Bob-
" One vendor told me that de-auths do
not violate the interference clause in the Communications Act."
This is part of the problem: the FCC SEEMS to have expanded the definition of
jamming, and until they answer nuanced questions with nuanced answers "One
vendor" is as clueless as the rest
Regarding the point below about looking for WLAN vendors to speak up: In
their defense, Cisco, Aruba/Ruckus (jointly) and Xirrus all sent comments
to the FCC regarding the Marriott case, all in favor of the FCC move but
some also asking for clarification. One vendor told me that de-auths do
not vio
Hi Matthew,
Here is what they said in a recent newsletter, "Wireless Watch - CWNP
Newsletter” they sent out:
"We are in the process of rebranding all of our certifications and have created
an umbrella company to show a consistent message, establish guidelines and
developing best practices for
It's very possible it's been this way for some time, but I noticed this morning
on the CWNP homepage that the logo had changed to include another company's
name.
Apparently, Certitrek has acquired CWNP. That, or it's been this way for a
while and they're just getting around to changing the logo
