On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
>>legitimate right to claim that other wifi networks were impacting their own
>>network’s performance, specifically based on the FCC’s position that a new
>> transmitter should not disrupt existi
On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
> such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations.
>
> Using the sam
On Oct 6, 2014, at 10:32 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Ow
On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Clay Fiske wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
>> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
>> such a way that it will n
> On Oct 6, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/14, 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
>> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
>> such a way that it will not cau
On Oct 5, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:19:57PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> There's a lot of amateur lawyering ogain on in this thread, in an area
>>> where there's a lot of ambiguity. We don't even know for sure that
>>> what Marriott did is il
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> (What's your position on a case where someone puts up, say, a
> continuous carrier point-to-point system on the same channel as an
> existing WiFi system that is now rendered useless by the p-to-p system
> that won't share the spectrum?
So is the main factor here in all the FCC verbage become that the WiFi
spectrum is NOT a licensed
band and therefore does not fall under the interference regulations
unless they are interfering with
a licensed band?
I think the first sentence below says a lot to that.
The basic premise of all
teve Naslund
Chicago IL
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Robert Webb
>Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:05 PM
>To: Owen DeLong; Brett Frankenberger
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Brandon Ross
>Subject: Re: Marriott wifi blocking
>
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I don't read it that way at all. It is illegal to intentionally interfere
> (meaning intending to prevent others from effectively using the resource)
> with any licensed or unlicensed frequency. That is long standing law.
Indeed… this i
Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety
functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's
say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to
purposely deny public service.You can almost guarantee that an F
On 10/10/14 01:02, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Yes, the BART case is different because we are talking about a public safety
> functionality. It really does not even matter who owns the repeaters. Let's
> say one of the carriers suddenly shuts down their very own cell sites to
> purposely deny pub
You have to do both preferrably. You kill the wired port to get them off your
LAN, but if they are also on one of your SSIDs or run an unsecured one the AP
can bug light your clients. Given that there is an unauthorized intrusion on
the wired side, I don't want him talking to my clients at all
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:03:48 -, "Naslund, Steve" said:
> the AP can bug light your clients.
Only if your clients are configured to allow it.
pgpF_JHgfuTWH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Now that BYOD is so popular, you don't control all of your client
configurations so you better find a way to try to secure them as much as
possible from the network side. Defense in depth is what it is.
It a lot easy to manage one wireless IDP/IDS than a thousand clients that get
replaced and
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using
their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of
company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone
service they offered and block cell ph
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even
bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
the mobile carrier is the primary
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
> I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
> likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as
they are not breaking reception to nearby properti
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special"
> local cell tower all their phone
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any
interruption of cell phone servic
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>
> > The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
> > of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
> > phone companies to a
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recogn
On 10/7/2014 22:28, Roy wrote:
On 10/7/2014 7:34 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 20:59, Roy wrote:
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-protests-2335114.php
and the FCC emphas
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
> The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they're obligated to carry through on
that.
pgpz6n3Z670ZN
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectation
that cellular E911 is available, they'r
On 10/8/2014 00:35, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an expectati
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas
WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The
rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you
outlined.
Dan
On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
> I have a question for the compa
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
However, once having chosen to provide it, and thus create an
expec
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy wrote:
> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them, I am pretty
sure.
>>>
>>> How
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy wrote:
On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
The cell service is not a requirement placed upon them,
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Roy wrote:
>>> On 10/7/2014 10:35 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/7/2014 23:44, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 23:10:15 -0500, Larry Sheldon said:
>
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
>>> BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
>>> the various phone companies to co-locate equipment and provide wired
>>> backha
There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?
K
On 10/08/2014 02:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
On 10/8/2014 16:11, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone companies to co-locate equi
On 10/8/2014 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
There is a provision in the regulations somewhere that allows
underground/tunnel transmitters on licensed bands without a license,
provided certain power limits are honoured outside of the tunnel.
Perhaps they are operating under these provisions?
Which, i
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims wrote:
>> I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would
>> likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
>
> Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as l
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
>
>> The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf
>> of the licensee In other words, possibly, persuade the cell
>> phone companies to allow this, th
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts with
the various phone co
> As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water, baby
> bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby bottles, etc.
on BART trains.
You can carry a radio. You can operate a radio. Yo
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had an FCC license. They'd have had contracts
On 10/9/2014 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
As I recall, BART does not permit anything on their trains--water,
baby bottles, and I thought radios. How do they get the authority
to do that?
They do not permit eating or drinking. You can carry water, baby
bottles, etc. on BART trains.
You can carry
On 10/9/2014 02:16, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin wrote:
BART would not have had
On Oct 9, 2014, at 12:16 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/9/2014 02:03, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2014, at 2:11 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:37 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/8/14 1:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/8/2014 08:47, William Herrin
On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
The translator had to be operated by a holder of an FCC license for
that translat
> On Oct 9, 2014, at 03:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> On 10/9/2014 02:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> What where the laws and practices in the Olde Days of over-the-air
>>> TV when somebody in a small town installed a translator to repeat
>>> Big-Cities-TV-Station into a small town?
>>
>> The t
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
