I’m all about free speech and protest but the SCOTUS has established that you can prohibit protesting in certain places. If I try to lead a protest into the President’s bedroom, there will be consequences.
They should pass a law making it a felony to interfere with the transit system and mass arrest these people. Make it the most minor felony you can, so that realistically the offenders just receive probation, but have their records permanently tarnished.
BART has an office building somewhere their administrators work, right? Why not protest there? Why risk the safety of the passengers who may be using the system because they have no other means to get to and from work?
I think this is a sort-sighted statement. I can see that law passing and then see a bunch of people with felonies on their record for, say, yelling at a transit employee or jumping a turnstile or some other innocuous activity that a transit employee or cop just didn’t like that much. It’s too vague and too harsh a descriptor as there really isn’t a category of “minor felony”.
Yes, what if a cell phone company shut down a single tower? I’m not following what you’re driving at here. If AT&T decided to shut down service in a city, or part of a city, for whatever reason, are you implying that they should not be allowed to do that?
I’m only contrasting removing service from one area thru a tower turnoff compared to removing service from a tube thru a repeater shutoff. I fail to see a difference in the outcome.
If you are OK with one, you should be OK with the other. They differ only by the technology used and the area covered. From the end user’s standpoint, his service is cut off the same either way, and he can get around either by moving to another location.
Not so fast. If I’m in the checkout lane and the customer in front of me collapses I have no legal requirement to render aid. However if I was an EMT in many jurisdictions I would have a legal responsibility even if I was off duty.
Relevance? An entity expanding network coverage as a convenience has different legal responsibilities than a regulated entity that accepts consumer money in exchange for providing service.
You are correct turning off a repeater and turning off a single cell tower have similar practical effects. However the legal responsibilities of the parties taking the action may be and probably are different. Just like a certified person employed as a first responder has different legal responsibilities than I do. If both if us fail to render aid it has the same practical effect but the legal consequences will be far different.
BART’s mandate, such as it is, is to provide transportation for citizens of the area. I do not believe they have a contractual or legislated responsibility to provide communication access for those citizen who use their transportation services. The repeaters are an extra service which can be turned off at any time for any reason (so far as I can see, IANAL.)
I follow that line of reasoning, but I’m not following if you are saying that AT&T should not be allowed to shut down one of its cell towers for some reason other than repairs.
So, if a cell phone provider sought to turn off service in some areas due to a perception that it would be in the interest of the public, would that be okay in your view? Because, like you say, if it is okay for a cell phone provider to limit access to its network for some reason, then one would think that it would be okay for the owner of a cell phone repeater to turn it off for some reason.
I said nothing about who should be allowed to do what. I am only saying that, since from the consumer’s point of view, either turning off a cellphone tower or a repeater has the identical effect and the identical workaround, it seems illogical to approve of one action while disapproving of the other.
It’s the same one that gives a constitutional right to aboveground cell phone service.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
I said nothing about who should be allowed to do what. I am only saying that, since from the consumer’s point of view, either turning off a cellphone tower or a repeater has the identical effect and the identical workaround, it seems illogical to approve of one action while disapproving of the other.
[/QUOTE]
sigh You pay your cell service provider for cellular service based on an SLA that you agreed upon. You don’t pay BART to provide cell service outside of the range of the cell service provided by your cellular provider and based on the SLA you agreed upon. One is offered as a service you pay for, the other as a convenience that you don’t.
Again, I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. It seems so obvious to me.
Okay. I also fully support the right of the owners of the cell tower to shut down their service for any reason. We have a right to freely assemble; I do not believe we have a right to access any specific medium of communication.
(For the record, I oppose a government ordered shut down of cell service, but I do not believe there is a requirement that the government make every effort to supply cell phone service anywhere the private company’s signal does not reach, such as in subway tunnels.)
No, I don’t have an opinion that I wish to defend, I’m just sensitive to hypocritical positions and I can see both sides of this debate as having some merit.
Which makes no difference to the consumer. And the BART service isn’t free; it’s paid for by transit tickets, just like Internet coffee shops pay for “free” service with Latte sales.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Which makes no difference to the consumer.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure it doesn’t make any difference to the consumer, who has expectations above what they are obligated to receive.
Did BART shut down train service? If not, then the consumers got what they paid for, right? As for coffee shops, it is, again, an extra convenience service that is PROVIDED to the customers…the customers only expectations as far as service goes is to get, you know, coffee.
Do they have an obligation to provide coffee? No to both; they provide what they feel maximizes their investment. Do you think they would attract many laptop users and sell many coffees if they had a habit of cutting off Internet service just when you were counting on it? Or if they suddenly stopped selling coffee without warning?
I’m sure it doesn’t make any difference to the consumer, who has expectations above what they are obligated to receive.