Marriott wifi blocking

Sun Oct 5 06:19:57 UTC 2014

> On Oct 4, 2014, at 17:58, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog at panix.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 01:33:13PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross <bross at pobox.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that there's really no such thing as a "copycat" if
>>>> the client doesn't have the means of authenticating the
>>>> destination. If that's really the requirement, people should start
>>>> bitching to ieee to get destination auth on ap's instead of
>>>> blatantly asserting that somebody owns a particular ssid because,
>>>> well, because.
>>> 
>>> In the enterprise environment that there's been some insistence
>>> from folks on this list is a legitimate place to block "rogue" APs,
>>> what makes those SSIDs, "yours"?  Just because they were used first
>>> by the enterprise? That doesn't seem to hold water in an unlicensed
>>> environment to me at all.
>> 
>> Pretty much... Here's why...
>> 
>> If you are using an SSID in an area, anyone else using the same SSID
>> later is causing harmful interference to your network. It's a
>> first-come-first-serve situation. Just like amateur radio spectrum...
>> If you're using a frequency to carry on a conversation with someone,
>> other hams have an obligation not to interfere with your conversation
>> (except in an emergency). It's a bit more complicated there, because
>> you're obliged to reasonably accommodate others wishing to use the
>> frequency, but in the case of SSIDs, there's no such requirement.
>> 
>> Now, if I start using SSID XYZ in building 1 and someone else is
>> using it in building 3 and the two coverage zones don't overlap, I'm
>> not entitled to extend my XYZ SSID into building 3 when I rent space
>> there, because someone else is using it in that location first.
> 
> So your position is that if I start using Starbuck's SSID in a location
> where there is no Starbuck, and they layer move in to that building,
> I'm entitled to compel them to not use their SSID?

It isn't "Starbuck's SSID". There are no ownership rights or registrations of SSIDs for unlicensed wireless networks. So, under the existing regulatory framework, whoever arrived last is the one causing "harmful interference". 

> 
>> I can only extend my XYZ coverage zone so far as there are no
>> competing XYZ SSIDs in the locations I'm expanding in to.
> 
> Is ther FCC guidance on this, or is this "Regulations As Interpreted By
> Owen"?

This is many FCC responses to various part 15 interference complaints as interpreted by Owen. 

>> Depends on whether you were the first one using the SSID in a
>> particular location or not.
>> 
>> Sure, this can get ambiguous and difficult to prove, but the reality
>> is that most cases are pretty clear cut and it's usually not hard to
>> tell who is the interloper on a given SSID.
> 
> It's usually easy to tell, but I doubt the FCC would find it relevant. 
> 
> There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
> where there's a lot of ambiguity.  We don't even know for sure that
> what Marriott did is illegal -- all we know is that the FCC asserted it
> was and Mariott decided to settle rather than litigate the matter.  And
> that was an extreme case -- Marriott was making transmissions for the
> *sole purpose of preventing others from using the spectrum*.

I don't see a lot of ambiguity in a plain text reading of part 15. Could you please read part 15 and tell me what you think is ambiguous?

Owen

> 
>     -- Brett