Along that line of thinking, they must be equals. So if you can send the student deauths, legally, they can send your users deauths too (although violating university policy they may be).
-- Hunter Fuller Network Engineer VBRH M-9B +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Systems and Infrastructure I am part of the UAH Safe Zone LGBTQIA support network: http://www.uah.edu/student-affairs/safe-zone On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Peter P Morrissey <ppmor...@syr.edu> wrote: > That’s my point. If it isn’t my network, then it isn’t the MiFi owner’s > network either. > > > > Pete Morrissey > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Tony Skalski > > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 7:18 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > >So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and > interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? > > > > No. It's not your network, in the sense that the wired infrastructure you > built is. The wireless network uses a free to use, public, unlicensed RF > spectrum. Yes you built the wireless infrastructure (APs and controllers), > but the medium is fundamentally different. > > > > I've been working up a car analogy: if you were a urban university with > buildings spread throughout a city, you couldn't deauth non-university > vehicles from using the (publicly owned) roads (to ensure university owned > vehicles could get to their destinations unimpeded). > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Peter P Morrissey <ppmor...@syr.edu> > wrote: > > So isn’t the MiFi device essentially jamming your network and > interrupting valid communications if it overlaps a nearby channel? > > > > Pete Morrissey > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Carter > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 5:18 PM > > > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > IANAL, but it seems the FCC is trying to regulate the “communications.” > Sending a spoofed disassociate may not be jamming, but it is intentionally > interrupting valid communications. They may see making something unusable > through whatever means as equivalent to jamming. > > > > Thomas Carter > > Network and Operations Manager > > Austin College > > 903-813-2564 > > [image: AusColl_Logo_Email] > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Pete Hoffswell > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:05 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > My thought is that the FCC is "simply" trying to police the ISM band, as > outlined in FCC part 15 regulations > > > > > http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=d5df6d61f643786c6651653f0942fd73&node=pt47.1.15&rgn=div5 > > > > The 2.4GHz ISM band is free an open for everyone to use. If you > intentionally disrupt transception, well, I think you might be breaking > some part of part 15. I've not read part 15, nor could I even begin to > comprehend it. > > > > But it gets grey quickly, doesn't it? If you have a rogue AP on your > campus, and you mitigate it by sending a spoofed disassociate packet, well, > are you "jamming"? > > > > I'm with Lee. I think the FCC jumped into a deep pond with this one. The > rules are out of date at best. They need to clarify. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > Pete Hoffswell - Network Manager > pete.hoffsw...@davenport.edu > http://www.davenport.edu > > > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Lee H Badman <lhbad...@syr.edu> wrote: > > Not so sure I agree- I know that Marriott’s insane fees led to this, but > the FCC seems to be saying “you can’t touch people’s Wi-Fi, period” whether > you offer a free alternative or not seems irrelevant. But then again, it > appears that they issued a decision and were clueless about the fact that > they created a lot of confusion over features that are built in to > equipment that they certified for use in the US. > > > > Lee Badman > > Wireless/Network Architect > > ITS, Syracuse University > > 315.443.3003 > > (Blog: http://wirednot.wordpress.com) > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto: > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Williams, Matthew > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:32 PM > > > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > I don’t think that there’s a distinction about the location. My > understanding is that the issue was that Marriott was jamming the hotspots > to force people to pay for the hotel provided wireless network. I don’t > think that there would have been a lawsuit if the hotel Wi-Fi was free. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > Matthew Williams > > Kent State University > > Network & Telecommunications Services > > Office: (330) 672-7246 > > Mobile: (330) 469-0445 > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Kitri Waterman > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 4:25 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > "Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal > Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain > "interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in > the conference facilities" at a Nashville hotel in March 2013. > > According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord > Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was > "jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space." > > Is this a distinction between them blocking in their "conference > facilities" vs. their hotel rooms? We all know that radio signal > propagation is not so clean cut, but I'm wondering if the lawyers are > seeing things differently. > > Kitri Waterman > Network Engineer (Wireless) > University of Oregon > > On 10/3/14 2:07 PM, Thomas Carter wrote: > > I suspect the clause will still be valid, but we cannot use wireless > countermeasures to enforce them. Telling students to turn them off, > disabling wired ports, student discipline, etc are outside the FCC’s > jurisdiction it seems to me. > > > > Thomas Carter > > Network and Operations Manager > > Austin College > > 903-813-2564 > > [image: AusColl_Logo_Email] > > > > *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [ > mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>] *On Behalf Of *Brian Helman > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 3:39 PM > *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > > > I just saw this on CNN and jumped on the list to post. Using your own AP > is against the AUP everyone signs at our institution. Now I wonder if that > clause is invalid. > > -Brian > > > Sent from my Galaxy S4. Tiny keyboards=typing mistakes. Verify anything > sent. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Sweetser <f...@wpi.edu> > To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" < > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Sent: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 3:55 PM > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] It would seem FCC just declared WLAN > quarantine features illegal > > I think a good chunk of the use is even more insidious than that. I've > been > in a position where I've offered university guests access to our wifi. A > number of these users - smart, highly technical IT professionals - instead > just said "Nah, I'll just use my hotspot." > > I suspect it's a combination of two things. First, "I paid for it, so I > have > to use it to get my money's worth". Second, "I'd have to think about how > to > set up a new wifi, or I can just turn on my hotspot by rote memory." > > In both cases, the cost (or lack thereof) and quality of any host offered > wifi > doesn't even factor into the decision at all. > > Frank Sweetser fs at wpi.edu | For every problem, there is a solution > that > Manager of Network Operations | is simple, elegant, and wrong. > Worcester Polytechnic Institute | - HL Mencken > > On 10/3/2014 3:21 PM, Philippe Hanset wrote: > > Everything would be so much simpler if locations would provide Wi-Fi for > free > > or at a reasonable price. > > When a technology is used by everyone (e.g. Electricity) like Wi-Fi, > just > > include it in the cost of doing business. > > Stop charging users for Wi-Fi, especially when the room is already at > > $200+/night. People will bring their own Mi-Fi or smartphone-hotspot, > > and bypass the silly cost model! > > > > At Educause this week the Vendor-floor was plagued with hundreds of > Mi-Fi and > > private Wi-Fi. > > The event was charging upward of $150/day for Wi-Fi to exhibitors. So, > many of > > them had their own solutions! > > > > Humans are resourceful...and if you piss them off they will read the law > and > > call the FCC (or they pirate your network ;-) > > > > Philippe > > > > Philippe Hanset > > www.eduroam.us <http://www.eduroam.us> > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Lee H Badman <lhbad...@syr.edu > > <mailto:lhbad...@syr.edu>> wrote: > > > >> > >> What do you all think of this? > >> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/after-blocking-personal-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-600000/ > > >> > >> - Lee Badman > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** > Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent > Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > <http://www.educause.edu/groups/> > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > > > > > -- > > Tony Skalski > Systems Administrator > a...@stolaf.edu > 507-786-3227 > St. Olaf College > Information Technology > 1510 St. Olaf Avenue > Northfield, MN 55057-1097 > > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
