gt; On Behalf Of Hunter Fuller
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:18 PM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
> spectrum
>
> Chuck, that all makes sense, but I don't think the
RELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
spectrum
Chuck, that all makes sense, but I don't think the earlier quote would
bother the FCC. I'm talking about this one that David provided:
"Personal wireless access points, network switches, and routers are
sure
> our policies are legal – not me.
>
>
>
> Chuck Enfield
>
> Manager, Wireless & Cellular
>
> Penn State IT
>
> 119L USB2, UP, PA 16802
>
> Office: 814.863.8715
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues
ubject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
spectrum
The difference between Mi-Fi and sandwiches is that there's no Federal Sandwich
Commission claiming exclusive authority to regulate sandwiches. Our
institutions are free to pass policies consist
2:22 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
spectrum
I'm not sure everyone is really speaking the same language here.
If my University passed a policy that said students can't have sandwiches on
gt;
>
> Dom Colangelo
>
> Systems Engineer
>
> Omada Technologies
>
> Cell: (617)-446-3945
>
> dcolang...@omadatechnologies.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Community Group Listserv
> On Behalf Of Michael Holden
> Sent: Wednesday, J
07 AM
> To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
> spectrum
>
> Aruba gives the following warning when doing containment / deauth
>
> The Federal Communications Commission ("FC
0 AM
To:
WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming' 2.4GHz
spectrum
On Jan 29, 2020, at 08:38, Coehoorn, Joel
mailto:jcoeho...@york.edu>> wrote:
I don't know about that. The en
related to your use of containment
functionality.
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Community Group Listserv
On Behalf Of Julian Y Koh
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 9:50 AM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neighbors 'jamming'
On Jan 29, 2020, at 08:38, Coehoorn, Joel
mailto:jcoeho...@york.edu>> wrote:
I don't know about that. The enforcement example that stands out to me is
Marriott was not allowed to use the fine print when you get a room to prohibit
hot spots, interfering or not, and they paid a hefty fine because
> "legal to prohibit the use of interfering devices ... by campus
community members who are contractually bound to campus policy."
I don't know about that. The enforcement example that stands out to me is
Marriott was not allowed to use the fine print when you get a room to
prohibit hot spots, in
I am not a lawyer nor a law enforcement officer so I encourage people to
consult one for situations like this.
That said, experience suggests to me that it would indeed be legal to
prohibit the use of interfering devices on campus (network connected or
not) by campus community members who are cont
edu w its.syr.edu
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY
syr.edu
From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Community Group Listserv
on behalf of Paul B. Henson
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:58:33 PM
To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Ex: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] neig
13 matches
Mail list logo
