[174974] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Oct 7 09:28:54 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54335C01.7030302@west.net>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:21:11 -0400
To: Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay@west.net> wrote:
>=20
>> On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are respons=
ible
>> 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 operat=
ions.
>>=20
>> Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO,
>> meet the test of =E2=80=9Ccausing harmful interference=E2=80=9D.
>=20
> Really? =46rom a radio perspective if it isn't on the same RF channel?
In fact, yes. Since clients bind based on SSID and return to whatever channe=
l the AP tells them to as a result, it's still an issue and still fits withi=
n the purview of RF regulation. Further, most of the channels somewhat overl=
ap as it's a spread-spectrum technology, so the traditional concepts of "cha=
nnel" don't actually completely apply (this is a good thing, actually).
> I'm not so sure about that. It might cause interference to the revenue
> stream, it could be considered a trademark infringement especially if it
> leads to a fake "splash page" with the Marriott logo, and it could
> certainly be used for malicious MITM purposes, but it doesn't cause
> harmful interference to the existing user from the perspective of radio
> frequency use.
It does, actually, because the client may well rebind to the other AP thinki=
ng it's still part of the same ESS (since ESS are usually identified by shar=
ing a common SSID).
Owen
