Marriott wifi blocking
joelja at bogus.com
Fri Oct 3 23:18:02 UTC 2014
On 10/3/14 7:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:23:46PM -0700, 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
> I think that depends on the terms of your lease agreement. Could not
> a hotel or conference center operate reserve the right to employ
> active devices to disable any unauthorized wireless systems? Perhaps
> because they want to charge to provide that service, because they
> don't want errant signals leaking from their building, a rogue device
> could be considered an intruder and represent a risk to the network,
> or because they don't want someone setting up a system that would
> interfere with their wireless gear and take down other clients who are
> on premesis...
> Would not such an active device be quite appropriate there?
The FCC rules are designed to control the marketing of low-power
to a lesser extent, their use. If the operation of a non-compliant
interference to authorized radio communications, the user should stop
transmitter or correct the problem causing the interference. However,
the person (or
company) that sold this non-compliant transmitter to the user has
violated the FCC
marketing rules in Part 2 as well as federal law. The act of selling or
to sell or lease, or importing a low-power transmitter that has not gone
appropriate FCC equipment authorization procedure is a violation of the
rules and federal law.
> Wayne Bouchard
> web at typo.org
> Network Dude
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 243 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NANOG