Technically, its not interfering with transmission, it is utilizing a properly functional transmission to manipulate ones surroundings. Im not defending it, when I was doing it with my fortigate to my neighbors, it was a dick move. But at no point did it impact ones ability to receive transmissions, it simply changes the transmitter. The reason that concerns me is with the demand for free and open internet and our litigious society, it creates a pathway for lawsuits down the line against lawfully operating boundary control operators
to me, this would be more along the lines of "hacking" since technically it is gaining unauthorized access to a system and altering it with malicious intent. What government agency actually handles that? On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Doing anything to interfere is jamming. Seems simple to me. > > *From:* Daniel White <afmu...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 04, 2015 6:15 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Has FCC "gone off the rails" with latest Wi-Fi > blockingfines? | ITworld > > > And I don’t think Commissioner Pai or O’Rielly disagree with you. They > want clear FCC regulations on the matter. > > > > I agree with them. Jamming by definition is the increase of RF energy to > overcome the lawful transmission of someone else… and even then… in Part > 15… you have no recourse. I don’t think the FCC is exceeding its > authority, but I do think the FCC needs to define the authority. > > > > Section 47 U.S.C. § 333 of the Telecommunications Act of 1933 is where the > FCC gets its authority on the matter (according to the FCC website)… here > is the text: > > > > *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.* > > > > Interference in regards to radio communications has always been defined as > RF energy. The code was written long before something like de-auth was > possible. > > > > The FCC should make a clear definition of what jamming is… what is there > to argue with there? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Daniel White > > afmu...@gmail.com > > Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590 > > Skype: danieldwhite > Social: LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielwhite84>: Twitter > <https://twitter.com/DanielWhite84> > > > > *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ty Featherling > *Sent:* Tuesday, November 3, 2015 8:35 PM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Has FCC "gone off the rails" with latest Wi-Fi > blocking fines? | ITworld > > > > +1 that's what they are supposed to do. > > -Ty > > On Nov 3, 2015 8:32 PM, "Carl Peterson" <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> > wrote: > > IMHO, the FCC is doing exactly what they should be doing in these cases. > The convention center APs would send spoofed deauth to anything they heard, > including devices well outside the convention center. Deliberate malicious > interference with another's use of shared spectrum. > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > http://www.itworld.com/article/3000979/mobile/has-fcc-gone-off-the-rails-with-latest-wi-fi-blocking-fines.html?google_editors_picks=true > > Jaime Solorza > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
