29 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
The Telecom Digest for August 21, 2011
Volume 30 : Issue 210 : "text" Format
====== 29 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== |
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Bill Horne and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. - Geoffrey Welsh
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
|
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 08:57:31 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: On Point: Liberty, Security And Biometrics
Message-ID: <p0624088aca755e81bbc6@[192.168.181.129]>
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/07/20/biometrics
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM EDT
Liberty, Security And Biometrics
Liberty, security, and biometrics. Eye scans, facial recognition
systems. Police and more are using them. We'll look at the stakes.
The next tool in the American police tool belt is a game changer.
A little bit of technology that plugs into an iPhone. It can capture
an image of your face. It can scan the pattern of your eyeballs. It
will remember forever. And it can track you anywhere.
It's called the Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System.
Biometrics. American troops have used it all over Iraq and
Afghanistan, to ID enemies.
Now it's coming home. Facial recognition. Iris scans. Sounds like
Minority Report. And it's not just police. Facebook is in the game.
This hour On Point: the age of biometrics.
-Tom Ashbrook
Guests:
Julia Angwin, senior technology editor, Wall Street Journal
Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation.
Orin Kerr, professor of law at the George Washington University Law School
Douglas Rushkoff, media theorist and author of "Program or Be Programmed"
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/07/20/biometrics
http://www.wbur.org/media-player?url=http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/07/20/biometrics&title=Liberty%2C+Security+And+Biometrics&pubdate=2011-07-20&segment=2&source=onpoint
http://audio.wbur.org/storage/2011/07/onpoint_0720_2.mp3
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <1313797541.84043.YahooMailClassic@web111724.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Fri, 8/19/11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
[....]
> In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the
> San Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco
> police department, assuming they run the 911 call center.
Is this true when the train is question is 30 or 40 miles from San
Francisco? The name is BAY AREA Rapid Transit and it mainly serves
from the city to outside the city.
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:16:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2ofkf$ufj$2@news.albasani.net>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 8/19/11, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> [....]
>>In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the
>>San Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco
>>police department, assuming they run the 911 call center.
>Is this true when the train is question is 30 or 40 miles from San
>Francisco? The name is BAY AREA Rapid Transit and it mainly serves
>from the city to outside the city.
The incident in question took place in San Francisco. Elsewhere, yes,
the local fire department at the location of an emergency on BART would
coordinate the rescue.
BART is in subway through San Francisco, in tubes across the Bay,
and in an extensive tunnel through the Berkeley Hills. Elsewhere, it's
not in subway and cellular service would be available wherever there
are towers.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <1313797969.61916.YahooMailClassic@web111705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
--- On Fri, 8/19/11, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM,
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
[....]
>> BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the
>> United States too.
> The US has many layers of government, something some other countries
> do not have.
The First Amendment, which Bill Horne correctly quoted for us, says
"CONGRESS shall make no law..........."
Wes Leatherock
wleathus@yahoo.com
wesrock@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:09:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2of69$693$1@reader1.panix.com>
In <1313797969.61916.YahooMailClassic@web111705.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> writes:
[snip]
>> The US has many layers of government, something some other countries
>> do not have.
>The First Amendment, which Bill Horne correctly quoted for us, says
>"CONGRESS shall make no law..........."
However, the various "incorporation" cases that have made it
through the courts (including US Supreme) have pretty much established
that the Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights portion)
mostly does apply to the States and other branches of government.
Wiki has a good, if superficial, treatment:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:13:25 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2otg5$uqu$1@news.albasani.net>
Wes Leatherock <wleathus@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 8/19/11, John Mayson <john@mayson.us> wrote:
>>On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> [....]
>>>BART is the government, a correctly held perception inside the
>>>United States too.
>>The US has many layers of government, something some other countries
>>do not have.
>The First Amendment, which Bill Horne correctly quoted for us, says
>"CONGRESS shall make no law..........."
Yeah, well, it only appears to be a restriction on Congress based on reading
its plain language. But you throw a bunch of lawyers at it, and it no
longer means what it says it means.
The First Amendment has been incorporated against the states. Each state's
constitution has free speech rights in it, many of them with stronger
civil liberty than the language of the federal constitution appears
to guarantee. But with incorporation, one size fits all nationwide and
reported cases from other jurisdictions are influential on future judicial
decisions. There is a particularly nasty case in which Shaker Height
Rapid Transit (Cleveland) refused to allow a candidate's paid advertising
on a car card, upheld on reasoning that the transit company was protecting
passengers from intrusions and disturbances, even though other advertising
was allowed and even though everyone suspected that it was favoritism.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights
majority and concurring opinion
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=298
dissenting opinion
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0298_ZD.html
This is an interesting read, although the author makes his biases clear:
Would the Real First Amendment Please Stand Up?
http://www.krusch.com/real/real.html
Date: 20 Aug 2011 18:56:51 -0000
From: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <20110820185651.68218.qmail@joyce.lan>
>>The First Amendment, which Bill Horne correctly quoted for us, says
>>"CONGRESS shall make no law..........."
>
>Yeah, well, it only appears to be a restriction on Congress based on reading
>its plain language. But you throw a bunch of lawyers at it, and it no
>longer means what it says it means.
Hmmn. Has word of the 14th amendment not reached Chicago yet?
To return to the nominal topic at hand, cell phones work on licensed
frequencies, so someone has FCC licenses for the cell sites in the
BART stations. I'd be surprised if those licesnses didn't say
something about service levels.
R's,
John
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:43:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone
Message-ID: <j2m3rq$g5i$2@news.albasani.net>
>Avoid socializing by pretending to use your phone? You're not alone
>By Casey Johnston
>If you pretend to use your cell phone to avoid talking to others,
>congratulations-you are part of the rudest 13 percent of the American
>public. According to a new study from the Pew Research Center, while
>83 percent of American adults have a cell phone of some kind, only 13
>percent have pretended to use them so they didn't have to interact
>with someone.
There's nothing especially rude about not desiring to have a conversation
with a stranger or an acquaintance in public. On the other hand, imposing
conversation on someone who wants to be alone in his own thoughts is
quite rude indeed.
If anything, pretending to be otherwise occupied isn't an explicit statement
to the other person that his conversation isn't welcome because of his
personality or what he appears to be.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:19:54 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <yO2dnRI3p5HXNNPTnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <j2lvej$79d$2@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>Gordon Burditt <gordonb.15ah1@burditt.org> wrote:
>
>>>>According to one article:
>>>>"The agency did not jam cell signals, which is illegal, but shut off
>>>>the system - which Johnson said is allowable under an agreement with
>>>>several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART."
>
>>>I still wonder if deliberately shutting down 911 service (cellular
>>>or otherwise) for any reason that isn't itself an emergency ... might
>>>make them liable in a wrongful death suit should failing to reach 911
>>>make a significant difference in the outcome.
>
>>Short answer: almost certainly _not_. They have no 'duty' to provide
>>such service; they cannot be held liable for not providing it.
>
>Of course they had a duty.
Show me the statute, or the case-law, OR the contractual 'terms of passage'
(invoked by the purchase of a ride on the system) that imposes the duty to
provide cell service in the subway.
And explain why, say, the CTA got away with failing to fulfill that duty
for, literally, decades after cell-phones were introduced.
While you're at it, please identify when this 'duty' came into
being. Was it with the first 'mobile phones' (MTRS)? The first
cell-phones? The first hand-held mobile phones? The first hand-held
cell phones?
Does this 'duty' exist only for subway tunnels, or does it apply to
all tunnels. Like the Holland Tunnel into NYC, or the Eisenhower
Tunnel in the Rockies. How about Moffat Tunnel? Or all all the other
rail tunnels that Amtrak trains go through?
"Inquiring minds want to know!"
>BART claimed it shut down communications due to emergency.
"Their property, their rules."
>If they were truly fearful of violence, then they were anticipating
>that it was likely injuries would occur.
Where did they say 'violence'?? As opposed to say, 'disruption' of
their services? Or are you assuming 'facts not in evidence', and then
arguing base on those unfounded-in-fact assumptions?
>The action they took would have aggravated the injuries if delay in
>receiving treatment was the result.
So what?
Is the state 'highways' dept (DoT, or whatever name it uses) liable if they
move a roadside emergency callbox, and emergency response is 'delayed' to
an accident at the former site of the call-box? (somebody had to go from
the accident site to the new call-box cite to make the emergency call,
thus delaying the response by the travel time involved. Suppose the
accident is inside a tunnel, where cell-phones "don't work".
>>Note: it is well-established case-law that emergency services providers
>>(police, fire, etc.) do not have a duty to respond to any particular
>>incident, even if notified of the event. I suspect that this would also
>>apply with regard to the 911 'outage' that the OP described.
>
>In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the San
>Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco police department,
>assuming they run the 911 call center.
>
>I don't see why the case law you are thinking of would apply.
You might try reading what was said. SEPARATE FROM the BART situation,
the OP described a situation where all 911 service in an area was disrupted
for a period of weeks, due to administrative 'stupidity' in provisioning
phone lines into the call center, and wondered about liability in that
situation. THAT is what the "911 'outage'" referred to.
>Here's another legal quandry BART has placed itself in. By claiming not
>to be a common carrier ...
Does BART actually operate any public radio communications equipment?
Do they hold any government-issued "common carrier" radio licenses? (their
private-use 'commercial' radio license does not count.) Or do they
merely rent the use of some of their property to licensed communications
common carriers? (you have to have a license to operate a transmitter,
you do not have to have a license for an antenna that somebody else's
transmitter is connected to.)
BART just might know what they're talking about. :)
>... because it doesn't accept all communication traffic for any use
>of communication systems when the system itself was used to but only
>specific communication traffic, BART may have accepted liability plan
>a crime or to set up a situation in which harm was caused to another.
snicker
BART absolutely IS a 'common carrier' - Of _people_, that is. They
offer services to the public, for _a_ _fee_, and are required to
transport any legal passenger who pays that fee. (The _definition_ of
a 'common carrier' is one who (a) offers a service, for a fee, to the
public, (b) is required to provide that service to anyone who pays the
fee for the legal use of that service, and (c) is subject to
government oversight, review, and scrutiny of the rates, terms, and
condition under which that service is provided.)
They are not a -communications- common carrier, since they do -not- offer
any communications service 'to the public', 'for a fee'.
As I understand it, they (BART), do not offer any public communications
services AT ALL. They simply 'rent out' some of their property to duly
licensed communications common-carrier third parties who provide the actual
communications services.
>You think BART won't be a party to personal injury lawsuits? I do.
>They've just made it more difficult to defend themselves for their
>contribution to the situation by allowing communication to take place.
I think it is LIKELY they'll get named in suits. They are a 'deep pockets'
defendant, and there are always greedy lawyers to be found -- who will file
suit against _anyone_, regardless of the actual 'merits' of the case.
I think it is UNLIKELY that anyone will -win- anything against them on
the basis of their temporarily shutting down the cell service.
EVERY cell service provider has disclaimers in their customer contract
that service may not always be available, and that service may be
interrupted/disrupted, and that if such happens, it is not a breach
of the carrier-customer contract. Some cell service providers have
separate contracts with BART to hook their transmitters to BART's tunnel
antennas. Those contracts contain a clause that allows BART to disable the
use of the antennas when BART deems it necessary to do so.
>Common carrier is an all-encompassing shield from a great deal of
>liability. This was action against their own interest.
Claiming -- or denying -- common carrier status has -no- relationship to
whether or not one is covered by common-carrier protections.
'Common carrier' protections and limitations apply ONLY where there is
a *contractual* relationship between the carrier and another party, and
serve to limit the liabilities that the *contractual* *relationship* would
otherwise impose.
Absent such a contractual relationship, it should be obvious that there is
ZERO liability for failure to provide a 'contracted' service. Given
that, any presumption of the existence of liability must be based on a
statutory (be it 'black letter', or case-law, based) requirement to provide
such a service.
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 17:26:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2oqol$pf8$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>>Gordon Burditt <gordonb.15ah1@burditt.org> wrote:
>>>>>According to one article:
>>>>>"The agency did not jam cell signals, which is illegal, but shut off
>>>>>the system - which Johnson said is allowable under an agreement with
>>>>>several major phone service providers that pay rent to BART."
>>>>I still wonder if deliberately shutting down 911 service (cellular
>>>>or otherwise) for any reason that isn't itself an emergency ... might
>>>>make them liable in a wrongful death suit should failing to reach 911
>>>>make a significant difference in the outcome.
>>>Short answer: almost certainly _not_. They have no 'duty' to provide
>>>such service; they cannot be held liable for not providing it.
>>Of course they had a duty.
>Show me the statute, or the case-law, OR the contractual 'terms of passage'
>(invoked by the purchase of a ride on the system) that imposes the duty to
>provide cell service in the subway.
>And explain why, say, the CTA got away with failing to fulfill that duty
>for, literally, decades after cell-phones were introduced.
>While you're at it, please identify when this 'duty' came into
>being. Was it with the first 'mobile phones' (MTRS)? The first
>cell-phones? The first hand-held mobile phones? The first hand-held
>cell phones?
>Does this 'duty' exist only for subway tunnels, or does it apply to
>_all_ tunnels. Like the Holland Tunnel into NYC, or the Eisenhower
>Tunnel in the Rockies. How about Moffat Tunnel? Or all all the other
>rail tunnels that Amtrak trains go through?
>"Inquiring minds want to know!"
A property owner has a duty to provide a safe environment to people on
the property and to maintain systems in working condition. The duty
to keep the service working came about when it first started working.
I'm not a P.I. attorney in real life, nor do I play one on tv. But in case
of a tort claim, the plaintiff's argument would be that delay in reaching
rescue personnel aggravated the injury and BART has liability for
that action.
>>BART claimed it shut down communications due to emergency.
>"Their property, their rules."
So you think they have the right to shut down communication services but
are imune from damages that arise subsequently from the foreseeable
consequences of shutting down communication. I don't think that's a
legal defense.
>>If they were truly fearful of violence, then they were anticipating
>>that it was likely injuries would occur.
>Where did they say 'violence'?? As opposed to say, 'disruption' of
>their services? Or are you assuming 'facts not in evidence', and then
>arguing base on those unfounded-in-fact assumptions?
There are no facts, as BART wasn't acting on actual events, but fear
of additional bad publicity. Also, based on events elsewhere in the world,
there was the possibility of violence. That's the wrong reason to shut
down communications.
>>The action they took would have aggravated the injuries if delay in
>>receiving treatment was the result.
>So what?
>Is the state 'highways' dept (DoT, or whatever name it uses) liable if they
>move a roadside emergency callbox, and emergency response is 'delayed' to
>an accident at the former site of the call-box? (somebody had to go from
>the accident site to the new call-box cite to make the emergency call,
>thus delaying the response by the travel time involved. Suppose the
>accident is inside a tunnel, where cell-phones "don't work".
That hypothetical is irrelevant to what BART did.
But if the state highway department acted similarly to BART, shutting
down communications because they were trying to prevent people from
reaching each other to coordinate a mass gathering, then yes, they'd
be liable under a hypothetical similar to the one I offered.
>>>Note: it is well-established case-law that emergency services providers
>>>(police, fire, etc.) do not have a duty to respond to any particular
>>>incident, even if notified of the event. I suspect that this would also
>>>apply with regard to the 911 'outage' that the OP described.
>>In this case, BART itself is not the rescue agency. It's still the San
>>Francisco fire department as notified by the San Francisco police department,
>>assuming they run the 911 call center.
>>I don't see why the case law you are thinking of would apply.
>You might try reading what was said. SEPARATE FROM the BART situation,
>the OP described a situation where all 911 service in an area was disrupted
>for a period of weeks, due to administrative 'stupidity' in provisioning
>phone lines into the call center, and wondered about liability in that
>situation. THAT is what the "911 'outage'" referred to.
The relevance is what, then?
>>Here's another legal quandry BART has placed itself in. By claiming not
>>to be a common carrier ...
>Does BART actually operate any public radio communications equipment?
>Do they hold any government-issued "common carrier" radio licenses? (their
>private-use 'commercial' radio license does not count.) Or do they
>merely rent the use of some of their property to licensed communications
>common carriers? (you have to have a license to operate a transmitter,
>you do not have to have a license for an antenna that somebody else's
>transmitter is connected to.)
>BART just might know what they're talking about. :)
Regardless of not being a federal license holder, a common carrier couldn't
shut itself down under similar circumstances. BART shut down, so it's not
a common carrier.
>>... because it doesn't accept all communication traffic for any use
>>of communication systems when the system itself was used to but only
>>specific communication traffic, BART may have accepted liability plan
>>a crime or to set up a situation in which harm was caused to another.
>*snicker*
>BART absolutely IS a 'common carrier' - Of _people_, that is. They
>offer services to the public, for _a_ _fee_, and are required to
>transport any legal passenger who pays that fee. (The _definition_ of
>a 'common carrier' is one who (a) offers a service, for a fee, to the
>public, (b) is required to provide that service to anyone who pays the
>fee for the legal use of that service, and (c) is subject to
>government oversight, review, and scrutiny of the rates, terms, and
>condition under which that service is provided.)
I'm not going to guess how common carrier law would apply in this case
as transit districts aren't typically subject to a state public utility
commission or if BART is statutorially defined as such. Sure, BART
appears to be a common carrier.
>They are not a -communications- common carrier, since they do -not- offer
>any communications service 'to the public', 'for a fee'.
>As I understand it, they (BART), do not offer any public communications
>services AT ALL. They simply 'rent out' some of their property to duly
>licensed communications common-carrier third parties who provide the actual
>communications services.
When I rent property, I am not subject to the land owner's ability to
prevent my access or use of the property during business hours because
of something that might happen. BART is not "simply" acting as land owner
granting an easement, right of way, or tenancy. They are controlling
access for reasons of other than preventing conflict with train service.
>>You think BART won't be a party to personal injury lawsuits? I do.
>>They've just made it more difficult to defend themselves for their
>>contribution to the situation by allowing communication to take place.
>I think it is LIKELY they'll get named in suits. They are a 'deep pockets'
>defendant, and there are always greedy lawyers to be found -- who will file
>suit against _anyone_, regardless of the actual 'merits' of the case.
>I think it is UNLIKELY that anyone will -win- anything against them on
>the basis of their temporarily shutting down the cell service.
This isn't a matter of greed. This is a matter of litigating whether
BART's deliberate actions contributed to the injury.
>_EVERY_ cell service provider has disclaimers in their customer contract
>that service may not always be available, and that service may be
>interrupted/disrupted, and that if such happens, it is not a breach
>of the carrier-customer contract. Some cell service providers have
>separate contracts with BART to hook their transmitters to BART's tunnel
>antennas. Those contracts contain a clause that allows BART to disable the
>use of the antennas when BART deems it necessary to do so.
That's the cellular provider's defense to a tort, not BART's defense.
>>Common carrier is an all-encompassing shield from a great deal of
>>liability. This was action against their own interest.
>Claiming -- or denying -- common carrier status has -no- relationship to
>whether or not one is covered by common-carrier protections.
>'Common carrier' protections and limitations apply ONLY where there is
>a *contractual* relationship between the carrier and another party, and
>serve to limit the liabilities that the *contractual* *relationship* would
>otherwise impose.
I think it applies to offering carriage generally, not just to those
with whom it's contracted for carriage.
>Absent such a contractual relationship, it should be obvious that there is
>_ZERO_ liability for failure to provide a 'contracted' service. Given
>that, any presumption of the existence of liability must be based on a
>statutory (be it 'black letter', or case-law, based) requirement to provide
>such a service.
So why cannot BART be a subcontractor with regard to a cellular service
subscriber? This is comparable to a roaming situation. The foreign network
is offering service to all subscribers of the connecting network without
concern for why the subscribers would be using the service.
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:36:25 -0400
From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <20110820183625.GE5620@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 05:26:46PM +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> A property owner has a duty to provide a safe environment to people on
> the property and to maintain systems in working condition. The duty
> to keep the service working came about when it first started working.
IANALB I think a transit system is not a safe environment to all
people under all circumstances, and cannot be made safe by any
practical means. While a property owner might have a duty to provide
an environment made as safe as practical, that doesn't mean "safe".
Those trains run on power from a third rail. Is the BART system
obligated to prevent contact between the third raid and a drunkard who
falls on the tracks, or a child who slips while running? I think not.
The BART system has extensive tunnels underneath bays and rivers. Is
BART obligated to equip its cars for immersion in water and to provide
adequate air reserves for passengers if it should occur? I doubt it:
that's not practical.
BART is a public-transit system, and must therefore accept passengers
who intend to do wrong while on the BART property. Is BART obligated
to provide guards in every car in order to prevent crime? No, it
isn't: the costs to the public outweigh the potential benefits.
The list goes on: there is no guarantee of safety in life.
> I'm not a P.I. attorney in real life, nor do I play one on tv. But in case
> of a tort claim, the plaintiff's argument would be that delay in reaching
> rescue personnel aggravated the injury and BART has liability for
> that action.
It seems to me that the question would be "For how long"? If I sue the
local fire department for not reaching my relative quickly enough to
prevent his/her death, and show a film of the paramedics walking to
the ambulance instead of *running*, I'd be laughed out of court:
experience has shown that the benefit to the public which results from
avoiding slip-and-fall injuries in firehouses outweighs any slight
delay the practice may cause.
I'm confident that BART has procedures and personnel in place to
assure timely response to unforeseen events. Were I employed by BART,
and assigned to explain such a circumstance to the media, I would
argue that a passenger's inability to access the cellular network
speeded up the response, since control center personnel didn't
have to waste time answering calls from whatever 911 center a
cell phone happened to reach, and since they wouldn't be thrown off by
inaccurate Latitude and Longitude information given by GPS-equipped
phones, which IIRC are programmed to report the last valid location
they register, even if it's two miles away at the other end of a
tunnel.
> So you think [BART has] the right to shut down communication services but
> are imune from damages that arise subsequently from the foreseeable
> consequences of shutting down communication. I don't think that's a
> legal defense.
They didn't shut down communications: they prevented the use of
cellular telephones. The communications networks employed by BART, the
SFPD, the SFFD, etc., etc., weren't affected. Those networks are
separate from the cellular network for very good reasons.
[snip]
> When I rent property, I am not subject to the land owner's ability to
> prevent my access or use of the property during business hours because
> of something that might happen. BART is not "simply" acting as land owner
> granting an easement, right of way, or tenancy. They are controlling
> access for reasons of other than preventing conflict with train service.
If I rent a garage (i.e., an enclosed parking space for an automobile,
not a service station) and subsequently decide to store a 55 gallon
drum of gasoline inside it, is the property owner required to suffer
the risk of fire or explosion?
I think that this is devolving into a chicken-little scenario. The sky
may be falling, or it might not, but the notion that being deprived of
the use of a cell phone is somehow going to alter the course of history
is too far-fetched to be credible.
Bill
--
Bill Horne
(Filter QRM for direct replies)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2p5dt$hcn$1@news.albasani.net>
Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 05:26:46PM +0000, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>A property owner has a duty to provide a safe environment to people on
>>the property and to maintain systems in working condition. The duty
>>to keep the service working came about when it first started working.
>IANALB I think a transit system is not a safe environment to all
>people under all circumstances, and cannot be made safe by any
>practical means. While a property owner might have a duty to provide
>an environment made as safe as practical, that doesn't mean "safe".
You're trying to read too much into my quick comment which was not
intended to be comprehensive. There's no absolute guarantee of safety
and the individual must take some reasonable precautions, but the
property owner simply isn't immune from liability in all circumstances
that appear to be illogical to a casual observer.
>Those trains run on power from a third rail. Is the BART system
>obligated to prevent contact between the third raid and a drunkard who
>falls on the tracks, or a child who slips while running? I think not.
Why yes, they are. It sounds stupid, but that's the law. As it happens,
BART uses a covered third-rail system to prevent such injury, even though
no passenger is ever supposed to be on the tracks under any circumstances.
Surely you've heard of this case:
Illinois Supreme Court upholds $1.5 million award against transit
authority to estate of intoxicated Korean immigrant electrocuted on
transit authority third rail when he went onto tracks to urinate;
signs which said "Danger," "Keep Out" and "Electric Current"
were inadequate warnings. Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority,
152 Ill. 2d 432, 605 N.E.2d 493 (1992).
He stepped off the platform and onto the right-of-way in order to urinate
and died upon contact with the third rail. His blood alchohol level was .341.
Why were the warnings inadequate? The immigrant didn't read English.
Even if the signs were in Korean, he was so blind drunk he wouldn't have
been able to read them anyway.
You must have heard of Bodine v. Enterprise High School, often referred to
as "the buglar who fell through the skylight case" although Bodine wasn't
a burglar. In 1982, four friends were playing basketball at the school.
One of them wanted to redirect a light that was interferring with their
play. He climbed up on the roof, stepped on a skylight that had been
painted out, and fell through, becoming a quadriplegic. He sued for
millions but settled for a much smaller amount.
>The BART system has extensive tunnels underneath bays and rivers. Is
>BART obligated to equip its cars for immersion in water and to provide
>adequate air reserves for passengers if it should occur? I doubt it:
>that's not practical.
The Transbay Tubes are designed to keep water out. They've actually got
a way of closing themselves off. The Berkeley Hills tunnels are designed
to withstand earthquakes. Safety has been engineered into the system.
>BART is a public-transit system, and must therefore accept passengers
>who intend to do wrong while on the BART property. Is BART obligated
>to provide guards in every car in order to prevent crime? No, it
>isn't: the costs to the public outweigh the potential benefits.
>The list goes on: there is no guarantee of safety in life.
A property is obliged to maintain lighting systems as a crime deterrent. Say
it can be shown that a portion of the station became dark because BART
didn't replace the light for an unreasonably long time. If a mugging
occurs in a darkened area, the property owner can face liability.
Maybe (with 20/20 hindsight) "adequate" lighting didn't have to be provided
in the first place, but if it's there, it has to be maintained. Also,
if there have been crimes nearby, sometimes property owners have been
liable for not reacting to criminal activity by providing better lighting.
>>I'm not a P.I. attorney in real life, nor do I play one on tv. But in case
>>of a tort claim, the plaintiff's argument would be that delay in reaching
>>rescue personnel aggravated the injury and BART has liability for
>>that action.
>It seems to me that the question would be "For how long"? If I sue the
>local fire department for not reaching my relative quickly enough to
>prevent his/her death, and show a film of the paramedics walking to
>the ambulance instead of *running*, I'd be laughed out of court:
>experience has shown that the benefit to the public which results from
>avoiding slip-and-fall injuries in firehouses outweighs any slight
>delay the practice may cause.
BART is a third party in this instance between the injured party and
the rescuing fire department. As third party, BART took specific steps
that prevented a timely call to the fire department, in my hypothetical.
Your hypothetical is entirely different.
>I'm confident that BART has procedures and personnel in place to
>assure timely response to unforeseen events. Were I employed by BART,
>and assigned to explain such a circumstance to the media, I would
>argue that a passenger's inability to access the cellular network
>_speeded_ up the response, since control center personnel didn't
>have to waste time answering calls from whatever 911 center a
>cell phone happened to reach, and since they wouldn't be thrown off by
>inaccurate Latitude and Longitude information given by GPS-equipped
>phones, which IIRC are programmed to report the last valid location
>they register, even if it's two miles away at the other end of a
>tunnel.
Uh, so why do any cell phone calls go to the "above ground" cellular 911 call
center under any circumstances? You're making an unrelated argument about
the ineffectiveness of cellular 911 in this cirucmstance. That makes some
sense (perhaps BART should operate its own cellular 911 service) but still
isn't applicable given that the shut off wasn't due to an ongoing emergency
but an anticipated but undefined situation. If a fight broke out or a
passenger was inadvertently injured by a protester, there isn't necessarily
any BART personnel to witness it. There probably are no pay phones. There
may be telephones in the station and tunnel to reach the control center,
but generally, these are in locked boxes wherever I've seen them on a
transit rail system.
>>So you think [BART has] the right to shut down communication services but
>>are imune from damages that arise subsequently from the foreseeable
>>consequences of shutting down communication. I don't think that's a
>>legal defense.
>They didn't shut down communications: they prevented the use of
>cellular telephones. The communications networks employed by BART, the
>SFPD, the SFFD, etc., etc., weren't affected. Those networks are
>separate from the cellular network for very good reasons.
Without cell phone service, no passenger had any ability to reach those
other forms of communication.
>[snip]
>>When I rent property, I am not subject to the land owner's ability to
>>prevent my access or use of the property during business hours because
>>of something that might happen. BART is not "simply" acting as land owner
>>granting an easement, right of way, or tenancy. They are controlling
>>access for reasons of other than preventing conflict with train service.
>If I rent a garage (i.e., an enclosed parking space for an automobile,
>not a service station) and subsequently decide to store a 55 gallon
>drum of gasoline inside it, is the property owner required to suffer
>the risk of fire or explosion?
I'm sure the land owner rented you the garage for storing an automobile
and not for any other purpose. He didn't rent it to you for any number
of scenarios in which you've proposed illegal; after all, inadequate
storage of a significant amount of gasoline is illegal.
That sure doesn't contradict my hypothetical.
>I think that this is devolving into a chicken-little scenario. The sky
>may be falling, or it might not, but the notion that being deprived of
>the use of a cell phone is somehow going to alter the course of history
>is too far-fetched to be credible.
Great! I think there should be pay phones provided for emergency communication
service. I've been damned on this newsgroup for the suggestion. Too often,
a cell phone may be all that's readily available, so it's absurd to turn
service off where it's already being provisioned.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:27:12 -0500
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <E_-dnX9XifidNtPTnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@posted.nuvoxcommunications>
In article <j2lvv2$79d$3@news.albasani.net>,
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
[[ sneck ]]
>
>Communication was shut off due to perception of the possibility of
>harm to BART, likely with more concern for public relations than the
>possibility of damage to property. Communication wasn't shut off because
>actual property damage was occuring.
>
>So, no, they weren't trying to punish a minority by inconveniencing
>every cell phone user. They were scared based on incidents in London and
>other cities.
>
>This is prior restraint.
FALSE TO FACT.
'Prior restraint' is a restriction on -what- you can say, not how you
can say it. ("Prior restraint" is a 'term of legal art' and has a very
specific meaning.)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:20:55 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2omt7$g52$1@news.albasani.net>
Robert Bonomi <bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Communication was shut off due to perception of the possibility of
>>harm to BART, likely with more concern for public relations than the
>>possibility of damage to property. Communication wasn't shut off because
>>actual property damage was occuring.
>>So, no, they weren't trying to punish a minority by inconveniencing
>>every cell phone user. They were scared based on incidents in London and
>>other cities.
>>This is prior restraint.
>FALSE TO FACT.
>'Prior restraint' is a restriction on -what- you can say, not how you
>can say it. ("Prior restraint" is a 'term of legal art' and has a very
>specific meaning.)
Fine. So tell us the correct term.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:03:02 -0700
From: AES <siegman@stanford.edu>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <siegman-18C19A.17030219082011@sciid-srv02.med.tufts.edu>
Telecom Digest Moderator wrote:
> BTW, I think the Second Amendment is, by far, the least well
> understood and most often misquoted.
Careful, Bill!!! I don't think you want to go there -- not at all!
***** Moderator's Note *****
If it were relevant to telecom, I would go there on a rocket ship!
Bill Horne
Moderator
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:45:25 -0400
From: "Geoffrey Welsh" <gwelsh@spamcop.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Americans and Their Cell Phones
Message-ID: <cdc88$4e4ecb2c$adcea244$29503@PRIMUS.CA>
John Mayson wrote:
> Not to be Debbie Downer here, but when I read things like this all I
> can think of is how spoiled we are. Too many people in the world
> have real problems. Us? Our downloads take too long.
That reminds me of an (I believe) OnStar ad showing a mobile phone go
flying during a collision and implying that you're out of luck if
you're pinned somewhere and can't reach it. I don't know how we all
got to be as old as we did, not having cellphones let alone OnStar
and, following a collision or an unintended departure from the
roadway, we not only had to free ourselves from the vehicle but also
had to find a way to reach gasp a LAND LINE to call for help...
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Bell Logo History
Message-ID: <1453fe3d-5630-4e5d-bf1e-dc8b4dc3484f@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 19, 5:29 pm, David Chessler <chess...@usa.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Bell System Memorial- Bell Logo History
>
> http://www.porticus.org/bell/bell_logos.html
On the few remaining pay phones, the Bell logo appears on the side
(the Verizon logo is on the front).
Some old central offices had the older Bell logo carved onto the
building, but these have been covered up by the Verizon logo.
Until recently, the ad inserts in the Verizon phone bill said in fine
print, "Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania", even though the
company had changed its name to Bell Atlantic at Divesture. (I wonder
if they used different ads for former GTE customers; I think
internally there are differences).
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:09:13 -0400
From: "David B. Horvath, CCP" <dhorvath@cobs.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Telecom Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <20110820001659.57406.qmail@gal.iecc.com>
>On Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:19:54 -0700 (PDT), : Hancock4
><withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>In reading various public comments in the news, I can't help but
>suspect many people do not understand the issue. People seem to think
>it's a "free speech" issue, but I don't see it that way---one does not
>use their cell phone to demonstrate. To me, the issue is (1) does a
>property owner have the right to suspend cell phone service within his
>property over communications gear he owns, and (2) steps a government
>action may take in the face of a civil disturbance.
In many ways, this is a free speech issue as Bay Area Rapid Transit is
a governmental agency: check out their web site: www.bart.GOV
(emphasis mine). That puts the standard of restricting that speech
pretty high.
- David
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Telecom Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <bd8b3762-b311-4a65-b1bd-d8709c26fe57@q5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
On Aug 19, 8:09 pm, "David B. Horvath, CCP" <dhorv...@cobs.com> wrote:
> >On Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:19:54 -0700 (PDT), : Hancock4
> ><withh...@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
> > . . . To me, the issue is (1) does a
> >property owner have the right to suspend cell phone service within his
> >property over communications gear he owns, and (2) steps a government
> >action may take in the face of a civil disturbance.
> In many ways, this is a free speech issue as Bay Area Rapid Transit is
> a governmental agency: check out their web site:www.bart.GOV
> (emphasis mine). That puts the standard of restricting that speech
> pretty high.
Everyone agrees BART is a government agency and, as such, is required
to comply with the US Constitution.
But I don't see how cell phone service or lack thereof is "protected
free speech". As mentioned earlier, government agencies direct
people not to use their cell phones in various situations, such as on
quiet cars of commuter trains, so they obviously have the power to
regulate cell phone usage on their property. Further, Mr. Bonomi's
analysis shows that there is no obligation to provide cell phone
service.
Further, free speech rights 'drop' when one enters the interior of
government property. For example, none of us have the right to barge
into our governor's office and tell him what we think face to face or
disruprt the proceedings of a legislature.
The issue at hand is the interior of BART stations, and the courts
have ruled transit agencies can set up rules of conduct wtihin the
interiors. If people wanted to picket, hand out leaflets, etc. in
front of BART stations or their offices they were perfectly free to do
so.
Indeed, reader comments in SF newspapers suggest the demonstrations
were highly counter-productive--the passengers who were inconvenienced
were very angry and not at all sympathetic with the demonstrators. A
more constrained demonstration would've been more effective.
(My own feeling, recalling my college years and the student protest
activities, is that some of the demonstrators sought to be disruptive
as an end result as opposed to concern over any issue at hand.)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:24:08 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Telecom Re: BART cuts off subway cell phone service
Message-ID: <j2ou48$uqu$2@news.albasani.net>
HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> wrote:
>On Aug 19, 8:09 pm, "David B. Horvath, CCP" <dhorv...@cobs.com> wrote:
>>>On Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:19:54 -0700 (PDT), : Hancock4 wrote:
>>>. . . To me, the issue is (1) does a property owner have the right
>>>to suspend cell phone service within his property over communications
>>>gear he owns, and (2) steps a government action may take in the face
>>>of a civil disturbance.
>>In many ways, this is a free speech issue as Bay Area Rapid Transit is
>>a governmental agency: check out their web site:www.bart.GOV
>>(emphasis mine). That puts the standard of restricting that speech
>>pretty high.
>Everyone agrees BART is a government agency and, as such, is required
>to comply with the US Constitution.
>But I don't see how cell phone service or lack thereof is "protected
>free speech". As mentioned earlier, government agencies direct
>people not to use their cell phones in various situations, such as on
>quiet cars of commuter trains, so they obviously have the power to
>regulate cell phone usage on their property.
That's supposed to be a matter of self-segregation. A subscriber might have
the inconvenience of moving to another car but he's not prevented from
communicating. Furthermore, if there were an emergency, he could use his
cell phone without having to move elsewhere.
>Further, Mr. Bonomi's analysis shows that there is no obligation to
>provide cell phone service.
He discussed not provisioning cellular service to begin with, not shutting
off already-provisioned service.
>Further, free speech rights 'drop' when one enters the interior of
>government property. For example, none of us have the right to barge
>into our governor's office and tell him what we think face to face or
>disruprt the proceedings of a legislature.
Here you fail to distinguish between speech and action. The two are not
the same.
>The issue at hand is the interior of BART stations, and the courts
>have ruled transit agencies can set up rules of conduct wtihin the
>interiors. If people wanted to picket, hand out leaflets, etc. in
>front of BART stations or their offices they were perfectly free to do
>so.
Other passengers wishing to use their cell phones weren't doing anything
in violation of rules of conduct. Furthermore, the demonstrators the
action was targetted at hadn't yet done anything disruptive, nor was their
own use of cell phones disruptive in and of itself.
Shutting off service wasn't a matter of regulating conduct.
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:30:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: EFF-Autin says BART violated at least two federal laws
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1108192129120.2617@John-Maysons-MacBook.local>
***** Moderator's Note *****
This post contains quotes drawn from a website which belongs to the Electronic Frontier Foundation of Austin, Texas.
>From the website's "About" page:
EFF-Austin was originally formed in 1991 with the intention that
it would become the first chapter of the national Electronic
Frontier Foundation, however [the national] EFF decided not to
become a chapters organization, and EFF-Austin became a
separately-incorporated, independent nonprofit organization ...
Bill Horne
Moderator
***************************
http://effaustin.org/2011/08/statement-on-san-francisco-bart-cellphone-service-shutdown/
BART's action probably violated section 333 of the Communications Act. The
mobile providers' decision to give control over the mobile service
repeaters/microcells to BART also probably violated the terms of their
licenses and FCC rules, 47 C.F.R. sections 22.383 and 22.527, and possibly
others. The FCC noted only a few months ago that the Commission's rules
and policies adopted pursuant to section 310(d) require that licensees
maintain control over and responsibility for their assigned spectrum,
equipment, and operations. Similarly, section 1.903 established that
stations in wireless services may only be operated with an FCC
authorization (i.e., license). Violations are punishable by fines and
forfeitures. Although the FCC is considering changing these rules - in an
effort to encourage further use of repeaters and signal boosters by
users - the rule changes have not yet gone into effect.
--
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 14:29:25 -0400
From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: advertisement poking fun at the AT&T takeover...
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1108201423490.25404@panix5.panix.com>
***** Moderator's Note *****
The URL shown is this post requires an additional component be
available to deliver the content. That component might already be
installed on your computer, but it's up to you to decide if you want
to risk running "active" content on your machine.
Bill Horne
Moderator
***** End Moderator's Note *****
We've had some discussions about AT&T's proposed gobbling
up of their t-Mobile competitor.
In response, Virgin Mobile has an advert with a double
for that Catherine Zeta Jones double that t-Mobile's
been using...
thirty seconds. about ten megs:
Safe for work, unless you're at AT&T or TM...
http://www.dburstein.com/video/virgin/
danny "a t-mobile customer since back when they were Omnipoint" burstein
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:49:13 -0500
From: "John F. Morse" <john@example.invalid>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Extensions to pay phones?
Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.20.18.49.12.538508@example.invalid>
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:26:36 +0000 Scott Norwood wrote:
> In article <pan.2011.08.18.17.49.41.525858@example.invalid>, John F.
> Morse <john@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>What is a WECo 1C2 payphone?
>
> It's the current standard single-slot touch-tone type that you would
> typically see in a phone booth or enclosure. A 1C1 is the rotary
> version, and a 2C[12] is the panel-mount version. I have not seen a
> rotary model in service since the early 1990s.
>
>>I am familiar with the single-slot 1A2, but that was back in the 1980s.
>>Is the 1C2 an upgrade? Do you have a link to a picture?
>
> Here is a picture (this one is missing the locks):
>
> http://www.payphone.com/images/D/personalpayphone1.jpg
Thanks for the link to that site, Scott.
On the outside it looks like the 1A2 coin set. Probably some internal
improvements were made, incrementing the designation letter.
I don't remember if the 1A1/1A2 could provide dialtone first or not. I was
not around pay phone installation after 1970.
What was the WECo designation for the late three-slot coin sets that were
replaced by the 1A1/1A2 sets around the end of the '60s? Perhaps a 635?
> Most of the current ones now have a volume adjustment button in the
> upper-left corner where the "STOP" placard is located in the picture.
> The newer ones have an electronic (as opposed to mechanical) coin return
> mechanism and may have more electronics inside.
>
>>I suspect you didn't really mean to imply the movie theater also had a
>>second 1C2 in the box office.
>
> Actually, I did. They have two of them, both on the same circuit, one
> in the lobby and one in the boxoffice. I have never seen this before or
> since. The building dates from the 1920s, but the phones are obviously
> from the 1970s/1980s or later. This is in Verizon territory in Rhode
> Island.
My guess, for their choosing the use of a coin set as an extension, was
their C.O. may have only provided 1FB, or other loop-start lines, and the
"coin" set therefore required an ability to "play dead" until a coin was
inserted.
Or this could be one of those customer-owned coin sets on a 1FB line. A
friend installed one in his restaurant and had the SWBT 1A2 removed.
Or they didn't want the ticket seller to make free calls and tie up the
line. ;-)
--
John
When a person has -- whether they knew it or not -- already
rejected the Truth, by what means do they discern a lie?
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:51:55 -0400
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: telecomdigestmoderator.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org.
Subject: Re: Verizon strike
Message-ID: <MPG.28b9da687cb16345989d5a@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <20110814235625.7236.qmail@joyce.lan>, johnl@iecc.com says...
>
> >I got rid of Vonage as it required a PC be powered on all the time to
> >have continuous phone service, same as Skype (no adapter, just
> >software).
>
> Huh? When I had Vonage, they provided me a Cisco ATA-186 with one
> jack for the RJ-45 from the router and another jack with the RJ-11 to
> the phone. I couldn't have run it through my PC if I wanted to.
I had a Linksys RT31P2 that had the same setup. No computer required.
You did need a computer to manage your account but that is the entire
extent of it.
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Copyright (C) 2009 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom Digest (24 messages)
Return to Archives ** Older Issues