
FCC Fines Smart City $750K for Blocking Wi-Fi - pdabbadabba
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-fines-smart-city-750k-blocking-wi-fi-0
======
nuxi7
Since marketing and selling jamming devices is illegal, I would like to know
what the FCC is going to do about the supply chain. We know these are all
using well known advertised features of enterprise wireless gear. Are they
working on a consent decree with Cisco/Aruba/etc to stop including this
feature? Or are they going to play whack-a-mole with end users for the next
decade?

~~~
radisb
Hypothetical question: I buy some land to host conventions. I make the
buildings and enclose them in a big faraday cage. Then I make deals with
anyone that agrees: Whoever wants to host a convention in my center, they will
accept that inside the convention center, there will not be any kind of
transmission, except my own wifi. Leaving aside the ways I could accomplish
this, is what I want legal?

~~~
lstamour
Not sure. If someone has a cell phone and needs to call 911, would you be held
liable for their inability to make that call?

~~~
intrasight
I've always worked on the assumption that it is within my right to build my
private facility out of copper if I choose, and the fact that your cell phone
doesn't work in my facility is your problem not mine. I am not "jamming" any
signals. I would be interested to hear counter-arguments from those familiar
with the FCC rules on this matter.

~~~
sliverstorm
Maybe if intent to jam wireless could be demonstrated, but there are no codes
I know of that require a certain level of permittivity in a building, and
indeed many buildings all but squash signals- and that is the user's problem.

------
notacoward
Here is Smart City's response.

[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011936](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011936)

Among other interesting points is that they seem to have been using the same
"de-authentication" trick that Marriott had used in a similar case a while
ago. Also, they make an argument about density and interference that IMO
shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I still think they were wrong and deserved
the fine, but it's worth keeping in mind that mobile hotspots can fall afoul
of the very same principle and law behind that fine.

~~~
Someone1234
> For instance, in those cases in which Smart City has used de-authentication
> in the past, it targeted only access points and wireless devices that are
> located within the confined and proprietary space of the exhibit hall --
> areas of a convention center that are licensed for private event and to
> which access is limited -- and that pose a threat to secure, reliable, WiFi
> availability within that confined space.

That's not how WiFi works. They cannot know for a fact that these WiFi
hotspots are within the convention space, they could and likely are, blocking
WiFi located outside of that space.

Additionally they're claiming that they literally own the radio spectrum
within a "proprietary space" which is a dangerous line. What is stopping them
from blocking all cellular signals or worse charging cellphone companies for
the signal travelling through their space?

Their point about security is nonsense. The technology they're employing is
DESIGNED to secure WiFi networks by disconnecting actually rogue APs (i.e.
devices squawking the same SSID as their network), that is still legal, the
problem they and the Hilten ran into is that they took tech' designed for
security and mis-used it for monopolising the WiFi spectrum within their
convention centers.

So, sorry, no. If your WiFi network is called SmartCityWiFi and you disconnect
MyHotSpot then you're breaking the law and have zero security arguments to
make.

Good on the FCC for giving these guys a fine. Too bad it wasn't more. I read
their arguments and it has only made me side with the FCC more. What they're
asking for would make the world a worse place in general and only helps their
bottom line.

~~~
xenadu02
Bingo. You are totally and 100% legitimately allowed to hijack, block, and/or
de-auth rogue WiFi access points broadcasting the same SSID as you so long as
the blocking is targeted at your own property (some leakage is inevitable).

If attendees were naming their personal hotspots "SmartCity" then SmartCity
would have a point. They weren't.

~~~
notacoward
In the first paragraph you mention property, but SSIDs aren't property. They
don't own "SmartCity" and you don't own "RandomPundit" and I don't own
"DidMyResearch" either. The legal point seems to be whether Smart City's
actions were limited to the _physical space_ they owned or leased, not what
SSIDs were involved.

~~~
nickodell
>They don't own "SmartCity"

They have a trademark on the phrase "Smart City Networks" within the area of
wireless high-speed Internet.

[http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:lwa...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:lwav4n.2.1)

~~~
BobLaw
You know very well that's not the same thing...

------
epalmer
As someone that travels with a myfi hotspot this is welcome news. The fines
should have been higher.

~~~
PirateDave
Agree. They should be fined just for charging people $80 a day to connect to
their network.

~~~
kabdib
Returning the money would be interesting. Most people probably paid with
credit cards.

------
rodionos
I wish they (FCC, FTC et al) would look into other convention center trade
practices. Convention center workers are heavily unionized and exhibitors are
forced to pay abnormal rates for any kind of local labor or rental services.
You can't bring your own service providers and you can't DIY either in most
cases.

~~~
tfinniga
Convention center rates are kind of ridiculous, but they're sort of like
airports in that they both charge ridiculous rates for common goods in their
controlled areas.

Also similar to airports, I doubt that the local monopoly is illegal since
it's usually the city that sets it up. The problem here seems to be that they
were messing with transmissions, which the FCC has control over.

Although I agree, just because it's legal doesn't make it less of a pain. Back
when I was an exhibitor at conferences, we used to get Ikea furniture
delivered to the hotel, carry it in, assemble it ourselves, and just leave it
at the end of the conference. It was about 1/8 the price of rental furniture.

Different convention centers have different rules, but the ones I went to used
to allow you to assemble anything you could bring in the front doors. If it
came in the back doors you'd need to pay drayage and assembly fees. We had a
collapsible booth that was very useful in this regard.

~~~
ams6110
Convention centers are often built with taxing authority bonds, and then the
monopolies used as kickbacks to local unions and service providers. Very cozy.

~~~
6stringmerc
Or, in other MadLibs terms:

___Municipal facilities___ are often built with ___municipal
obligation/revenue____ bonds, and then the monopolies used as
___opportunities___ to local unions and service providers.

------
redwards510
How were they blocking personal hot spots? The article doesn't get into
details. Since they were providing their own wifi, they weren't using a
jammer. Were they blasting deauth packets at any hotspot not on their
whitelist? Were they using mdk3?

~~~
notacoward
According to their response (cited in another comment) they were spoofing de-
auth packets, and were only doing so for hotspots determined to be physically
within their proprietary space. It's not hard to do that via triangulation.

~~~
FireBeyond
You repeatedly and willfully ignore the invalidating part of this - that they
-do not own the airwaves-, inside their 'proprietary space' or otherwise. It
is unlicensed spectrum, anywhere, precisely because we can't control (easily)
the transmission of radio waves.

~~~
notacoward
They don't, and you don't either. The attitude that hotspots' use of
unlicensed spectrum is sacrosanct, while failing to extend that same doctrine
to venue owners, just reeks of entitlement. The attempt to put one group of
unlicensed-spectrum users above another has no basis in law.

~~~
Karunamon
What _does_ have basis in law is that, while on unlicensed spectrum, you can't
willfully mess with other people's transmissions. Period, point blank, end of
discussion. They were doing this. They violated the law. They got fined. This
is not up for debate.

\- On your property? Doesn't matter. Still illegal.

\- They're using your SSID? Doesn't matter. Still illegal.

\- You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you
entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal.

\- Too many radios will make the local spectrum unusable? Doesn't matter, the
band is unlicensed. Still illegal.

We can talk all day about the should haves and the would haves, but the
practical and legal facts of this case are quite clear.

~~~
notacoward
> You entered into a contract to block all other signals? Doesn't matter, you
> entered into a contract to do something expressly illegal.

Incorrect. There are many things that are illegal without consent, but legal
with it. Sex, for example. In this case, as soon as you enter into an
appropriately worded contract, that de-auth packet stops being interference
and starts being an agreed-to part of that contract. Therefore it's none of
the FCC's business. It _might_ be the subject of a civil suit, but that's a
different matter.

That's why I've said repeatedly that Smart City's misdeed (and Marriott's
before them) was not the mere sending of de-auth packets. Condemning de-auth
packets is like condemning screwdrivers. The real problem is that they did not
_obtain consent_ for that use of the tool. They could have made that part of
the convention registration, and they would have been OK (though they would
almost certainly have faced an outcry). It's no different than a company
forbidding the same thing within their corporate HQ building, which almost
everybody here seems to believe is OK. I see a lot of people throwing words
like "legitimate" and "illegitimate" around today, but nobody seems to have a
realistic definition handy. I find it amazing that so many here want the
government making technical distinctions for us, which they never do well,
instead of relying on the simple notion of consent (or lack thereof) between
parties.

~~~
FireBeyond
The law says 'x'. As enforced by the FCC.

Your contract as a private party, with another private party, does not absolve
either of you from your obligations under law. The FCC is a third party to
this contract, and your 'sex' example is irrelevant (on many different
levels).

~~~
notacoward
So what is your solution, other than hoping the FCC will get the definitions
right to allow the practices that are convenient for you and disallow those
that are inconvenient - and not overreach into still more areas of
communications, and not be generally corrupt, and so on? If rigorously
applied, the precedent set here _WOULD_ apply to corporate networks doing the
same thing, with the FCC involved in deciding which rogue APs are or are not
"legitimate" threats to security. Oh boy, they'll sure get that one right! As
I said, consent is at least a clear and enforceable standard, plus it gets the
FCC _out_ of everyone's boardrooms and bedrooms.

~~~
Karunamon
Thankfully, the law is not C++ and we have this thing called "judgement".

This is unlawful interference, pure and simple.

------
fragsworth
If only they could do the same thing for airports (e.g. LAX) where they don't
explicitly block your signals, but they also don't allow any cell towers to be
built in the area...

~~~
tehwebguy
I'm convinced that LAPD has a few Stingrays set up at LAX - my phone shows
full service but the connection is terrible and I always lose about 30% of my
battery life between touch down and getting in a car.

~~~
nooron
Maybe you can confirm this if you live in LA? That would be a cool catch.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnit...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnitch_is_an_app_by_the_german_srlabs_that_detects_imsi_catchers_stingrays.html)

------
tzs
At a large convention, would personal Wifi hotspots even work reasonably?

There are only 11 Wifi channels available in the US, and since the channels
are considerably wider than the center frequency separation each overlaps with
several adjacent channels--meaning that in a given area at most 3 wifi
hotspots can operate before you start to get overlap.

Unless the power is kept _very_ low, so that only devices very near you can
see your hotspot, I'd expect performance to be terrible if more than a handful
of people fire up their hotspots.

Have I overlooked something?

~~~
x5n1
mifi hotspots don't have that much range. so even if they interfere all you
have to do is walk away 20 feet and everything is fine.

------
jliptzin
They should return the $750k directly to the people who they scammed out of
$80 / day instead of to the FCC slush fund. I'm sure most/everyone paid with a
credit card.

~~~
coleca
$80? SmartCity charged us over $1200 for three days of T1 Internet access
because that was the only way we would be allowed to have Wifi for a demo we
were doing in our booth in MInneapolis according to their rules.

Even after paying all that we were still blocked with deauth packets until we
begged their network engineer to whitelist our MAC addresses.

------
elec3647
The market would have adjusted and better devices that can circumvent their
blocking would have become available.

Moreover, if Smart City chooses to block WiFi signal on their own private
property, that is their business and not the FCC's. Of course they probably
did this nefariously without the knowledge or consent of the private property
owner.

Still pretty crummy of them to do that.

------
stefap2
What if the building is intentionally built as a Faraday Cage thus preventing
an outside signal? This way the signal is passively blocked and they can still
provide their wifi inside.

Not that I condone their behavior.

~~~
nickhalfasleep
I think this would be a disaster for other reasons and EM bands. Doctors with
Pagers. Parents who need to be informed of a sick kid at school, etc. You
would be interfering with a public conveyance.

~~~
ubernostrum
Many convention centers are, nonetheless, obviously built to ensure you won't
get a signal inside the building and will have to pay for whatever overpriced
service the convention center offers.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Even from a cynical-greed perspective, that seems catastrophically stupid.
Businessfolks need to stay in touch. A convention center where cellphones
don't work is a convention center that won't get a lot of repeat customers,
and cellphones don't even offer the option of extorting your visitors to use
your in-house service like wifi does.

~~~
terinjokes
Sure it does. Have your venue be a faraday cage so that outside cellular
service doesn't work inside. Setup cellular service inside your building, and
enter into high cost roaming agreements with the major carriers, at such a
rate that the carriers pass it on to customers. Much like cell service on
cruise ships.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Can you _imagine_ the public outrage when people start finding $100 roaming
charges on their cellphones because they _stayed at a hotel_? And the
alternative is to notify all your potential customers that their phone costs
more inside this building, before they actually give you any money. Your
competitors would throw a party when they heard about it.

------
HG532e-W2XHCH
Adil& Aminaal

------
xacaxulu
Sweet justice!

------
TNCAP254B7A
TNCAP60F0DB

------
TNCAP254B7A
TNCAP254B7A

------
TNCAP25B7A
TNCAP254B7A

------
TNCAP254BA7
TNCAP254BA7

------
jessaustin
People who care about this can upgrade their clients and APs to handle
Management Frame Protection. Or they can complain to FCC and wait fourteen
months.

------
mfringel
Bingo time. Today's free spaces:

"Why is the gov't punishing a successful business model?"

"The gov't should stay out of SmartCity's Freedom To Contract with the
convention centers."

"If people don't like it, they can go outside the convention center, or not
attend conferences at that convention center. No one is holding a gun to their
head."

