[174968] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Mon Oct 6 22:05:18 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbU9pa1g=ZhsyQGh2VBd=GxKrKbtJbNBvV5YHQyPOpNQBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:04:43 -0400
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 o=
wn
>>network=E2=80=99s performance, specifically based on the FCC=E2=80=99s po=
sition that a new
>> transmitter should not disrupt existing operations. I was not in any way
>>intending to say that their -response- was legitimate.
>
> 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.
Hi Clay,
The answer to the question you asked is: No, Marriott lacked any
legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting
their own network=E2=80=99s performance. Any such impact was incidental to
those other individuals'' lawful use of an unlicensed frequency.
A more interesting question (to me anyway) is: does vendor gear which
facilitates willful interference, as the "equipment provided by
well-known, reputable manufacturers" apparently did, comply with Part
15? Or does the presence of such features make the gear non-compliant,
ergo unlawful.
Regards.
Bill Herrin
--=20
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
