To defuse 'flash' protest, BART cuts riders' cell service. Is that legal?

[cleanhippie]

The decision by Bay Area Rapid Transit officials to cut off cellphone service Thursday evening – to forestall a planned protest – raises a fundamental question: Do Americans have a basic right to digital free speech or to digitally organized assembly?

Because July protests against BART police shootings had turned violent, BART officials took the unusual step to protect public safety, they said. The tactic may have worked: No protests took place Thursday night at BART stations.

Temporarily shutting down cell service and beefing up police patrols were "great tool to utilize for this specific purpose," BART police Lt. Andy Alkire told Bay City News Friday. The protests, planned for sometime between 4 and 8 p.m. in transit stations, would likely have disrupted service for many of the 341,000 daily BART passengers.

This may be the first time a government agency in the United States has ever deliberately disrupted cellphone service to defang planned protests, criminologist Casey Jordan told CNN. “I haven’t been able to find another incident in which this has happened,” she told CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux Friday.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0812/To-defuse-flash-protest-BART-cuts-riders-cell-service.-Is-that-legal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


And nary a PEEP from the MSM. What. The. Fuck.

[petronius]

1. Stupid and scummy, but I don't see how it would be illegal unless BART

has a contract with the service providers themselves to provide the repeaters within the system - otherwise it seems like just an amenity that is unrelated to the actual service the BART rider contracts for. Kind of like the escalators, or benches on the platform - BART doesn't have to provide them (as long as ADA requirements and so on are otherwise met) and can take them away, but it's a good idea not to mess with them...

[Philippine expat]

2. Now if there was only

a way to do this
1. In movie theaters
2. In restaurants
3. While in a moving vehicle

[customerserviceguy]

4. I'm with you on numbers 1 and 3 for sure

Still thinking about #2, but if it would ring softly, or vibrate, allowing a person a chance to leave the restaurant to take what might be a true emergency call, then I might not go as far as banning cell phone signals in a restaurant.

[karnac]

5. Repeaters. both wifi and cell.

I have both types. about the size of a brick. or pack of cigarettes. actually the bulk is taken up by batteries more than circuitry. Perfectly legal. ATT/Cingular/Verizon sell them and homebrew wifi versions abound. My homebrew version lasts about 12 hours.

all you do is place them near where a radio interference begins but where the signal can be retransmitted(or at least reflected to) to where you want it. works great on cruise ships and around metallic construction.

One serious caveat is though someone should stay with it. If found by someone unfamiliar with it's function, they might cause a panic.

[dembotoz]

3. if there was a 911 emergency can you spell lawsuit????

not really familiar with bart--wouldn't you still have service from your provider towers??
is bart underground???

my phone otherwise works on trains, cars etc.

[karnac]

6. Thats why they have white curtesy phones

They are in the stations, near the rails AND on the trains.

Yes, Bart is mostly underground.

[tsuki]

7. Ask Mubarak. nt

[IDemo]

8. From the FCC: Discontinuance of Telecommunications Service

http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/cpd/other_adjud/business214.html

# You must notify your customers in writing as far in advance as possible if you are going to discontinue, reduce or impair domestic service for any reason, even if you may file or have filed for bankruptcy.

# Your letter must include:

* Carrier name and address
* Date you plan to discontinue service
* Geographic areas affected
* Description of your service
* Notice of the customer's right to file comments with the FCC, including deadlines and information they should include in their comments.

* See FCC Rules (47 CFR Sec. 63.71 ) for more details.

[FLAprogressive]

9. Except that is for phone companies....

[IDemo]

12. I don't see an exception listed for telco's

They can and do cut individuals and businesses down for non-payment or theft of services, but can't arbitrarily shut down an entire exchange. If they are in the midst of a central office switching change-over or other maintenance project, they are still required to perform the advance notification of their customers.

[FLAprogressive]

They're not shutting down an exchange though, they are shutting down repeaters.

[IDemo]

15. I still don't believe they can do so legally without advance warning

The FCC gives virtually no leeway when it comes to anyone or anything interfering with communications in the radio spectrum, whether from the sending or receiving end. That's why you can flip your home-owner's association the bird if they tell you no satellite dishes or ham radio antennas (and you will win in court if it goes that far). It's why televisions and other RF electronics have a tag saying "This device may not cause harmful interference".

[FLAprogressive]

13. They're not shutting down an exchange though, they are shutting down repeaters.

[karnac]

19. So as a customer, you have the right to DENY service to the other customers

By your actions because your opinion you deem PERSONALLY SUPERIOR to others?

Lovely.

And humanity is supposed to be than the other species.......................

[IDemo]

20. Where did that even come from?

I copied and pasted from an FCC regulation regarding requirements of telecommunications companies in shutting down service. No superiority involved.

Were you even responding to my post?? :shrug:

[bbgrunt]

10. this is seriously outrageous.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1731218#1731270

[cleanhippie]

17. Perhaps not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1732498#1733044

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. did you read the thread?

elocs kindly pointed me to LBN and thusly my thread was widely ignored. carry on all you jokers and tokers and midnight smokers.

[Brickbat]

14. "Legal"? When did that ever stop anybody?

[Retrograde]

16. I have a lot of issues with BART, but this isn't one of them

Not providing a convenience they're not chartered to provide is among the least of my problems with them. Now, if you want to talk about their bloated bureaucracy, their private police force, the closure of restrooms in most stations, the scheduling of trains from the airport to miss the southbound Caltrain connections - I could go on.

[karnac]

18. You have it right.

In fact, you make a PERFECT argument why one should NEVER provide a service that is not in writing and understood by both originating parties. If you do, and just be a ""NICE GUY/GAL" it will be EXPECTED of you FOREVER. Being a SAINT make you an ETERNAL slave. And make a slave of your children FOR EVERMORE irregardless of their circumstances.

[snot]

22. That's the problem – it SHOULD be illegal!!!

[AsahinaKimi]

23. So if as person can not dial 911...THEN

I guess BART WILL AGREE to PAY OUT in law suits and lawyers fees?