[174948] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Oct 6 11:46:30 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbW9YU1n2-F9RFhFBTuw+rScS=Tr4zHZZE__sgEe671v_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:41:57 -0700
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger =
<rbf+nanog@panix.com> wrote:
>> For example, you've asserted that if I've been using "ABCD" as my =
SSID
>> for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
>> that, that I have to change. But that if, instead of duplicating my
> [snip]
>=20
> Actually... I would suggest that it is not entirely clear if you have
> to change or not. Your conflicting SSID in no way impedes the use of
> the spectrum, one of you just has to recode your SSID; this is
> different from setting up a WIPS Rogue AP containment feature to
> completely block an AP from ever being used. If your SSID happens
> to conflict with your neighbor's SSID by coincidence, and the SSID is
> a common name such as Linksys, then this conflict alone probably does
> not qualify as willful or malicious interference.
Right=85 You probably don=92t face the issues under 47CFR333, but you=92ve=
still got a 47CFR15.5 problem of harmful interference.
> As the spectrum is unlicensed, neither of you is a licensed station, =
and
> neither of you has "priority"; neither of your stations is a primary
> or secondary user. Both of your stations has to accept the
> unintended interference in the unlicensed frequencies; it is
> essentially up to the two of you to either take it upon yourself to
> change your own SSID, or to negotiate with your neighbor.
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are =
responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is =
deployed in
such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing =
operations.
Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO,
meet the test of =93causing harmful interference=94.
> On the other hand, if you chose a SSID for your AP of "STARBUCKS" and
> you set this up in proximity to a Starbucks location or selected
> "[YOURNEIGHBORSCOMPANYNAME]" as your SSID; it would seem to be more
> evident that any interference that was occuring to their wireless
> station operation was willful and possibly a malicious attempt to
> compromise client security.
Willful and malicious only comes into play if you=92re looking to =
prosecute under 333.
Any harmful interference is still a problem under 15.5.
Owen
