Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community, on Aug 24, 2011 at 2:39 pm Dear Editor,
As I board an airplane, my iPad has an airplane mode that disconnects it from the network. The airline personnel tell me when I can use my network connection and when I can't. In reviewing that reality with legal sources it seems that the potential for HAZARD is the constitutional justification for the disconnect.
As I enter a BART station or train, I realize that any network connection offered is a courtesy of the BART network and BART has the right and obligation to end connection when a HAZARD is created.
As I read the terms of service for my mobile telephone I recognize that the network has the right to end connection if I abuse the service and create a criminal hazard.
What I am having difficulty with in this story is freedom of speech applied to any network that has terms of service opposing HAZARDS created by criminal activities or disturbances. What is a greater wonder is BART's continuing entertainment of challenges to their right to end any and all network courtesies.
I must laughingly ask why BART, as a transportation service, is obligated to continue mobile network courtesies to serve the criminal activities of those that would disturb reasonable transportation service? Can you answer?
Of Ralph asking the obvious
| 
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
