81–90 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."
Just need to repaint the walls. http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or appropriately tuned wallpaper http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely that would affect mobile phone reception. I can't imagine anyone being happy about that.
The point of the faraday cage is to explicitly allow specific signals by setting up repeaters (i.e. femtocells, or whatever they're called these days) inside the cage.
If they block them then customers are pissed. "Why doesn't my email work? Why can't I get picture messages?"
If they allow them, people can set up wifi hotspots the same as they were before.
Revenue lost from pissed off customers + cost of Faraday cage + cost buying and maintaining repeater network is definitely going to be higher than revenue from selling wifi.
What is interesting is that they have a request in for a rule change http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 So even with the fine, etc. they are still moving forward on trying to get the rule changed. As the say "It's not over until the fat lady gets paid off to sing a different song" Here is their petition http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872
They issued a response to that request for a rule change, denying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microwaves are fcc approved and designed to minimize interference.
So taking out the magnetron and putting a beamforming waveguide on it was a bad idea?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. I disagreed. I was then told I was "missing the point" and that Marriott does not have evil plans and that they don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interf…
Also, the penalty should be as small as possible to get the desired outcome. If the penalty is $100,000, you're more likely to put up a fight than if it's $10, regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity.
Does anybody know of a good package that might allow one to notice rogue disassociate / disconnect packets when they are being used against you? It seems like something that would notice, and record the action might make a great way to tell when hotels (or other spaces) try this again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. I disagreed. I was then told I was "missing the point" and that Marriott does not have evil plans and that they don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interf…
1. seanp2k2 expressed doubt that a $600,000 fine would dissuade a company with a quarter net income of $192,000,000.
2. dsjoerg points out that in the context of what is dissuasive to a company net income is not particularly relevant. Rather, whether or not punitive action is persuasive depends on whether the gains are considered worth more than the losses from the punishment.
This is the context of the thread: how much of a cost does it take for Marriott to be dissuaded?
So when you say "Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered." you have to remember that this is in context of whether it's enough to convince Marriott to stop causing willful radio interference.
And when people were telling you "that Marriott does not have evil plans", they weren't speaking as to the morals of Marriott's actions. They were saying that Marriott's motives for their actions are the profits those actions generate and not some context-less desire to just be evil or to block wi-fi for the sake of blocking wi-fi.
And nobody said that Marriott "don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interference." The closest is Vivtek's statement that the company wouldn't take well to an officer making it "his or her quixotic personal vendetta". A joint petition for a favourable interpretation is a relatively low-cost, low-commitment action and doesn't speak to the company having any desire to turn it into a vendetta or throw a significant portion of their income at trying to retrieve a small chunk of their income.
Basically, you replied to dsjoerg by saying that net income's relevance is that it represents the ability to fight an issue and the thread since them has been people trying to point out that it wouldn't be in Marriott's best interest to put significant resources in fighting it and so net income remains largely irrelevant. Your replies, meanwhile, seem to come out of left field, apparently discussing moral and legal viewpoints but not the actual topic of whether punitive action is persuasive to Marriott. This is why schrodinger said you were missing the point and the fact that you seem to be having a different discussion from the rest of the thread is the reason PhasmaFelis asked what you think others are disagreeing with. No one is actively disagreeing that blocking wi-fi to sell wi-fi is evil or illegal, nor are they actively agreeing. They're having a different discussion entirely.
Does this make enterprise/university use of rouge AP mitigation mechanisms illegal? Are Cisco and other AP controller vendors going to remove this option from their software? (If they're shipping a checkbox that is always illegal to enable, why aren't they subject to enforcement action?)
I want to know the answer to this question as well; my university purposefully blocks non-authorized networks.
Of course stringray is (quasi) legal. Wifi blocking, well son that's a $600,000 fine.
Using a stingray would be just as illegal as the Wifi jamming for you, me and the Marriot. Whether law enforcement or other government agencies have the right to use a stingray (or wifi jamming for that matter) is a totally different debate. (One that we should have, ideally before they start using it, but a different one nonetheless)