Marriott wifi blocking

John Schiel jschiel at flowtools.net
Fri Oct 3 22:01:21 UTC 2014


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.

--John

>
> K



More information about the NANOG mailing list