[175144] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Naslund, Steve)
Thu Oct 9 15:41:39 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 19:41:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <web-310218@mail.ropeguru.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don't read it that way at all. It is illegal to intentionally interfere =
(meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) w=
ith any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long standing law. =20
It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation of an =
AUTHORIZED station or intentional or unintentional radiator (like a microwa=
ve oven which serves a purpose, or a amateur radio operator messing up your=
TV once in awhile (as long as he is operating within his license), not a j=
ammer that has no purpose other than to prevent others from using an author=
ized spectrum). To me that looks like as long as the other guy is using th=
e frequency band in an authorized manner (i.e. not purposely stopping other=
s from using it, but using it for their own authorized purpose) you have to=
deal with it. So another guy using your channel (which is not really "you=
rs") for his network would be fine but if he is purposely camped on your SS=
ID and deauthing your clients is not using it legally.
As far as who owns an SSID, I don't think there is any law on that unless i=
t is a trademarked name but the FCC rules in general give the incumbent use=
r the right of way. If two licensed systems interfere with each other (com=
mon in licensed microwave), the older system usually gets to stay and the n=
ew system has to change. I think they would be unlikely to get involved in=
the whole SSID dispute (because they don't regulate SSIDs or the 802.11 st=
andards) they would most likely tell you it's a civil matter and walk away.=
Now, if you are using someone else's SSID for the purpose of intruding, y=
ou are violating Part 15 because that is not authorized spectrum usage. Th=
at they will probably address.
I don't think the FCC would classify a wifi router operating normally as in=
terference, but a device purposely bouncing clients off of the clients own =
network would be. I have worked with them a lot as a frequency coordinator=
with the Air Force and find that the enforcement guys have quite a bit of =
common sense and apply a good measure of it to deciding what to enforce or =
not enforce. My guess (you would have to ask them) is that an entity defen=
ding their SSID from unauthorized access is an acceptable security feature =
but someone using a different SSID and not trying to connect to the entitie=
s network should not be active messed with. If my SSID is there first and =
you show up and try to kick my clients off so you can use it, you will appe=
ar to be the aggressor and I will appear to be the defender. In the same w=
ay that it is not legal for me to punch you in the face unless of course yo=
u punched me in the face first and I'm defending myself.
It gets messy when you get into the cellular world. I don't think you woul=
d be within the law jamming or blocking cell phones even within your buildi=
ng (even though the government is known to do so). You could however have =
a policy that prevents people from bringing a cell phone into your building=
. The public has no right of access to your property so you are free to ma=
ke rules about what can and can't come within your building. I do know tha=
t the areas I have worked in that had cellular jammers for security purpose=
s are already areas where they are prohibited by regulation. National secu=
rity trumps a lot of other laws.
Remember, a lot of law is about intent and it is clear that the intent of t=
his law is to allow everyone access to use the ISM spectrum for useful purp=
oses and to prevent people from interfering with your right to do so. Any =
case has to take that into account. In the Marriott case, I think it would=
be a tough argument for them to show anything other than stopping people f=
rom using anything other than their wifi service when it is clear that some=
one could use their own network services without causing undue harm to Marr=
iott.
In my own environment, there are tons of clients running around with their =
devices wifi tethered to phones and searching for their home wifi networks.=
As long as they stay off my SSIDs, they will not be harmed. If they try =
to connect to my SSID they better authenticate or they get denied. If they=
keep trying, they will get ACL'd out. If you set up an AP and try to plug=
it into my wired infrastructure that's when the active stuff comes into ef=
fect because you have no right to add a device to my wired network.
Steve Naslund
Chicago IL
>-----Original Message-----
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Robert Webb
>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:05 PM
>To: Owen DeLong; Brett Frankenberger
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Brandon Ross
>Subject: Re: Marriott wifi blocking
>
>So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi spe=
ctrum is NOT a licensed band and therefore does not fall under the interfer=
ence regulations unless they are interfering with a licensed band?
>
>I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.
>
>The basic premise of all Part 15 unlicensed operation is that unlicensed d=
evices cannot cause interference to licensed operations nor are they protec=
ted from any interference received. The operational parameters for unlicen=
sed >operation are set forth in Section 15.5 of the rules, as follows:
>(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be=
deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any gi=
ven frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment=
,
>(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 aut=
horized >radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, b=
y industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental r=
adiator.
>(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease o=
perating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that t=
he device is causing harmful interference.=20
> Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interf=
erence has been corrected.
