Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#91

Post by ptaipale »

matthewmcg wrote: post #22
akurtzhs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.

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."

BTW, up here (Finland, northern Europe) new construction code for so-called zero-energy houses mandates energy saving structures that almost make houses Faraday cages. Walls are to have aluminum foil in them to reflect radiation and keep heat in. The foil also reflects or blocks radiation from communication devices. Also windows have layers that try to block radiation, except for visible light.

So combating climate change shows up in cell phones and modems not connecting, or having poor coverage. People have to go out or keep a window open to make a call. The impact is particularly strong with higher frequencies, so generally, the newer the technology, the worse it is.

House owners have started to install repeaters, but FICORA (local equivalent of FCC) says those are illegal. I haven’t heard of solution proposals for this catch-22, government agencies each work in their own silos.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#92

Post by jsprogrammer »

mc808 wrote: post #86
jsprogrammer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop. It doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates. 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.

>The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop.

Only if you accept that immediate relative dollar values are a person's (in this case a non-physical, corporate entity's) only motivation. This view is cynical and likely not true in all cases.

I think your point is contradictory,

First you claim that income vs. penalty is the only concern, but at the end of your post you appear to claim that there is a threshold at which income and/or perceived value of the original activity ceases to be a concern.

>... regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity.

I'm willing to accept that the actual persons that determine Marriott's policies, and therefore physical activities in the real-world (through the policy-makers' and/or their subordinates' actions), are motivated purely by the actions' perceived ability to extract currency from other people. However, that is all the more reason to consider the totality of the organization and its income in any judgement about the organization. As a matter of cost-benefit analysis, the organization may judge that they can absorb a particular fine, but will continue its "evil" behavior, in the sole pursuit of profit, by attempting to hide or disguise the offending behavior. We've seen this pattern play out over and over throughout history and even in very recent history in many industries, including mining, banking, manufacturing, political influencing, etc. Marriott itself even began going down that path by attempting to legitimize its interference through obscure (at least to most of the people affected by the interference) political means.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#94

Post by blueskin_ »

superuser2 wrote: post #3

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?)

If they're not on your network, yes (as they should be). If someone plugs a wireless router into your office ethernet, go ahead.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#95

Post by phire »

matthewmcg wrote: post #11
superuser2 wrote: post #3

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?)

Very interesting point. A Cisco page[1] discussing this feature says: "Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment." [1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-seri... Cisco seems to think this is perfectly fine to do to rouge APs connected to an orga…

If you can ensure that the rouge device is within your network, then you probably know what port on the switch it's connected to, and you can block it from your network without sending any de-auth packets.

I guess if someone is impersonating your SSID then this feature could be useful.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#96

Post by inDigiNeous »

Interesting wording in the document

"networks, or hot spots, are an important way that consumers connect to the Internet"

So people who use WiFi are consumers only in their eyes. Must protect the rights of the consumers, big money involved!

Still, censorship and blocking internet content is fine, just don't block the wifi, we might loose some customers.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#97

Post by lmm »

HCIdivision17 wrote: post #52
jerf wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop. This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, t…

I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!" (Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via paperwork before barging in. Pro…

I found Death of a Pirate an interesting read; basically a history of British pirate radio.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#98

Post by colechristensen »

rbc wrote: post #2

This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000 being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.

The teeth it actually has is up to $16,000 a day per violation when you fail to comply with a warning. That is at least one violation per property, perhaps several. When you don't comply they can remove your equipment with force if necessary.

And boy, do they do a lot. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#99

Post by cesarb »

ptaipale wrote: post #91
matthewmcg wrote: post #22

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."

BTW, up here (Finland, northern Europe) new construction code for so-called zero-energy houses mandates energy saving structures that almost make houses Faraday cages. Walls are to have aluminum foil in them to reflect radiation and keep heat in. The foil also reflects or blocks radiation from communication devices. Also windows have layers that try to block radiation, except for visible light. So combating climate c…

I have always wondered: would a "passive repeater" (an outside antenna connected directly to an inside antenna through a short coaxial cable, with no active components at all) work in these cases, or would it attenuate the signal too much?

I believe such a "passive repeater" would not be illegal in any sane jurisdiction, since it's nothing more than metal bent in a few specific shapes connected by a cable.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#100

Post by ptaipale »

cesarb wrote: post #99
ptaipale wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, up here (Finland, northern Europe) new construction code for so-called zero-energy houses mandates energy saving structures that almost make houses Faraday cages. Walls are to have aluminum foil in them to reflect radiation and keep heat in. The foil also reflects or blocks radiation from communication devices. Also windows have layers that try to block radiation, except for visible light. So combating climate c…

I have always wondered: would a "passive repeater" (an outside antenna connected directly to an inside antenna through a short coaxial cable, with no active components at all) work in these cases, or would it attenuate the signal too much? I believe such a "passive repeater" would not be illegal in any sane jurisdiction, since it's nothing more than metal bent in a few specific shapes connected by a cable.

Yes, a passive repeater as you described helps at least in some cases, and they are permitted. And even if the system were insane and they were not permitted, they would be practically undetectable. Active repeaters ones are illegal here. Unfortunately a passive repeater is not always enough.
Post reply on HN