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.edu<mailto:dtind...@spu.edu> Web: www.spu.edu<http://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.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> on behalf of David J Molta <djmo...@syr.edu<mailto:djmo...@syr.edu>> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 9:23 AM 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 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<mailto: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<mailto: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.EDU<mailto: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.edu<mailto: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.EDU<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<tel: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<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<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<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/. -- Tony Skalski Systems Administrator a...@stolaf.edu<mailto:a...@stolaf.edu> 507-786-3227 St. Olaf College Information Technology 1510 St. Olaf Avenue Northfield, MN 55057-1097 ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
