RE: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
The reports if the FCC report that I read said that the rogue devices were not interfering with the hotel Wi-Fi network. I think they might have had a reason to deauth if the rogues were interfering with the hotel network, Bruce Osborne Network Engineer – Wireless Team IT Network Services (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Training Champions for Christ since 1971 From: Peter P Morrissey [mailto:ppmor...@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:07 PM Subject: Re: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever means as equivalent to jamming. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 [AusColl_Logo_Email] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as outlined in FCC part 15 regulations http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5 The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend it. But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you jamming? I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify. - Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edumailto:pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu http://www.davenport.edu On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edumailto:lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but the FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether you offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they created a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that they certified for use in the US. Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003tel:315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Williams, Matthew Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My understanding is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t think that there would have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free. Respectfully, Matthew Williams Kent State University Network Telecommunications Services Office: (330) 672-7246tel:%28330%29%20672-7246 Mobile: (330) 469-0445tel:%28330%29%20469-0445 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Kitri Waterman Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities at a Nashville hotel in March 2013. According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space. Is this a
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
There are a lot of misconceptions about all of this airspace licensing and use. The spectrum used by 2.4 GHz and 5GHz WiFi is open to non-licensed (ISM band part 15) use. A large part of it is also in contention with licensed amateur radio operation. What that means is that a ham radio operator could set up legitimate communications on (e.g.) 2.4 GHz and override any WiFi you have set up. Legally. The amateur radio operators have primary allocation in most of the band space, while ISM is secondary allocation. The amateur radio operators could, in theory, ask you to shut down your interfering WiFi operations. [1] Related: telling someone that they are not permitted to operate Part 15 devices in their own residential space is a very grey area. It's probably not kosher to tell students that they are not permitted to operate their own WiFi in the dorms, but you *can* tell them they can't plug it in to your networks. In theory, they have just as much right to operate a Part 15 device in their own residence as you have to operate a Part 15 wifi network in the same space. Whether that applies within the walls of a private institution that is not a residence, I have no idea. I suspect it does. This is all very tricky. Please, consult with your institution's general counsel. IANAL, etc. -- Jorj [1] http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices -- Jorj Bauer Manager of Engineering, Research and Development Information Systems and Computing, University of Pennsylvania 215.746.3850 XMPP: j...@upenn.edu On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) bosbo...@liberty.edu wrote: The reports if the FCC report that I read said that the rogue devices were not interfering with the hotel Wi-Fi network. I think they might have had a reason to deauth if the rogues were interfering with the hotel network, Bruce Osborne Network Engineer – Wireless Team IT Network Services (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Training Champions for Christ since 1971 From: Peter P Morrissey [mailto:ppmor...@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:07 PM Subject: Re: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever means as equivalent to jamming. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 image001.gif From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as outlined in FCC part 15 regulations http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5 The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend it. But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well, are you jamming? I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify. - Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu http://www.davenport.edu On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman lhbad...@syr.edu wrote: Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but the FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether you offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it appears that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that they created a lot of confusion over features that are built in to equipment that they certified for use in the US. Lee Badman Wireless/Network Architect ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Williams,
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 1. This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to maximum radio output power. -- Dave Molta Associate Professor of Practice Syracuse University School of Information Studies email: djmo...@syr.edu phone: 315-443-4549 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network either. Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you built is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF spectrum. Yes you built the wireless infrastructure (APs and controllers), but the medium is fundamentally different. I've been working up a car analogy: if you were a urban university with buildings spread throughout a city, you couldn't deauth non-university vehicles from using the (publicly owned) roads (to ensure university owned vehicles could get to their destinations unimpeded). On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter P Morrissey ppmor...@syr.edumailto:ppmor...@syr.edu wrote: So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever means as equivalent to jamming. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564tel:903-813-2564 [AusColl_Logo_Email] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as outlined in FCC part 15 regulations
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else. If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership. I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message. Lee H. Badman Network Architect/Wireless TME ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 1. This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to maximum radio output power. -- Dave Molta Associate Professor of Practice Syracuse University School of Information Studies email: djmo...@syr.edu phone: 315-443-4549 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network either. Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you built is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF spectrum. Yes you built the wireless infrastructure (APs and controllers), but the medium is fundamentally different. I've been working up a car analogy: if you were a urban university with buildings spread throughout a city, you couldn't deauth non-university vehicles from using the (publicly owned) roads (to ensure university owned vehicles could get to their destinations unimpeded). On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter P Morrissey ppmor...@syr.edumailto:ppmor...@syr.edu wrote: So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
Exactly. The horse has left the barn, but this cries out for some sort of pseudo-licensing system (e.g. we have the rights to WiFi within our campus area). WiFi has become too important to essentially have signal anarchy. I believe the importance of WiFi in homes is the one thing that keeps it from becoming worse; people will not buy something that interferes with their home Internet. But unfortunately that is the exact thing that is making it harder on us as too many devices are built around the assumption that they only need to work around 1 AP on 1 channel. (Don’t get me started on devices and services that are built to work behind a home “router” but not an enterprise one) Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 [cid:image001.gif@01CFF295.926EFD70] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else. If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership. I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message. Lee H. Badman Network Architect/Wireless TME ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 1. This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to maximum radio output power. -- Dave Molta Associate Professor of Practice Syracuse University School of Information Studies email: djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu phone: 315-443-4549 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
I’ll vote for you Lee!!! ☺What’s that you say… “being right has never got anyone elected…”? “the FCC is above politics…”? I thought it would be so simple… Hahahaha…. Dave Tindall Asst VP for Technology Services (CIO) Seattle Pacific University Computer Information Systems Phone: (206) 281-2239 Mobile: (206) 940-1736 Fax: (206) 281-2850 Email: dtind...@spu.edumailto:dtind...@spu.edu Web: www.spu.eduhttp://www.spu.edu/ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else. If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership. I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message. Lee H. Badman Network Architect/Wireless TME ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 1. This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to maximum radio output power. -- Dave Molta Associate Professor of Practice Syracuse University School of Information Studies email: djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu phone: 315-443-4549 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Peter P Morrissey Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:27 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s network either. Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Skalski Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared
RE: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
This is probably way too much to ask for but I think we will be having problems until the FCC carves out an entirely new band allocation that has the space and width and technology to handle dense high user count, high bandwidth, environments. Would have to be low enough frequency so we would not have an AP every 10 feet but high enough that individual throughput would be high enough. Kind of like when we went from hubs to switches. I know I know I am dreaming. And then the equipment upgrades begin again. (Job Security) Bob Owens Kansas State University From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Tindall, Dave Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:43 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal I’ll vote for you Lee!!! ☺What’s that you say… “being right has never got anyone elected…”? “the FCC is above politics…”? I thought it would be so simple… Hahahaha…. Dave Tindall Asst VP for Technology Services (CIO) Seattle Pacific University Computer Information Systems Phone: (206) 281-2239 Mobile: (206) 940-1736 Fax: (206) 281-2850 Email: dtind...@spu.edumailto:dtind...@spu.edu Web: www.spu.eduhttp://www.spu.edu/ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:48 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal To me (and I am an Extra Class licensed ham, radio hobbyist, WLAN type, and government official who understands Part 15 and others) it seems like one thing that is overdue by the FCC is the recognition of the sheer importance of WLAN to modern business environments, and the need for businesses to be able to have local policy-based control over competing signals. Basically something that boils down to if you don't agree to our rules on Wi-Fi, stay/shop/visit/whatever somewhere else. If we don't get something like this established, we're at the mercy of any number of factors laying waste to high-dollar wireless environments and services. To waive that off and say well, then don't use Wi-Fi is pretty dated in thought and contributes little to the discussion. Society has elevated WLAN to another place, the FCC needs to catch up and show creative leadership. I'm Lee Badman, and I endorse this message. Lee H. Badman Network Architect/Wireless TME ITS, Syracuse University 315.443.3003 From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU on behalf of David J Molta djmo...@syr.edumailto:djmo...@syr.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal While I understand the concerns of enterprise Wi-Fi managers, I think it would be difficult for the FCC to modify these rules in a way that protects everyone’s interests. One option might be for the FCC to redefine rules for 2.4 GHz such that only non-overlapping 20 MHz channels are permitted for non frequency hopping devices. That wouldn’t solve co-channel interference problems, but it would address the adjacent channel interference issues that cause the biggest problems. A few years ago, I had a couple students do some testing of the relative impact of co-channel and adjacent channel interference in the 2.4 GHz band. While the results weren’t conclusive (there are a lot of variables that are difficult to control for, especially the physical proximity of AP’s and client devices), they do show that you are better off with devices operating on the same channels than on adjacent channels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sbPPM93nbA The real question in my mind is why manufacturers of MyFi devices choose to configure the default to a channel other than 1, 6 or 11. We’ve seen a lot of devices defaulting to channel 2, which really messes up performance on channel 1. This obviously isn’t as much of an issue in the 5 GHz bands since we don’t have adjacent channel interference to contend with. In these situations, a MyFi device operating in your air-space doesn’t introduce significant interference issues. Assuming it complies with FCC rules (if it is certified by the FCC, it should), it just looks like another 802.11 device contending for air time. You could make the argument that a MyFi device configured for maximum output power may cause co-channel interference with other cells in a micro-cellular deployment but the same thing can be said for client devices that default to maximum radio output power. -- Dave Molta
RE: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal
That is actually encouraging if it is true. It is certainly implied by the Consent Decree” “The growing use of technologies that unlawfully block consumers from creating their own Wi-Fi networks via their personal hotspot devices unjustifiably prevents consumers from enjoying services they have paid for and stymies the convenience and innovation associated with Wi-Fi Internet access.” http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1003/DA-14-1444A1.txt The FCC’s press release makes it a finer point: The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers,small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network. http://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation From what I read, the FCC seems to be championing the benefits of Wi-Fi. So I would think that if we are providing Wi-Fi on our premise, and not charging for it as a separate fee, the case would have to be viewed differently. In fact, I think the Federal Communications Act could be used in our favor: “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 Act or operated by the United States Government.” http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf If someone is causing interference on our network, and we inform them, then aren’t they at that point “willfully interfering.” And, to quote the decree, at that point they would be the ones who would be unjustifiably preventing “…consumers from enjoying services they have paid for…” And further, if we manage these situations with some diplomacy, and provide alternatives that are as good as or better than the Mi-Fi device, then what incentive would anyone have to make an issue out of it? I can’t say that I find myself wanting to defend the Marriott if what they are doing is forcing customers to pay exorbitant fees to use their less than stellar performing network. What they should probably do is raise their conference fee and then make a big deal about the “free” Wi-Fi that is included in the package. Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services) Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:59 AM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal The reports if the FCC report that I read said that the rogue devices were not interfering with the hotel Wi-Fi network. I think they might have had a reason to deauth if the rogues were interfering with the hotel network, Bruce Osborne Network Engineer – Wireless Team IT Network Services (434) 592-4229 LIBERTY UNIVERSITY Training Champions for Christ since 1971 From: Peter P Morrissey [mailto:ppmor...@syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 7:07 PM Subject: Re: It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? Pete Morrissey From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable through whatever means as equivalent to jamming. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564 [AusColl_Logo_Email] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUmailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal My thought is that the FCC is simply trying to police the ISM band, as outlined in FCC part 15 regulations http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73node=pt47.1.15rgn=div5 The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to comprehend it. But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue
