One of the reasons I pointed to the California law is that it covers above L1 even if FCC authority does not. The state law also provides for criminal penalties. I do not know if other states have similar laws.
/Mike On 10/3/14 7:42 PM, "Hugo Slabbert" <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: >On Fri 2014-Oct-03 16:49:49 -0700, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >>On Oct 3, 2014, at 16:12 , Wayne E Bouchard <w...@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