subject:"Marriott wifi blocking"

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking
comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.”

I’m not sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no prohibition
against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which is operated by a
third party under said third party’s license.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

If that were truly the case (and I don’t think it is, given BART statements
that “...the cellular providers are basically tenants and are as such subject
to…”), I’m pretty sure it would be operated by the cellular carrier under their
license as a non-owner of the equipment.

Owen

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

 As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby 
 bottles, and I thought radios.  How do they get the authority to do that?

They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc. 
on BART trains.

You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. You are prohibited from 
operating a radio in a manner that is disruptive to other passengers just as on 
almost any other form of public transit.

If you’ve got headphones/earbuds/whatever and use them in a way that doesn’t 
subject the people around you to the noise coming out of your electronics, then 
rock out to your heart’s content.

Owen

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:

On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:

BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking

comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.”

I’m not sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no prohibition
against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which is operated by a
third party under said third party’s license.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air TV
when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:

As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water,
baby bottles, and I thought radios.  How do they get the authority
to do that?


They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby
bottles, etc. on BART trains.

You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. You are prohibited
from operating a radio in a manner that is disruptive to other
passengers just as on almost any other form of public transit.

If you’ve got headphones/earbuds/whatever and use them in a way that
doesn’t subject the people around you to the noise coming out of your
electronics, then rock out to your heart’s content.


OK. Not relevant to the discussion then.  (I was once told not to drink 
from what I was carrying.  And told I could take a cup of coffee aboard. 
 But the was long ago.)




--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:

On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:

BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts
with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license
violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking

comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.”

I’m not sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no
prohibition against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which
is operated by a third party under said third party’s license.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

If that were truly the case (and I don’t think it is, given BART
statements that “...the cellular providers are basically tenants and
are as such subject to…”), I’m pretty sure it would be operated by the
cellular carrier under their license as a non-owner of the equipment.

What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air TV
when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking
comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.”

I’m not sure that statement is accurate. However, there is no prohibition
against owning a Microcell or other cellular station which is operated by a
third party under said third party’s license.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

If that were truly the case (and I don’t think it is, given BART statements
that “...the cellular providers are basically tenants and are as such
subject to…”), I’m pretty sure it would be operated by the cellular carrier
under their license as a non-owner of the equipment.

What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air TV when
somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?

The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for that
translator.

Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or form, though
they usually were one and the same.

Owen

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:


What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?


The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for
that translator.

Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or
form, though they usually were one and the same.


Was the translator operator obligated to carry everything from the 
source station, or could they turn the translator off if they wanted to?


--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]





 On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
 
 What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
 TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
 Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
 
 The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for
 that translator.
 
 Operator and Owner are not necessarily linked in any way shape or
 form, though they usually were one and the same.
 
 Was the translator operator obligated to carry everything from the source 
 station, or could they turn the translator off if they wanted to?

I honestly don't know what the license terms were. I am also not aware of any 
circumstances where that issue was at all likely to come up. 

Owen

 
 -- 
 The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
 
 The fact that they are infallible; and,
 
 The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
 
 
 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
 
 There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
 where there's a lot of ambiguity.  We don't even know for sure that
 what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
 was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter.  And
 that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for the
 *sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.
 
 I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15.
 Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is
 ambiguous?
 
 Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
   No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
   interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or
   authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
   Government.
 
 In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
 transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
 there's not much ambiguity.  But other cases aren't clear from the
 text.  
 
 For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my SSID
 for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
 that, that I have to change.  But that if, instead of duplicating my
 new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID but
 on the same channel, I don't have to change.  I'm not saying your
 position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
 that that's where the line is.  That's what I meant by ambiguity.

True, but if you read the rest of Part 15, you’ll also find these gems:

(From http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=47:1.0.1.1.16)
§15.3   Definitions.
...
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers 
the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or 
seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications 
service operating in accordance with this chapter.


§15.5   General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be 
deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given 
frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, 
for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use 
pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter.

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is 
subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that 
interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an 
authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by 
industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental 
radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease 
operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the 
device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the 
condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are 
prohibited.

[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13, 2010]


It seems to me that if you deploy something new in such a way that it causes 
harmful interference to an operating service, you’ve run afoul of 15.5 as 
defined in 15.3.


 
 (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
 continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
 existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
 that won't share the spectrum?  Illegal or Legal?  And do you think the
 text above is unambiguous on that point?)
 
 -- Brett

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-09 Thread William Herrin

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:
 (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
 continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
 existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
 that won't share the spectrum?  Illegal or Legal?  And do you think the
 text above is unambiguous on that point?)

Not how 802.11 works. Put up another transmitter on a different SSID
and it raises the noise floor for everybody. It doesn't render the
frequency useless.

Remember, we got 2.4ghz in the first place because the huge signal
interference from microwave ovens and -rain- had already rendered it
useless. Until spread spectrum came along.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-09 Thread Robert Webb

So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi 
spectrum is NOT a licensed
band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations 
unless they are interfering with

a licensed band?

I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.

The basic premise of all Part 15 unlicensed operation is that 
unlicensed devices cannot cause interference to licensed operations 
nor are they protected from any interference received.  The 
operational parameters for unlicensed operation are set forth in 
Section 15.5 of the rules, as follows:
(a)  Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall 
not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued 
use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or 
certification of equipment,
(b)  Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental 
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is 
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by 
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional 
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) 
equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
(c)  The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to 
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission 
representative that the device is causing harmful interference. 
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful 
interference has been corrected.



http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/EUWGFinalReport.doc

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:34:40 -0700
 Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:


On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger 
rbf+na...@panix.com wrote:



On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:


There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an 
area

where there's a lot of ambiguity.  We don't even know for sure that
what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted 
it
was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter. 
And
that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for 
the

*sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.


I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15.
Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is
ambiguous?


Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
  No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
  interference to any radio communications of any station licensed 
or
  authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United 
States

  Government.

In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
there's not much ambiguity.  But other cases aren't clear from the
text.  

For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my 
SSID

for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
that, that I have to change.  But that if, instead of duplicating my
new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID 
but

on the same channel, I don't have to change.  I'm not saying your
position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
that that's where the line is.  That's what I meant by ambiguity.


True, but if you read the rest of Part 15, you’ll also find these 
gems:


(From http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=47:1.0.1.1.16)
§15.3   Definitions.
...
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that 
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other 
safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly 
interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with 
this chapter.



§15.5   General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall 
not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued 
use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or 
certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on 
the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this 
chapter.


(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental 
radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is 
caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by 
the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional 
or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical 
(ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.


(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to 
cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission 
representative that the device is causing harmful interference. 
Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful 
interference has been corrected.


(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped 
wave) are prohibited.


[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13, 
2010]



It seems to me

RE: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-09 Thread Naslund, Steve

I don't read it that way at all.  It is illegal to intentionally interfere 
(meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) with 
any licensed or unlicensed frequency.  That is long standing law.  

It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation of an 
AUTHORIZED station or intentional or unintentional radiator (like a microwave 
oven which serves a purpose, or a amateur radio operator messing up your TV 
once in awhile (as long as he is operating within his license), not a jammer 
that has no purpose other than to prevent others from using an authorized 
spectrum).  To me that looks like as long as the other guy is using the 
frequency band in an authorized manner (i.e. not purposely stopping others from 
using it, but using it for their own authorized purpose) you have to deal with 
it.  So another guy using your channel (which is not really yours) for his 
network would be fine but if he is purposely camped on your SSID and deauthing 
your clients is not using it legally.

As far as who owns an SSID, I don't think there is any law on that unless it is 
a trademarked name but the FCC rules in general give the incumbent user the 
right of way.  If two licensed systems interfere with each other (common in 
licensed microwave), the older system usually gets to stay and the new system 
has to change.  I think they would be unlikely to get involved in the whole 
SSID dispute (because they don't regulate SSIDs or the 802.11 standards) they 
would most likely tell you it's a civil matter and walk away.  Now, if you are 
using someone else's SSID for the purpose of intruding, you are violating Part 
15 because that is not authorized spectrum usage.  That they will probably 
address.

I don't think the FCC would classify a wifi router operating normally as 
interference, but a device purposely bouncing clients off of the clients own 
network would be.  I have worked with them a lot as a frequency coordinator 
with the Air Force and find that the enforcement guys have quite a bit of 
common sense and apply a good measure of it to deciding what to enforce or not 
enforce.  My guess (you would have to ask them) is that an entity defending 
their SSID from unauthorized access is an acceptable security feature but 
someone using a different SSID and not trying to connect to the entities 
network should not be active messed with.  If my SSID is there first and you 
show up and try to kick my clients off so you can use it, you will appear to be 
the aggressor and I will appear to be the defender.  In the same way that it is 
not legal for me to punch you in the face unless of course you punched me in 
the face first and I'm defending myself.

It gets messy when you get into the cellular world.  I don't think you would be 
within the law jamming or blocking cell phones even within your building (even 
though the government is known to do so).  You could however have a policy that 
prevents people from bringing a cell phone into your building.  The public has 
no right of access to your property so you are free to make rules about what 
can and can't come within your building.  I do know that the areas I have 
worked in that had cellular jammers for security purposes are already areas 
where they are prohibited by regulation.  National security trumps a lot of 
other laws.

Remember, a lot of law is about intent and it is clear that the intent of this 
law is to allow everyone access to use the ISM spectrum for useful purposes and 
to prevent people from interfering with your right to do so.  Any case has to 
take that into account.  In the Marriott case, I think it would be a tough 
argument for them to show anything other than stopping people from using 
anything other than their wifi service when it is clear that someone could use 
their own network services without causing undue harm to Marriott.

In my own environment, there are tons of clients running around with their 
devices wifi tethered to phones and searching for their home wifi networks.  As 
long as they stay off my SSIDs, they will not be harmed.  If they try to 
connect to my SSID they better authenticate or they get denied.  If they keep 
trying, they will get ACL'd out.  If you set up an AP and try to plug it into 
my wired infrastructure that's when the active stuff comes into effect because 
you have no right to add a device to my wired network.

Steve Naslund
Chicago IL

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Robert Webb
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Owen DeLong; Brett Frankenberger
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Brandon Ross
Subject: Re: Marriott wifi blocking

So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi 
spectrum is NOT a licensed band and therefore does not fall under the 
interference regulations unless they are interfering with a licensed band?

I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.

The basic premise

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:

 I don't read it that way at all.  It is illegal to intentionally interfere 
 (meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) 
 with any licensed or unlicensed frequency.  That is long standing law.  

Indeed… this is 47CFR333. It’s not limited to Part 15 (47CFR15).

 It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation of an 
 AUTHORIZED station or intentional or unintentional radiator (like a microwave 
 oven which serves a purpose, or a amateur radio operator messing up your TV 
 once in awhile (as long as he is operating within his license), not a jammer 
 that has no purpose other than to prevent others from using an authorized 
 spectrum).  To me that looks like as long as the other guy is using the 
 frequency band in an authorized manner (i.e. not purposely stopping others 
 from using it, but using it for their own authorized purpose) you have to 
 deal with it.  So another guy using your channel (which is not really 
 yours) for his network would be fine but if he is purposely camped on your 
 SSID and deauthing your clients is not using it legally.

Now you’re talking about 47CFR15 (Part 15) and more specifically about 15.5(b).

Otherwise, yes, you are exactly right.

 As far as who owns an SSID, I don't think there is any law on that unless it 
 is a trademarked name but the FCC rules in general give the incumbent user 
 the right of way.  If two licensed systems interfere with each other (common 
 in licensed microwave), the older system usually gets to stay and the new 
 system has to change.  I think they would be unlikely to get involved in the 
 whole SSID dispute (because they don't regulate SSIDs or the 802.11 
 standards) they would most likely tell you it's a civil matter and walk away. 
  Now, if you are using someone else's SSID for the purpose of intruding, you 
 are violating Part 15 because that is not authorized spectrum usage.  That 
 they will probably address.

I don’t believe that there is any such thing as “Owning an SSID”. One might be 
able to try and claim that ownership of a *mark (where * = one or more of 
{trade,service,etc.}) extends to use of that name in an SSID, but generally 
speaking, I think the most likely outcome would be to treat an SSID as an 
address and declare that addresses are not subject to those limitations.

 I don't think the FCC would classify a wifi router operating normally as 
 interference, but a device purposely bouncing clients off of the clients own 
 network would be.  I have worked with them a lot as a frequency coordinator 
 with the Air Force and find that the enforcement guys have quite a bit of 
 common sense and apply a good measure of it to deciding what to enforce or 
 not enforce.  My guess (you would have to ask them) is that an entity 
 defending their SSID from unauthorized access is an acceptable security 
 feature but someone using a different SSID and not trying to connect to the 
 entities network should not be active messed with.  If my SSID is there first 
 and you show up and try to kick my clients off so you can use it, you will 
 appear to be the aggressor and I will appear to be the defender.  In the same 
 way that it is not legal for me to punch you in the face unless of course you 
 punched me in the face first and I'm defending myself.

I think the FCC would, likely, classify two neighbors in adjacent apartments 
arguing over the same SSID and unwilling to move either one of them would 
likely both get told to cease and desist until they picked different SSIDs, 
though it’s hard for me to believe that this would get elevated to the FCC very 
often. More often one person or the other will change their SSID and move on.

 It gets messy when you get into the cellular world.  I don't think you would 
 be within the law jamming or blocking cell phones even within your building 
 (even though the government is known to do so).  You could however have a 
 policy that prevents people from bringing a cell phone into your building.  
 The public has no right of access to your property so you are free to make 
 rules about what can and can't come within your building.  I do know that the 
 areas I have worked in that had cellular jammers for security purposes are 
 already areas where they are prohibited by regulation.  National security 
 trumps a lot of other laws.

In fact, movie theaters tried this briefly and got a pretty strong smack from 
the FCC as a result.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cell-phone-and-gps-jamming

However, that’s not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this case, 
repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were shut down 
by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That’s not active jamming, so 
most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other areas of concern, however, such 
as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority, potential civil

RE: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-09 Thread Naslund, Steve

Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety 
functionality.  It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters.  Let's 
say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to 
purposely deny public service.You can almost guarantee that an FCC 
enforcement action will result because carriers have a public safety 
responsibility.  The state communications commission could even pull your 
license for that and the FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum licenses for 
using a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public.  BART disrupting 
cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to disrupt 911 service which 
is illegal whether you own the gear or not.  I don't know what the exact rule 
currently is but I'm sure it would take someone like Homeland Security to shut 
down a cellular network for national security reasons.  For example, 
interrupting a cellular bomb detonator or a coordinated terrorist attack.  The 
legal concept of greater good comes into effect at that point.

As a common carrier, I know I would not shut down anything that affects 911 
service deliberately without either the proper notifications taking place or a 
federal court order in my hand (and it better be federal because those are the 
laws you are asking me to throw out here).  The funny thing about cell service 
(or repeaters in this case) is that there isn't usually a mandate to provide 
coverage in any particular area but once you provide it you are on the hook to 
maintain it and not purposely disrupt it.  Again, it is the intent in this case 
that matters.  If BART had a maintenance problem or the equipment was damaged, 
they would be off the hook but they purposely interrupted the service to deny 
communications services to a group of users.  Cell sites go down all the time 
for maintenance scheduled or otherwise but if you are doing it to purposely 
deny service, it's another story.   Again, intent matters...a lot.

I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itself, but 
not nice for sure) and for sure civil liability, not so much a 1st Amendment 
issue since the government is under no real obligation to give you the means to 
communicate (like repeaters).  It's the 911 service disruption that is most 
criminal here.

Steve


However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this 
case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were 
shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's not active 
jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other areas of concern, 
however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority, potential civil 
liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected manner, etc.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-09 Thread Paige Thompson


On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote:
 Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety 
 functionality.  It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters.  Let's 
 say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to 
 purposely deny public service.You can almost guarantee that an FCC 
 enforcement action will result because carriers have a public safety 
 responsibility.  The state communications commission could even pull your 
 license for that and the FCC could ultimately pull your spectrum licenses for 
 using a public resource in a way not beneficial to the public.  BART 
 disrupting cell repeaters is tantamount to you doing anything to disrupt 911 
 service which is illegal whether you own the gear or not.  I don't know what 
 the exact rule currently is but I'm sure it would take someone like Homeland 
 Security to shut down a cellular network for national security reasons.  
 For example, interrupting a cellular bomb detonator or a coordinated 
 terrorist attack.  The legal concept of greater good comes into effect at 
 that point.

 As a common carrier, I know I would not shut down anything that affects 911 
 service deliberately without either the proper notifications taking place or 
 a federal court order in my hand (and it better be federal because those are 
 the laws you are asking me to throw out here).  The funny thing about cell 
 service (or repeaters in this case) is that there isn't usually a mandate to 
 provide coverage in any particular area but once you provide it you are on 
 the hook to maintain it and not purposely disrupt it.  Again, it is the 
 intent in this case that matters.  If BART had a maintenance problem or the 
 equipment was damaged, they would be off the hook but they purposely 
 interrupted the service to deny communications services to a group of users.  
 Cell sites go down all the time for maintenance scheduled or otherwise but if 
 you are doing it to purposely deny service, it's another story.   Again, 
 intent matters...a lot.

 I definitely see abuse of authority (not really a criminal act in itself, but 
 not nice for sure) and for sure civil liability, not so much a 1st Amendment 
 issue since the government is under no real obligation to give you the means 
 to communicate (like repeaters).  It's the 911 service disruption that is 
 most criminal here.

 Steve


 However, that's not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this 
 case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were 
 shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That's not 
 active jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other areas of 
 concern, however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority, 
 potential civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected 
 manner, etc.
 Owen

see if you can get tor browser to work... download it from torproject.org

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Daniel C. Eckert

Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas
WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum.  The
rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you
outlined.

Dan
On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

 I have a question for the company assembled:

 Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using
 their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of
 company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone
 service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their
 property.

 What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?

 --
 The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

 The fact that they are infallible; and,

 The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Roy


On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty 
sure.


However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an 
expectation

that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.


Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?



Obligated by the FCC license

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread William Herrin

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
 The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
 sure.

 However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
 that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
 that.

 Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?

 Obligated by the FCC license

Hi Larry, Roy:

BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:

On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:

The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.


However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.


Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?


Obligated by the FCC license


Hi Larry, Roy:

BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..


OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy.  I 
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread joel jaeggli

On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
 The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
 sure.

 However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an
 expectation
 that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
 that.

 Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?

 Obligated by the FCC license

 Hi Larry, Roy:

 BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
 the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
 backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
 breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
 their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..
 
 OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy.  I
 wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread William Herrin

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
 On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
 BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
 the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
 backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
 breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
 their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

 OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy.  I
 wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking
comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Keenan Tims

There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?

K

On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
 On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
 BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
 the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
 backhaul out of the tunnels. The only thing they'd be guilty of is
 breach of contract, and that only if the cell phone companies decided
 their behavior was inconsistent with the SLA..

 OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy.  I
 wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0
 
 From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking
 comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.
 
 Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
 that allow for cellphone reception within its network.
 
 I'm not entirely clear how that works.
 
 Regards,
 Bill Herrin

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Larry Sheldon

On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin wrote:

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:

On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:

OK that makes more sense than the private answer I got from Roy. I
wondered why the FCC didn't take action if there was a license violation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/technology/fcc-reviews-need-for-rules-to-interrupt-wireless-service.html?_r=0

From the article: Among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking

comment is whether it even has authority over the issue.

Also: The BART system owns the wireless transmitters and receivers
that allow for cellphone reception within its network.

I'm not entirely clear how that works.

Several things fail the entirely clear test.

(I'm not entirely clear on where the interruption was, but the pictures
made me think San Francisco. And I'm too lazy to look it up.) In
San Francisco, the Muni is in a pipe above (if I remember correctly)
BART--did they interrupt cell service there as well? I wonder if there
is any leakage.

As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby
bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that?

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 10/8/2014 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:

There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?


Which, if unlicensed, brings us back to the question of by what 
authority, other than popular rioter opinion, are they REQUIRED to 
provide the service?.


--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Owen DeLong


On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote:
 I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
 likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
 
 Well... actually...  passive methods are probably fine, as long as
 they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might
 result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive
 behaviors  ---  also, if there are other businesses nearby,  it  could
 lead  to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this
 giant faraday cage.The local authorities might eventually require
 some modifications.  :)

Actually, if you turn your building into a faraday cage, I’m not sure there’s
any legal basis on which to tell you that you have to permit RF through,
even if it blocks the signal downstream.

Creating a shadow is very different from actively emitting “harmful 
interference”
and I don’t know of any laws or regulations which could be used to prevent you
from doing so.

Owen

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-08 Thread Owen DeLong


On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
 
 The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
 of the licensee   In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
 phone companies to allow this,   then  create an approved special
 local cell tower  all their phones in the same building will by
 default connect to  in preference to any other,  which will also  not
 receive any calls or messages   or allow any to be sent.
 
 I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
 

BART experimented with something even safer than this (hosting provider 
microcells
in the underground bart stations on the condition that bart could cut them off 
when
they determined it was “in the interest of public safety”).

The first time BART exercised this “turn-off” capability, it drew quite a bit 
of fire from a
number of directions and complaints were lodged with the FCC. FCC doesn’t 
appear to
have made any ruling on the matter as yet (at least none that I could find), 
but the
wording of the various initial responses definitely didn’t seem to favor the 
idea of
allowing cellular service disruption at the whim of a local transit agency.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-07 Thread Owen DeLong


On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:

 On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
 
 On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
 
 On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about 
 current state of FCC regulations.
 
 Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that 
 is rare in my experience.
 
 Owen
 
 I this particular case, I think that enterprise could go a very long way 
 to driving a solution through
 standards and deployment. They, after all, call the shots of who does and 
 who doesn't get over
 the corpro-drawbridge. A much different state of affairs than the typical 
 unwashed masses dilemma.
 Not sure what you mean by corpro-drawbridge in this context.
 
 Some corporations exercise extreme control over their clients. They are 
 the exception, not the rule.
 
 The vast majority of corporate environments have to face the realities of 
 BYOD and minimal control over client configuration, software load, etc.
 
 
 It means that they can exercise control of what they allow on their 
 corporate network, byod or not. Nobody
 would allow a WEP-only wireless device on their network these days, so it's 
 not hard to imagine that if a standard
 for authenticating AP's became available and enterprises went to the effort 
 to upgrade their AP kit, they could
 reasonably say use a client that supports this, or you must vpn in”.
 I think most environments already support this to some extent in terms of 
 the APs participating in the controller framework and 802.1x authentication.
 
 However, that doesn’t cover the guy that brings a linksys in and plugs it 
 into his wired port.
 
 I think the only solution for those is detection followed by blocking the 
 wired port until resolution.
 
 If there's strong auth to the AP which enforces which SSID I connect to, who 
 cares about somebody bringing their
 own AP and fire up an SSID with the same name as $COPROSSID?

Who said he’d use $CORPROSSID?

He’ll probably use Linksys, leave it wide open, and, you know, your internal 
network just became accessible to any script-kiddie on a nearby mountain top 
with a coffee can.

I’m going to guess that most IT managers and CSOs would be unhappy with that 
situation, but perhaps I am wrong.

  Most companies I have worked with that took the time to think this through 
 simply made it an instant firing offense for anyone to plug in an 
 unauthorized WAP to the corporate wired network, problem solved.
 
 That's orthogonal to somebody backhauling the AP's traffic to some other 
 (possibly evil) network.

And back hauling the AP’s traffic to some other (possibly evil) network is 
completely orthogonal to ANY of the threads in this discussion.

 That's a much better outcome than quibbling about squatter's rights, blah 
 blah blah.
 To the extent that such is a feasible solution, I think it was long since 
 done. That’s got nothing to do with what this discussion was about, however, 
 you’ve warped it into a completely different problem space.
 
 
 
 Not really. The original posts posited that there were perfectly valid 
 reasons to send deauth frames to rogue AP's because
 clients might connect to spoofed SSIDs. That's a bad solution to what at 
 its heart is an authentication problem. Bring strong
 auth to the table, and there's no reason to worry about spoofed SSID’s.

That doesn’t mean that 802.1x doesn’t address the issue exactly as you 
described. People argue all kinds of things and there are lots of networks that 
haven’t deployed 802.1x and/or strong authentication (WPA2-Enterprise, et. al).

Failure to deploy the tools doesn’t mean the tools and standards don’t exist.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-07 Thread Owen DeLong


On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Fiske c...@bloomcounty.org wrote:

 
 On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
 
 
 Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
 when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
 such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing 
 operations.
 
 I recognize that you were making this statement in the context of colliding 
 SSIDs, but to me this could be an interesting point in another way.
 
 Suppose from Marriott’s perspective that your personal wifi network is 
 interfering with the throughput of their existing network. After all, if you 
 fire up your personal AP, with a non-colliding SSID, and start downloading 
 multi-GB files, that’s bound to impact[1] anything else using that channel. 
 While there are at least a few non-overlapping channels on most wifi 
 networks, if Marriott(’s third party network operators) had any sense they 
 likely would have situated their APs and channels to provide the most range 
 with the least amount of frequency overlap. Now here your personal AP on one 
 of those channels consuming enough of its bandwidth to significantly degrade 
 performance for anyone else, and they may not have access to (or usable 
 signal strength or bandwidth on) another channel from their hotel room.

The FCC has specifically stated that sharing of the spectrum bandwidth in this 
manner is not considered “harmful interference” in at least a few rulings. This 
is the “normal and expected result of deployment of multiple networks onto 
limited spectrum”.

 During a big convention for example, the hotel network is probably at its 
 busiest while the number of guests using personal APs is likely also at its 
 peak. This may be a stickier case, as no one user is causing the issue but 
 one could make the case that, in aggregate, they are very much interfering 
 with existing operations.

Yes, but not in a manner the FCC fits into the definition of “harmful 
interference” under 15.3 and/or 15.5.

 There are probably a couple of different angles to consider, but I’m thinking 
 in terms of the “first come, first served” concept. At what point is the 
 extra bandwidth consumed by your personal wifi network considered to be 
 harmfully interfering with an existing network?

It isn’t (unless you run afoul of 47CFR333 and are consuming bandwidth for the 
sole purpose of denying it to others).

 FWIW I am not defending Marriott’s actions, nor even positing that this was 
 the reason for them. I just want to gain understanding.

Yep. Understood. Hope the above helps.

 -c
 
 [1] This is of course assuming you’re getting decent throughput from your 
 3G/4G provider’s network. But even though it’s almost certainly slower than 
 wifi it’s probably generating enough packets in a collision-based medium to 
 impact other flows.

Actually, I usually get better 4G service on my LTE devices than I get from 
most hotel WiFi networks. It’s one of the reasons I wish Apple would let me 
choose the interface preference order rather than locking me to “if Wifi is on 
and can find an AP, then I won’t use LTE”.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-07 Thread Owen DeLong



 On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote:
 
 On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 
 Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
 when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
 such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing 
 operations.
 
 Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO,
 meet the test of “causing harmful interference”.
 
 Really? From a radio perspective if it isn't on the same RF channel?

In fact, yes. Since clients bind based on SSID and return to whatever channel 
the AP tells them to as a result, it's still an issue and still fits within the 
purview of RF regulation. Further, most of the channels somewhat overlap as 
it's a spread-spectrum technology, so the traditional concepts of channel 
don't actually completely apply (this is a good thing, actually).

 I'm not so sure about that. It might cause interference to the revenue
 stream, it could be considered a trademark infringement especially if it
 leads to a fake splash page with the Marriott logo, and it could
 certainly be used for malicious MITM purposes, but it doesn't cause
 harmful interference to the existing user from the perspective of radio
 frequency use.

It does, actually, because the client may well rebind to the other AP thinking 
it's still part of the same ESS (since ESS are usually identified by sharing a 
common SSID).

Owen

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


I have a question for the company assembled:

Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using 
their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of 
company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone 
service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their 
property.


What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Keenan Tims

I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.

Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
the mobile carrier is the primary or secondary user. [name of company]
has no right to even use the frequencies in question.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

K

On 10/07/2014 05:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 I have a question for the company assembled:
 
 Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using 
 their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of 
 company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone 
 service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their 
 property.
 
 What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Jimmy Hess

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca wrote:
 I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
 likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.

Well... actually...  passive methods are probably fine, as long as
they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might
result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive
behaviors  ---  also, if there are other businesses nearby,  it  could
lead  to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this
giant faraday cage.The local authorities might eventually require
some modifications.  :)

 Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
 bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where

It's even worse  these frequencies are licensed, and willfully
transmitting into the frequencies with enough power to block cell
calls  from an unauthorized station has severe penalties,   even if it
never interferes with a single phone or the licensee's use  of the
restricted frequencies.

If it DOES interfere,  then you have two potential violations
(Unauthorized emission PLUS Interference) and there are likely more
stations they would be interfering with than WiFi APs,  so there are
more violations and more complaints likely to be generated.

And these violations are more severe, since they can interfere with
emergency communications (E911);   I think it's fair to say penalties
would likely be larger.


The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
of the licensee   In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
phone companies to allow this,   then  create an approved special
local cell tower  all their phones in the same building will by
default connect to  in preference to any other,  which will also  not
receive any calls or messages   or allow any to be sent.

--
-JH

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:

 The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
 of the licensee   In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
 phone companies to allow this,   then  create an approved special
 local cell tower  all their phones in the same building will by
 default connect to  in preference to any other,  which will also  not
 receive any calls or messages   or allow any to be sent.

I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.



pgpzFMrgHoGBz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Roy



The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php

and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any 
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php


On 10/7/2014 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:


The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
of the licensee   In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
phone companies to allow this,   then  create an approved special
local cell tower  all their phones in the same building will by
default connect to  in preference to any other,  which will also  not
receive any calls or messages   or allow any to be sent.

I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:


The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php


and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php


I see that as a fundamentally very different mater.

If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned 
and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment that 
they were under no obligation whatever to provide.


A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through.

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Matt Palmer

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
 
  The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
  of the licensee   In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
  phone companies to allow this,   then  create an approved special
  local cell tower  all their phones in the same building will by
  default connect to  in preference to any other,  which will also  not
  receive any calls or messages   or allow any to be sent.
 
 I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.

Getting paid by third parties to abuse your customers seems to be working
well for certain other industries.

- Matt

-- 
You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
-- Inigo, The Princess Bride

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Roy


On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:


The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php 




and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php 



I see that as a fundamentally very different mater.

If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned 
and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment 
that they were under no obligation whatever to provide.


A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through.



BART's equipment was licensed by the FCC with a main reason being 911 
access.

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote:

On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:


The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php



and the FCC emphasis that future actions recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted-2344326.php



I see that as a fundamentally very different mater.

If I understand, they turned off repeaters (towers) that they owned
and provided, in tunnels and other structures they owned--equipment
that they were under no obligation whatever to provide.

A reaction to bright marketing ideas that had not been thought-through.



BART's equipment was licensed by the FCC with a main reason being 911
access.


OK--not a Marketing idea, maybe.  But still, all the options are in 
BART's hands--they have emergency phones and people everywhere.


The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.



--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]

2014-10-07 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
 The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.

However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.


pgpz6n3Z670ZN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:

The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.


However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.


Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?

--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]


On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote:

On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:

The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.


However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.


Obligated by what law, regulation, rule or contract?



I lived in the area and worked in San Francisco when BART was built, and 
while I never rode BART regularly, I have no recall of cell service on 
BART or MUNI being a safety issue or advertised as such.


--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-06 Thread Joe Greco

 On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
   There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
   where there's a lot of ambiguity.  We don't even know for sure that
   what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
   was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter.  And
   that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for the
   *sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.
  
  I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15.
  Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is
  ambiguous?
 
 Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or
authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
Government.
 
 In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
 transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
 there's not much ambiguity.  But other cases aren't clear from the
 text.  
 
 For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my SSID
 for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
 that, that I have to change.  But that if, instead of duplicating my
 new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID but
 on the same channel, I don't have to change.  I'm not saying your
 position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
 that that's where the line is.  That's what I meant by ambiguity.

I've watched this discussion with much amusement.  In a manner similar
to our legal system, where a lot of the law is actually defined by what
is commonly called case law, most of the non-radio geeks here are
talking about radios and spectrum as though all of this represents some
sort of new problem, when in fact the agency tasked with handling it is
older than any of us.

 (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
 continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
 existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
 that won't share the spectrum?  Illegal or Legal?  And do you think the
 text above is unambiguous on that point?)

It doesn't matter if you think your quoted text on this point is
ambiguous.  The fact of the matter is that decades of policy are 
that the FCC decided many years ago that you cannot go onto shared,
unlicensed spectrum with a powerful transmitter and hold the mic 
open with the intent to disrupt the legitimate communications traffic 
of others on that channel.  This logically derives fairly 
straightforwardly from the quoted text, and the fact that wifi deauth 
interference is merely a packet-pushing variant of this isn't really 
hard for the average person to extrapolate.

But they also have decades of experience with other aspects of more 
subtle radio shenanigans, and they have the authority to sort it all 
out, so what we should really be hoping for is that the FCC doesn't 
do something onerous like mandate registration of access point MAC's 
and SSID's if and when it gets to a point where it is considered a 
true problem.  That could well be the regulatory solution to your 
ABCD problem, but it would be a heavyhanded fix to a minor problem.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-06 Thread Alexander Harrowell

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Hugo, I still don't think that you have quite made it to the distinction that 
 we are looking for here.

 In the case of the hotel, we are talking about an access point that connects 
 via 4G to a cellular carrier. An access point that attempts to create its own 
 network for the subscribers devices. A network disjoint from the network 
 provided by the hotel or its contractor.

To put it another way, if you plugged a USB cable into the 4G device
and the other end into a laptop, and a hotel manager appeared with a
big pair of scissors and cut through it, in an effort to make you buy
WLAN service from the hotel, nobody would think this either legal or
reasonable. Why should it be more acceptable because you used radio?
What about IrDA, if you're a technical masochist?


 This is a different case from the circumstance in a business office where 
 equipment is deployed to prevent someone from walking in with an access point 
 /which pretends to be part of the network which the office runs./

 In the latter case, the security hardware is justified in deassociating 
 people from the rogue access point, /because it is pretending to be part of a 
 network it is not authorized to be part of/.

 In the Marriott case, that is not the circumstance. The networks which the 
 deauth probes are being aimed at are networks which are advertising 
 themselves as being /separate from the network operated by the hotel/, and 
 this is the distinction that makes Marriott's behavior is unacceptable.

 (In my opinion; I am NOT a lawyer. If following my advice breaks something, 
 you get to keep both pieces.)

 On October 3, 2014 11:04:08 PM EDT, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 19:45:57 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

On 10/3/14 7:25 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 17:21:08 -0700, Michael Van Norman m...@ucla.edu
wrote:

IANAL, but I believe they are.  State laws may also apply (e.g.
California
Code - Section 502).  In California, it is illegal to knowingly and
without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer
services
or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized
user
of a computer, computer system, or computer network.  Blocking
access to
somebody's personal hot spot most likely qualifies.

My guess would be that the hotel or other organizations using the
blocking tech would probably just say the users/admin of the rogue
APs
are not authorized users as setting up said AP would probably be in
contravention of the AUP of the hotel/org network.

They can say anything they want, it does not make it legal.

There's no such thing as a rogue AP in this context.  I can run an
access point almost anywhere I want (there are limits established by
the
FCC in some areas) and it does not matter who owns the land
underneath.
They have no authority to decide whether or not my access point is
authorized.  They can certainly refuse to connect me to their wired
network; and they can disconnect me if they decide I am making
inappropriate use of their network -- but they have no legal authority
to
interfere with my wireless transmissions on my own network (be it my
personal hotspot, WiFi router, etc.).  FWIW, the same is true in
almost
all corporate environments as well.

Thanks; I think that's the distinction I was looking for here.  By
spoofing deauth, the org is actively/knowingly participating on *my
network* and causing harm to it without necessarily having proof that
*my network* is in any way attached to *their network*.  The assumption

in the hotel case is likely that the WLANs of the rogue APs they're
targeting are attached to their wired network and are attempts to
extend
that wireless network without authorization (and that's probably
generally a pretty safe assumption), but that doesn't forgive causing
harm to that WLAN.  There's no reason they can't cut off the wired port

of the AP if it is connected to the org's network as that's their
attachment point and their call, but spoofed deauth stuff does seem to
be out of bounds.

I'm not clear on whether it runs afoul of FCC regs as it's not RF
interference directly but rather an (ab)use of higher layer control
mechanisms operating on that spectrum, but it probably does run afoul
of
most thou shalt not harm other networks legislation like the
California example.


/Mike



--
Hugo

 --
 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-06 Thread David Cantrell

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 07:57:07PM -0700, Hugo Slabbert wrote:

 But it's not a completely discrete network.  It is a subset of the 
 existing network in the most common example of e.g. a WLAN + NAT device 
 providing access to additional clients, or at least an adjacent network 
 attached to the existing one.  Okay: theoretically a guest could spin up 
 a hotspot and not attach it to the hotel network at all, but I'm 
 assuming that's a pretty tiny edge case.

I don't think it is. It's common for phones to be able to share their
3G/4G/whatever wossnames with other devices over wifi. And these days
you don't even have to pay the telco extra.

-- 
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

  Cynical is a word used by the naive to describe the experienced.
  George Hills, in uknot

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:

 On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
 Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about 
 current state of FCC regulations.
 
 Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is 
 rare in my experience.
 
 Owen
 
 
 I this particular case, I think that enterprise could go a very long way to 
 driving a solution through
 standards and deployment. They, after all, call the shots of who does and who 
 doesn't get over
 the corpro-drawbridge. A much different state of affairs than the typical 
 unwashed masses dilemma.

Not sure what you mean by corpro-drawbridge in this context.

Some corporations exercise extreme control over their clients. They are the 
exception, not the rule.

The vast majority of corporate environments have to face the realities of BYOD 
and minimal control over client configuration, software load, etc.

 Assuming that there's the perception that this is a big enough problem, of 
 course.

Not sure. The issue you seem to be talking about seems somewhat orthogonal to 
the original topic of the thread, so I”m not sure going too deep into it in 
this forum is appropriate.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 5, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:

 * Jay Ashworth:
 
 It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack
 *on rogue APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same
 ESSID).
 
 What if the ESSID is Free Internet, or if the network is completely
 open?  Does it change things if you have data that shows your
 customers can be duped even by networks with a non-colliding ESSID?

To the best of my knowledge, not under the current regulatory framework.

It’s not considered harmful interference if the SSID isn’t conflicting.

The fact that your users are stupid isn’t license for you to attack someone 
else’s network.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-06 Thread John Schiel



On 10/03/2014 04:26 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, John Schiel jsch...@flowtools.net 
wrote:




On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this 
to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from 
captive customers.

I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless of
physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
spectrum.


+1



My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
administrative (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC 
regulations.


Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 
'interference',
which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally 
interfere.


I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be 
acceptable.


What constitutes defensive purposes?


Whoa, lots of replies this weekend.

I haven't made my way through all of them but the point was to try and 
protect your network from an offensive device. It seems though, if you 
are law abiding and follow the FCC rules, you **cannot** protect 
yourself very well using the wireless spectrum. Need to do some more 
reading I guess.


--John





--John



K

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

2014-10-06 Thread Michael Thomas


On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:


On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current 
state of FCC regulations.

Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is 
rare in my experience.

Owen


I this particular case, I think that enterprise could go a very long way to 
driving a solution through
standards and deployment. They, after all, call the shots of who does and who 
doesn't get over
the corpro-drawbridge. A much different state of affairs than the typical 
unwashed masses dilemma.

Not sure what you mean by corpro-drawbridge in this context.

Some corporations exercise extreme control over their clients. They are the 
exception, not the rule.

The vast majority of corporate environments have to face the realities of BYOD 
and minimal control over client configuration, software load, etc.




It means that they can exercise control of what they allow on their 
corporate network, byod or not. Nobody
would allow a WEP-only wireless device on their network these days, so 
it's not hard to imagine that if a standard
for authenticating AP's became available and enterprises went to the 
effort to upgrade their AP kit, they could

reasonably say use a client that supports this, or you must vpn in.

That's a much better outcome than quibbling about squatter's rights, 
blah blah blah.


Mike

Re: Marriott wifi blocking


On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com 
 wrote:
 For example, you've asserted that if I've been using ABCD as my SSID
 for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
 that, that I have to change.  But that if, instead of duplicating my
 [snip]
 
 Actually...  I would suggest that it is not entirely clear if you have
 to change or not.   Your conflicting SSID in no way impedes the use of
 the spectrum, one of you just has to recode your SSID;  this is
 different from setting up a WIPS Rogue AP containment feature to
 completely block an AP from ever being used. If your SSID happens
 to conflict with your neighbor's SSID by coincidence, and the SSID is
 a common name such as Linksys,  then this conflict alone probably does
 not qualify as willful or malicious interference.

Right… You probably don’t face the issues under 47CFR333, but you’ve
still got a 47CFR15.5 problem of harmful interference.

 As the spectrum is unlicensed, neither of you is a licensed station, and
 neither of you has priority;  neither of your stations is a primary
 or secondary user.Both of your stations has to accept the
 unintended interference in the unlicensed frequencies;   it is
 essentially up to the two of you to either take it upon yourself to
 change your own SSID, or to negotiate with your neighbor.

Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations.

Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO,
meet the test of “causing harmful interference”.

 On the other hand, if you chose a SSID for your AP of STARBUCKS and
 you set this up  in proximity to a Starbucks location or selected
 [YOURNEIGHBORSCOMPANYNAME] as your SSID;  it would seem to be more
 evident   that any interference  that was occuring to their wireless
 station operation was willful  and possibly a malicious attempt to
 compromise client security.

Willful and malicious only comes into play if you’re looking to prosecute under 
333.

Any harmful interference is still a problem under 15.5.

Owen

Re: Marriott wifi blocking