The ultimate fear being someone getting bumped off an overcrowded platform onto the track. I don’t know much about what the BART stations look like, though, or whether this would be a reasonable fear.
From my experience with BART, yes, this is a reaonsable fear in many stations during rush hour.
Well, I came in here to basically agree that it was a violation of 1st Amendment rights to block communications and stifle free speech, but…well, looking at this more closely, that’s not what happened. If BART just shut down their own repeaters, well…that was well within their rights to do. They were THEIR repeaters, provided for the convinence of their customers, not an inalienable right. Protesters trying to organize would have had to take the uncomfortable option of walking to a stair case or some other place where they could get reception in the terminal, or, gasp…go outside to arrange the protest! :eek:
I would think that the English would have the same issue as we would wrt cutting off cell service. It’s one thing to turn off repeaters in your station/rail system, another to order (I presume) a cellular provider (or multiple providers) to shut off actual cell service in an area. I can see all sorts of public safety issues with that, let alone the violations it would entail.
I think it’s more an issue of whether as a private corporation you have the right to stop providing a service of convenience to your customers (repeated cellular service in an area where normal cell service is limited or non-existent), or whether you are obligated to provide this service regardless. I’d say that it’s up to the company or organization. You don’t have a right to cell service repeaters…it’s an additional service that’s being offered.
Now…if they are talking about shutting down regular cellular service into and area, well, that’s a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I’d have a MAJOR problem with that as a method to stifle public protest or for any other purported ‘public safety’ reason.
-XT
So you’re OK with shutting off service to one area, but upset about shutting it off in another?
No…I’m ok with shutting off repeaters that are being provided for convenience by the people providing them, and not ok with forcing providers to shut off or firewall general services in an area in the name of ‘public safety’. What I said seemed pretty straight forward to me…is there still any confusion?
-XT
What I got from that is that XT is ok with a business turning off repeaters that they own that are there simply to make it easier for customers to use their cell phones while on their property, but not okay with a cell companies shutting down service to certain areas or a city.
OTOH, cell phone companies are private business…shouldn’t they be allowed to cut service to a certain area for whatever reason they choose? I think the issue is going to be if the government called all the cell phone companies and asked them (or forced them) to cut network access in a given area. And that, I think, is really what the problem is. BART is a publicly owned company.
I think if the exact same scenario happened, but the trains were privately run, it wouldn’t be nearly as big of a deal and certainly the name Orwell wouldn’t have come up.
Yes, exactly. I would probably have an issue with, say, Sprint and every other cellular provider in a geographic area decided to shut off phone service in some city to stifle protest and assembly, even though they are a private company, which I don’t have an issue with a public concern shutting off repeaters in their facility to do the same thing. I guess the equivalent would be if I shut off wireless access to the public in one of my buildings as opposed to shutting off all data services to everyone in one of those buildings. The public WiFi access is provided for convenience, and I have no problem with shutting it off if necessary, while it would take something fairly dire for me to shut off ALL access, and not something I’d approve of to stifle protest and assembly, which I find perfectly acceptable.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but the best I could come up with waiting for my dinner to arrive. 
-XT
Bart shut off service to a particular area.
A cellphone company shuts off service to a particular area.
What’s the difference? To the user, the result is the same. In the specific area, they can’t use their communication devices because of the actions of one company.
Does the size of the area matter? The only difference is the coverage.
Does the technology used matter? The end result is the same.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
What’s the difference?
[/QUOTE]
Turning off repeaters (that BART put in as a convenience for it’s customers to get extended service) in a subway is different than shutting off all cellular service in an area. I guess I don’t understand why the difference is hard to grasp. Not being snarky, I really don’t understand why you don’t see the difference. 
It is as long as they stay in the subway or in terminals with minimal or no service I suppose. But if they walk a 100 feet away and out of the LOS shadow then they would have service again.
Got to hate that, considering they only HAVE that extended service because BART put in repeaters. It’s not part of the normal cell service, or they wouldn’t need repeaters to get signal into those areas.
I’m making some assumptions here, since I haven’t really looked into the article deeply and am going on what the OP posted…but normal cell service from the standard cell towers wasn’t disrupted in the area, only extended service in areas that the cell vendors didn’t cover with their normal service.
In some places you can get a city area WiFi. If we are in at a Starbucks that offers it’s own WiFi and the city service doesn’t work well (or at all), and Starbucks decides to shut it off, well…sucks to be you, if you wanted to play some WoW while drinking your mocha latte.
The technology doesn’t really matter, no…but what is being done, how it was done and who it affected DOES matter in this case. Like I said, I came into the thread prepared to blast the folks who were blocking free speech, but that’s not what happened here IMHO. The fact that these folks would have to walk up some stairs or maybe a block or two to do their tweets and organize their protest just doesn’t do anything for me, RO-wise.
-XT
BART not being a private company does change the equation quite a bit legally, although I can see the argument that in this case it’s not that much different.
The 1st Amendment argument there (I’m not sure whether I buy it or not; I’m just kind of spitballing) is that once the government opens a forum up for public speech, it has to abide by the strict standards of free speech, even where it could have simply not opened the forum up in the first place. In other words, whereas for Starbucks or whomever it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to point out that they don’t have to offer wifi at all, so they can shut it down whenever they like, to protect whatever interest they like, the government can’t quite rely on the same rationale. Once there’s “speech” going on, doing anything to restrict it, if it violates somebody’s 1st Amendment rights, can’t be defended on the grounds that they could have just never allowed any expression at all. Like if the government builds a park with a little outdoor stage, and then they find out there’s a Klan rally planned for that space, they can’t suddenly conveniently decide to close the park for renovations for that weekend – even though they could certainly have just never built the park in the first place. The repeaters here are the park, and the government shut it down.
There’s still the question of whether shutting down the repeaters was actually justified, even if you accept the above. I suspect that mostly just comes down to one’s politics. It’s an interesting question, though; one of those things that seems reasonable in this one case, but with kind of frightening implications.
If it so easy to get around it, why turn it off in the first place?
What if a cellphone company shut down a single tower? You can always get a signal from another one, or drive a block.
What we are discussing is not the concept, but the degree.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
If it so easy to get around it, why turn it off in the first place?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know…why didn’t they? I can tell you that if they were using signal repeaters then that pre-supposed that there is signal somewhere fairly close. Of course, they could be talking about micro-cells or something similar, which means that there is no cell service in the area at all, and they are using their own internet connections to connect to the vendors cellular service. Regardless, it’s an extra service that BART is providing their customers…not a holy and indelible right that their customers have to service.
If a single vendor shut down an entire tower, then most likely they would be disrupting multiple vendors service, since in my experience cell vendors rent space on a given tower and don’t own the entire tower…or if they do, they work out a peering agreement, which they would be in violation of if they deliberately took down an entire tower. (BTW, ‘towers’ can mean a lot of different things)
We are having a different discussion then. To me, there should be no expectation of service outside of the service provided by your vendor. So, if I’m in the middle of bumfuck New Mexico where there is no cell service, but Parks and Rec puts in a repeater for my convenience, then that’s something extra that is beyond what I should expect. If some yahoos decide to do some silly shit and Parks and Rec shuts off their repeaters, well…tough titty, since my regular cell vendor doesn’t provide service in that area and I shouldn’t have any expectation of service.
-XT
I think maybe the technology behind cellphone repeaters might be confusing the issue.
Let us instead posit a different scenario. Imagine a large business park off an interstate exit, this business often has visitors coming to its location, and even has some customers coming by from time to time. The business buys business class internet service from some random ISP (let’s just say Comcast.) At some point the business made the decision to create an open WiFi network for visitors and customers to use while at the location.
The business has not become a common carrier, a service provider, or anything of that nature. They are customers of an ISP, who have made the legally acceptable decision to share their internet connection using wireless technology. This business is not considered a provider of internet service just because they are turning on the access, they are instead simply a private entity sharing its infrastructure with visitors to its facility as a convenience/nicety.
No one that comes to this business facility is doing so to receive wireless internet service, this business has no contractual relationship with anyone who comes to this facility to provide them with wireless internet service, again, it’s just a convenience.
Now, let’s say this business has done something politically objectionable, and attracted a large crowd of protesters that surround the business property with signs and etc. Let’s presume the protesters are doing their protesting from public lands that happen to border very close to the business facilities.
Now, the network administrator at the business notices since the protests began, a huge increase in usage of the network has happened. He looks into it and sees hundreds of people connecting wireless to the network. Since these people are here to protest and cause trouble for the business, the business leadership decides to turn off the wireless network to disallow the protesters the free use of said network.
Did the business do anything illegal? I’d say absolutely not. Did BART do anything illegal? Well, let’s compare the two situations and posit ways in which it could have been illegal.
In my scenario, the business is not turning off the internet, they are turning off a method of access to their internet connection that they provided with their infrastructure. In the BART scenario, BART is not turning off the cellular phone networks. Cellular networks work with towers that are owned by telecom companies, these towers broadcast and receive cell signals and allow phone calls to be made. BART did not turn off the towers owned by AT&T or Verizon or whoever. Instead, what BART appears to have done, is take cell phone repeaters that BART installed, and turned them off.
If BART had gone up to an AT&T cell tower and forcibly shut it down, that would be lots of things. It would be illegal without a court order for sure, and a violation of various property and other rights AT&T had in regard to its ability to operate its cell tower. It would potentially also represent a civil rights violation for the customers of AT&T depending on various other factors.
If BART had used cell phone jamming technology to block cell signals from coming into their system, that would have been massively illegal under FCC regulations. There is virtually no legal usage for cell phone jamming in the United States, by any entity government or otherwise. It is a serious crime even for a private person to have a cell phone jammer. There was a teacher I think in Florida who put one in his classroom to stop kids from using cell phones, he got in serious trouble (and in the process I believe a company that was found to be selling these jammers over the internet to Americans also got in trouble.)
In prisons contraband cell phones have become such a problem that various prison officials around the country have tried to get certain exceptions put in place so that they could install jamming software. That effort has gone nowhere, because it’s just really something that isn’t allowed. (The cellular industry has successfully argued that jammers in prisons could impact service for nearby customers, or even transiting customers passing by on nearby interstates and things of that nature.) If any government entity is legally jamming cell phone signals in the United States, I imagine it is probably some sort of alphabet agency as part of secret operations, but it’s definitely not widespread and not publicized.
To get back to BART, did they have a responsibility to maintain those cell phone repeaters? Do they have a responsibility to give their passengers access to the wider cellular network? I don’t know the answer to that. I doubt it, though. Most businesses that provide WiFi do so as a convenience. McDonald’s provides free WiFi, so does Starbucks, so do many hotels. I imagine that if the WiFi is out you cannot successfully sue McDonald’s, Starbucks, or your hotel (hotel may give you a discount or something, though) because I imagine somewhere you can find small print that just says “there are no guarantees of service, this service is offered free of charge where available as possible under given conditions etc etc.” Basically companies that are doing you a favor by giving you free internet are fine doing that if it makes it more likely you will patronize them–but they aren’t signing on to become AT&T and Verizon wherein they now have a legal responsibility to provide you service.
BART I would argue probably did not become legally the same as a telecom just because it installed repeaters. If AT&T had turned off its cell tower at BART’s request, that would probably have been an illegal act by AT&T. Telecom companies are heavily regulated by PSC and the FCC, they have genuine legal responsibilities to provide service, to maintain certain uptime, to rectify problems when they arise and etc. If they fail to do that, there can and are consequences. However, every business expanding network access (be it to the land-based internet through WiFi access points or to the cellular network through cellular repeaters) does not assume all the responsibilities of telecom companies. I would be willing to bet that buying transit on BART means you are entitled to be transported, and if they don’t get the job done there is probably a commission or regulatory body you can go to in order to complain they didn’t provide the service they were supposed to provide. I doubt that providing me with a clear cell signal is part of the guarantee BART makes to me when I buy a ride on one of their conveyances.
Maybe it is, though, but if it so then at worst BART has violated some BART regulation or rule. I certainly do not believe they violated any Federal law or Constitutional provision–I seriously doubt the FCC views them as a telecommunications company under their regulatory oversight simply because they installed repeaters. If so, any business doing the same would have to maintain certain mandatory uptime and etc just like a real teleco, and if that was how it was these systems just wouldn’t exist because no one aside from AT&T or Verizon who are making tens of billions a quarter are willing to be regulated that heavily–that’s their core business, it’s just a convenience that BART added on to their core business.
I suspect you’re driving towards “It’s not that easy to get around” but it really was. Based on what I read, there were repeaters in the tunnel, but at least for the people in the station, I’d imagine all they had to do was walk outside or a few hundred feet to get a better signal. The thing is, most people aren’t going to do that. They’re in the station, waiting for their train, they don’t have a signal, so they keep trying or they just put their phone away and don’t give it a second thought. I suspect most people in a train station don’t have an extra 30 minutes to wander around outside trying to get a signal so they can get twitter/facebook updates.
I’m not sure what point you’re making here. If it’s not about the concept, then what are you saying? Shutting off one or two towers is somewhat similar to shutting off a few repeaters. It essentially creates a dead area.
It’s going to come down to who created the dead area and what specific equipment was cut to create said dead area.
So, for example, if BART were to install some wireless B/G routers in the stations and tunnels would they really have to keep them forever? Do they now have to keep these repeaters around until the current technology has gone the way of analog cell phones? Do they really have to maintain all this (soon to be) legacy hardware just because they installed it as a convenience? (Just asking, not arguing)
In other words, let’s say they installed some Wireless G routers and a few years down the road Wireless Q comes out. At this point 98% of the people connect (with their laptops) via Wireless Q. Will they have to keep the G routers around for those last few people?
BART wouldn’t be obligated to provide ANY WiFi or other services, since (afaik) they have no SLA to do so, and none of their customers SHOULD have any expectations for them to do so, one way or the other.
We provide public WiFi in several of the buildings I manage (they are state facilities). If tomorrow I shut them down, then that would be tough shit, basically…the public has no SLA with us, nor should they have any expectation of data (or voice) services when they are in our buildings. We offer them as a public service and a convenience…not as a right.
The only one you should have an expectation of service with is who ever you are paying for service…and that service will be based on the SLA you both agreed upon.
-XT
The article linked to in the OP refers ambiguously to both “shutting down cell towers” and suspending service within the stations. Clearly there is a little bit of biased reporting here.
The way I see it, no one is trying to deny anyone’s right to protest, and I don’t see why the protesters need to congregate in such high traffic areas where their actions could affect the safety of uninvolved people, not to mention piss them off and potentially discourage people from joining their cause. It doesn’t seem like BART is trying to suppress these people because their ideas are dangerous, but rather because their physical actions are.
[QUOTE=Joey P]
In other words, let’s say they installed some Wireless G routers and a few years down the road Wireless Q comes out. At this point 98% of the people connect (with their laptops) via Wireless Q. Will they have to keep the G routers around for those last few people?
[/QUOTE]
No, they just can’t violate anybody’s free speech rights if they want to change the service they provide. Them being the government puts them under the microscope, but if the actions they take don’t violate the rules the courts have set up for restricting speech, they’re still OK. Those are complicated. To put it simply: shutting down the G routers because it cost too much compared to the number of people it helped would almost certainly be fine. Shutting down the routers because people were using them to totally dis Bieber, or praise Allah, or criticize the way the transportation system was run - those would be problems. That sort of thing.
Whether what BART did here was a problem would come down to whether the protests were enough of an imminent threat to public safety to justify the actions taken, since that seems to have been the reasoning.
That all depends on us accepting that this is a free speech issue at all, though, which not everyone will. Some people will say that a train station is more like a courthouse or a post office, which aren’t places that count as public forums where you have full rights of expression, than like a city street or a park. You can’t claim discrimination when the government shuts down your protest in front of a jury box. At any rate, xtisme is incorrect, or at least oversimplifying, for the reasons I described above.
I’ll vote goosestepping Nazis in their infant stage. The BART governance are a bunch of truly venal douches. See First Amendment to US Constitution
I haven’t entirely worked this out for myself, but I think Jimmy Chitwood here gets close to the gist here.
I would certainly have no problem with a transit system that never provided cell signal boosters at all. But I don’t like the idea that communications can be shut down based on content.
BTW, the decision to cut cell service seems to have grown the overall transit disruption, not contained it.