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

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#111

Post by fpgaminer »

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

Practically speaking, there's a big difference between not being able to eat the food you want for two hours, and not having internet access for 1+ days. Particularly on extended business trips, the hotel wifi is often unacceptable and a hotspot becomes necessary. That is in stark in contrast to just not eating a movie theater's food for two hours.

But to be honest, theaters are wholly screwy, scummy, and vile anyway. I'd rather we put our regulatory efforts elsewhere, and just let the animal die in peace.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#112

Post by TheCoelacanth »

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

This isn't a new regulation. It's just a public advisory that blocking wifi is illegal under existing regulations.

The justification for the regulation is to protect the public's ability to use the public airwaves. That's why this the advisory was issued by the FCC, rather than an agency concerned with consumer protection.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#113

Post by fpgaminer »

mabbo wrote: post #108
jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. It's private property, and they have the right to do that. Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not. But airwaves leave the property. I live beside a hotel, pretty closely. They certainly don't have a right to interfere with my wifi usage. As for why specific regulations to target hotels and convention centers:…

> Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink.

I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter with food/drink.

Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food, they don't ban that person forever. Rather, as soon as the person as thrown away the food, they are allowed to enter. So clearly the ban is on the food, and not the person. To ban a specific person would require banning an attribute of the person. Carrying food is not an attribute. The argument is quite nonsensical, to be honest. It's like saying a rule against knives is really about banning people who carry knives. That's of course not the case, and the rule really is specifically about knives and not about people.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#114

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

konceptz wrote: post #74
anextio wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear from the memo that the FCC considers security risks to be exempt from this requirement. It sounds like the AP being on your network is what constitutes the security risk. I doubt the FCC would have a problem with a network administrator taking action like that. Unrelated APs are different.

The link escapes me now but isn't this what Marriott is claiming?

thers a diference between a rogue ap atached to your DS (distribution system) and a rogue client device.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#115

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

grecy wrote: post #31
itake wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from dialing emergency response. I would think you could passively block it (via paint). But probably can't actively block it (jamming).

> If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from dialing emergency response. ...Just like you couldn't prior to about 1995 when cell phones were not a thing. And let's be perfectly honest, if you really need to dial emergency response in a bar, there's a damn good chance the bar tender will do it on the wall phone, or someone can step outside the door and do it.

And if you traped by fire in a back room? and do bars in the USA have payphones in them any more.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#116

Post by TheCoelacanth »

fpgaminer wrote: post #113
mabbo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. It's private property, and they have the right to do that. Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not. But airwaves leave the property. I live beside a hotel, pretty closely. They certainly don't have a right to interfere with my wifi usage. As for why specific regulations to target hotels and convention centers:…

> Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter with food/drink. Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food,…

This rule doesn't stop them from kicking anyone operating a wifi hotspot out of their hotel, or stop them from requiring anyone who enters the hotel to submit to being searched for wifi equipment. The only thing it stops them from doing is jamming the public airwaves. They are allowed to prevent people from operating wifi hotspots in their hotels, but they aren't allowed to use illegal means to do so.

Analogously, movie theaters are allowed to stop people from bringing in outside food, but they aren't allowed to assault someone to take away food that they brought in.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#117

Post by kazinator »

This idiocy encroaches on property rights.

You should have a right to generate jamming radio waves, if their intensity attenuates to a negligibly low level beyond the perimiter of your private property so that no neighboring property suffers any ill effect.

Note that I'm not in support of hotels doing this to their guests. It is a customer relations issue that can be resolved by the free market.

Let's make an analogy in acoustics. If you go to a club on a Friday night, the music is so loud that your conversation with the person next to you is "jammed". Should that be banned?

Also, the proclamation seems to ban radiating equipment such as microwave ovens. Any time you heat a frozen dinner such that Wi-Fi is cut out, you're potentially violating. (Panasonic, are you getting this?)

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#119

Post by Raphmedia »

fpgaminer wrote: post #113
mabbo wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. It's private property, and they have the right to do that. Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not. But airwaves leave the property. I live beside a hotel, pretty closely. They certainly don't have a right to interfere with my wifi usage. As for why specific regulations to target hotels and convention centers:…

> Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter with food/drink. Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food,…

Think of it as having a magic wave that makes food rot. Sure, you may be able to use it to make a profit on your propriety by putting it on your doorstep. However, what if someone were to live next to the theatre and this person had his food rot?

I think that's the main issue here.

Edit: Jamming is prohibited, not blocking.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#120

Post by tomswartz07 »

kazinator wrote: post #117

This idiocy encroaches on property rights. You should have a right to generate jamming radio waves, if their intensity attenuates to a negligibly low level beyond the perimiter of your private property so that no neighboring property suffers any ill effect. Note that I'm not in support of hotels doing this to their guests. It is a customer relations issue that can be resolved by the free market. Let's make an analogy…

It seems pretty clear that they say that this is illegal for commercial properties to do this.

I have no experience with the FCC rules, but I would imagine that it's perfectly fine for you, as an individual, to do what you want in your home.

You're allowed to purchase a short-range FM transmitter for your car, so (in theory) there's nothing wrong with purchasing a very-short-range device of a similar manner to block signals in your place.

Post reply on HN