[175147] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 9 16:29:18 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <9578293AE169674F9A048B2BC9A081B40124FB9B8C@MUNPRDMBXA1.medline.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:27:21 -0700
To: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> =
wrote:
> 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) with any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long =
standing law. =20
Indeed=85 this is 47CFR333. It=92s not limited to Part 15 (47CFR15).
> It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation =
of an AUTHORIZED station or intentional or unintentional radiator (like =
a microwave 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 jammer that has no purpose other than to prevent others =
from using an authorized spectrum). To me that looks like as long as =
the other guy is using the frequency band in an authorized manner (i.e. =
not purposely stopping others 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 "yours") for his network would be fine but =
if he is purposely camped on your SSID and deauthing your clients is not =
using it legally.
Now you=92re talking about 47CFR15 (Part 15) and more specifically about =
15.5(b).
Otherwise, yes, you are exactly right.
> As far as who owns an SSID, I don't think there is any law on that =
unless it is a trademarked name but the FCC rules in general give the =
incumbent user the right of way. If two licensed systems interfere with =
each other (common in licensed microwave), the older system usually gets =
to stay and the new 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 standards) 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, you are violating Part 15 because =
that is not authorized spectrum usage. That they will probably address.
I don=92t believe that there is any such thing as =93Owning an SSID=94. =
One might be able to try and claim that ownership of a *mark (where * =3D =
one or more of {trade,service,etc.}) extends to use of that name in an =
SSID, but generally speaking, I think the most likely outcome would be =
to treat an SSID as an address and declare that addresses are not =
subject to those limitations.
> I don't think the FCC would classify a wifi router operating normally =
as interference, 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 defending their SSID from unauthorized =
access is an acceptable security feature but someone using a different =
SSID and not trying to connect to the entities 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 appear to be the =
aggressor and I will appear to be the defender. In the same way that it =
is not legal for me to punch you in the face unless of course you =
punched me in the face first and I'm defending myself.
I think the FCC would, likely, classify two neighbors in adjacent =
apartments arguing over the same SSID and unwilling to move either one =
of them would likely both get told to cease and desist until they picked =
different SSIDs, though it=92s hard for me to believe that this would =
get elevated to the FCC very often. More often one person or the other =
will change their SSID and move on.
> It gets messy when you get into the cellular world. I don't think you =
would be within the law jamming or blocking cell phones even within your =
building (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 make rules about what can and can't come within your =
building. I do know that the areas I have worked in that had cellular =
jammers for security purposes are already areas where they are =
prohibited by regulation. National security trumps a lot of other laws.
In fact, movie theaters tried this briefly and got a pretty strong smack =
from the FCC as a result.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cell-phone-and-gps-jamming
However, that=92s not what was being discussed in the BART example. In =
this case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular =
providers were shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a =
protest. That=92s not active jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. =
There are other areas of concern, however, such as 1st amendment =
violations, abuse of authority, potential civil liability if anyone was =
unable to reach 911 in an expected manner, etc.
Owen
