SF cell phone shutdown

Authorities in San Francisco recently shut down cell phone towers at metro stations in an effort to stop a planned protest. They're claiming it was for safety, but my immediate thought was how unsafe it was. Cell phones are essential in keeping you informed so as to avoid trouble and call for help if necessary. What were these people thinking? Unfortunately I see this becoming a growing trend.


SF cell shutdown

Don't seem to recall there being any right to cell phone service in the Constitution.

Cell phone towers belong to a company or a group of companies, i.e., they are private. If these companies chose to shut down or allow their towers to be shut down, such is life. Cell phones are just radios anyhow, subject to jamming. I reckon anyone with internet access can build a cell jammer anyhow.

As to being essential in keeping me informed - NOT. Two people have my cell number, my boss and my wife. I want news, I listen to a real radio or TV. As to calling for help, ok, sure. But the flip side, because of cell phones, there are fewer public phones to call for help from.

If you are really that dependent on a cell phone for news, weather, time, date, etc. - I feel sorry for you.

My first reaction if the cell service suddenly goes down in a transit station would be 'remote detonation of explosives using Cellular phone technology', with the authorities receiving a credible intelligence threat.

Time to leave the station as quickly as possible, even if was a anti-terrorism exercise (even better reason to leave as quickly as possible).

People used trains and buses for a long time without cell phones.

Sue

Neither is the internet. Would you be okay with the government shutting it down for whatever reason it deemed necessary?

And I'm guessing these companies did not shut down service on their own. They were ordered to do so because of a protest event that had not even happened yet. I find that problematic. And while it may not affect you, cell phones are an indispensable part of how business gets done in today's world. They're not just items of convenience like a television or radio.

True, and we used horse and buggy before trains and buses. Its not really about cell phones. Its about limiting or censoring people's ability to communicate and their access to information, with little or no justification. Thats primarily a first amendment issue if I'm not mistaken.

It's probably not a first amendment situation. You can still use land lines to communicate and a library to access information. This is plain and simple a cell phone use situation.

I was in error about the repeaters however - they are city owned. If the city chooses to shut them down, so be it. You are not now nor have never been guaranteed instant gratification ... uh, communication and information. For that matter, if this issue of being incommunicado is so distressing, stay off public transit.

If people can't live without a cell phone for the commute on a subway, they should find a different way to work.

First, let me preface this with a few statements:

1) I work in the wireless industry.
2) I AM NOT a lawyer, so do not construe this as legal advice. Seek professional legal council if needed.
3) Not all of the facts of this issue are known to the public.

Denial of service to wireless communications has been deemed denial of access to 911 emergency services. If BART had actually dropped the signal from the cell sites themselves, there would have been an issue.

Since BART owns a vendor neutral (carries all cell companies) DAS (Distributed Antenna System) they can choose to do with BART property as they wish. They have not disrupted access to the carrier designed and owned (and FCC regulated) cell site.

Regulated cell sites CAN be taken off the air in emergencies either by court order, or field expedient means (jamming).

Jamming of an FCC regulated signal (i.e. ANY signal) by a non-government entity is a big time NO-NO. Just ask all the casino's in Las Vegas, and any prison system. Jamming is not controlled by hard boundaries, so it can have unintended consequences. You can build a Fairaday cage, but good luck getting people into the casino. Kinda defeats the purpose.

As far as prison systems and jamming, the rulings have been that the prison system does not have an emergency 24/7 so jamming cannot be in place 24/7. In other words: Prison, do your job and keep the illegal cell phones out of the prison.

While nobody would choose to live next door to a prison, I am sure those that do would not want their cell phones jammed due to bleed over from the prison.

Enough said, I am not going to get technical or legalistic. Any questions?