Re: Hopefully not too OT

[David Lang <david.lang () digitalinsight com>]

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Paul D. Robertson wrote:

> On Mon, 2 May 2005 jimmy () chickenhollow net wrote:
>
> >   I have been pondering putting an 802.11 jammer on site at each
> > location (again, we don't use wireless, so it should not impair
> > anything) and thought that might be a cheaper option.
>
> Depending on where you are, this can be illegal (in the U.S. signal
> jamming and jammers are illegal,) and may also affect other devices in the
> same spectrum.  Security cameras, RFID, Cellular, wireless phones,
> emergency services radio- the chance for interferrence can be worrisome-
> let alone if someone decides to do detonation nearby- I'd not want to
> hazard the liability under most circumstances.

to expand on this. wireless equipment is licensed as a secondary user for 
all it's frequancies, this means that there are other folks useing those 
frequencies and 802.11 was designed to be robust in the face of this other 
activity (which would look like a bunch of jammers to it). if you put up a 
jammer strong enough to block 802.11 it will also interfere with the other 
services, and most of them will very much not appriciate the jamming. this 
could be a ticket to a series of very large FCC fines.

David Lang

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no 
deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
 -- C.A.R. Hoare
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards