back to article Let's be clear, everyone: DON'T BLOCK Wi-Fi, DUH – FCC official ruling

US watchdog the FCC has ruled that no one – not even hotels and other commercial outfits – can block or ban personal Wi-Fi hotspots. "The [FCC's] Enforcement Bureau has seen a disturbing trend in which hotels and other commercial establishments block wireless consumers from using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots on the …

  1. btrower

    Believable

    ... but unbelievable. My response would be to push to alter the rules so that criminal penalties applied to anyone in the future attempting to interfere with public bandwidth. IMO, criminal penalties already apply, but I would support specific legislation that made it crystal clear. Marriott does not own that spectrum. If they want it, they should cue up and spend the billions necessary like everybody else.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Believable

      That was their defense - they didn't do anything "RF naughty" they sent perfectly legal packets to everyone's phone.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        It's still a type of jamming

        It may not be as crude as simply swamping the area of white noise on the necessary frequencies, but it is still a form of jamming. I would suggest that the FCC has made the correct call on this one.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: It's still a type of jamming

          I think they did aswell.

          But it does represent an extension of the FCC's scope. If they don't simply regulate the spectrum but also the data and the business model do they get to decide matters of traffic shaping, DNS redirects, VPN blocking and which content is delivered?

  2. IglooDude

    Well, there goes the FCC's perfect record this millenium of being completely useless.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bet they don't stick to this

    I bet there are government sites where they wouldn't let you run your own personal hotspot unless you wanted to land your pretty little ass is one of the government's own special hotspots.

    I had a student once who's alarm on his pager went off on a certain site once which immediately went into lock down thinking he'd got a signal into there site, let alone out.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bet they don't stick to this

      The types of government sites that have these rules typically require employees to sign something agreeing to such restrictions, and visitors (and often employees) aren't allow to bring in personal cell phones/tablets/laptops anyway.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bet they don't stick to this

        My thought too. But the FCC said commercial hotels etc, not government agencies or defense contractors. Pretty reasonable. The gray area could be interesting though...

  4. Grease Monkey Silver badge

    But why would you use a personal wifi hotspot anyway? To run that you would need 3G or 4G in the first place so why carry two devices. Why not use a device with 3G/4G in the first place?

    Whenever I see those things for sale I just don't get it. Why would you buy a tablet or laptop without 3G/4G then buy that as an extra device? That's got to be more expensive than buying it built in.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's pretty obvious - your smartphone has 3/4G built in, your laptop doesn't. You want to work on the laptop rather than tap out emails etc on a small smartphone screen, so you set the smartphone up as a WiFi hotspot and connect the laptop to that. Simples.

      1. John Riddoch

        Alternatively, you're working with others (colleagues or family) and rather than you all ensuring you have 3G/4G devices, you get one Mifi device which you share, especially if you're abroad and your device is carrier locked.

      2. Adrian 4

        And concentrate all your usage on a single account, which may have an unused data allocation. If you have a separate account for phone, tablet etc. you'll be paying for two, perhaps underused numbers.

        That's for the UK model, anyway. If the US allows multiple SIMs on the same account, the reason is less obvious.

    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

      I purchased my smartphone before my Zenbook. The Zenbook is the "extra device" and is rather bulky to use as a telephone.

    3. Vector

      "Why not use a device with 3G/4G in the first place?"

      I actually don't understand that scenario. Why would I want to pay for a separate plan for every device I own instead of just using my phones as an access point for all of them. It's bad enough you have to pay a tethering surcharge on most plans (which is just plain usury in the era of capped data plans).

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        One reason, the Mifi has a bigger battery and you can leave it in your bag. Also, if you are abroad, it is probably easier to buy a PAYG Mifi and load it with credit than put a new SIM in your phone and end up with a different phone number.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @jonathanb

          Leave it to mobile carriers to make travel less easy.

    4. Chris G

      Two Devices

      I already had a smart phone and bought a tablet, the tablet would have cost an extra €100+ to be 3G enabled and I would then need another sim which here in Spain means another contract to be ripped off with. Just using a hotspot is simple and doesn't seem to use much of my 3.5 Gb allowance on the phone contract, works for me. Plus I can take either the tablet or my laptop and be connected anywhere.

    5. Someone Else Silver badge
      FAIL

      @ Grease Monkey

      Ever try to use hotel Wi-Fi at a hotel near a trade show venue, where the trade show is populated with geek types? I have...it ain't pretty. Assuming you can get a connection at all, it saunters along at something like 5kbs (that's kilobits per second)...if you're lucky. The hotel has only installed sufficient Wi-Fi to support an "average load", which fails miserably at full utilization. (Yeah, they could build it out, but that would cost money, dammit!) Your cell service, however, has (in general..there are exceptions) pretty thoroughly built out the infrastructure in the area of such a venue to handle the full load. Result: Access to the intertubes via your cell hotspot, and a big fat zippo from your friendly neighborhood hotel Wi-Fi.

    6. Dana W

      Modern phones have hotspots. My iPhone is a an LTE Hotspot. How do you not know this? I didn't buy a data equipped iPad because my phone already has one. Why buy two accounts?

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why would you buy a tablet or laptop without 3G/4G then buy that as an extra device

      Because you're running a convention on their premises and you're only renting the PC equipment. For the cost of the facility supplied broadband you can have multiple hot-spots and not be dependent on their geeks not fucking up the connections so you can't talk to your credit card processor for handling sales at the convention.

    8. Tom 35

      At least in Canada it costs extra per 3G device

      I already have data on my phone. If I setup a hot spot for my tablet / netbook / friends laptop. Cost zero.

      If I want to add a 3G tablet it's a second SIM and a monthly charge added to my bill.

    9. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      "But why would you use a personal wifi hotspot anyway? To run that you would need 3G or 4G in the first place so why carry two devices. Why not use a device with 3G/4G in the first place?"

      Because I'm Canadian and I go to the USA for conferences. which means picking up a bruner SIM and stuffing it into a hotspot device so that I - and my team - have data wherever we go. That leaves us able to use voice for roaming (which costs virtually nothing) and avoid paying $mortgage for data roaming.

      Do you have any idea what data roaming is when you take a Canadian SIM into the USA? Even the faintest clue? Now tell me you're going to run a team of technology journalists posting near-live multimedia from conferences off roaming data charges.

      Egads, man!

  5. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Hotels next step?

    will be to start lobbying the inhabitants of Capitol Hill.

    Then they'll put pressure on the FCC

    Normal (WiFi blocking) service will be resumed.

    Then the lawyers will get involved.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Hotels next step?

      Or they could just start investing in shunting the outside signals instead (IOW, turn their buildings into Faraday cages). No rules against that, and some buildings tend to do that naturally due to their structural design (namely buildings with lots of metal in their construction).

      PS. The only way Congress can pressure the FCC is with an Act. That means either convincing President Obama to sign it (fat chance) or getting enough votes to override his veto (again, fat chance).

      1. Schultz

        Re: "shunting the outside signals"

        I smell a marketing opportunity for copper-mesh reinforced wallpaper. It'll be easily financed via the hotel wireless fees!

      2. cortland

        Re: Hotels next step?

        Well, no. They COULD -- but when firefighters, medical personnel and LE can't reach each other inside over their trunked or LTE systems -- shielding,remember? -- safety is a very large victim. I suspect occupants and convention goers etc whose cellular service is cut off would be miffed, too, not good for business.

        In any event, access to law-enforcement and public safety communications has become part of the US National Fire Code and many localities have made it part of their building codes as well. Given the multiplicity of frequencies used and fast changing technologies, a simple Faraday Cage is pretty much ruled out. See links below.

        *links

        http://www.npstc.org/inBuilding.jsp

        http://www.rfsolutions.com/

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hotels next step?

      They could install wireless security cameras throughout their halls streaming non compressed video. That might qualify as an allowed use of the bandwidth and make personal wifi hotspots unreliable. They would have to configure their wifi routers to give priority to data on their own network.

  6. Sebastian A

    What we call a victory for common sense

    really just means that Marriott & co didn't offer enough money to the right lobbyists.

  7. Ragequit
    Joke

    Gov't - "Only *we* can block or hijack Wifi!"

    This has some potential unintended consequences. If everyone has their own hotspots in a hotel wouldn't you have some serious issues with overlapping channels? Plus it increases the risk of the technically challenged using rogue wifi networks that infect their machines with malware.

    Don't get me wrong I don't think what the hotels were doing is right but I think there might be some other issues to consider. Not that the FCC or hotels are the solution.

    1. John Tserkezis

      "Don't get me wrong I don't think what the hotels were doing is right but I think there might be some other issues to consider."

      You're right in your other comment, that some WiFi networks can be so delicately set up, that while not quite a house of cards, an influx of new unexpected access points can throw a spanner in your works - that's probably why the de-authentication packets were created.

      However, that was NOT the case here. It was purely a legal "loophole" that let you shut down unrecognised access points that did not involve jamming in it's own definition. Note, they can't and won't shut down 2G/3G/4G cellular connections, because, the only cost effective way to do that is jamming, and that's defined as illegal. However, if they *could*, I assure you, they very much *would*.

      After reading more about this, it appears insuring yourself against rouge deauth packets is either impossible, or nearly impossible.

      This is a huge hole in WiFi capability. It's nice the FCC pulled their finger out and addressed it, but that's only in the US, it's going to take many years if at all, if this does the rounds in other parts of the world.

  8. Rick Giles
    Pirate

    Yes, but two can play

    at this game.

    Get enough people running their own deauth campaign as to make the hotels wireless useless and you'll get a riot started.

    wifipineapple.com

  9. channel extended

    Powerful penalties!!!

    Sure, make sending deauth packets punishable by a one million dollar fine and twenty to thirty years in jail. Then a federal local prosecutor will find some schmuck like Aaron Swartz to go after.

    Remember, when you encourge a law, the government WILL use it against you.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I hate this hotel. I think I'll get them fined by wandering around this convention with a deauth spamming app on my phone. :)

  11. Russell Hancock

    what about places that should have blocked signal?

    While I agree that hotels, cafés, etc should not block signals what about places that they should be blocked, I.e. Cinemas, theaters, operas, maybe even quiet carriages on trains?

    I know I get annoyed when sat watching an over priced film at the cinema and someone starts talking on the phone... Maybe the ban should have had a few minor allowances?

    1. Charles 9

      Re: what about places that should have blocked signal?

      If a theater wants to stop calls, all they have to do is invest in faraday-type shielding. Even if coverage isn't complete, it should be enough to drop the bars enough to make the call impractical.

      Then again, moviegoers could respond by not coming. They can be pretty sensitive about their phones...

    2. Russell Hancock

      Re: what about places that should have blocked signal?

      3 down votes but no explanations?

      @Charles 9 - yep, they could set-up Faraday cages but then what happens during intermissions, when cleaners are in, rehearsals, etc when there is no valid reason to block signal. i am not saying that the signals should be blocked throughout the building - it is almost essential at the ticket office most of the time - only at certain times in certain locations where it can be justified...

      1. Pookietoo

        Re: where it can be justified

        Thin end of the wedge.

  12. dan1980

    US watchdog the FCC has ruled that no one – not even hotels and other commercial outfits – can block or ban personal Wi-Fi hotspots."

    They're not allowed to ban personal hotspots?

    That doesn't sound right at all and if so then it would appear to be a MASSIVE overreach by the FCC because I can't see how they could possibly have the authority to tell a commercial organisation what they can and cannot ban inside their own private property.

    I don't think hotels should ban personal hotspots but I very much think that as a commercial enterprise they should have the right to do so. If they want to then that is their decision and they have to deal with the consequences as both conference delegates and, more importantly, organisers complain and look for alternate venues.

    I suspect, that the word 'ban' is actually a mistake here. At least I hope so.

    If so, I just don't understand why this is really a problem for Marriott - just ban personal hotspots inside their conference/convention rooms*. It's easy - every conference venue has terms & conditions and contracts that are signed by organisers so you just make sure the 'ban' is spelled-out in there and then make it a condition of entry for delegates that they are not allowed to operate a mobile hotspot inside the specified rooms.

    There's bound to be backlash but that's their choice. Blocking it is cowardly - if they want it stopped they should outright tell people so they (the attendees and organisers) know what is going to happen and factor that into their decisions.

    * - To be clear, they are fine with use in rooms (and in common areas like the bar and lobby) by guests.

    1. William Phelps

      See the 'commerce' clause of the US Constitution

      Hotels, convention centers, and other such venues tend to have guests from states other than the one in which the facility is located. Also, the other 'end' of the Internet service being used will likely be out of state.

    2. dan1980

      To anyone of the 7 people (thus far) who have downvoted my comment, would you car to explain why?

      1. BristolBachelor Gold badge

        I can't comment on why people don't like your post, however I want to answer what you have said. I don't think that the FCC has said that commercial premesis must allow anyone to carry anything they want onto their premesis; nor have they said that they have to allow any activity.

        However, the RF bands used by WiFi are open, un-licensed bands free for use by the public, as long as certain rules are obeyed. The FCC is claifying, in un-technical terms, that blocking peoples use of that band it not allowed (you are not allowed to broadcast noise with unlimited power to block people, nor are you allowed to send otherwise legal transmissions that block people).

      2. DropBear
        WTF?

        You can ban ME altogether if you don't want me on the premises - but if you allow me in, you have no goddamn right whatsoever to prevent me from using a piece of spectrum that is not yours to appropriate. Also, I expect deauth packets are about as little restricted on physical boundaries as a hefty dose of RF noise would be - you'd be jamming everyone around, not just those on the premises.

        1. dan1980

          @Dropbear

          But that's the point!!!

          As it is PRIVATE property, they have the right to ask you to leave if you are doing something they don't want you to do.

          If you walk into an art gallery that bans flash photography and then snap away with the flash going then they are within their rights to tell you to stop. They can't MAKE you stop but they CAN then ask you to leave.

          That's what I am saying - Hotels are PERFECTLY within their rights to say that you cannot use mobile hotspots in their convention rooms. They can't actually stop you using one or block the public frequencies (which I never said they could or should do) but they CAN ask you to leave if they find you doing and that is what I am saying.

          My post said this:

          * The article says the FCC informed hotels they can't "ban" hotspots.

          * I questioned whether that was correct because "banning" something is very different from forcibly blocking it through technological means.

          * Banning things is a right of private enterprises on their own private grounds - be a theatre banning mobile phone usage or a gallery banning flash photography or a bar banning open footwear and shorts or a library banning people listen to music through speakers or a bus company banning open drinks or a church banning 'offensive' clothing or a Zoo banning people from wearing animal costumes (no joke) or a theme part banning people from skateboarding or a music festival or venue banning 'selfie sticks' (again, no joke) or a foot ball stadium banning musical instruments like trumpets and drums and horns like the vuvuzela, or a water-park/pool banning certain swimwear they deem inappropriate, or CD shop banning school kids from bringing in school bags, or a restaurant banning use of laptops at the table.

          Private companies can ban pretty much any activity or objects on their own private premises and can evict or prohibit entry to anyone on those or any other (non-discriminatory) grounds.

          I swear some times the readers on this site just get their heckles so high up that they flail away at anything that even looks like it might be against their point of view, failing to pick up or deliberately misunderstanding the subtle but rather important difference between banning some activity and employing questionable (illegal) technological means to block it.

          The former in within the rights of any private company operating on private premises; the later is not.

      3. James O'Shea

        Because the freqs involved are _public_ freqs. Marriot (or other hotels) have no right to jam _public_ freqs.

        Worse, Marriot has no right to jam public freqs _outside of its property_ and Marriot cannot stop the deauth packets at their walls. There _will_ be people who will get affected by Marriot's actions who are not on Marriot's property. It's a radio signal, it _will_ propagate beyond the building unless specifically blocked.

        Now, if Marriot puts it in their terms of service that guests can't use their own hotspots, _then_ they can do something like block _all_ inbound (and outbound) signals. I suspect that a very large percentage of their clientele would not much care for the idea of not having cell service inside the hotel, and would take their business elsewhere.

        No, they can't jam cell-service paid for hotspots.

        1. dan1980

          @James O'Shea

          No shit!!

          Did you even READ my comment? I said exactly what you did - Marriott can put it in their terms and deal with the fallout from people who decide to say: "fuck you; we'll go elsewhere".

          You are wrong, however, when you suggest that if they do this then that gives them the right to block signals. No, they can't. Blocking those signals is illegal, end of story - it doesn't matter what the T&Cs say, no agreement allows Marriott to break the law.

          My post was to say that the author's assertion that the FCC have told Marriott they are not allowed to "ban" hotspots cannot be true because that would infringe upon the right that Marriott have, as a private company, to dictate the terms of entry to their own private premises. The only real restriction to this right is where discrimination is involved - they can't prevent Jewish people from entering or Russian people, or people with disabilities and they can't prevent legitimate, registered assistance animals, such as guide dogs*.

          They can't block the public frequencies used by mobile hotspots but they CAN ban people from using the equipment that accesses them. And yes, you can ban the use of specific functionality of a device, such as allowing phones but banning their use as cameras.

          * - The only places that can, generally, are Zoos and other areas with specific quarantine requirements.

    3. Pirate Dave Silver badge
      Pirate

      I gave you an upvote because I agree with you. I'm the Network Admin for a small university, and my worry is that this ruling by the FCC could be stretched to impede my ability to use deauth to keep students from setting up their own little SoHo wireless routers in their dorm rooms and sowing confusion among the other, less tech-savy students in nearby rooms.

      Like you said, it's private property, not public property, so as proprietor, the college should have a say in what can and can't be done on college grounds, including preventing the use of WiFi hotspots in areas where the college already provides free WiFi. Although, maybe since our WiFi is "free", we would be exempt from this ruling.

      I'm sure I'll have as many downvotes as you do in just a minute, so I'll buy you a cold one when I get there.

      1. dan1980

        @Pirate Dave

        Thanks but even you, in your apparent agreement with me have misunderstood my post!

        Without being rude, I think you should be banned from spamming deauth. You are interfering with the operation of a wireless network and that should not be allowed and I never EVER said that I think it should be.

        If your employer has decided that students aren't to use personal 'hotspots' in their dorms then put it in the student agreement and set down penalties for anyone found to be doing so. How you actually enforce that is another matter but just because enforcing a ban is difficult, that doesn't mean it's now suddenly okay to forcible block something.

        If your concern is confusion, then that's relatively straight-forward to deal with. You write into the agreement that use of wireless networks are allowed but prohibit open networks and the broadcasting of SSIDs. You then do random sweeps with a laptop or tablet running Kismet or NetStumbler (or whatever) and you're away.

        If you want to ban something then ban it and deal with the consequences. Don't break it silently, not least of all because it's illegal (now confirmed), but also because it's not sending a good sign to the students.

        (BTW - it wasn't me who down-voted you.)

      2. James 100

        "my worry is that this ruling by the FCC could be stretched to impede my ability to use deauth to keep students from setting up their own little SoHo wireless routers"

        That isn't a "stretch" at all - what you are apparently doing is flat out illegal. You are the administrator of *your* network, and you have precisely as much authority to interfere with communications on *their* wireless network as they do to go changing your routers' IP addresses: none at all, with legal penalties if caught. You are mounting a DoS attack on equipment you neither own nor have authority over: how could you ever think that was either legal or moral?

        In short: those radio waves are *public*, and everyone else has just as much right to use it as you do - including the right to be free from you interfering with it. It's the FCC's job to stop people like you obstructing that.

        (Fortunately, the latest revision of the 802.11 family removes your ability to do this anyway, requiring deauth packets to be signed by the network you're trying to interfere with - so as soon as the drivers and access points are updated accordingly, your DoS attack becomes futile anyway.)

    4. Pookietoo

      Re: inside their own private property

      They don't own the electromagnetic spectrum. The various national regulatory authorities have declared that the WiFi frequencies are free for unlicensed use, and nobody else is allowed to remove that right. They don't need to promote that use, but it's clearly illegal to actively disrupt it. Consider that the FCC requires all electronic equipment to be certified free from emissions that could interfere with the legitimate use of radio frequencies.

  13. Dana W

    A sane and sensible resolution? How did that happen?

  14. fearnothing

    GG FCC, Marriott needed some smackdown. Just because a new technology disrupts your revenue stream doesn't mean you're allowed to break all the rules to get the money rolling again. Adapt or f off.

  15. tony2heads
    Flame

    not so much jamming now

    more:

    Get up, stand up: stand up for your rights!

    icon: we don't have one for smoking the weed of wisdom.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is undoubtedly a good thing.

    But in the name of security we also need an update to the protocol to ignore gratuitous deauth packets.

    1. Charles 9

      "But in the name of security we also need an update to the protocol to ignore gratuitous deauth packets."

      According to James 100, updates to the 802.11 protocols will require deauth packets to be signed against the AP in future. IOW, soon you'll only be able to deauth on your own network (as an outsider won't know the key).

  17. MotionCompensation

    Marriott Faraday

    Next: Marriott Faraday. Shielded rooms, for your protection. We make sure you get a good night's sleep, by keeping all the scary radio waves out of your room.

    Green, biodegradable WiFi available for only $99 per day, each room has a personal, bio-safe(tm) certified hotspot built in!

    Book your room today and enjoy the benefits of refreshing, RF-free sleep!

    *Call answering/forwarding service: optional extra. Don't miss important mobile calls, get them delivered to your private in-room desk phone. $20 Per call, plus $.50 per minute, time limited offer.

  18. PapaD

    If this was really about their system security, they would have simply installed and made available a decent free Wi-Fi system.

    Most people would use a decent and free Wi-Fi system over their own potentially limited bandwidth allocation.

    The fact that they didn't do that means 1 of two things.

    1. Its incredible difficult/expensive/impossible to do so (more knowledgeable people than me may know that answer to this one)

    2. Its not about security, it is about money.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      To an extent, (1) does apply. Hotels, especially tall hotels and those with lots of metal infrastructure (= shunts), would require multiple (expensive high-activity) access points, network infrastructure to connect them to some router that connects to the greater internet, and assorted other investments that require time, money, and probably more than a few "pardon our dust" situations. Plus all the APs would probably need fine tuning to optimize their coverage to minimize outside leakage and to reduce crossover neighboring APs.

  19. Uncle Ron

    Huh?

    Does anyone else think this is more of a win for Verizon, AT&T, and the rest, and not so much for the consumer? Cell phone companies were absolutely opposed to anybody, from hotels to convention centers to, well, anybody, keeping them from selling their hugely overpriced bits. The FCC is the lap dog of these big corporations, not the consumer. We're out of control here in the US. We're becoming a corporatist state.

    I just don't see -anything- coming from this FCC that is remotely consumer oriented. I'm just waiting for the Comcast shoe to drop. No "conditions," "concessions," or "promises" will make that pig not really, really stink for America. Keep watching...

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Huh?

      "No "conditions," "concessions," or "promises" will make that pig not really, really stink for America. Keep watching..."

      Not even being forced to sell off NBC Universal, turning them back into a dumb data pipe?

      1. Uncle Ron

        Re: Huh?

        Charles, Nope, not even selling off -everything- else will make the pig not stink. 54% control of America's high-speed internet service, in their utopian Metered Billing, Hugely Profitable dreams, will surpass every other line of business Comcast is in. The merger is -all- about internet service. It is currently the most profitable product the monopoly cable systems sell, by far. For example, the profitability of internet service is the major reason Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, and the rest, are reporting double digit profit increases in the face of declining cable TV subscriptions, declining ad revenues, increasing carriage fees, etc.

        In addition, historically, the track record of "conditions," "concessions," and "promises" imposed on telecommunication companies (AT&T, Verizon, and much more) is unbelievably weak. Here's a perfect example: Net Neutrality. Not only has Comcast and Verizon broken Net Neutrality rules, but I believe they will all cave on the issue and use the "concession" as justification to implement higher, wallet walloping, fees for Metered Internet Billing. They will selectively impose Metered Billing on the content of their enemies, and bypass Metered Billing for their own services and their "Friends."

        Charlie, we should be talking about breaking up Comcast and Time Warner Cable, not allowing them to merge. We should be writing rules that allow competitors to use existing, paid-for cable runs, and eliminating monopoly restrictions to allow new competitive infrastructure. That's what the FCC and the rest should be doing. Not protecting and bolstering the business models of corporate monopolies.

        If you are a consumer, and not a shill for the cable and telephone industry, why would you disagree with free enterprise? There is no longer a reason to allow these monsters to continue to pry open our wallets and hobble technology for the benefit of monopoly executives and stockholders.

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Huh?

          "54% control of America's high-speed internet service, in their utopian Metered Billing, Hugely Profitable dreams, will surpass every other line of business Comcast is in.'

          Except without their own content (which NBC Universal represents), they can't discriminate since now every party is a third party, and any discrimination in favor of one will result in all the others crying foul. In fact, it would be in Comcast's fiduciary interest to fast lane NBC content and throttle Netflix (as the former is cheaper to send down their pipes). Like railroads owning their own timber plots and mines.

          You mentioned Cox. Funny that. They haven't introduced metered billing, yet they've doubled all their Internet plans without raising prices (which incidentally have held steady for several years). The bill only went up about a dollar this year due to tax hikes (and remember, comm bills are itemized—by law).

          Then there's the matter of Google, who none of the standing companies can bully.

          "We should be writing rules that allow competitors to use existing, paid-for cable runs, and eliminating monopoly restrictions to allow new competitive infrastructure."

          Two problems. One, nearly all cable in the US is privately owned. Forcing a company to allow competitors to use their bought-and-paid-for equipment would never fly in Congress, as it's a violation of the basic principle of ownership and property. Basically, it would be Un-American. Second, the reason those monopolies exist in the first place is because no one's willing to wire up as space a country as the United States out of the goodness of their hearts. They (and their investors) will demand RoI. As for muni broadband, most communities lack the capital to do it. Leaving them pretty much with a choice between an exclusive contract, an exclusive contract, or no broadband meaning you can't attract people into your community. Oh, you have exceptions like that country east of Seattle, but that's pretty much a matter of luck (being up north attracted data centers--less cooling costs--the same can't be said down in Arizona), which is why you don't see the same things happening elsewhere in the country.

          "If you are a consumer, and not a shill for the cable and telephone industry, why would you disagree with free enterprise?"

          Because free enterprise is willing to let the little man (or in this case, the Middle of Nowhere) rot. In the private sector, some customers are "Not Worth the Money," which to them means expendable.

  20. PacketPusher
    Pirate

    Wait a minute!

    Suppose we were not talking about a hotel. Suppose you have some business using WiFi that has carefully place their APs and selected their channels so that there is no interference and then someone brings in a rouge AP that starts interfering with the network. Are you saying that they should not be able to tell people not to use their equipment in the building? Obviously, they should not be able to block APs outside their building, but inside is another story.

    1. James O'Shea

      Re: Wait a minute!

      Just how fragile _are_ these networks, anyway? I have my little iPad-based hotspot (I am typing on my laptop, linked to the Internet via it, right now,) In the year-plus that I've used it, I have yet to have any problems with interference anywhere. That includes hotels, restaurants, and assorted other places which have public wifi but which I've decided to avoid and just use my hotspot. (Usually 'cause either I don't trust their security or because my hotspot is faster than their system or both.)

      And it's one thing to post a notice that you can't use your own hotspot. It's a whole other thing if you jam it. If you let me know in advance that my hotspot is not welcome, I'll figure that my money ain't welcome either and the sonic boom you hear will be me going to your competition. If you jam my signal (which I AM PAYING FOR) without warning you WILL be hearing from my lawyers.

      1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: Wait a minute!

        It's not just interference. Say a dude named Pete opens a hotel called Pete's Inn out in the hinterlands and offers WiFi. And say Pete isn't terribly bright and names his SSID "Wireless", which seemed pretty obvious at the time. And let's say a miscreant trained in the Dark Arts rents a room in the inn and sets up a wireless 3G hotspot with an SSID of "PetesInn". But our Dark Lord's network hands out a default gateway that leads straight to a rogue proxy server that logs everything, or twiddles webpages as they go through, or who knows what. So the unsuspecting customers to Pete's Inn may inadvertently connect to the rogue network, and off they go.

        It's just an example, maybe not a great one, but it does show what could happen if deauth is effectively outlawed.

        1. James 100

          Re: Wait a minute!

          The facility to mount a DoS attack on the other access point really doesn't help at all, unless you think Pete who "isn't terribly bright" is going to go hunting for and attacking "rogue" access points just in case. Indeed, it's more likely to be the attacker who employs a deauth DoS, to render Pete's own AP useless and push victims towards his trap: are you still so sure the standards body shouldn't have fixed this vulnerability?

          You've also missed the point that there is no such thing as a "rogue" access point: you have a right to set up an AP. So do I. We're both prohibited from jamming each other, whether by deauth or any other form of DoS. Ownership of the building does not confer any rights over the radio waves: those are governed by the FCC. (For that matter, of course, Pete's own AP may be compromised, either because Pete is a closet black-hat type, or because he'd left his admin password set to "admin" and someone else now controls it - which is why you should make sure to encrypt all your traffic whether it's the hotel's own wifi network or any other.)

        2. James O'Shea

          Re: Wait a minute!

          Pirate Dave, m'man... If you make it clear that only your wireless is allowed at your place of business, you'll do without my business. If you DON'T make it clear and then jam me anyway, prepare thou for close assault by my lawyers. Elsewhere you said that you were an admin for a university. If you _really_ think that you're stopping the students from doing whatever they damn well please by jamming them, I've got a nice bridge in New York City I can sell you. Cheap. And some oceanfront property in Utah.

          You have no right to jam the public airwaves. Period. End of story.

          1. Pirate Dave Silver badge

            Re: Wait a minute!

            First, up, I'm not "jamming", I'm sending a perfectly legitimate packet over well-defined frequencies.

            "If you make it clear that only your wireless is allowed at your place of business, you'll do without my business."

            OK, that's fine. I'll tell the next person in line he can come in now.

            " If you _really_ think that you're stopping the students from doing whatever they damn well please by jamming them"

            No, I realize that. But it DOES give a bit of breathing space by preventing students from inadvertently connecting to a rogue SSID until I see the alert in my system and shutdown and confiscate the rogue AP. Have you ever had an angry parent piss fire down your back because their Little Johnny connected to another student's rogue SSID and got whacked? Boohoo. I have, and I will use whatever tech capabilities I have available to prevent such a recurrence, legal now or not. For me, THAT's the End of Story.

            Look, hey, I know I'm in the minority here. In a general sense, yeah, deauth isn't great and is often used for great evil. But at the same time, I've got a job to do, and part of that job is making sure I'm providing reliable and safe (such as can be) wireless to the students on my campus, and in that case, deauth is a good first line of defense. (well besides education about the dangers of rogue APs, but what 18 year old is going to listen to that lecture?).

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Wait a minute!

              "First, up, I'm not "jamming", I'm sending a perfectly legitimate packet over well-defined frequencies."

              It's ONLY legitimate if you DO NOT interfere with another person's network. Whether it's by noise or by exploits, the FCC calls it jamming and off limits. It's like whacking a baseball into the neighbor's house. Perfectly legitimate bat and ball, but you just intruded on the neighbor.

              It's part of the FCC mandate, where the basic rule is "Play Nice." That's why any electronic device has to post a Part 15 notice (Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 Part 15, specifically, which mandates (a) you don't interfere with another piece of electronics and (b) it cannot reflect incoming radiation, even if it is to its own detriment). Similar story with radio transmissions in general.

              "Have you ever had an angry parent piss fire down your back because their Little Johnny connected to another student's rogue SSID and got whacked?"

              Tell the parents that Johnny needs a lesson in proper paranoia. You can't block every SSID that crops up. (1) Johnny can get pwned by a rogue hotspot off-campus just as easily, and you'd still get the blame, meaning you're in a no-win situation because you're getting railed for something beyond your control, and (2) you run the risk of a false positive, blanking out a temporary but totally-legitimate hotspot put up for, say, a special event.

              As a comedian once said, "You can't fix Stupid." Perhaps you should make clear that anything resulting from an attack of Stupid is for the student alone to deal with, noting that if things escalate there's probably something in the school's code of conduct that can apply.

  21. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    "But it does represent an extension of the FCC's scope. If they don't simply regulate the spectrum but also the data and the business model do they get to decide matters of traffic shaping, DNS redirects, VPN blocking and which content is delivered?"

    It doesn't represent an extension of the FCC's scope, they are merely regulating spectrum here. The 2.4ghz spectrum, the rules amount to "Your equipment must accept interference" and "your equipment must not intentionally interfere with other equipment." Marriott's equipment was intentionally interfering with other equipment (albeit at the link layer rather than RF layer) and so violating basically the only rules for this band. The FCC is *NOT* telling Marriott what they can and cannot do with their APs within these rules. If Marriott gets too onerous in blocking VPNs, traffic shaping, etc., people will decline to pay for it. I am, however, firmly in the camp of the point of view that a connection that starts blocking numerous services is no longer an internet connection, and should not be able to be advertised as such.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like