Marriott wifi blocking

Thu Oct 9 19:04:42 UTC 2014

So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi 
spectrum is NOT a licensed
band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations 
unless they are interfering with
a licensed band?

I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.

The basic premise of all Part 15 unlicensed operation is that 
unlicensed devices cannot cause interference to licensed operations 
nor are they protected from any interference received.  The 
operational parameters for unlicensed operation are set forth in 
Section 15.5 of the rules, as follows:
(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,
(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.

http://transition.fcc.gov/sptf/files/E&UWGFinalReport.doc

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:34:40 -0700
  Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 