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

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#121

Post by rbc »

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…

Property rights don't apply to radio spectrum. Once that packet leaves the hardware and enters US radio spectrum, it's regulated by the FCC.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#122

Post by eli »

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…

No, you don't own the radio waves that pass through your property on licensed spectrum.

And microwave ovens need to be FCC approved precisely to ensure they don't cause undue interference.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#123

Post by albedoa »

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 is a customer relations issue that can be resolved by the free market.

How is that working out? I know the argument is that it's working out perfectly because the free market would curb the behavior if it weren't tolerable, but that can be said about literally every other issue that the free market supposedly "solves".

> 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?

Loud music is a feature of the club. It is considered an attraction by its patrons. For your analogy to validate, wi-fi jamming would have to be a feature of hotels. It's not.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#124

Post by morganvachon »

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…

What you call "idiocy" I call "the government is getting it right for once". Just because you own a piece of land or a building doesn't mean you get to set your own rules that supersede the FCC's rules. By your logic one could commit theft or assault, and as long as they are in their own home while they do it, it's okay. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way.

Basically, the hotel owners wanted to make a chunk of money by forcing patrons to use their overpriced, possibly monitored Wi-Fi service instead of the patrons' own secure hotspots, and they used illegal jamming equipment to do so. The fact that it was their own property doesn't enter into it, and they are lucky the FCC didn't take their equipment as they have no legal right to operate it in the first place.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#126

Post by kazinator »

morganvachon wrote: post #124
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…

What you call "idiocy" I call "the government is getting it right for once". Just because you own a piece of land or a building doesn't mean you get to set your own rules that supersede the FCC's rules. By your logic one could commit theft or assault, and as long as they are in their own home while they do it, it's okay. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. Basically, the hotel owners wanted to make a chunk of money…

Never mind the FCC; your local fire marshall might be interested in that giant strawman you're building there.

How did we go from jamming to assault?

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#127

Post by HCIdivision17 »

jasonlfunk wrote: post #107
mattkirman wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.

Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?

Right. A subtle point came up elsewhere in these comments noting that there's an exception for security. The fine point appears to be securing the wired LAN - if you plug in a rogue access point, you can rightly disable it. If someone's wi-fi access point is merely shouting on the airwaves, well, that's what the airwaves are there for and you've no right to block it.

Think of it as the positive side of the Tragedy of the Commons. Normally we complain about someone peeing in the swimming pool, but the FCC holds that such an analogy doesn't make sense for our airwaves.

I actually have no idea where the FCC stands on things like EM anechoic chambers (like Faraday cages). It may or may not be ok to set those up around buildings; likely it requires certification and - if not a lab - some way for 911 and police/fire/rescue to do their jobs unimpeded.

EDIT: Specifically about the newness of the law: turns out a lot of this references The Communications Act of 1934. It could be interesting to see how the philosophy of the radio communication acts are different from our modern interpretation of how to use the higher frequency radio spectrum.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#128

Post by [deleted] »

albedoa wrote: post #123
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 is a customer relations issue that can be resolved by the free market. How is that working out? I know the argument is that it's working out perfectly because the free market would curb the behavior if it weren't tolerable, but that can be said about literally every other issue that the free market supposedly "solves". > If you go to a club on a Friday night, the music is so loud that your conversation with the…

[deleted]

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#129

Post by [deleted] »

morganvachon wrote: post #124
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…

What you call "idiocy" I call "the government is getting it right for once". Just because you own a piece of land or a building doesn't mean you get to set your own rules that supersede the FCC's rules. By your logic one could commit theft or assault, and as long as they are in their own home while they do it, it's okay. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. Basically, the hotel owners wanted to make a chunk of money…

[deleted]

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#130

Post by kazinator »

albedoa wrote: post #123
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 is a customer relations issue that can be resolved by the free market. How is that working out? I know the argument is that it's working out perfectly because the free market would curb the behavior if it weren't tolerable, but that can be said about literally every other issue that the free market supposedly "solves". > If you go to a club on a Friday night, the music is so loud that your conversation with the…

You are simply wrong. Loud music is a feature to some. People who don't like noise don't go to clubs.

Jamming is also a feature. Perhaps not of hotels, but think about places where wi-fi jamming provides a benefit to people.

Have you ever gone into a cafe (to actually buy something) and found you can't sit anywhere because the place is full of people with laptops and other mobile devices? Some haven't even bought anything. Others treat one coffee as an excuse to occupy a table for three hours.

It's annoying. Yet, it's a free-market decision. The establishment has decided that it's in their best interest to let those people sit there. They should be able to jam them out of there, if they are so inclined.

Post reply on HN