nanog mailing list archives
Re: Marriott wifi blocking
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 08:41:57 -0700
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog () panix com> wrote:For example, you've asserted that if I've been using "ABCD" as my SSID for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using that, that I have to change. But that if, instead of duplicating my[snip] Actually... I would suggest that it is not entirely clear if you have to change or not. Your conflicting SSID in no way impedes the use of the spectrum, one of you just has to recode your SSID; this is different from setting up a WIPS Rogue AP containment feature to completely block an AP from ever being used. If your SSID happens to conflict with your neighbor's SSID by coincidence, and the SSID is a common name such as Linksys, then this conflict alone probably does not qualify as willful or malicious interference.
Right… You probably don’t face the issues under 47CFR333, but you’ve still got a 47CFR15.5 problem of harmful interference.
As the spectrum is unlicensed, neither of you is a licensed station, and neither of you has "priority"; neither of your stations is a primary or secondary user. Both of your stations has to accept the unintended interference in the unlicensed frequencies; it is essentially up to the two of you to either take it upon yourself to change your own SSID, or to negotiate with your neighbor.
Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations. Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO, meet the test of “causing harmful interference”.
On the other hand, if you chose a SSID for your AP of "STARBUCKS" and you set this up in proximity to a Starbucks location or selected "[YOURNEIGHBORSCOMPANYNAME]" as your SSID; it would seem to be more evident that any interference that was occuring to their wireless station operation was willful and possibly a malicious attempt to compromise client security.
Willful and malicious only comes into play if you’re looking to prosecute under 333. Any harmful interference is still a problem under 15.5. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking], (continued)
- Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking] Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking] Owen DeLong (Oct 08)
- Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking] Daniel C. Eckert (Oct 07)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Brett Frankenberger (Oct 04)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Matthew Petach (Oct 04)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Jay Ashworth (Oct 05)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Brett Frankenberger (Oct 05)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Jimmy Hess (Oct 05)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Owen DeLong (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Clay Fiske (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Hugo Slabbert (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking William Herrin (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Clay Fiske (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Doug Barton (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking William Herrin (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Clay Fiske (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Jimmy Hess (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking William Herrin (Oct 06)
- Re: Marriott wifi blocking Owen DeLong (Oct 07)