[174958] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clay Fiske)
Mon Oct 6 15:56:52 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGXPuQtQNDX+SKgfxuHkZuh-iQe7NtG769WJ99ZWzWF-4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 12:56:44 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org> =
wrote:
>> Suppose from Marriott=92s perspective that your personal wifi
>> network is interfering with the throughput of their existing network.
>=20
> Then Marriott misunderstands the nature of *unlicensed* spectrum which
> anyone is allowed to use. There's a difference between interference
> incidental to one's lawful use and intentional, harmful interference.
> It isn't their spectrum. I have just as much a right to it as they do.
>=20
> If the microwave oven in the adjoining room makes 2.4ghz unusable I'm
> out of luck. If Marriott sends deauth packets (or any other
> unsolicited packets) under my SSID, they're hacking my computer and
> that's generally understood to be unlawful.
Again, to be clear, I=92m not defending Marriott or their actions.
I wouldn=92t dispute your statements, but if the FCC set the tone as =
indicated by Owen then it sounds like it may not be that simple.
Depending how it was actually worded by the FCC, I could see a =
corporation using it in court to defend their perceived =93right" to =
protect their wifi network from being =93disrupted=94 by other traffic.
-c=
