
Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited - kjhughes
http://www.fcc.gov/document/warning-wi-fi-blocking-prohibited
======
rbc
This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease
and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000
being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.

~~~
seanp2k2
Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I
doubt $600k will dissuade them much.

1\. [http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR)

~~~
jerf
It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to
pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher
than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going
to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop.

This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun
that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, the Feds make a
credible threat, Marriot stops making that move, mission accomplished. There's
not much _more_ that "punitive" damages could do that the future threat isn't
already doing. (And I didn't say there's _nothing_ more, but there isn't
_much_ more of true social value. "Glorious, wonder schadenfreude" is not
really the sort of "social value" I want to see my government pursuing.)

~~~
HCIdivision17
I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I
understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and
physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I
have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!"

(Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via
paperwork before barging in. Prolly some good pirate radio station stories out
there on this...)

Edit: here's the link they provide that summarizes the laws affecting jammers.
No doubt that rbc is right: this has teeth, and they're _sharp_.

[http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-
enforcement](http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement)

~~~
akira2501
If you ignore their enforcement letters, then yes, they can come and just
confiscate your equipment; not an uncommon end for a "pirate" FM station
operator.

------
nickhalfasleep
Does anybody know of a good package that might allow one to notice rogue
disassociate / disconnect packets when they are being used against you? It
seems like something that would notice, and record the action might make a
great way to tell when hotels (or other spaces) try this again.

~~~
mryan
A combination of airodump-ng and Wireshark can do this: [http://www.backtrack-
linux.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35702](http://www.backtrack-
linux.org/forums/showthread.php?t=35702)

------
superuser2
Does this make enterprise/university use of rouge AP mitigation mechanisms
illegal?

Are Cisco and other AP controller vendors going to remove this option from
their software? (If they're shipping a checkbox that is always illegal to
enable, why aren't _they_ subject to enforcement action?)

~~~
matthewmcg
Very interesting point. A Cisco page[1] discussing this feature says:

"Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring
networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a
security risk before you launch the containment."

[1][http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-seri...](http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-series-
wireless-lan-controllers/112045-handling-rogue-cuwn-00.html#RM)

Cisco seems to think this is perfectly fine to do to rouge APs connected to an
organization's wired network, however.

Note that the Marriott enforcement action concerned the use of personal access
points not connected to a Marriott network.

I don't see any basis in the Communication Act for making this distinction
though. 47 U.S.C. Section 333, the law Marriott violated, says: "No person
shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any
radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
chapter or operated by the United States Government." From the Cisco materials
mentioned above, it seems the mitigation method involves sending fake de-
authentication packets over the air. That also seems like intentional
interference to me!

~~~
anextio
It's clear from the memo that the FCC considers security risks to be exempt
from this requirement.

It sounds like the AP being on your network is what constitutes the security
risk. I doubt the FCC would have a problem with a network administrator taking
action like that. Unrelated APs are different.

~~~
dedward
It's also arguably not "harmful interference"... it's a legitimate operation
within your network.

~~~
eli
Yeah, big difference between limiting access to your own network and limiting
access to someone else's

------
dkokelley
[http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-
enforcement](http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement)

It appears even the ownership of a device intended for WiFi jamming is not
allowed. I wonder if there is a distinction between active jammers and passive
blocking methods. Could WiFi-obstructing materials painted on my walls for the
purpose of restricting the range of my WiFi to inside my house be considered
illegal under some interpretations of these laws?

~~~
akurtzhs
Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what
you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.

~~~
matthewmcg
I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon?

"We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe
and comfortable night's sleep."

~~~
shagie
Just need to repaint the walls.
[http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html](http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html) or
appropriately tuned wallpaper [http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2012/05/anti-w...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2012/05/anti-wifi-wallpaper-lets-cellular-and-radio-through/)

~~~
learc83
And then they block cell signals. I don't think anyone would stay at a hotel
with zero cell phone reception.

------
astrojetsonjr
What is interesting is that they have a request in for a rule change
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737)

So even with the fine, etc. they are still moving forward on trying to get the
rule changed. As the say "It's not over until the fat lady gets paid off to
sing a different song"

Here is their petition
[http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872](http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872)

~~~
learc83
Read the link that we're commenting on. It is over.

They issued a response to that request for a rule change, denying it.

~~~
AstroJetson
No they didn't. If you read the document, at the bottom of the page is a
footnote that talks about the request. it says until the commissioners decide,
the enforcement bureau will continue to act in this manner.

So its up to the Comi$$ioner$ to decide. And as we've seen, in lots of cases
money talks at the FCC.

------
jasonlfunk
What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots
and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make
their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises.

If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't
see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well.

If the principle for this regulation is "don't screw with the public
airwaves", then I don't see why we need an additional regulation to
specifically target hotels and convention centers, the existing regulation
should be sufficient.

~~~
mabbo
Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone
trying to bring in outside food and drink. It's private property, and they
have the right to do that. Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not.

But airwaves leave the property. I live beside a hotel, pretty closely. They
certainly don't have a right to interfere with my wifi usage.

As for why specific regulations to target hotels and convention centers:
because they're the ones who are violating the laws, claiming they aren't. The
FCC could go around and try to enforce a law that is being debated, or they
could lay down a new one that explicitly says "Hotels and convention centers
can't screw with wifi".

~~~
fpgaminer
> Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone
> trying to bring in outside food and drink.

I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in
outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do
sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter
with food/drink.

Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food, they don't ban that
person forever. Rather, as soon as the person as thrown away the food, they
are allowed to enter. So clearly the ban is on the food, and not the person.
To ban a specific person would require banning an attribute of the person.
Carrying food is not an attribute. The argument is quite nonsensical, to be
honest. It's like saying a rule against knives is really about banning people
who carry knives. That's of course not the case, and the rule really is
specifically about knives and not about people.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
This rule doesn't stop them from kicking anyone operating a wifi hotspot out
of their hotel, or stop them from requiring anyone who enters the hotel to
submit to being searched for wifi equipment. The only thing it stops them from
doing is jamming the public airwaves. They are allowed to prevent people from
operating wifi hotspots in their hotels, but they aren't allowed to use
illegal means to do so.

Analogously, movie theaters are allowed to stop people from bringing in
outside food, but they aren't allowed to assault someone to take away food
that they brought in.

------
natch
I'm confused by page two of this. I understand that recent examples of
blocking that came to light were in hotels and convention centers. So that's
an example they've seen, I get that.

But then they have wording that suggests the rule only applies to commercial
hotels and convention centers and the network operators for those commercial
establishments. Is that really all it applies to?

Or does it apply to everybody? What about (sometimes nasty) local governments,
nonprofits, individuals, tribal authorities, non-hotel and non-convention
center commercial entities, and others?

------
grecy
Does this apply on private property, or on property with sufficient signage?

I've often thought about opening a bar (or movie) theater where all wireless
communications are blocked, to force people to not use their phones.

Obviously I'd put up extremely big and obvious signs stating that, and I'd
only be blocking if you were inside my building.

Legal?

EDIT: I wouldn't be blocking anyone from setting up a wi-fi hotspot inside my
bar, but comms to the outside world would be blocked using that cool paint, or
a Faraday cage of some sort.

~~~
itake
If it was legal, I wouldn't want to go there, since it prevents you from
dialing emergency response.

I would think you could passively block it (via paint). But probably can't
actively block it (jamming).

~~~
grecy
> _If it was legal, I wouldn 't want to go there, since it prevents you from
> dialing emergency response._

...Just like you couldn't prior to about 1995 when cell phones were not a
thing.

And let's be perfectly honest, if you really need to dial emergency response
in a bar, there's a damn good chance the bar tender will do it on the wall
phone, or someone can step outside the door and do it.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
And if you traped by fire in a back room? and do bars in the USA have
payphones in them any more.

------
Kenji
"In addition, we reiterate that Federal law prohibits the operation,
marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that
interfere with Wi-Fi, cellular, or public safety communications."

Can't every device that has an appropriate antenna be a potential jamming
device? What a weird law.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
In law, intention matters. _Capable of being modified to do so_ and _marketed
to do so_ are very different in the eyes of the law.

~~~
ianlevesque
Thank you. This kind of legal blindness gets annoying around here.

~~~
Kenji
Hey, don't be angry about my ignorance, it was genuine curiosity. I have
little knowledge about law, but I've never seen a law in our country that
could criminalize the entire population depending on how you interpret it.

~~~
ims
If you want to know more, check out "Three Felonies a Day" by Harvey
Silvergate[1]. (I don't necessarily agree with his take on everything, but
it's still eye opening and worth a read.)

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-
Innocent/dp/1594035229)

~~~
anigbrowl
Please don't. If you study the cases he cites in detail (ie by reading the
verdicts or appeals) you'll find that he leaves out all sorts of critical
information - not surprising, since many of the cases he talks about are ones
where he represented the defendant. He's a bullshit artist. You are almost
certainly _not_ committing three felonies a day.

------
tjbiddle
Curious - how will conventions handle this? Isn't it common for a convention
to block out other wi-fi signals and offer a free one of their own so that
channels aren't overloaded and people can actually get on?

~~~
kabdib
I remember going to a wireless conference in San Jose, circa 1995, and
basically nobody's equipment seemed to work. There was wired networking all
over the place.

Makes it hard to do a sales pitch :-)

------
hckr1292
"If you have reason to believe your personal Wi-Fi hot spot has been blocked,
... you can visit www.fcc.gov/complaints"

Right, so if my wifi is blocked, I should go online to report it! Great plan
:-)

~~~
smeyer
I mean, the FCC isn't going to fix it instantly, even if you do get online. I
assume you're being sarcastic, but if not, the idea is that if you realize a
hotel is blocking your hot spot, report them next time you get a chance to go
online. Then the FCC can investigate reports and stop hotels and such that are
persistently doing this. It's about removing the bad actors, not fixing your
immediate wifi issues.

------
Selfcommit
Is this targeted to people who would block residential in home wifi from
Comcast and others? That would be disturbing.

~~~
Shivetya
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-
wi-f...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in-
hotels-is-prohibited/?rss=1)

Article with some more detail, this was because of Marriot

~~~
Selfcommit
Thanks for that - makes more sense.

------
hellbanner
Just out of curiosity, the fine is paid to the government, right -- not the
people mariott interfered with?

------
delbel
Of course stringray is (quasi) legal. Wifi blocking, well son that's a
$600,000 fine.

~~~
pacificmint
Using a stingray would be just as illegal as the Wifi jamming for you, me and
the Marriot.

Whether law enforcement or other government agencies have the right to use a
stingray (or wifi jamming for that matter) is a totally different debate. (One
that we should have, ideally _before_ they start using it, but a different one
nonetheless)

~~~
delbel
Are you brave enough to put a law enforcement agent under citizen arrest for
this constitutional violation?

------
josefdlange
Damn, I'm a felon because of my old microwave!?

~~~
kps
Only if you use it to interfere with US government communications (Title 18,
Section 1362).

If it only interferes with other people's communications, that's just a
regulatory matter (47 U.S. Code § 333), and practically speaking the FCC will
only fine you if don't fix it or stop using it after you've been notified.

------
kazinator
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 in acoustics. 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?

Also, the proclamation seems to ban radiating equipment such as microwave
ovens. Any time you heat a frozen dinner such that Wi-Fi is cut out, you're
potentially violating. (Panasonic, are you getting this?)

~~~
morganvachon
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.

~~~
kazinator
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?

~~~
wnevets
actually the local fire marshall would probably have many issues with a bunch
of giant strawman on your property.

------
gtrubetskoy
So now you can be fined $600,000 for running your microwave?

~~~
gizmo686
Microwaves are fcc approved and designed to minimize interference.

~~~
pixl97
So taking out the magnetron and putting a beamforming waveguide on it was a
bad idea?

~~~
krasin
These guys just did it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g91xkISmp2g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g91xkISmp2g)

Part 2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGDOE-
zDVZc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGDOE-zDVZc)

------
inDigiNeous
Interesting wording in the document

"networks, or hot spots, are an important way that consumers connect to the
Internet"

So people who use WiFi are consumers only in their eyes. Must protect the
rights of the consumers, big money involved!

Still, censorship and blocking internet content is fine, just don't block the
wifi, we might loose some customers.

