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<mailto: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.EDU<mailto: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=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 The rules are out of date at best.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 pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu<mailto:pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu> http://www.davenport.edu On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman <lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto: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<tel:315.443.3003> (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] On Behalf Of Williams, Matthew Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My understanding is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots to force people to pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t think that there would have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free. Respectfully, Matthew Williams Kent State University Network & Telecommunications Services Office: (330) 672-7246<tel:%28330%29%20672-7246> Mobile: (330) 469-0445<tel:%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.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal "Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain "interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities" at a Nashville hotel in March 2013. According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was "jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space." Is this a distinction between them blocking in their "conference facilities" vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal propagation is not so clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are seeing things differently. Kitri Waterman Network Engineer (Wireless) University of Oregon On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote: I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, disabling wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s jurisdiction it seems to me. Thomas Carter Network and Operations Manager Austin College 903-813-2564<tel:903-813-2564> [AusColl_Logo_Email] From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brian Helman Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that clause is invalid. -Brian Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything sent. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Sweetser <f...@wpi.edu<mailto:f...@wpi.edu>> To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN quarantine features illegal I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that. I've been in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi. A number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead just said "Nah, I'll just use my hotspot." I suspect it's a combination of two things. First, "I paid for it, so I have to use it to get my money's worth". Second, "I'd have to think about how to set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory." In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host offered wifi doesn't even factor into the decision at all. Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu<http://wpi.edu> | For every problem, there is a solution that Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong. Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote: > Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi for free > or at a reasonable price. > When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi, just > include it in the cost of doing business. > Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at > $200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot, > and bypass the silly cost model! > > At Educause this week the Vendor-floor was plagued with hundreds of Mi-Fi and > private Wi-Fi. > The event was charging upward of $150/day for Wi-Fi to exhibitors. So, many of > them had their own solutions! > > Humans are resourceful...and if you piss them off they will read the law and > call the FCC (or they pirate your network ;-) > > Philippe > > Philippe Hanset > www.eduroam.us<http://www.eduroam.us> <http://www.eduroam.us> > > > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Lee H Badman > <lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu> > <mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu<mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>>> wrote: > >> >> What do you all think of this? >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-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/.
