6 ms·
On one hand, if it was jamming guest Wifi in hotel rooms it seems Marriott was acting badly. On the other hand, if this is in the context of trying to provision
by digikata 12y ago
On one hand, if it was jamming guest Wifi in hotel rooms it seems Marriott was acting badly. On the other hand, if this is in the context of trying to provision wifi for a conference, where there may be a lot of users packed into a dense space, I'm not so sure it's as bad. Wouldn't outside Wifi routers be fairly disruptive where you're maybe configuring individual conference service routers to lower their power -- to essentially get smaller than normal wifi range 'cells' and serve more users?
- wglb 12y agoI'm not so sure it's as bad. Completely illegal is not bad? Whatever the reason, this is bad.
- djloche 12y agoThere is a clear difference between the two.
- kstrauser 12y agoThe problem is that the FCC says that you can't interfere with legally-operating radio systems. Since conference-goers' Wi-Fi hotspots are operated and licensed under FCC regulation, the hotel had no legal right to block them.
- digikata 12y agoSo legally Marriott was wrong, but from a technical implementation standpoint does this policy lead to fewer users being able to connect to Wifi at a conference? Are the regulations in this case meeting the end goal of the FCC - that good use is being made of the RF space?
- kstrauser 12y agoYou might be right, technically, but I'd much rather have the situation where no parties are allowed to interfere and manufacturers have incentive to develop sharing-friendly systems (spread spectrum, etc.), than the situation where entities can block my Internet access for their own convenience. Were that not the case, I could enter an arms race with my neighbors where we all compete for the strongest Wi-Fi blockers so that our own signal is strongest, perhaps to the point that one of us might get a business-class connection and start allowing paid access to it. "Too bad our block can't use Wi-Fi. Say, neighbor, for $100 a month I bet I could let you share mine."
- CamperBob2 12y agoExactly. This is the whole reason for the FCC's existence. It's only a popular misconception that their primary job is preventing the display of unwanted nipples on TV.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y agoWhat do you mean "unwanted nipples"; and that's their secondary job.
- TD-Linux 12y agoOne of the regulations of using the ISM bands is that you must not cause interference with other devices. In the case of wifi, this is achieved using both collision detection, and noise immune modulation methods. Most of these mobile hotspots are going to be limited by the cell connectivity, not the wifi speed, so it would be pretty easy for multiple APs to exist on the same channel.
- eli 12y agoMaybe, but there's a process for updating the rules. Simply ignoring them isn't a great option.
- anigbrowl 12y agoThe FCC has to look at use of the RF space as a whole. Blocking Wifi inside a conference center is a good use of RF space for the purposes of the conference, but it's arguably a local maximum - if blocking technology were to come into widespread use the overall environment would be highly degraded. Suppose the landlord of the apartment building next to me wanted to squeeze out a little more rent and offered fast powerful wifi for all his tenants (blocking any attempts by the tenants at establishing sharing), but degraded the wifi in my house at the same time as an unfortunate side-effect.
- greyfade 12y agoJamming signals in the US is a federal crime. CFR Title 17 is pretty clear that the FCC thinks it's a heinous offense.