Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

If the signal that is causing the harmful interference is a radio transmission, then the FCC doesn't differentiate 
between noise and intelligent harmful interference. If you interfere elsewhere on the wire or without transmitting, you 
might avoid the part 15 rules about causing harmful interference. If you transmit a signal over the air, then the FCC 
has authority and requires that you not cause harmful interference. 

Owen




> On Oct 3, 2014, at 19:42, Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web () 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