Marriott wifi blocking

Thu Oct 9 18:34:40 UTC 2014

On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger <rbf+nanog at panix.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> 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?
> 
> Marriott was actually accused of violating 47 USC 333:
>   No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause
>   interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or
>   authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
>   Government.
> 
> In cases like the Marriott case, where the sole purpose of the
> transmission is to interfere with other usage of the transmission,
> there's not much ambiguity.  But other cases aren't clear from the
> text.  
> 
> 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
> new neighbor's pre-existing SSID, I operate with a different SSID but
> on the same channel, I don't have to change.  I'm not saying your
> position is wrong, but it's certainly not clear from the text above
> that that's where the line is.  That's what I meant by ambiguity.

True, but if you read the rest of Part 15, you’ll also find these gems:

(From http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=47:1.0.1.1.16)
§15.3   Definitions.
...
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.

§15.5   General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to §90.35(g) of this chapter.

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

(c) The operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference. Operation shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.

(d) Intentional radiators that produce Class B emissions (damped wave) are prohibited.

[54 FR 17714, Apr. 25, 1989, as amended at 75 FR 63031, Oct. 13, 2010]

It seems to me that if you deploy something new in such a way that it causes harmful interference to an operating service, you’ve run afoul of 15.5 as defined in 15.3.

> 
> (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
> continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
> existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
> that won't share the spectrum?  Illegal or Legal?  And do you think the
> text above is unambiguous on that point?)
> 
>     -- Brett