Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Owen DeLong" <owen () delong com>

> On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <web () typo org> wrote:

> > 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.

Well, this will certainly have interesting implications on providing 
wireless service on business premises, won't it?

Are Cisco et alia accessories-before?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates       http://www.bcp38.info          2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      BCP38: Ask For It By Name!           +1 727 647 1274