Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current state of FCC regulations. 

Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is rare in my experience. 

Owen




> On Oct 4, 2014, at 13:44, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/04/2014 01:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross <bross () 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > > If the Marriott can't do this, I don't think anyone can, legally.
> > If I set up something on an SSID Marriott is already using, then my bad and they have the right to take appropriate 
> > defensive action to protect their network.
>
> No. Seriously, no. Biggest come, biggest serve doesn't do a damn bit of good dealing with the actual problem which is
> one of authentication. Think of this with the big I internet without TLS. What you're asking for is complete chaos.
>
> Stomping on other AP is an arms race in which nobody wins. If I want to guarantee that I only connect to $MEGACORP
> AP's, I should be using strong authentication, not AP neutron bombs to clear the battlefield.
>
> Mike