Marriott wifi blocking

Mon Oct 6 15:41:57 UTC 2014

On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog at panix.com> wrote:
>> For example, you've asserted that if I've been using "ABCD" as my SSID
>> for two years, and then I move, and my new neighbor is already using
>> that, that I have to change.  But that if, instead of duplicating my
> [snip]
> 
> Actually...  I would suggest that it is not entirely clear if you have
> to change or not.   Your conflicting SSID in no way impedes the use of
> the spectrum, one of you just has to recode your SSID;  this is
> different from setting up a WIPS Rogue AP containment feature to
> completely block an AP from ever being used.     If your SSID happens
> to conflict with your neighbor's SSID by coincidence, and the SSID is
> a common name such as Linksys,  then this conflict alone probably does
> not qualify as willful or malicious interference.

Right… You probably don’t face the issues under 47CFR333, but you’ve
still got a 47CFR15.5 problem of harmful interference.

> As the spectrum is unlicensed, neither of you is a licensed station, and
> neither of you has "priority";  neither of your stations is a primary
> or secondary user.    Both of your stations has to accept the
> unintended interference in the unlicensed frequencies;   it is
> essentially up to the two of you to either take it upon yourself to
> change your own SSID, or to negotiate with your neighbor.

Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations.

Using the same SSID of someone else who is already present would, IMHO,
meet the test of “causing harmful interference”.

> On the other hand, if you chose a SSID for your AP of "STARBUCKS" and
> you set this up  in proximity to a Starbucks location or selected
> "[YOURNEIGHBORSCOMPANYNAME]" as your SSID;  it would seem to be more
> evident   that any interference  that was occuring to their wireless
> station operation was willful  and possibly a malicious attempt to
> compromise client security.

Willful and malicious only comes into play if you’re looking to prosecute under 333.

Any harmful interference is still a problem under 15.5.

Owen