[174920] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Oct 5 02:21:10 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141005005807.GA24831@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 23:19:57 -0700
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 17:58, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com> wrote:=
>=20
>> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> The problem is that there's really no such thing as a "copycat" if
>>>> the client doesn't have the means of authenticating the
>>>> destination. If that's really the requirement, people should start
>>>> bitching to ieee to get destination auth on ap's instead of
>>>> blatantly asserting that somebody owns a particular ssid because,
>>>> well, because.
>>>=20
>>> In the enterprise environment that there's been some insistence
>>> from folks on this list is a legitimate place to block "rogue" APs,
>>> what makes those SSIDs, "yours"? Just because they were used first
>>> by the enterprise? That doesn't seem to hold water in an unlicensed
>>> environment to me at all.
>>=20
>> Pretty much... Here's why...
>>=20
>> If you are using an SSID in an area, anyone else using the same SSID
>> later is causing harmful interference to your network. It's a
>> first-come-first-serve situation. Just like amateur radio spectrum...
>> If you're using a frequency to carry on a conversation with someone,
>> other hams have an obligation not to interfere with your conversation
>> (except in an emergency). It's a bit more complicated there, because
>> you're obliged to reasonably accommodate others wishing to use the
>> frequency, but in the case of SSIDs, there's no such requirement.
>>=20
>> Now, if I start using SSID XYZ in building 1 and someone else is
>> using it in building 3 and the two coverage zones don't overlap, I'm
>> not entitled to extend my XYZ SSID into building 3 when I rent space
>> there, because someone else is using it in that location first.
>=20
> So your position is that if I start using Starbuck's SSID in a location
> where there is no Starbuck, and they layer move in to that building,
> I'm entitled to compel them to not use their SSID?
It isn't "Starbuck's SSID". There are no ownership rights or registrations o=
f SSIDs for unlicensed wireless networks. So, under the existing regulatory f=
ramework, whoever arrived last is the one causing "harmful interference".=20=
>=20
>> I can only extend my XYZ coverage zone so far as there are no
>> competing XYZ SSIDs in the locations I'm expanding in to.
>=20
> Is ther FCC guidance on this, or is this "Regulations As Interpreted By
> Owen"?
This is many FCC responses to various part 15 interference complaints as int=
erpreted by Owen.=20
>> Depends on whether you were the first one using the SSID in a
>> particular location or not.
>>=20
>> Sure, this can get ambiguous and difficult to prove, but the reality
>> is that most cases are pretty clear cut and it's usually not hard to
>> tell who is the interloper on a given SSID.
>=20
> It's usually easy to tell, but I doubt the FCC would find it relevant.=20
>=20
> There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
> where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
> what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
> was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter. And
> that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for the
> *sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.
I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15. Could you=
please read part 15 and tell me what you think is ambiguous?
Owen
>=20
> -- Brett
