[175140] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 9 14:44:57 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141005231312.GA18326@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:34:40 -0700
To: Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>, Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog@panix.com> =
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an =
area
>>> where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
>>> what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted =
it
>>> was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter. =
And
>>> that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for =
the
>>> *sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.
>>=20
>> I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15.
>> Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is
>> ambiguous?
>=20
> Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
> No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
> interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or
> authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
> Government.
>=20
> In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
> transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
> there's not much ambiguity. But other cases aren't clear from the
> text. =20
>=20
> For example, you've asserted that if I've been using "ABCD" as my SSID
> for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
> that, that I have to change. But that if, instead of duplicating my
> new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID but
> on the same channel, I don't have to change. I'm not saying your
> position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
> that that's where the line is. That's what I meant by ambiguity.
True, but if you read the rest of Part 15, you=92ll also find these =
gems:
(=46rom http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=3D47:1.0.1.1.16)
=A715.3 Definitions.
...
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that =
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other =
safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly =
interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with =
this chapter.
=A715.5 General conditions of operation.
(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not =
be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of =
any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of =
equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior =
notification of use pursuant to =A790.35(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator =
is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and =
that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation =
of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional =
radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by =
an incidental radiator.
(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease =
operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative =
that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not =
resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been =
corrected.
(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) =
are prohibited.
[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13, 2010]
It seems to me that if you deploy something new in such a way that it =
causes harmful interference to an operating service, you=92ve run afoul =
of 15.5 as defined in 15.3.
>=20
> (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
> continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
> existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
> that won't share the spectrum? Illegal or Legal? And do you think =
the
> text above is unambiguous on that point?)
>=20
> -- Brett
