[174967] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jimmy Hess)
Mon Oct 6 19:31:16 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <2C0DB9A0-96DB-40E7-8C93-61E43FED39BC@bloomcounty.org>
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:30:46 -0500
To: Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org> wrote:
>legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their ow=
n
>network=E2=80=99s performance, specifically based on the FCC=E2=80=99s pos=
ition that a new
> transmitter should not disrupt existing operations. I was not in any way
>intending to say that their -response- was legitimate.
Hi.... the FCC's position about a transmitter not disrupting existing
operations applies to various licensed frequencies but not the
low-powered unlicensed transmitters.
Please don't imagine that Part 15 devices have any regulatory
protection against interference from any other Part 15 devices being
operated, no matter which device is "new", except for the prohibition
against Malicious/Willful interference.
Of course, it is within the FCC's power to regulate, there just isn't
this regulation in Part 15.
--=20
-JH
