[174891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Oct 4 00:45:18 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141004024233.GC1424@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 21:35:28 -0700
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
If the signal that is causing the harmful interference is a radio transmissi=
on, then the FCC doesn't differentiate between noise and intelligent harmful=
interference. If you interfere elsewhere on the wire or without transmittin=
g, you might avoid the part 15 rules about causing harmful interference. If y=
ou transmit a signal over the air, then the FCC has authority and requires t=
hat you not cause harmful interference.=20
Owen
> On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:42, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
>=20
>> On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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 p=
rotect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive customers.=
>>>>=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
>>> 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?
>>=20
>> You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, bu=
t it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended.
>>=20
>> The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
>>=20
>> 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 al=
lowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other user=
s of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately interfere wi=
th any secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them.
>>=20
>> The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hote=
l in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.
>>=20
>> As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership o=
f the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (an=
d I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
>>=20
>> Owen
>=20
> Serious question: do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference exte=
nd beyond layer 1? I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise would b=
e pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that the mechanism=
s 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.
>=20
> I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference apply? =
Do they have authority above L1 in this case?
>=20
> --=20
> Hugo
