[174865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 3 19:51:11 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141003231228.GA79197@wakko.typo.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:49:49 -0700
To: Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
>>> The question here is what is authorized and what is not. Was this =
to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive =
customers. =20
>>=20
>> I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
>> outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless =
of
>> physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own =
the
>> spectrum.
>>=20
>=20
> I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
> a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
> active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
> because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
> don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
> could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
> or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
> interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
> on premesis...
>=20
> Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?
You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, =
but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as =
amended.
The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a =
signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you =
are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for =
other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to =
deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of =
interfering with them.
The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the =
hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.
As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership =
of the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the =
US (and I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
Owen
