) has the obligation to provide phone or data service. They offer the service as a benefit to their patrons and decided to stop offering that service.
Had BART shut down their repeaters AND taken actions to block signals from local towers then they would be responsible for blocking access to emergency services.
That said, I wish movie theaters could passively block cellphones. At a minimum, employ some snipers  | |
|
| | | | |
| |  nplnUs Army
join:2000-07-17
Antioch, CA | just my 2 cents.......B.A.R.T. began service in Sep. 1972. I've used BART since the mid 80's. It started offering cell phone coverage in their underground tunnels around 2005! so to call that service "critical infrastructure" is a little far fetched! Does it make it easier for me to keep track of my kid yes!
"Free speech" I'm all for it, I even joined the Army at 17 to defend it (early 90's). Organized protest is a beautiful thing, two thumbs up. I may even join in.
The protest should of been "organized" in front of BART Headquarters not at the station. Of course most would probably say that its more appropriate to protest where the shooting of Charles Hill, on July 3rd happened. I personally don't have any sympathy to those that disrupt transit for all that are just trying to get home to their families. Regardless of what they are protesting about.
--
The Future is uncertain but the END is always near! Jim Morrison | |
|
| | | So if your mom or daughter or sister was being threatenened in the bart system, and could no longer call for help, is that no big deal to you? | |
|
| | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... They only shut off service at stations where there were already plenty of cops available to handle any such emergency.
If you are going to respond by telling me the cops would be unable / unreliable in responding to such a situation, then why even bother calling 911? | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | I don't necessarily disagree. However, if Disney provides amplification of signals for their guests, what obligation do they have to their guests who up until that point have relied on using that infrastructure to keep track of family members or rely on it for emergencies?
I generally agree that if they operate this infrastructure, they do so as a perk to their guests, but because it involves something that could be considered vital in an emergency, they should shut the system down in an orderly manner with ample notification so that their customers can adapt.
OTOH, shutting it down as a tactical decision to thwart coordinated violence is a genuine reason to take such an action.
What we need, if they don't already exist, is clear rules when an organization can take these actions and punishment/fines when they take action in the wrong context. Isn't this the same as when a police officer uses deadly force? Aren't they placed on administrative leave until an investigation is completed. If they had no alternatives or it's deemed as some kind of freak accident, they are reinstated. If not, they generally lose their job and are potentially prosecuted for negligent behavior. Then comes the surviving family's civil suit.
Why wouldn't we have rules for BART or Disney that are similar. We certainly cannot say NO 100% of the time and we cannot delay the response by requiring a judge grant them permission. That means there needs to be a framework of rules, an investigation and a system of fines/penalties when they are judged to have exceeded their authority. | |
|
| chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| Disney isn't a governmental entity, BART is. That's the difference here. Disney has the right to censor what goes on in their theme park because the neither the United States nor California Constitution prevent private entities from censoring each other. BART is funded by California tax payers, run by people appointed by elected officials and has a .gov domain name.
So last I checked that means BART is a government entity, and as such it is bound by the first amendment. Also intent matters here, BART turned off access with the INTENT of preventing the free flow of information and ideas. This is where I believe they violated the law. It is one thing to accidentally do something that harms people's ability to communicate such as performing routine maintenance that causes an outage. It is another to intentionally inhibit people's ability to communicate in an attempt to hide new information. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not sure what the big deal is.... You have still failed to explain why BART is obligated to provide customers with access to wireless repeaters.
Intent matters? Do you have anything backing this statement up? | |
|
|  DavidNow accepting new patientsPremium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:70 | Spot on my good fellow poster, spot on!! | |
|
| |
 EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA | BART Stock Holders They say people do not have first amendment rights inside their gates, is BART a government run entity? There's no way BART or the MBTA for example here own ALL the property they use or run through. So if our tax dollars are paying for their property / infrastructure and they're not a private stock holder held company then guess what we do have rights. | |
|
| | | Re: BART Stock Holders said by Edrick:They say people do not have first amendment rights inside their gates, is BART a government run entity? There's no way BART or the MBTA for example here own ALL the property they use or run through. So if our tax dollars are paying for their property / infrastructure and they're not a private stock holder held company then guess what we do have rights.
BART is not a private entity. | |
|
| | | | Re: BART Stock Holders said by fifty nine
BART is not a private entity.
»www.bart.gov/ | |
|
| | EdrickI aspire to tell the story of a lifetimePremium
join:2004-09-11
Woburn, MA | said by fifty nine:said by Edrick:They say people do not have first amendment rights inside their gates, is BART a government run entity? There's no way BART or the MBTA for example here own ALL the property they use or run through. So if our tax dollars are paying for their property / infrastructure and they're not a private stock holder held company then guess what we do have rights.
BART is not a private entity. Exactly that was my point they're financed by our tax dollars which means it's basically government property and we DO have freedom of speech. Contrary to what BART claims once you walk through the fair gate.
--
Edrick Smith
Independent Film & Broadcast Producer
»edricksmith.com | |
|
| | | | | Re: BART Stock Holders How far you think you would get with the Free Speech argument is going to get you inside the grounds of the White House? | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: BART Stock Holders But you are likely stopped there not because of what you are saying but because of the threat you represent. It's also NOT a place where the general public is welcomed unless by prior arrangement.
I understand what you are saying regarding not all government property is, well, public. And even though we can visit the White House with some sort of tour group (i.e. think ticket/pre-arranged invitation) which is similar to entering BART with some sort of purchased ticket, the two seem to be significantly different in terms of their function. One is a "private" residence granted to the public official who occupies the office and the place where they conduct the business of that office. This is no different than the public probably isn't welcome at the CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon, etc. The general public serves no purpose inside these facilities even though they are owned and operated by the public.
OTOH, BART needs the general public in their space and invites them inside in order to conduct its function. I'm not sure I would then consider us government employees while we are in the system and therefore somehow have different rights as employees. | |
|
 exocet_cmYou delete it, I'll find itPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | Oh really? quote:
BART spokesman tells the San Francisco Chronicle that BART riders "don't have the right to free speech inside the fare gates."
BART resides within the United States of America, doesn't it?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Publilius Syrus
Ma blog: »www.johndball.com | |
|
|
See 14 replies to this post |
|
| | But do they have the unlimited free speech [wireless] plan that was grandfore-fathered in?
(Is that BART's private property "inside the gates"? 'cause if it is, then I guess you don't have any more free speech there than you do on an airplane.) | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Oh Grow Up! While San Francisco is probably the worst offender in the country when it comes to ignoring the Constitution, and Bart PD ranks up there with the Keystone cops, a temporary cessation of wireless access in a limited space for purposes of preventing a riot - is in no way a First Amendment violation.
I suppose those calling for "free speech" (the right to throw rocks and bottles) would prefer that riot police were forced to respond with bean bags, billy clubs, tear gas and water cannons? (Indeed, they do.)
Go home. Schedule a peaceable assembly in the park, with a permit.
Your Blue State governance will fall all over itself to let you be heard. | |
|
|  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Oh Grow Up! there was never going to be a riot. there was going to be a protest. If anything they were worried that their subway cops would shoot more innocent people. | |
|
| | | | Re: Oh Grow Up! Were you there inside the stations? Were you one that was forced to wait 3-45 hours to get home? Or were you one of the cretins that blocked doors so that trains could not let passengers off or on . Maybe you were the idiot that climbed on top of a BART car.
It was not a riot but it was by no means a peaceful demonstration. Your right to free speech does not over ride my rights to a safe and secure use of a public agency/service.
| |
|
| | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Oh Grow Up! you don't have a right to the trains. you can be banned from them.
my right to protest does supersede your use of the trains. you have feet, use them. Sometimes life gets inconvenient when you have to protect basic civil liberties. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Oh Grow Up! oh so its okay for you to infringe on my rights in the name of civil liberties eh? What made your rights more important or just than mine eh? I can be banned form the trains on what grounds- civil disobedience by infringing on your rights? You see how circular this gets don't you? Or is your viewpoint on life so self-centered that you ignore those who don't see it your way.
Peaceful protest against a real threat to civil liberties guaranteed by Constitutional law is valid only when it does not endanger the lives of others. | |
|
| | | | | FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | Re: Oh Grow Up! what right of yours are you talking about? the train is not a right. | |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Anyone? Where's the crazy dude who plows through every news thread like this screaming "net neutrality violation!!!"? This seems like it would be right up his alley.... | |
|
| | What about 911 service? I'm surprised no one mentioned the disruption of 911 Emergency services cause by shutting down the repeaters. | |
|
| | Maybe this is not First Amendment issue for FCC The first thing that occurred to me when I heard about BART turning off power to the cell sites in the BART stations was not First Amendment, but rather interference with licensed radio service. The same thing that prohibits prisons from installing cell jammers to keep inmates from using cell phones. This question is something that clearly is in the purview of the FCC. Nothing required BART to contract with the cell providers to set up service in the BART tunnels and stations, but once they were installed, they are a part of the cell network, and one could argue that BART has no more right to disable them by killing power to the sites than it has to disable them by turning on jammers.
Just tossing the point out for discussion. | |
|
| | | Re: Maybe this is not First Amendment issue for FCC Bingo. The FCC will litigate this. It's a very good way to expand their power base so I'd expect BART to get sued before the month is out. | |
|
| | | THE REAL ISSUE IS DEPRIVING PEOPLE OF 911!
As for first amendment issues, if there was a riot or unlawful gathering, the government could easily get the twitter messages and arrest people very quickly under well understood incitement laws.
It would be so easy, they could use a VBscript to fill out the warrrants..... | |
|
| | BART While BART may have control of the power to these cell repeaters, they do not have the authority to arbitrarily shut them off at their discretion. The best analogy I have is this: If a cell provider elected to install a cell tower on the roof of my work building, and I decided as the manager of my comapny that I didn't want my employees talking/texting while working so I went and turned off the power to the cell tower, there would probably be some pretty serious repurcussions for me. Same applies for BART. Mess with telecommunications stuff, and the FCC is gonna come-a-callin. | |
|
| | | Re: BART What exactly do you mean by "authority"??
If BART's contract with the cell providers gives them the authority to shut off these repeaters, then how do they lack the authority??
If I run a repeater in my home or business, do I need the FCC's permission to shut it off? How about a microcell like a Sprint Airave?
Does a wireless provider not have the "authority" to shut off service if they go out of business? | |
|
| | | | Re: BART I have yet to see anything that states that BART has the authority to shut off these cell sites/repeaters.
Generally repeaters that you have in your home only affect you, or if you've opened it up to anyone, then anyone within a certain radius of your home will be affected. However, they'll certainly be able to make a call over the local cell tower provided there is sufficient signal.
I'm sure that a wireless provider has the ability to shut off service if they go out of business. But that is not the point here. The point is that BART has interfered with cellular service which is beyond the scope of their normal business (transporting passengers.) | |
|
| | | | You have to differentiate between acts of god and deliberate acts by the party who can foresee the consequences.
If you operate a repeater and someone comes to the conclusion they have reliable cell service in your area for many months, and then they suffer insult or injury because you shut it off, I bet any lawyer could take you to court.
Imagine if someone was using 911 while you shut it off.
Wapner would need less than 5 minutes.
But if the power goes out or you blow a circuit breaker, then its less likely they have a case. | |
|
| | This is a very fine line. My guess how this works is the signal in the BART stations is distributed via a Bi-Directional Amplifier. (Same thing used in big buildings and hospitals) to improve coverage where it isn't available. It is going to depend on who owns these amplifiers (Possibly the carrier, possibly BART) I am not saying I agree with turning them off because I dont. However, if BART owns these Devices they are not even required to have them at all. If the provider owns them the provider has every right to turn these devices off, as does BART. It is provided more as a courtesy for commuters and anyone in the stations who wants to use a cell phone. If they were owned by the Taxpayers then that is entirely a different story. But my guess is they are not. I know these devices cost roughly $20,000 to install (that's including all the gear and labor) I doubt they shut the Entire cell site down as that would have impacted more then just BART station users. Remember, I am not saying I agree with what happened, but technically I don't believe any laws were broken as much as I hate to say it. | |
|
| | | Re: BART said by Panthergm: If they were owned by the Taxpayers then that is entirely a different story. But my guess is they are not. If they are owned by BART, then they are owned by the taxpayers, since BART is a government agency. But I think that in this case, they were installed by the cell providers under a contract with BART. | |
|
| | | | Re: BART I believe you are right. As I know from personal experience Cell providers DO NOT LIKE IT when people install their own amplifiers as it screws with the infastructure and causes the engineers all kinds of problems. In most cases the customer (In this case BART) contacts the cell provider, the cell provider then contacts their engineering department, who then assesses the sitution and what is needed, and then either installs it themselves or has an authorized contractor install them for them. | |
|
| | | | | Re: BART But, if BART Shut down an entire cell site then they would be in a lot of trouble yes, however I dont believe they did and only shut off the Amplifiers/Repeaters which technically they can do and they're not breaking any laws. As it doesn't impact the Cell Phone Network Infrastructure. | |
|
| rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Agreed that if they are owned by BART, they can shut them down but as others have mentioned, if they have operated them in a manner where folks assume cell coverage and suddenly they don't have it and suffer harm in an emergency, BART could be negligent for failing to shut it down in an orderly manner so the public can adapt.
I don't think this is a free speech issue but if they don't exist, we need rules as to when this kind of action can be taken in the best interest of the public. For instance, what if BART was alerted by passengers that several drug dealers were on its trains conducting contraband sales using their cell phones. Furthermore their presence on the trains was scaring commuters. However, they have a pattern from hopping from train to train in such a manner that BART's police force cannot easily keep track of them. In this case, I don't think BART should be able to shut down the entire cell network in their system to encourage the perpetrators to exit the trains. | |
|
PrntRhdPremium
join:2004-11-03
Fairfield, CA Reviews:
·Comcast
| Another demonstration come and gone on Monday, this time BART did not turn off the cellphone equipment, they simply shut down each of the stations where the 60 demonstrators entered and ordered everyone to leave. They then reopened the stations immediately after the stations were cleared.
What is the objective the protestors are trying to achieve?
To shut down BART whenever they have a political bone to pick with any authority?
To have the BART police and other law enforcement officers police without guns because the protestors "don't like that"?
To get a court to issue a restraining order that allows ACLU lawyers to challenge of any action of BART even though ACLU is neither appointed nor elected to manage the government agency by the people of California?
You have a First Amendment right to protest military actions of the US but you do not have the right to enter restricted areas of military bases to do so.
The BART spokesperson is incorrect, demonstrators do have a First Amendment right to peacefully protest on BART property. You don't have so much in the paid areas, and demonstrators have little to no right to violent protest anywhere on BART properties. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: BART I think the protesters are simply leading up to starting riots, tossing shopping carts onto the BART tracks, setting fires in stations, torching cars, and injuring innocent people who are only trying to get to work. These days protesters are far more interested in full scale riots than simply protesting whatever they are trying to protest. There are legitimate issues, and peaceful protest is legal, but these days there are few peaceful protests. | |
|
| | One of the articles on this issue says that the service that was shut down was provided by BART, using a company called "WiFi Rail". The hardware in question was described as "fiber optic lines, routers, and access points".
If this is what BART shut down, it was a WiFi network, rather than a cell phone network. It would be the equivalent of the manager at Starbucks deciding to unplug their hotspot so all the people camping with their laptops would go elsewhere.
Does anyone know what really happened and what was shut down? Or is everyone just jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate news reports? | |
|
| | | Re: Did they really disable cell service? I was confused too when I saw that "WiFi Rail" reference. What was shut down was cellular access (Verizon Wireless, at&t Mobility, SprintPCS, et. al.). News reports showed cell phones reporting "No Service". If a WiFi network (as suggested by the term "access points") was ALSO shut down (and I don't know if there even is one on BART), then that is something unrelated to the issue at hand. | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
