Marriott wifi blocking

Sat Oct 4 02:42:33 UTC 2014

On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web at typo.org> 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
>>> spectrum.
>>>
>>
>> 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?
>
>You may consider it appropriate from a financial or moral perspective, but it is absolutely wrong under the communications act of 1934 as amended.
>
>The following is an oversimplification and IANAL, but generally:
>
>You are _NOT_ allowed to intentionally cause harmful interference with a signal for any reason. If you are the primary user on a frequency, you are allowed to conduct your normal operations without undue concern for other users of the same spectrum, but you are not allowed to deliberately interfere with any secondary user just for the sake of interfering with them.
>
>The kind of active devices being discussed and the activities of the hotel in question appear to have run well afoul of these regulations.
>
>As someone else said, owning the property does not constitute ownership of the airwaves within the boundaries of the property, at least in the US (and I suspect in most if not all ITU countries).
>
>Owen
>

Serious question:  do the FCC regulations on RF spectrum interference 
extend beyond layer 1?  I would assume that blasting a bunch of RF noise 
would be pretty obviously out of bounds, but my understanding is that 
the mechanisms described for rogue AP squashing operate at L2.  The 
*effect* is to render the wireless medium pretty much useless for its 
intended purpose, but that's accomplished by the use (abuse?) of higher 
layer control mechanisms.

I'm not condoning this, but do the FCC regulations RF interference 
apply?  Do they have authority above L1 in this case?

-- 
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/a9cfe60f/attachment.sig>