subject:"\[WIRELESS\-LAN\] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal"

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-29 Thread Alan Klein

Balrogs!





On October 29, 2014 at 9:12:48 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) 
(bosbo...@liberty.edu) wrote:

You would need to get every low-end consumer device manufacturer on board to 
support the new bands. How do you propose that?

 

Bruce Osborne

Network Engineer – Wireless Team

IT Network Services

 

(434) 592-4229

 

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

Training Champions for Christ since 1971

 

From: Robert Owens [mailto:bob...@ksu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

 

This is probably way too much to ask for but I think we will be having problems 
until the FCC carves out an entirely new band allocation that has the space and 
width and technology to handle dense high user count, high bandwidth, 
environments. Would have to be low enough frequency so we would not have an AP 
every 10 feet but high enough that individual throughput would be high enough. 
Kind of like when we went from hubs to switches. I know I know I am dreaming. 
And then the equipment upgrades begin again. (Job Security)

 

Bob Owens

Kansas State University

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tindall, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:43 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

 

I’ll vote for you Lee!!!  J    What’s that you say… “being right has never got 
anyone elected…”?   “the FCC is above politics…”?  I thought it would be so 
simple…

 

Hahahaha….

 

Dave Tindall
Asst VP for Technology Services (CIO)
Seattle Pacific University
Computer  Information Systems
Phone: (206) 281-2239
Mobile:  (206) 940-1736
Fax: (206) 281-2850
Email: dtind...@spu.edu
Web: www.spu.edu

 

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

 

To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and 
government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing 
that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN 
to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have 
local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that 
boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, 
stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else. 

 

If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any 
number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and 
services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty 
dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated 
WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership.

 

I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message.

 

Lee H. Badman
Network Architect/Wireless TME
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta 
djmo...@syr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

 

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

 

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.  

 

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread Jorj Bauer

There are a lot of misconceptions about all of this airspace licensing and use.

The spectrum used by 2.4 GHz and 5GHz WiFi is open to non-licensed (ISM band
part 15) use. A large part of it is also in contention with licensed amateur
radio operation.

What that means is that a ham radio operator could set up legitimate
communications on (e.g.) 2.4 GHz and override any WiFi you have set up.
Legally. The amateur radio operators have primary allocation in most of the
band space, while ISM is secondary allocation. The amateur radio operators
could, in theory, ask you to shut down your interfering WiFi operations. [1]

Related: telling someone that they are not permitted to operate Part 15 devices
in their own residential space is a very grey area. It's probably not kosher to
tell students that they are not permitted to operate their own WiFi in the
dorms, but you *can* tell them they can't plug it in to your networks. In
theory, they have just as much right to operate a Part 15 device in their own
residence as you have to operate a Part 15 wifi network in the same space.

Whether that applies within the walls of a private institution that is not a
residence, I have no idea. I suspect it does.

This is all very tricky. Please, consult with your institution's general
counsel. IANAL, etc.

-- Jorj

[1] http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices

--
Jorj Bauer
Manager of Engineering, Research and Development
Information Systems and Computing, University of Pennsylvania
215.746.3850
XMPP: j...@upenn.edu

On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services)
bosbo...@liberty.edu wrote:

The reports if the FCC report that I read said that the rogue devices were
not interfering with the hotel Wi-Fi network.

I think they might have had a reason to deauth if the rogues were interfering
with the hotel network,

Bruce Osborne
Network Engineer – Wireless Team
IT Network Services

(434) 592-4229

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY
Training Champions for Christ since 1971

From: Peter P Morrissey [mailto:ppmor...@syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?

Pete Morrissey

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine
features illegal

IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.”
Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally
interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable
through whatever means as equivalent to jamming.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564
image001.gif

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine
features illegal

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5

The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you
intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some
part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend
it.

But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your
campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well,
are you jamming?

I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The
rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify.

-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:
Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but the
FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether you
offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears
that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they
created a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that
they certified for use in the US.

Lee Badman
Wireless/Network Architect
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003
(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com)

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Williams

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread David J Molta

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it 
should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You 
could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power 
may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular 
deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to 
maximum radio output power.

--
Dave Molta
Associate Professor of Practice
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
email: djmo...@syr.edu
phone: 315-443-4549

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network 
either.

Pete Morrissey

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting 
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?

No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you built 
is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF spectrum. 
Yes you built the wireless infrastructure (APs and controllers), but the medium 
is fundamentally different.

I've been working up a car analogy: if you were a urban university with 
buildings spread throughout a city, you couldn't deauth non-university vehicles 
from using the (publicly owned) roads (to ensure university owned vehicles 
could get to their destinations unimpeded).

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter P Morrissey 
ppmor...@syr.edumailto:ppmor...@syr.edu wrote:
So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting 
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?

Pete Morrissey

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU]
 On Behalf Of Thomas Carter
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM

To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending 
a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting 
valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever 
means as equivalent to jamming.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564tel:903-813-2564
[AusColl_Logo_Email]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as 
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread Lee H Badman

To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and 
government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing 
that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN 
to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have 
local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that 
boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, 
stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else.


If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any 
number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and 
services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty 
dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated 
WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership.


I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message.


Lee H. Badman
Network Architect/Wireless TME
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta 
djmo...@syr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it 
should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You 
could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power 
may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular 
deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to 
maximum radio output power.

--
Dave Molta
Associate Professor of Practice
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
email: djmo...@syr.edu
phone: 315-443-4549

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network 
either.

Pete Morrissey

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting 
valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel?

No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you built 
is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF spectrum. 
Yes you built the wireless infrastructure (APs and controllers), but the medium 
is fundamentally different.

I've been working up a car analogy: if you were a urban university with 
buildings spread throughout a city, you couldn't deauth non-university vehicles 
from using the (publicly owned) roads (to ensure university owned vehicles 
could get to their destinations unimpeded).

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter P Morrissey 
ppmor...@syr.edumailto:ppmor...@syr.edu wrote:
So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting 
valid communications

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread Thomas Carter

Exactly. The horse has left the barn, but this cries out for some sort of 
pseudo-licensing system (e.g. we have the rights to WiFi within our campus 
area). WiFi has become too important to essentially have signal anarchy. I 
believe the importance of WiFi in homes is the one thing that keeps it from 
becoming worse; people will not buy something that interferes with their home 
Internet. But unfortunately that is the exact thing that is making it harder on 
us as too many devices are built around the assumption that they only need to 
work around 1 AP on 1 channel. (Don’t get me started on devices and services 
that are built to work behind a home “router” but not an enterprise one)

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564
[cid:image001.gif@01CFF295.926EFD70]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:48 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal


To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and 
government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing 
that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN 
to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have 
local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that 
boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, 
stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else.



If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any 
number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and 
services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty 
dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated 
WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership.



I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message.


Lee H. Badman
Network Architect/Wireless TME
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it 
should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You 
could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power 
may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular 
deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to 
maximum radio output power.

--
Dave Molta
Associate Professor of Practice
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
email: djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu
phone: 315-443-4549

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

That’s my point. If it isn’t my network

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread Tindall, Dave

I’ll vote for you Lee!!!  ☺What’s that you say… “being right has never got 
anyone elected…”?   “the FCC is above politics…”?  I thought it would be so 
simple…

Hahahaha….

Dave Tindall
Asst VP for Technology Services (CIO)
Seattle Pacific University
Computer  Information Systems
Phone: (206) 281-2239
Mobile:  (206) 940-1736
Fax: (206) 281-2850
Email: dtind...@spu.edumailto:dtind...@spu.edu
Web: www.spu.eduhttp://www.spu.edu/

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal


To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and 
government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing 
that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN 
to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have 
local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that 
boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, 
stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else.



If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any 
number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and 
services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty 
dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated 
WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership.



I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message.


Lee H. Badman
Network Architect/Wireless TME
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it 
should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You 
could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power 
may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular 
deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to 
maximum radio output power.

--
Dave Molta
Associate Professor of Practice
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
email: djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu
phone: 315-443-4549

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network 
either.

Pete Morrissey

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-28 Thread Robert Owens

This is probably way too much to ask for but I think we will be having problems 
until the FCC carves out an entirely new band allocation that has the space and 
width and technology to handle dense high user count, high bandwidth, 
environments. Would have to be low enough frequency so we would not have an AP 
every 10 feet but high enough that individual throughput would be high enough. 
Kind of like when we went from hubs to switches. I know I know I am dreaming. 
And then the equipment upgrades begin again. (Job Security)

Bob Owens
Kansas State University

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tindall, Dave
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:43 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I’ll vote for you Lee!!!  ☺What’s that you say… “being right has never got 
anyone elected…”?   “the FCC is above politics…”?  I thought it would be so 
simple…

Hahahaha….

Dave Tindall
Asst VP for Technology Services (CIO)
Seattle Pacific University
Computer  Information Systems
Phone: (206) 281-2239
Mobile:  (206) 940-1736
Fax: (206) 281-2850
Email: dtind...@spu.edumailto:dtind...@spu.edu
Web: www.spu.eduhttp://www.spu.edu/

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal


To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and 
government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing 
that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN 
to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have 
local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that 
boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, 
stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else.



If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any 
number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and 
services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty 
dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated 
WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership.



I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message.


Lee H. Badman
Network Architect/Wireless TME
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would 
be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects 
everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 
GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non 
frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference 
problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that 
cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some 
testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference 
in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of 
variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity 
of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices 
operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA

The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to 
configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of 
devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 
1.

This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have 
adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi 
device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference 
issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it 
should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You 
could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power 
may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular 
deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to 
maximum radio output power.

--
Dave Molta

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Kitri Waterman

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the
Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel
chain interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by
consumers in the conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the
Gaylord Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel
was jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space.

Is this a distinction between them blocking in their conference
facilities vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal
propagation is not so clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are
seeing things differently.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon

On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:

I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless
countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off,
disabling wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s
jurisdiction it seems to me.

Thomas Carter

Network and Operations Manager

Austin College

903-813-2564

AusColl_Logo_Email

*From:*The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Brian Helman
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM
*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own
AP is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder
if that clause is invalid.

-Brian

Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify
anything sent.

-Original Message-
From: Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edu mailto:f...@wpi.edu
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that.
I've been
in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi. A
number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals -
instead
just said Nah, I'll just use my hotspot.

I suspect it's a combination of two things. First, I paid for it, so
I have
to use it to get my money's worth. Second, I'd have to think about
how to
set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory.

In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host
offered wifi
doesn't even factor into the decision at all.

Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu http://wpi.edu| For every problem,
there is a solution that
Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken

On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote:
Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi
for free
or at a reasonable price.
When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi,
just
include it in the cost of doing business.
Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at
$200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot,
and bypass the silly cost model!

At Educause this week the Vendor-floor was plagued with hundreds of
Mi-Fi and
private Wi-Fi.
The event was charging upward of $150/day for Wi-Fi to exhibitors.
So, many of
them had their own solutions!

Humans are resourceful...and if you piss them off they will read the
law and
call the FCC (or they pirate your network ;-)

Philippe

Philippe Hanset
www.eduroam.us http://www.eduroam.us http://www.eduroam.us

On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu
mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu
mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:

What do you all think of this?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-60/

- Lee Badman

** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/. http://www.educause.edu/groups/

** Participation and subscription information for this
EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

**
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
discussion list can be found

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Williams, Matthew

I don't think that there's a distinction about the location.  My understanding 
is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to 
pay for the hotel provided wireless network.  I don't think that there would 
have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free.

Respectfully,

Matthew Williams
Kent State University
Network  Telecommunications Services
Office: (330) 672-7246
Mobile: (330) 469-0445

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kitri Waterman
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal 
Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain 
interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the 
conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord 
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was jamming 
mobile hotspots so you can't use them in the convention space.

Is this a distinction between them blocking in their conference facilities 
vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal propagation is not so 
clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are seeing things differently.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon

On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:
I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless 
countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, disabling 
wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC's jurisdiction it 
seems to me.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564
[AusColl_Logo_Email]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Helman
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP is 
against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that clause 
is invalid.

-Brian


Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything sent.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edumailto:f...@wpi.edu
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal
I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that.  I've been
in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi.  A
number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead
just said Nah, I'll just use my hotspot.

I suspect it's a combination of two things.  First, I paid for it, so I have
to use it to get my money's worth.  Second, I'd have to think about how to
set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory.

In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host offered wifi
doesn't even factor into the decision at all.

Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.eduhttp://wpi.edu|  For every problem, there is 
a solution that
Manager of Network Operations   |  is simple, elegant, and wrong.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute |   - HL Mencken

On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote:
 Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi for free
 or at a reasonable price.
 When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi, just
 include it in the cost of doing business.
 Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at
 $200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot,
 and bypass the silly cost model!

 At Educause this week the Vendor-floor was plagued with hundreds of Mi-Fi and
 private Wi-Fi.
 The event was charging upward of $150/day for Wi-Fi to exhibitors. So, many of
 them had their own solutions!

 Humans are resourceful...and if you piss them off they will read the law and
 call the FCC (or they pirate your network ;-)

 Philippe

 Philippe Hanset
 www.eduroam.ushttp://www.eduroam.us http://www.eduroam.us



 On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Lee H Badman 
 lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu
 mailto:lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:


 What do you all think of this?
 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-60/

 - Lee Badman

 ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
 Constituent Group discussion list can be found

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Lee H Badman

Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott's insane fees led to this, but the 
FCC seems to be saying you can't touch people's Wi-Fi, period whether you 
offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears 
that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they created 
a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that they 
certified for use in the US.

Lee Badman
Wireless/Network Architect
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003
(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com)

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Williams, Matthew
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I don't think that there's a distinction about the location.  My understanding 
is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to 
pay for the hotel provided wireless network.  I don't think that there would 
have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free.

Respectfully,

Matthew Williams
Kent State University
Network  Telecommunications Services
Office: (330) 672-7246
Mobile: (330) 469-0445

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kitri Waterman
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal 
Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain 
interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the 
conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord 
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was jamming 
mobile hotspots so you can't use them in the convention space.

Is this a distinction between them blocking in their conference facilities 
vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal propagation is not so 
clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are seeing things differently.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon
On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:
I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless 
countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, disabling 
wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC's jurisdiction it 
seems to me.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564
[AusColl_Logo_Email]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Helman
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP is 
against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that clause 
is invalid.

-Brian


Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything sent.


-Original Message-
From: Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edumailto:f...@wpi.edu
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal
I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that.  I've been
in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi.  A
number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead
just said Nah, I'll just use my hotspot.

I suspect it's a combination of two things.  First, I paid for it, so I have
to use it to get my money's worth.  Second, I'd have to think about how to
set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory.

In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host offered wifi
doesn't even factor into the decision at all.

Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.eduhttp://wpi.edu|  For every problem, there is 
a solution that
Manager of Network Operations   |  is simple, elegant, and wrong.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute |   - HL Mencken

On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote:
 Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi for free
 or at a reasonable price.
 When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi, just
 include it in the cost of doing business.
 Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at
 $200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Pete Hoffswell

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5

The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you
intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking
some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to
comprehend it.

But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your
campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well,
are you jamming?

I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The
rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify.

-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:

Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but
the FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether
you offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it
appears that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that
they created a lot of confusion over features that are built in to
equipment that they certified for use in the US.

Lee Badman

Wireless/Network Architect

ITS, Syracuse University

315.443.3003

(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com)

*From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Matthew
*Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM

*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My
understanding is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots
to force people to pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t
think that there would have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free.

Respectfully,

Matthew Williams

Kent State University

Network Telecommunications Services

Office: (330) 672-7246

Mobile: (330) 469-0445

*From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Kitri Waterman
*Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM
*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal
Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain
interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in
the conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was
jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon

On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:

Thomas Carter

Network and Operations Manager

Austin College

903-813-2564

[image: AusColl_Logo_Email]

*From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Brian Helman
*Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM
*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP
is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that
clause is invalid.

-Brian

Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything
sent.

-Original Message-
From: Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edu
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that. I've
been
in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi. A
number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead
just said Nah, I'll just use my hotspot.

I suspect it's a combination of two things. First, I paid

RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Thomas Carter

IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending 
a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting 
valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever 
means as equivalent to jamming.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564
[cid:image001.gif@01CFF201.867223B0]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as 
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5

The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use.  If you intentionally 
disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some part of part 15. 
 I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend it.

But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it?   If you have a rogue AP on your campus, 
and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you 
jamming?

I'm with Lee.  I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one.  The 
rules are out of date at best.  They need to clarify.








-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edumailto:pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman 
lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:
Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but the 
FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether you 
offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears 
that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they created 
a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that they 
certified for use in the US.

Lee Badman
Wireless/Network Architect
ITS, Syracuse University
315.443.3003tel:315.443.3003
(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com)

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU]
 On Behalf Of Williams, Matthew
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM

To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location.  My understanding 
is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to 
pay for the hotel provided wireless network.  I don’t think that there would 
have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free.

Respectfully,

Matthew Williams
Kent State University
Network  Telecommunications Services
Office: (330) 672-7246tel:%28330%29%20672-7246
Mobile: (330) 469-0445tel:%28330%29%20469-0445

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kitri Waterman
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal 
Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain 
interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the 
conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord 
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was jamming 
mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space.

Is this a distinction between them blocking in their conference facilities 
vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal propagation is not so 
clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are seeing things differently.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon
On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:
I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless 
countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, disabling 
wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s jurisdiction it 
seems to me.

Thomas Carter
Network and Operations Manager
Austin College
903-813-2564tel:903-813-2564
[cid:image001.gif@01CFF201.867223B0]

From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv 
[mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Helman
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM
To: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal

I just saw this on CNN and jumped

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Tony Skalski

If you have a rogue AP on your campus, and you mitigate it by sending a
spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you jamming?

IANAL, but I pipe up anyway...

If this AP is connected to your (wired) network (i.e. extending it) or is
masquerading as a part of your network (advertising your SSID) then you are
within the law.

If you are sending deauths with to a client of said AP which is providing
it's own network with, say an upstream 4G connection, then you are
interfering.

Your wired network is yours; you built it, you operate it. The unlicensed
WiFi spectrum is not.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Pete Hoffswell
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu wrote:

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5

The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you
intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking
some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to
comprehend it.

But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your
campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well,
are you jamming?

I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The
rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify.

-
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu
http://www.davenport.edu

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote:

Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this,
but the FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period”
whether you offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then
again, it appears that they issued a decision and were clueless about the
fact that they created a lot of confusion over features that are built in
to equipment that they certified for use in the US.

Lee Badman

Wireless/Network Architect

ITS, Syracuse University

315.443.3003

(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com)

*From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Matthew
*Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM

*To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal

Respectfully,

Matthew Williams

Kent State University

Network Telecommunications Services

Office: (330) 672-7246

Mobile: (330) 469-0445

Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the
Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel
chain interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers
in the conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was
jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space.

Kitri Waterman
Network Engineer (Wireless)
University of Oregon

On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote:

Thomas Carter

Network and Operations Manager

Austin College

903-813-2564

[image: AusColl_Logo_Email]

I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP
is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that
clause is invalid.

-Brian

Sent

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Dave Flynn

While I agree that this opens up a nasty precedent for commercial institutions, 
I don't think it's a threat to colleges or universities. We ask our students to 
sign a number of agreements when they matriculate, one of which has to do with 
being a good net citizen (don't DDOS our servers or anyone else's, don't 
download protected content, etc). They must agree not to use their own APs 
without the permission of IT*; if they do, we have the right to knock them off 
the network. Generally speaking, we prefer to do that by disabling the wall 
port(s) to which they cannot instead of poisoning them from our own APs, but 
they've agreed to follow our guidelines regardless of the mechanism we choose. 
It's a condition of being a student here. The Marriott situation does not 
apply. 

*Not that they don't try. We have dozens of rogue APs every Fall and it takes 
many hours to clean them up. 

Dave Flynn 
Manager of Systems and Infrastructure 
Carleton College 
507 222 7836 - office 
651 331 6323 - cell 

- Original Message -

From: Pete Hoffswell pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu 
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal 

My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as 
outlined in FCC part 15 regulations 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5
 

The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you intentionally 
disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some part of part 15. 
I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend it. 

But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your campus, 
and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you 
jamming? 

I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The rules 
are out of date at best. They need to clarify. 








- 
Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager 
pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu 
http://www.davenport.edu 


On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman  lhbad...@syr.edu  wrote: 





Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but the 
FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether you 
offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears 
that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they created 
a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that they 
certified for use in the US. 




Lee Badman 

Wireless/Network Architect 

ITS, Syracuse University 

315.443.3003 

(Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com ) 





From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: 
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU ] On Behalf Of Williams, Matthew 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM 

To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal 







I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My understanding 
is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to 
pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t think that there would 
have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free. 




Respectfully, 



Matthew Williams 

Kent State University 

Network  Telecommunications Services 

Office: (330) 672-7246 

Mobile: (330) 469-0445 





From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ 
mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU ] On Behalf Of Kitri Waterman 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM 
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU 
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine 
features illegal 




Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal 
Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain 
interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the 
conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013. 

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord 
Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was jamming 
mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space. 

Is this a distinction between them blocking in their conference facilities 
vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal propagation is not so 
clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are seeing things differently. 

Kitri Waterman 
Network Engineer (Wireless) 
University of Oregon 


On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote: 

blockquote


I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless 
countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, disabling 
wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s jurisdiction it 
seems to me. 




Thomas Carter 

Network and Operations Manager 

Austin College 

903-813-2564

Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal

2014-10-27 Thread Coehoorn, Joel

. We ask our students to sign a number of agreements when they
matriculate, one of which has to do with being a good net citizen (don't
DDOS our servers or anyone else's, don't download protected content, etc).
They must agree not to use their own APs without the permission of IT*

I'm not sure that covers it. What if Marriott adds similar rules to these
when you sign the check-in papers for your hotel room? What about
non-student guests, who haven't agreed to this and are using a MiFi to
avoid agreeing to any NAC policies?

Joel Coehoorn
Director of Information Technology
402.363.5603
*jcoeho...@york.edu jcoeho...@york.edu*

The mission of York College is to transform lives through
Christ-centered education and to equip students for lifelong service to
God, family, and society

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Dave Flynn dfl...@carleton.edu wrote:

While I agree that this opens up a nasty precedent for commercial
institutions, I don't think it's a threat to colleges or universities. We
ask our students to sign a number of agreements when they matriculate, one
of which has to do with being a good net citizen (don't DDOS our servers or
anyone else's, don't download protected content, etc). They must agree not
to use their own APs without the permission of IT*; if they do, we have the
right to knock them off the network. Generally speaking, we prefer to do
that by disabling the wall port(s) to which they cannot instead of
poisoning them from our own APs, but they've agreed to follow our
guidelines regardless of the mechanism we choose. It's a condition of being
a student here. The Marriott situation does not apply.

*Not that they don't try. We have dozens of rogue APs every Fall and it
takes many hours to clean them up.

Dave Flynn
Manager of Systems and Infrastructure
Carleton College
507 222 7836 - office
651 331 6323 - cell

--
*From: *Pete Hoffswell pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu
*To: *WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
*Sent: *Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05:01 PM

*Subject: *Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN
quarantine features illegal