[174874] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hugo Slabbert)
Fri Oct 3 22:42:43 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 19:42:33 -0700
From: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <DBC86BAD-48D3-4840-BBEB-FE910D226874@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--w7PDEPdKQumQfZlR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>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 customer=
s.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> 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 s=
ignal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are a=
llowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other us=
ers 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 (an=
d I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
>
>Owen
>
Serious question: do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference=20
extend beyond layer 1? I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise=20
would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that=20
the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2. The=20
*effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its=20
intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher=20
layer control mechanisms.
I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference=20
apply? Do they have authority above L1 in this case?
--=20
Hugo
--w7PDEPdKQumQfZlR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)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=DTcI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--w7PDEPdKQumQfZlR--
