Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Philip Dorr <tagno25 () gmail com>]

http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices#Definitions
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt47.1.15

(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.
On Oct 3, 2014 6:17 PM, "joel jaeggli" <joelja () bogus com> wrote:

> On 10/3/14 6:01 PM, John Schiel wrote:
> > On 10/03/2014 03:23 PM, 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.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > > My reading of this is that these features are illegal, period. Rogue AP
> > > detection is one thing, and disabling them via network or
> > > "administrative" (ie. eject the guest) means would be fine, but
> > > interfering with the wireless is not acceptable per the FCC regulations.
> > >
> > > Seems like common sense to me. If the FCC considers this 'interference',
> > > which it apparently does, then devices MUST NOT intentionally interfere.
> >
> > I would expect interfering for defensive purposes **only** would be
> > acceptable.
>
> if you have a device licensed under fcc part 15 it may not cause harmful
> interference to other users of the spectrum.
>
> > --John
> >
> > > K