Marriott wifi blocking

Fri Oct 3 22:26:27 UTC 2014

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:01:21 -0600, John Schiel <jschiel at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20141003/6c58378f/attachment.sig>