14 ms·
FCC Fines Smart City $750K for Blocking Wi-Fi
- epalmer 11y agoAs someone that travels with a myfi hotspot this is welcome news. The fines should have been higher.
- PirateDave 11y agoAgree. They should be fined just for charging people $80 a day to connect to their network.
- kabdib 11y agoReturning the money would be interesting. Most people probably paid with credit cards.
- wkcamp 11y agoWell isn't this just a slap on the wrist? Wouldn't it make sense for the FCC to increase fines to deter other companies from malicious practices?
- fragsworth 11y agoIf 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...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- somedudethere 11y agoCell towers don't need to be a freestanding structure. There are tons of micro towers hanging out on existing buildings.
- heywire 11y agoI've seen them tied to the side of existing buildings, and even masquerading as a tree :) Something I've noticed is that it seems the denser the population, the lower the towers are.
- alricb 11y agoIt's logical: the higher the antenna, the larger the area it has in its line of sight. If your base station is going to serve a large area, you want it as high as possible. If it's only for a small one, not so much.
- digikata 11y agoNot to mention that airports can also be rich RF environments, and extra sources of noise pose extra complexity.
- cbhl 11y agoYou don't even need a tower per se -- you just need smaller antennas covering the terminal building connected to a fiber backhaul.
- tehwebguy 11y agoI'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.
- eli 11y agoPhone bars typically just measure signal strength. You can show full service but have a poor connection because there's a lot of noise or because the tower is overloaded.
- nooron 11y agoMaybe 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/snoopsnitch_is_an_app_by_the_german_srlabs_that_detects_imsi_catchers_stingrays.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/12/31/snoopsnit...
- jpollock 11y agoWell, airports charge carriers a lot of money to have a cell site at the airport. Roaming customers are very, very profitable and devices will frequently connect to the first, strongest signal they see.
- jebblue 11y ago>> devices will frequently connect to the first, strongest signal they see That is worrisome, someone could build a portable station to hijack people's phones, do some phishing then move on to another location.
- freehunter 11y agoThat's the entire basis of Stingray devices.
- lbearl 11y agoYou literally just described the Stingray devices. It is very worrisome.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoNot only could you do that, but government officials and others have been doing it for a long time.
- Shivetya 11y agomost structures like that will have repeaters in the building for each vendor. they are common in many buildings which have site line issues to include basement level boosting
- sliverstorm 11y agoTo add insult to injury, they usually give me free WiFi. The bastards.
- redwards510 11y agoHow 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?
- helper 11y agoMost likely they were using a "rogue AP containment" feature found on most enterprise wireless equipment: - http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/wIPS/configuration/guide/msecg_wIPS/msecg_appB_wIPS.html http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/w... - http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced/Content/Instant%20User%20Guide%20-%20volumes/Rogue_AP_Detection_and_C.htm http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/InstantMobile/Advanced...
- notacoward 11y agoAccording 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 11y agoYou 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 11y agoThey 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.
- notacoward 11y agoHere 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.
- mikeash 11y agoHow would mobile hotspots fall afoul of the same thing? If you get enough of them active in the same area you might get degraded or even nonexistent service, but that's not at all the same thing as sending fake deauthentication packets in a deliberate act to prevent other devices from working.
- notacoward 11y agoNo, it's not the same as sending de-auth packets, but it's still interference with their signal on their property and that's an issue quite worthy of concern. That's why we have laws about jamming devices or radiated-power limits. I think their reaction was inappropriate, but the basic principle of not interfering with others' communications still cuts both ways. We need a better way to deal with such conflicts, which are only going to become more and more frequent and severe.
- mikeash 11y agoThe whole idea of these unlicensed bands is that there are limits on power and such, and otherwise you can more or less do what you want as long as you're not deliberately interfering with other people. If your legitimate use happens to step on other people's legitimate use, well, so it goes. If you want to make sure nobody else can interfere with you, use a licensed frequency and obtain a license for your use. I think this raises an interesting point. There ought to be some frequency bands accessible by common WiFi hardware which require a license to use. Then big venues like this could set up their networks on licensed bands, after obtaining a license, and be free from interference by people's mobile hotspots and such. Although I have a feeling that approximately nobody would actually go through the process of getting a license, because the whole "interference" thing is just a cover, and their actual motivation is a cash grab by attempting to force people to use their spectacularly overpriced service.
- nuxi7 11y agoSince 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?
- Someone1234 11y agoIndeed jamming is illegal. Anti-rogue AP tech' is a grey area. It doesn't jam the spectrum in the traditional sense. Instead it transmits packets telling the AP and client to disconnect from one another for WiFi networks it doesn't "own." That within itself isn't technically "jamming" and is also likely legal in some cases. The whole point of the tech is: If you own a network called "CorpWiFi," someone can come along, set up their own AP, and call their WiFi "CorpWiFi" to try and trick clients into connecting to it with the goal of stealing information. Cisco's anti-rogue AP tech attacks these hotspots and causes continuous disconnects. That is likely legal. What is not legal is using this same tech' to disconnect ALL WiFi hotspots within range. So instead of using it to go after "CorpWiFi" you also disconnect "MyWiFi" and "FreeWiFi" which are networks you don't run. That's what has got these guys into trouble. The technology itself is legal. Using the technology in the US is also legal in some cases. Using it to effectively corner the market for WiFi in certain areas is illegal.
- jellicle 11y ago> Cisco's anti-rogue AP tech attacks these hotspots and causes continuous disconnects. That is likely legal. Why would it be legal to order your computing device to disrupt someone else's computing services? Just for reference here, under US Federal law: > knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; > the term “damage” means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information; A protected computer is any computer connected to the internet. Taking any action to impair the availability of data, a program, or a system to any computer connected to the internet is a felony in the United States.
- rodionos 11y agoI 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.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- beachstartup 11y agoyou should have seen the dirty looks we got from the union guys at one convention when we came late and decided to setup our booth ourselves.
- FireBeyond 11y agoYou were lucky, I'm surprised they didn't flat out demand from the convention organizers that you either dismantle for them to reassemble, or were billed what it would have cost them to set up themselves.
- beachstartup 11y agonow that you mention it, i think we were billed a setup fee. we just had to do it quick because the thing had already started.
- tfinniga 11y agoConvention 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.
- mfringel 11y agoBingo 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."
- stefap2 11y agoWhat 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 11y agoI 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 11y agoMany 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 11y agoEven 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 11y agoSure 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 11y ago
- jessaustin 11y agoPeople 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.
- godgod 11y agoDon't you just love the power of the FCC?
- jliptzin 11y agoThey 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 11y ago$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.
- tzs 11y agoAt 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 11y agomifi 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.
- xacaxulu 11y agoSweet justice!
- elec3647 11y agoThe 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.
- TNCAP25B7A 11y agoTNCAP254B7A
- TNCAP254B7A 11y agoTNCAP254B7A
- TNCAP254B7A 11y agoTNCAP254B7A
- TNCAP254B7A 11y agoTNCAP254B7A
- TNCAP254B7A 11y agoTNCAP254B7A
- TNCAP254B7A 11y agoTNCAP60F0DB
- HG532e-W2XHCH 11y agoAdil& Aminaal
- TNCAP254BA7 11y agoTNCAP254BA7