Marriott wifi blocking

Thu Oct 9 20:27:21 UTC 2014

On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund at medline.com> wrote:

> I don't read it that way at all.  It is illegal to intentionally interfere (meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource) with any licensed or unlicensed frequency.  That is long standing law.  

Indeed… this is 47CFR333. It’s not limited to Part 15 (47CFR15).

> It says in (b) that you must accept interference caused by operation of an AUTHORIZED station or intentional or unintentional radiator (like a microwave oven which serves a purpose, or a amateur radio operator messing up your TV once in awhile (as long as he is operating within his license), not a jammer that has no purpose other than to prevent others from using an authorized spectrum).  To me that looks like as long as the other guy is using the frequency band in an authorized manner (i.e. not purposely stopping others from using it, but using it for their own authorized purpose) you have to deal with it.  So another guy using your channel (which is not really "yours") for his network would be fine but if he is purposely camped on your SSID and deauthing your clients is not using it legally.

Now you’re talking about 47CFR15 (Part 15) and more specifically about 15.5(b).

Otherwise, yes, you are exactly right.

> As far as who owns an SSID, I don't think there is any law on that unless it is a trademarked name but the FCC rules in general give the incumbent user the right of way.  If two licensed systems interfere with each other (common in licensed microwave), the older system usually gets to stay and the new system has to change.  I think they would be unlikely to get involved in the whole SSID dispute (because they don't regulate SSIDs or the 802.11 standards) they would most likely tell you it's a civil matter and walk away.  Now, if you are using someone else's SSID for the purpose of intruding, you are violating Part 15 because that is not authorized spectrum usage.  That they will probably address.

I don’t believe that there is any such thing as “Owning an SSID”. One might be able to try and claim that ownership of a *mark (where * = one or more of {trade,service,etc.}) extends to use of that name in an SSID, but generally speaking, I think the most likely outcome would be to treat an SSID as an address and declare that addresses are not subject to those limitations.

> I don't think the FCC would classify a wifi router operating normally as interference, but a device purposely bouncing clients off of the clients own network would be.  I have worked with them a lot as a frequency coordinator with the Air Force and find that the enforcement guys have quite a bit of common sense and apply a good measure of it to deciding what to enforce or not enforce.  My guess (you would have to ask them) is that an entity defending their SSID from unauthorized access is an acceptable security feature but someone using a different SSID and not trying to connect to the entities network should not be active messed with.  If my SSID is there first and you show up and try to kick my clients off so you can use it, you will appear to be the aggressor and I will appear to be the defender.  In the same way that it is not legal for me to punch you in the face unless of course you punched me in the face first and I'm defending myself.

I think the FCC would, likely, classify two neighbors in adjacent apartments arguing over the same SSID and unwilling to move either one of them would likely both get told to cease and desist until they picked different SSIDs, though it’s hard for me to believe that this would get elevated to the FCC very often. More often one person or the other will change their SSID and move on.

> It gets messy when you get into the cellular world.  I don't think you would be within the law jamming or blocking cell phones even within your building (even though the government is known to do so).  You could however have a policy that prevents people from bringing a cell phone into your building.  The public has no right of access to your property so you are free to make rules about what can and can't come within your building.  I do know that the areas I have worked in that had cellular jammers for security purposes are already areas where they are prohibited by regulation.  National security trumps a lot of other laws.

In fact, movie theaters tried this briefly and got a pretty strong smack from the FCC as a result.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/cell-phone-and-gps-jamming

However, that’s not what was being discussed in the BART example. In this case, repeaters with unclear ownership operated by cellular providers were shut down by BART authorities to try and disrupt a protest. That’s not active jamming, so most likely, not an FCC issue. There are other areas of concern, however, such as 1st amendment violations, abuse of authority, potential civil liability if anyone was unable to reach 911 in an expected manner, etc.

Owen