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: [email protected]
On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Osborne, Bruce W (Network Services)
<[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas Carter
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Hoffswell
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> 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
> [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]] 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
> <image001.gif>
>
> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv
> [mailto:[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/.
> ********** 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/.
**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
