Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Michael Van Norman <mvn () ucla edu>]

One of the reasons I pointed to the California law is that it covers above
L1 even if FCC authority does not.  The state law also provides for
criminal penalties.  I do not know if other states have similar laws.

/Mike

On 10/3/14 7:42 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:

> On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web () typo org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, Keenan Tims wrote:
> > > > > The question here is what is authorized and what is not.  Was this
> > > > > to protect their network from rogues, or protect revenue from captive
> > > > > customers.
> > > >
> > > > I can't imagine that any 'AP-squashing' packets are ever authorized,
> > > > outside of a lab. The wireless spectrum is shared by all, regardless
> > > > of
> > > > physical locality. Because it's your building doesn't mean you own the
> > > > spectrum.
> > >
> > > I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
> > > a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
> > > active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
> > > because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
> > > don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
> > > could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
> > > or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
> > > interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
> > > on premesis...
> > >
> > > Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?
> >
> > You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective,
> > but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as
> > amended.
> >
> > The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
> >
> > You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a
> > signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you
> > are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for
> > other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to
> > deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of
> > interfering with them.
> >
> > The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the
> > hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.
> >
> > As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership
> > of the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the
> > US (and I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
> >
> > Owen
>
> Serious question:  do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference
> extend beyond layer 1?  I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise
> would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that
> the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2.  The
> *effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its
> intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher
> layer control mechanisms.
>
> I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference
> apply?  Do they have authority above L1 in this case?
>
> -- 
> Hugo