[174955] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clay Fiske)
Mon Oct 6 14:53:47 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
In-Reply-To: <CF7EFA06-ABB4-4FF2-90AA-F2253713BB82@delong.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:53:40 -0700
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
I recognize that you were making this statement in the context of =
colliding SSIDs, but to me this could be an interesting point in another =
way.
Suppose from Marriott=92s perspective that your personal wifi network is =
interfering with the throughput of their existing network. After all, if =
you fire up your personal AP, with a non-colliding SSID, and start =
downloading multi-GB files, that=92s bound to impact[1] anything else =
using that channel. While there are at least a few non-overlapping =
channels on most wifi networks, if Marriott(=92s third party network =
operators) had any sense they likely would have situated their APs and =
channels to provide the most range with the least amount of frequency =
overlap. Now here your personal AP on one of those channels consuming =
enough of its bandwidth to significantly degrade performance for anyone =
else, and they may not have access to (or usable signal strength or =
bandwidth on) another channel from their hotel room.
During a big convention for example, the hotel network is probably at =
its busiest while the number of guests using personal APs is likely also =
at its peak. This may be a stickier case, as no one user is causing the =
issue but one could make the case that, in aggregate, they are very much =
interfering with existing operations.
There are probably a couple of different angles to consider, but I=92m =
thinking in terms of the =93first come, first served=94 concept. At what =
point is the extra bandwidth consumed by your personal wifi network =
considered to be harmfully interfering with an existing network?
FWIW I am not defending Marriott=92s actions, nor even positing that =
this was the reason for them. I just want to gain understanding.
-c
[1] This is of course assuming you=92re getting decent throughput from =
your 3G/4G provider=92s network. But even though it=92s almost certainly =
slower than wifi it=92s probably generating enough packets in a =
collision-based medium to impact other flows.
