Reply to post: Re: Mr

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

Grunchy

Re: Mr

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

What means "block or disrupt": does that mean electronic jamming, or could that also include a promise to throw you out for daring to try it.

To me this is (another) argument over nothing but semantics. One group wants to control your ability to communicate on their property, and if they are prohibited from electronically jamming you, they will certainly get some goons to figure out whether you're communicating or not, and if you are communicating, well then they punish you somehow.

FCC stands for "Federal Communications Commission". Should a University have the power to monitor people communicating on campus and shut them down for not paying for the privilege? Anybody arguing "yes this is valid and noble" is an ASSHOLE.

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