[156679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: the economies of scale of a Worldcon,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Sat Sep 22 04:17:46 2012
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 03:17:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: jra@baylink.com, jrhett@netconsonance.com
In-Reply-To: <DB2538CD-059E-4917-8D8E-C49E88E7061E@netconsonance.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: the economies of scale of a Worldcon,
> From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:08:22 -0700
>
> On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > A lot of this, too, depends on what the concom negotiated with the
> > property about wifi access already.
>
> And this is where you're going to hit some very hard walls.
>
> One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
> Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
> wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
> because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
> stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
> and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
> by side.
This _is_ a "let's you and him fight" comment, but one might want to run an
inquiry past the Friendly Candy Company, about the _legality_ of such
'killers' -- there are rules prorscribing _deliberate_/_intentional_ *active*
"interference with radio communication" that do apply to 'unlicensed' spectrum.
