Reply to post: Mr

Did last night's US presidential debate Wi-Fi rip-off break the law?

Ardvark Master


"intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots"

I am curious, everyone who says they did not do this refers to the fact that they used no active electronic means to accomplish their goals. But does this "intentional block or disrupt" only apply if someone uses active electronic means to block access to other WiFi networks. Why is the act of passive detection and physical (in the sense they were told to leave) expulsion not a disruption of their personal WiFi hotspot? Especially since the the detection/expulsion has the real intent of pushing people to their own (the venue's) WiFi.

Setting aside the issue of multiple WiFi networks, If someone does know if this only applies to electronic blocking, I would be interested in that answer.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019