[174876] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Van Norman)
Fri Oct 3 22:49:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 19:48:23 -0700
From: Michael Van Norman <mvn@ucla.edu>
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141004024233.GC1424@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
One of the reasons I pointed to the California law is that it covers above
L1 even if FCC authority does not. The state law also provides for
criminal penalties. I do not know if other states have similar laws.
/Mike
On 10/3/14 7:42 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>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
>>>>>customers.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>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
>>
>
>Serious question: do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference
>extend beyond layer 1? I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise
>would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that
>the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2. The
>*effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its
>intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher
>layer control mechanisms.
>
>I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference
>apply? Do they have authority above L1 in this case?
>
>--
>Hugo
