Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I think that for Conference Centers/hotels, it’s pretty clear about Wi-Fi blocking/de-authing. Does private property make a difference, however? Our dorms are considered private property. Do we have more of a right there to control the airspace? And does unauthorized network access make a difference? If someone brings and AP and connects it to our network, do I a right to interfere with its wireless transmission because it’s providing unauthorized access to our private network? We have a Responsible Use of Technology Policy that forbids the use of wireless access points not purchased by IT and permits the removal of such devices but the IT department. Do we have a leg to stand on wit this? On 2/11/15, 4:51 PM, Turner, Ryan H rhtur...@email.unc.edu wrote: Yup, but then the FCC would be the agency of enforcement, not us. Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:31 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Or, you can look at that as being harmful interference. Since your users will attempt to connect to the wrong network, it will disrupt your users' valid use of your network, harming your users. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:54:41PM +, Thomas Carter wrote: I see no exemption for that type of issue. The FCC rulings seem to be about use of frequency for communication, not the protocol details (unless the protocol prevents the communications as in this case). Additionally, who owns the SSID name? The FCC sees all users as the same, so I suspect you have no more right to the SSID than the user does. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-s la mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Of course, I am not a lawyer so take these with a grain of salt, but I've been reading FCC regs since I was a teenager... *Does private property make a difference, however? Our dorms are consideredprivate property. Do we have more of a right there to control theairspace?* No. The FCC rules govern radio transmissions, wherever they are. Similarly, you can't jam CB radios, ham radios, television, or any other licensed or unlicensed broadcasts. *And does unauthorized network access make a difference? If someone bringsand AP and connects it to our network, do I a right to interfere with itswireless transmission because it’s providing unauthorized access to ourprivate network?* No, but yes. You can stop it from having any upstream network connection since you own that. So you can make it useless, even if you can't stop it from broadcasting. The rules really are about personal hotspots, not wired access points. *We have a Responsible Use of Technology Policy that forbids the use ofwireless access points not purchased by IT and permits the removal of suchdevices but the IT department. Do we have a leg to stand on wit this?* Again, you can stop a wired AP from being connected to your network and you can legally remove one. You may be able to use your acceptable use policy to sanction a student from using a Mi-Fi (eg threaten to throw them out of the dorm) BUT you likely have no recourse against a parent who brings one to live-tweet the graduation, for instance. - Eric On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Gary Ossewaarde g...@calvin.edu wrote: I think that for Conference Centers/hotels, it’s pretty clear about Wi-Fi blocking/de-authing. Does private property make a difference, however? Our dorms are considered private property. Do we have more of a right there to control the airspace? And does unauthorized network access make a difference? If someone brings and AP and connects it to our network, do I a right to interfere with its wireless transmission because it’s providing unauthorized access to our private network? We have a Responsible Use of Technology Policy that forbids the use of wireless access points not purchased by IT and permits the removal of such devices but the IT department. Do we have a leg to stand on wit this? On 2/11/15, 4:51 PM, Turner, Ryan H rhtur...@email.unc.edu wrote: Yup, but then the FCC would be the agency of enforcement, not us. Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:31 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Or, you can look at that as being harmful interference. Since your users will attempt to connect to the wrong network, it will disrupt your users' valid use of your network, harming your users. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:54:41PM +, Thomas Carter wrote: I see no exemption for that type of issue. The FCC rulings seem to be about use of frequency for communication, not the protocol details (unless the protocol prevents the communications as in this case). Additionally, who owns the SSID name? The FCC sees all users as the same, so I suspect you have no more right to the SSID than the user does. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-s la mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Or, you can look at that as being harmful interference. Since your users will attempt to connect to the wrong network, it will disrupt your users' valid use of your network, harming your users. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:54:41PM +, Thomas Carter wrote: I see no exemption for that type of issue. The FCC rulings seem to be about use of frequency for communication, not the protocol details (unless the protocol prevents the communications as in this case). Additionally, who owns the SSID name? The FCC sees all users as the same, so I suspect you have no more right to the SSID than the user does. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-sla mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
HI Bob, Good piece, I thought this was his best quote captured: In the real world, Wi-Fi operates under the laws of physics and is neither limitless, nor perfect. Designing wireless systems, especially Wi-Fi, requires optimizing trade-offs in coverage, capacity, speed, security, complexity, reliability and affordability I can't tell you how many meetings in I am in where I have to continuously explain this to people. Thanks for shining a light on this topic with your story. Chad Chad D Burnham Director of Telecommunications University Technology Services University of Denver 2100 S. High St. #106 Denver, CO 80208 Desk Phone: 303-871-4441 Mobile Phone: 303-520-5657 [UniversityTechnologyServices_Signature] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bob Brown Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-slammed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html Bob Brown Online Executive Editor, News T: 508.766.5418 LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/bobbrownboston | Twitter: @alphadoggshttps://twitter.com/alphadoggs | Facebook profilehttps://www.facebook.com/NetworkWorld | Google + profilehttps://plus.google.com/104712908618368674642/posts | Instagramhttp://instagram.com/nwwinstagram NETWORK WORLD 492 Old Connecticut Path | PO Box 9002 | Framingham, MA 01701-9002 NetworkWorld.comhttp://www.networkworld.com | Media Kithttp://www.networkworldmediakit.com | Conferences Eventshttp://events.networkworld.com An IDG Enterprisehttp://www.idgenterprise.com/ Brand From: Mike Howard mi...@berkeley.edumailto:mi...@berkeley.edu Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi The FCC specifically exempted university dormitories from the OTARD rules. I believe we can prohibit the installation of antennas in dorm rooms, but not family housing apartments. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98273.pdf https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0414.pdf On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edumailto:f...@wpi.edu wrote: If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edumailto:hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331tel:%2B1%20256%20824%205331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edumailto:c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlappi! ng channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--must accept interference from other sources. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... ** 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/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Yup, but then the FCC would be the agency of enforcement, not us. Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:31 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Or, you can look at that as being harmful interference. Since your users will attempt to connect to the wrong network, it will disrupt your users' valid use of your network, harming your users. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:54:41PM +, Thomas Carter wrote: I see no exemption for that type of issue. The FCC rulings seem to be about use of frequency for communication, not the protocol details (unless the protocol prevents the communications as in this case). Additionally, who owns the SSID name? The FCC sees all users as the same, so I suspect you have no more right to the SSID than the user does. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-s la mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Thanks Bob! Great insight into the FCC and the wifi spectrum use. Mike On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-slammed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html *Bob Brown* Online Executive Editor, News T: 508.766.5418 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobbrownboston | Twitter: @alphadoggs https://twitter.com/alphadoggs | Facebook profile https://www.facebook.com/NetworkWorld | Google + profile https://plus.google.com/104712908618368674642/posts | Instagram http://instagram.com/nwwinstagram *NETWORK* *WORLD* 492 Old Connecticut Path | PO Box 9002 | Framingham, MA 01701-9002 NetworkWorld.com http://www.networkworld.com | Media Kit http://www.networkworldmediakit.com | Conferences Events http://events.networkworld.com An IDG Enterprise http://www.idgenterprise.com/ Brand From: Mike Howard mi...@berkeley.edu Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi The FCC specifically exempted university dormitories from the OTARD rules. I believe we can prohibit the installation of antennas in dorm rooms, but not family housing apartments. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98273.pdf https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0414.pdf On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edu wrote: If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlappi! ng channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... ** 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/. -- Michael Sjulstad -RML 258 Network/Electronics Engineer Information Technology St. Olaf College Northfield, MN 55057 Ph: 507-786-3835 Email: sjuls...@stolaf.edu ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I'm wondering if it would be prudent for us to use a copyrighted name as part of any SSID we setup. Then if anyone else uses the same name we can go after them under copyright violation. Or we look at getting our current SSIDs copyrighted. We use Wildcat Wireless as our primary SSID but Wildcat is not copyrighted. If we use Penn College Wireless, Penn College is copyrighted and no one but us can use that name. And we have the ubiquitous guest SSID which gives people no indication that it is even ours. Are domain names protected? If we used wildcats.pct.edu or guest.pct.edu would we be able to tell anyone who might put up their own AP and use xx.pct.edu that they have to take it down? Mike Cunningham VP of Information Technology Services/CIO Pennsylvania College of Technology -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-sla mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** 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/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Excellent piece, Bob. Thanks very much for sharing. 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 Bob Brown Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-slammed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html Bob Brown Online Executive Editor, News T: 508.766.5418 LinkedInhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/bobbrownboston | Twitter: @alphadoggshttps://twitter.com/alphadoggs | Facebook profilehttps://www.facebook.com/NetworkWorld | Google + profilehttps://plus.google.com/104712908618368674642/posts | Instagramhttp://instagram.com/nwwinstagram NETWORK WORLD 492 Old Connecticut Path | PO Box 9002 | Framingham, MA 01701-9002 NetworkWorld.comhttp://www.networkworld.com | Media Kithttp://www.networkworldmediakit.com | Conferences Eventshttp://events.networkworld.com An IDG Enterprisehttp://www.idgenterprise.com/ Brand From: Mike Howard mi...@berkeley.edumailto:mi...@berkeley.edu Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Date: Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi The FCC specifically exempted university dormitories from the OTARD rules. I believe we can prohibit the installation of antennas in dorm rooms, but not family housing apartments. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98273.pdf https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0414.pdf On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edumailto:f...@wpi.edu wrote: If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edumailto:hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331tel:%2B1%20256%20824%205331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edumailto:c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlappi! ng channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--must accept interference from other sources. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... ** 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/. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-slammed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned (or it’s just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user’s AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
+1 Dan Brisson Network Engineer University of Vermont (Ph) 802.656.8111 dbris...@uvm.edu On 2/11/2015 10:32 AM, Lee H Badman wrote: Excellent piece, Bob. Thanks very much for sharing. 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 *Bob Brown *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 10:23 AM *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-slammed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html *Bob Brown* Online Executive Editor, News T: 508.766.5418 LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/bobbrownboston| Twitter: @alphadoggs https://twitter.com/alphadoggs | Facebook profile https://www.facebook.com/NetworkWorld | Google + profile https://plus.google.com/104712908618368674642/posts | Instagram http://instagram.com/nwwinstagram *NETWORKWORLD* 492 Old Connecticut Path | PO Box 9002 | Framingham, MA 01701-9002 NetworkWorld.com http://www.networkworld.com| Media Kit http://www.networkworldmediakit.com| Conferences Events http://events.networkworld.com An IDG Enterprise http://www.idgenterprise.com/Brand *From: *Mike Howard mi...@berkeley.edu mailto:mi...@berkeley.edu *Reply-To: *The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Date: *Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 PM *To: *The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU *Subject: *Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi The FCC specifically exempted university dormitories from the OTARD rules. I believe we can prohibit the installation of antennas in dorm rooms, but not family housing apartments. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98273.pdf https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0414.pdf On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edu mailto:f...@wpi.edu wrote: If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu mailto:hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 tel:%2B1%20256%20824%205331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu mailto:c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlappi! ng channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... ** 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/. ** 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/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I see no exemption for that type of issue. The FCC rulings seem to be about use of frequency for communication, not the protocol details (unless the protocol prevents the communications as in this case). Additionally, who owns the SSID name? The FCC sees all users as the same, so I suspect you have no more right to the SSID than the user does. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:47 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi On Wed Feb 11 2015 09:22:55 CST, Bob Brown bbr...@nww.com wrote: Thought my recent interview with head of wireless for Partners Healthcare might be of interest re: the FCC de-authing discussion http://www.networkworld.com/article/2881540/careers/how-not-to-get-sla mmed-by-the-fcc-for-wi-fi-blocking.html One thing that I haven't seen mentioned (or it's just as likely that I missed it) is the situation where a user's AP is configured to broadcast the same network name as one of our SSIDs. Is there justification to use deauth as a protective measure in those cases? -- Julian Y. Koh Acting Associate Director, Telecommunications and Network Services Northwestern University Information Technology (NUIT) 2001 Sheridan Road #G-166 Evanston, IL 60208 847-467-5780 NUIT Web Site: http://www.it.northwestern.edu/ PGP Public Key:http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I don't know, Bruce. The government has been very aggressive shutting down every place in the US that sells proper jamming equipment. Even shutting down individual craigslist retailers. What is easier for them to do? Tell Cisco and Aruba and the other wireless players to disable and stop marketing the protection features in the US, or to hunt down individual offenders. I suspect there is more give in this than appears, or all our wireless vendors would have already been repremanded or fined. Ryan Turner Senior Network Engineer, ITS The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill +1 919 274 7926 Mobile +1 919 445 0113 Office On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) bosbo...@liberty.edumailto:bosbo...@liberty.edu wrote: You missed a part on the second page of the FCC link. In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications. Detailed information about the prohibition against jamming is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement. So, the current enterprise wireless systems are indeed illegal to sell in the US. Bruce Osborne Network Engineer – Wireless Team IT Network Services (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY From: John Rodkey [mailto:rod...@westmont.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:37 PM Subject: Re: latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi From the FCC's FAQ in respect to public vs private property : Jamming devices may not be used regardless of whether the device is operated on public or private property. If you own a jammer, do not continue to operate it. You risk substantial fines (of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, or up to $112,000 for a single act); seizure of the device by the government; and criminal imprisonment. Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer. The same FAQ explicitly names WiFi along with GPS and Cell as falling within this jurisdiction, although it appears to be referencing jamming devices, not jamming mechanisms (using NAK protocols, for instance). Nevertheless, they specify that jammers prevent your Wi-Fi enabled device from connecting to the Internet; and this appears to be the basis on which Marriott was pursued. In Marriott's case, protocol blocking not physical signal jamming was the method used. John On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Rodkey rod...@westmont.edumailto:rod...@westmont.edu wrote: Indeed! The statement clarifies aspects of this, but muddies others. WARNING: Wi-Fi Blocking is Prohibited. Persons or Businesses Causing Intentional Interference to Wi-Fi Hot Spots Are Subject to Enforcement Action We start with a general statement that (presumably) ALL blocking is prohibited. Then move on to Persons or Businesses ... are subject to enforcement. Are there entities which are neither Persons nor Businesses? To the best of my knowledge all enterprise wireless systems are operated by persons. If you aren't a Person and you aren't a Business, then you're in the clear: FCC won't be pursuing enforcement against you. For the rest of us who are persons... Then the statement notes a trend among commercial establishments, and cites the example of Marriott, and then muddies the water when it designates hotels, convention centers or other commercial establishments. How many colleges and universities host conferences during the summer? Would they be considered convention centers? Is student housing considered the equivalent to 'hotels' in the view of the law? We need Educause lawyers to pin this down... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edumailto:tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564tel:903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) wrote: So, the current enterprise wireless systems are indeed illegal to sell in the US. And that's the important bit; FCC's reach does not extend outwith the US and these features may legally be used in other territories, so just like you have to select a country code for the APs to operate in the legally available spectrum, perhaps the consequence of this is you will need to do the same for the controller software to enable/disable features in order to comply with the FCC's ruling. If the FCC would consider that acceptable. Presumably, further testing, if not actually development, of such features would then have to happen off US soil (although I suspect most does anyway). That could be inconvenient, and if too inconvenient may well end up with those features being pulled, which is to the detriment of the consumer, enterprises and the wireless industry. If these interpretations are correct, of course. Will the wireless vendors try and challenge them? Jethro. Bruce Osborne Network Engineer – Wireless Team IT Network Services (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY From: John Rodkey [mailto:rod...@westmont.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:37 PM Subject: Re: latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi From the FCC's FAQ in respect to public vs private property : Jamming devices may not be used regardless of whether the device is operated on public or private property. If you own a jammer, do not continue to operate it. You risk substantial fines (of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, or up to $112,000 for a single act); seizure of the device by the government; and criminal imprisonment. Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer. The same FAQ explicitly names WiFi along with GPS and Cell as falling within this jurisdiction, although it appears to be referencing jamming devices, not jamming mechanisms (using NAK protocols, for instance). Nevertheless, they specify that jammers prevent your Wi-Fi enabled device from connecting to the Internet; and this appears to be the basis on which Marriott was pursued. In Marriott's case, protocol blocking not physical signal jamming was the method used. John On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Rodkey rod...@westmont.edumailto:rod...@westmont.edu wrote: Indeed! The statement clarifies aspects of this, but muddies others. WARNING: Wi-Fi Blocking is Prohibited. Persons or Businesses Causing Intentional Interference to Wi-Fi Hot Spots Are Subject to Enforcement Action We start with a general statement that (presumably) ALL blocking is prohibited. Then move on to Persons or Businesses ... are subject to enforcement. Are there entities which are neither Persons nor Businesses? To the best of my knowledge all enterprise wireless systems are operated by persons. If you aren't a Person and you aren't a Business, then you're in the clear: FCC won't be pursuing enforcement against you. For the rest of us who are persons... Then the statement notes a trend among commercial establishments, and cites the example of Marriott, and then muddies the water when it designates hotels, convention centers or other commercial establishments. How many colleges and universities host conferences during the summer? Would they be considered convention centers? Is student housing considered the equivalent to 'hotels' in the view of the law? We need Educause lawyers to pin this down... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edumailto:tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564tel:903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
The FCC specifically exempted university dormitories from the OTARD rules. I believe we can prohibit the installation of antennas in dorm rooms, but not family housing apartments. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998/fcc98273.pdf https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0414.pdf On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Frank Sweetser f...@wpi.edu wrote: If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlappi! ng channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Here's something I wonder about. In some cases (T-Mobile for instance) the WiFi network can be used as a substitute for the cellular network in order to make calls. If I am preventing you from connecting to my WiFi network via a password, am I 'jamming'? I think, according to this definition I am. On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Turner, Ryan H rhtur...@email.unc.edu wrote: I don't know, Bruce. The government has been very aggressive shutting down every place in the US that sells proper jamming equipment. Even shutting down individual craigslist retailers. What is easier for them to do? Tell Cisco and Aruba and the other wireless players to disable and stop marketing the protection features in the US, or to hunt down individual offenders. I suspect there is more give in this than appears, or all our wireless vendors would have already been repremanded or fined. Ryan Turner Senior Network Engineer, ITS The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill +1 919 274 7926 Mobile +1 919 445 0113 Office On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) bosbo...@liberty.edu wrote: You missed a part on the second page of the FCC link. In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications. Detailed information about the prohibition against jamming is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement. So, the current enterprise wireless systems are indeed illegal to sell in the US. *Bruce Osborne* *Network Engineer – Wireless Team* *IT Network Services* *(434) 592-4229 %28434%29%20592-4229* *LIBERTY UNIVERSITY* *From:* John Rodkey [mailto:rod...@westmont.edu rod...@westmont.edu] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:37 PM *Subject:* Re: latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi From the FCC's FAQ in respect to public vs private property : Jamming devices may not be used regardless of whether the device is operated on public or private property. If you own a jammer, do not continue to operate it. You risk substantial fines (of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, or up to $112,000 for a single act); seizure of the device by the government; and criminal imprisonment. Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and *federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer*. The same FAQ explicitly names WiFi along with GPS and Cell as falling within this jurisdiction, although it appears to be referencing jamming devices, not jamming mechanisms (using NAK protocols, for instance). Nevertheless, they specify that jammers prevent your Wi-Fi enabled device from connecting to the Internet; and this appears to be the basis on which Marriott was pursued. In Marriott's case, protocol blocking not physical signal jamming was the method used. John On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Rodkey rod...@westmont.edu wrote: Indeed! The statement clarifies aspects of this, but muddies others. WARNING: *Wi-Fi Blocking is Prohibited.* *Persons or Businesses* Causing Intentional Interference to Wi-Fi Hot Spots Are Subject to Enforcement Action We start with a general statement that (presumably) ALL blocking is prohibited. Then move on to Persons or Businesses ... are subject to enforcement. Are there entities which are neither Persons nor Businesses? To the best of my knowledge all enterprise wireless systems are operated by persons. If you aren't a Person and you aren't a Business, then you're in the clear: FCC won't be pursuing enforcement against you. For the rest of us who are persons... Then the statement notes a trend among commercial establishments, and cites the example of Marriott, and then muddies the water when it designates hotels, convention centers or other commercial establishments. How many colleges and universities host conferences during the summer? Would they be considered convention centers? Is student housing considered the equivalent to 'hotels' in the view of the law? We need Educause lawyers to pin this down... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
Here's something I wonder about. In some cases (T-Mobile for instance) the WiFi network can be used as a substitute for the cellular network in order to make calls. If I am preventing you from connecting to my WiFi network via a password, am I 'jamming'? I think, according to this definition I am. This is not about preventing someone from connecting to your wireless network - certainly you can control who is able to connect - but rather about you preventing someone from connecting to *their* wireless network, provided by a device and service they own/operate/pay for (e.g. a Verizon JetPack). ajs On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Daniel Eklund ekl...@umich.edu wrote: Here's something I wonder about. In some cases (T-Mobile for instance) the WiFi network can be used as a substitute for the cellular network in order to make calls. If I am preventing you from connecting to my WiFi network via a password, am I 'jamming'? I think, according to this definition I am. On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:05 AM, Turner, Ryan H rhtur...@email.unc.edu wrote: I don't know, Bruce. The government has been very aggressive shutting down every place in the US that sells proper jamming equipment. Even shutting down individual craigslist retailers. What is easier for them to do? Tell Cisco and Aruba and the other wireless players to disable and stop marketing the protection features in the US, or to hunt down individual offenders. I suspect there is more give in this than appears, or all our wireless vendors would have already been repremanded or fined. Ryan Turner Senior Network Engineer, ITS The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill +1 919 274 7926 Mobile +1 919 445 0113 Office On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:38 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) bosbo...@liberty.edu wrote: You missed a part on the second page of the FCC link. In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications. Detailed information about the prohibition against jamming is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement. So, the current enterprise wireless systems are indeed illegal to sell in the US. *Bruce Osborne* *Network Engineer – Wireless Team* *IT Network Services* *(434) 592-4229 %28434%29%20592-4229* *LIBERTY UNIVERSITY* *From:* John Rodkey [mailto:rod...@westmont.edu rod...@westmont.edu] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:37 PM *Subject:* Re: latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi From the FCC's FAQ in respect to public vs private property : Jamming devices may not be used regardless of whether the device is operated on public or private property. If you own a jammer, do not continue to operate it. You risk substantial fines (of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, or up to $112,000 for a single act); seizure of the device by the government; and criminal imprisonment. Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and *federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer*. The same FAQ explicitly names WiFi along with GPS and Cell as falling within this jurisdiction, although it appears to be referencing jamming devices, not jamming mechanisms (using NAK protocols, for instance). Nevertheless, they specify that jammers prevent your Wi-Fi enabled device from connecting to the Internet; and this appears to be the basis on which Marriott was pursued. In Marriott's case, protocol blocking not physical signal jamming was the method used. John On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Rodkey rod...@westmont.edu wrote: Indeed! The statement clarifies aspects of this, but muddies others. WARNING: *Wi-Fi Blocking is Prohibited.* *Persons or Businesses* Causing Intentional Interference to Wi-Fi Hot Spots Are Subject to Enforcement Action We start with a general statement that (presumably) ALL blocking is prohibited. Then move on to Persons or Businesses ... are subject to enforcement. Are there entities which are neither Persons nor Businesses? To the best of my knowledge all enterprise wireless systems are operated by persons. If you aren't a Person and you aren't a Business, then you're in the clear: FCC won't be pursuing enforcement against you. For the rest of us who are persons... Then the statement notes a trend among commercial establishments, and cites the example of Marriott, and then muddies the water when it designates hotels, convention centers or other commercial establishments. How many colleges and universities host conferences during the summer? Would they be considered convention centers? Is student housing considered the equivalent to 'hotels' in the view of the law? We need Educause lawyers to pin this down... On
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
If your campus charges a technology fee for access to the WiFi network, and you aren't allowing personal access points, would the FCC consider your actions no different than the hotels? Jeff On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 9:06 AM, in message 4da76b25d71544a69e796931f1bbc...@ex13-mbx-12.ad.syr.edu, Peter P Morrissey ppmor...@syr.edu wrote: I think calling a non-profit, educational institution commercial is quite a stretch. Seems like any attorney could easily drive a truck through that hole. Pete Morrissey -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Turner, Ryan H Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:17 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I don't really think they are being vague. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like they are really targeting commercial ventures. Otherwise, why make the effort to define no hotel, convention center, or commercial establishment... They could just say No place providing networking services should seek to interfere... I think this is a 'you best not do what Marriot did', and to the other people out there, thread lightly... Regarding the jamming... If the FCC really had a problem with the Wifi mitigation technology that all the wireless providers offer, don't you think they would have received a 'cease and desist' notice from the FCC? Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:04 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-ill egal-jammers/ Complicated times. ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I see it another way - if the on-boarding to guest network is more involved then what they have to do with the mi-fi, why bother? If the guest network comes with an appropriate use agreement such as in a captive portal, again, some may be put off by that. Last but not least, if the guest network is restrictive in any way, why bother. Even is one was to provide a guest network that's wide-open and requires nothing but to associate with it, previous experience says it's easier to use mi-fi. Jeff On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 8:55 AM, in message f3dgi8oiebspr456gjjwmdef.1422464119...@email.android.com, Alan Klein akl...@osisecure.com wrote: Why carpool when you have your own car? Original message From: Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu Date:01/28/2015 11:51 AM (GMT-05:00) To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Cc: Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi We see the Mi-Fi thing a lot with vendors and visitors. We have a really good guest access network, but for many people the personal hotspot has just become a way of life. 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 Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edu Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi We do have that requirement, but the problem is really implementation. Would you rather: a) Spend time and manpower running all over campus hunting down all these rogue devices b) Use technology to encourage students not to use these rogue devices Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-illegal-jammers/ Complicated times. ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
If we were to impose that on student residents, why couldn't Marriott do the same to hotel and conference guests? On January 28, 2015 11:05:53 AM EST, Hunter Fuller hf0...@uah.edu wrote: You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-illegal-jammers/ Complicated times. ** 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/. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
I don't really think they are being vague. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like they are really targeting commercial ventures. Otherwise, why make the effort to define no hotel, convention center, or commercial establishment... They could just say No place providing networking services should seek to interfere... I think this is a 'you best not do what Marriot did', and to the other people out there, thread lightly... Regarding the jamming... If the FCC really had a problem with the Wifi mitigation technology that all the wireless providers offer, don't you think they would have received a 'cease and desist' notice from the FCC? Ryan H Turner Senior Network Engineer The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill CB 1150 Chapel Hill, NC 27599 +1 919 445 0113 Office +1 919 274 7926 Mobile -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chuck Anderson Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:04 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-ill egal-jammers/ Complicated times. ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
We do have that requirement, but the problem is really implementation. Would you rather: a) Spend time and manpower running all over campus hunting down all these rogue devices b) Use technology to encourage students not to use these rogue devices Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:06 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi You can't deauth the users, but you can make one of the requirements for living in the dorms don't put up a hotspot. (I assume this is where most of us see problems.) -- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: What if our users see this news and start pushing back on bringing their own Wi-Fi to campus? If we have to allow it, and the WLAN becomes unusable due to all the overlapping channel 2 and channel 5 devices etc., what do we tell our users and the administration? Sorry, the FCC says we can't force these users to abstain from using their own Wi-Fi devices, even if they interfere. That's the problem with FCC Part 15--“must accept interference from other sources”. The best we can do is nicely ask them to change channels... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 02:44:16PM +, Hector J Rios wrote: Agree. A clearer definition as to what a commercial WiFi network operator would help. I don't know what to do with this information. Do these FCC laws trump our WiFi policies? I can see where users could take advantage of this advisory. Too many questions. Hector Rios Louisiana State University -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:32 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-il legal-jammers/ Complicated times. ** 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/.
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi
From the FCC's FAQ in respect to public vs private property : Jamming devices may not be used regardless of whether the device is operated on public or private property. If you own a jammer, do not continue to operate it. You risk substantial fines (of up to $16,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, or up to $112,000 for a single act); seizure of the device by the government; and criminal imprisonment. Signal jammers do not respect property lines, and *federal law provides no exception that allows for the private or commercial use of a jammer*. The same FAQ explicitly names WiFi along with GPS and Cell as falling within this jurisdiction, although it appears to be referencing jamming devices, not jamming mechanisms (using NAK protocols, for instance). Nevertheless, they specify that jammers prevent your Wi-Fi enabled device from connecting to the Internet; and this appears to be the basis on which Marriott was pursued. In Marriott's case, protocol blocking not physical signal jamming was the method used. John On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:22 AM, John Rodkey rod...@westmont.edu wrote: Indeed! The statement clarifies aspects of this, but muddies others. WARNING: *Wi-Fi Blocking is Prohibited.* *Persons or Businesses* Causing Intentional Interference to Wi-Fi Hot Spots Are Subject to Enforcement Action We start with a general statement that (presumably) ALL blocking is prohibited. Then move on to Persons or Businesses ... are subject to enforcement. Are there entities which are neither Persons nor Businesses? To the best of my knowledge all enterprise wireless systems are operated by persons. If you aren't a Person and you aren't a Business, then you're in the clear: FCC won't be pursuing enforcement against you. For the rest of us who are persons... Then the statement notes a trend among commercial establishments, and cites the example of Marriott, and then muddies the water when it designates hotels, convention centers or other commercial establishments. How many colleges and universities host conferences during the summer? Would they be considered convention centers? Is student housing considered the equivalent to 'hotels' in the view of the law? We need Educause lawyers to pin this down... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Thomas Carter tcar...@austincollege.edu wrote: I'm disappointed in the statement from the FCC. This was a chance to clarify their position on this, but it's still as vague as ever. What is a commercial establishment? Does that include K-12 or Higher Ed? What about a corporate HQ? I'm also disappointed that the wireless vendors have been quiet on this issue as well. Where is Cisco, Aruba, Rukus, et. al who provide us with these tools? One reading of the FCC notice is that the product they market and sell is illegal. I feel they should be leading the charge with the FCC for clarification for us, their customers. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 -Original Message- From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:38 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] latest from FCC on de-authing Mi-Fi http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited Which would imply that a subset of our tools are illegal: https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/are-wlan-vendors-selling-illegal-jammers/ Complicated times. -Lee ** 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/. -- ---======--- Want to quickly check a system status or report a problem to the IT team? Use http://justme.westmont.edu Have a problem that requires tracking and IT email response? Use http://mayday.westmont.edu -- ---======--- Want to quickly check a system status or report a problem to the IT team? Use http://justme.westmont.edu Have a problem that requires tracking and IT email response? Use http://mayday.westmont.edu ** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
