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=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73&node=pt47.1.15&rgn=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 The rules are out of date at best.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 [email protected] http://www.davenport.edu On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman <[email protected]> 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: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Matthew > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My > understanding is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots > to force people to pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t > think that there would have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Matthew Williams > > Kent State University > > Network & Telecommunications Services > > Office: (330) 672-7246 > > Mobile: (330) 469-0445 > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Kitri Waterman > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > "Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal > Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain > "interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in > the conference facilities" at a Nashville hotel in March 2013. > > According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord > Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was > "jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space." > > Is this a distinction between them blocking in their "conference > facilities" vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal > propagation is not so clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are > seeing things differently. > > Kitri Waterman > Network Engineer (Wireless) > University of Oregon > > On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote: > > I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless > countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, > disabling wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s > jurisdiction it seems to me. > > > > Thomas Carter > > Network and Operations Manager > > Austin College > > 903-813-2564 > > [image: AusColl_Logo_Email] > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:[email protected] > <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Brian Helman > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP > is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that > clause is invalid. > > -Brian > > > Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything > sent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Sweetser <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that. I've > been > in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi. A > number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead > just said "Nah, I'll just use my hotspot." > > I suspect it's a combination of two things. First, "I paid for it, so I > have > to use it to get my money's worth". Second, "I'd have to think about how > to > set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory." > > In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host offered > wifi > doesn't even factor into the decision at all. > > Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu | For every problem, there is a solution > that > Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong. > Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken > > On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote: > > Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi for > free > > or at a reasonable price. > > When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi, > just > > include it in the cost of doing business. > > Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at > > $200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot, > > and bypass the silly cost model! > > > > At Educause this week the Vendor-floor was plagued with hundreds of > Mi-Fi and > > private Wi-Fi. > > The event was charging upward of $150/day for Wi-Fi to exhibitors. So, > many of > > them had their own solutions! > > > > Humans are resourceful...and if you piss them off they will read the law > and > > call the FCC (or they pirate your network ;-) > > > > Philippe > > > > Philippe Hanset > > www.eduroam.us <http://www.eduroam.us> > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Lee H Badman <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > >> > >> What do you all think of this? > >> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-600000/ > > >> > >> - Lee Badman > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > <http://www.educause.edu/groups/> > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
