Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, John Schiel <jschiel () flowtools net> 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.

What constitutes "defensive purposes"?

> --John
>
> > K

--
Hugo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature