4 ms·

> the MiFis and other hotspots are using the bandwidth that the exhibitors have paid (a lot of money) for EDITED: In the U.S., all RF bandwidth is administere

by dctoedt 12y ago

> the MiFis and other hotspots are using the bandwidth that the exhibitors have paid (a lot of money) for EDITED: In the U.S., all RF bandwidth is administered by the FCC for the benefit of the public. AFAIK, even if there's a "traffic jam" in the local WiFi spectrum, private parties don't get to unilaterally block off the WiFi bandwidth and charge for access. That'd be like a shopping mall's dealing with its Black-Friday traffic jams by setting up toll booths to block the adjoining public highways and charging vehicles to go through. (My original comment referred to cell-service bandwidth, which of course isn't the only problem, as @coleca correctly points out.)

coleca 12y ago
I agree with you, but I was talking about the WiFi bandwidth not your 3G/4G bandwidth. There is only so much airspace for all that WiFi traffic when there are tens of thousands of devices using the same spectrum in such a small enclosed area.
- kd0amg 12y ago
  I was talking about the WiFi bandwidth not your 3G/4G bandwidth Spectrum is spectrum. Convention centers don't own WiFi spectrum any more than they own cell phone spectrum.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Well, that's the downside of using an unlicensed band. Nothing says you can't get a license for a restricted band and set up shop there, then the FCC will help you shut down interlopers instead of smacking you down when you try to do it yourself. Of course, getting the appropriate equipment will be highly troublesome, but so it goes when you want to control what people transmit.
- dedward 12y ago
  The distinction doesn't mean anything though. In both cases it is up to the FCC to regulate usage, not you, or a hotel, or a conference organizer. It's not their spectrum to manage, and everyone else has just as much right to use it as they do, event or no event. Deliberate interference of the legal use of the airwaves by others is flat out illegal.
superuser2 12y ago
Universities, large corporations, and other building owners frequently disallow "pirate" WiFi and a there are very popular and expensive network security products built for identifying and triangulating pirate WiFi hotspots. It is the right of universities and employers to disallow WiFi hotspots as a condition of being on the property. Why shouldn't this apply to hotels?
- dctoedt 12y ago
  > It is the right of universities and employers to disallow WiFi hotspots as a condition of being on the property. Citation, please? This is an area of the law with which I'm not too familiar. I do recall from dim memory that private-property rights aren't without limits. For example: + The (U.S.) National Labor Relations Act puts limits on an employer's right to prohibit employee collective action on the employer's property; + Similarly, various civil-rights acts prohibit the owner of a business from refusing service to people on impermissible discriminatory grounds (race, national origin, etc.); + [ADDED:] Anti-trust law places limits on a business owner's ability to say, for example, I'll sell you my patented photocopier only if you agree to buy all your unpatented paper from me as well. [EDITED:] I'm not saying the first two laws apply in this case. I am suggesting that anti-trust law, and perhaps federal communications law, might analogously limit the ability of the owner of a business to require guests, as a condition of admission, to forego their lawful access to the public spectrum. That practice seems roughly analogous to the conference company saying, "you can attend our conference, but only if you travel to the conference center in one of the expensive private limousines that we've arranged for, instead of in a cab."
  - skinnybatch 12y ago
    Or, you can travel in our limousines, which will drop you at the front door, or instead, you may arrange for a cab, which may only drop you off at a designated cab dropping location, conveniently 3.2 miles away from our front door down at the bottom of the hill. Are we going to treat WiFi according to airspace protocol? Can a company or operation claim ownership to a quasi-physically-contained airspace? Perhaps invoke claims of trespassing by other non-approved, non-financially viable, sources? If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.

by dctoedt 12y ago

coleca 12y ago

I agree with you, but I was talking about the WiFi bandwidth not your 3G/4G bandwidth. There is only so much airspace for all that WiFi traffic when there are tens of thousands of devices using the same spectrum in such a small enclosed area.

kd0amg 12y ago
I was talking about the WiFi bandwidth not your 3G/4G bandwidth Spectrum is spectrum. Convention centers don't own WiFi spectrum any more than they own cell phone spectrum.
mikeash 12y ago
Well, that's the downside of using an unlicensed band. Nothing says you can't get a license for a restricted band and set up shop there, then the FCC will help you shut down interlopers instead of smacking you down when you try to do it yourself. Of course, getting the appropriate equipment will be highly troublesome, but so it goes when you want to control what people transmit.
dedward 12y ago
The distinction doesn't mean anything though. In both cases it is up to the FCC to regulate usage, not you, or a hotel, or a conference organizer. It's not their spectrum to manage, and everyone else has just as much right to use it as they do, event or no event. Deliberate interference of the legal use of the airwaves by others is flat out illegal.

superuser2 12y ago

Universities, large corporations, and other building owners frequently disallow "pirate" WiFi and a there are very popular and expensive network security products built for identifying and triangulating pirate WiFi hotspots. It is the right of universities and employers to disallow WiFi hotspots as a condition of being on the property. Why shouldn't this apply to hotels?

dctoedt 12y ago
> It is the right of universities and employers to disallow WiFi hotspots as a condition of being on the property. Citation, please? This is an area of the law with which I'm not too familiar. I do recall from dim memory that private-property rights aren't without limits. For example: + The (U.S.) National Labor Relations Act puts limits on an employer's right to prohibit employee collective action on the employer's property; + Similarly, various civil-rights acts prohibit the owner of a business from refusing service to people on impermissible discriminatory grounds (race, national origin, etc.); + [ADDED:] Anti-trust law places limits on a business owner's ability to say, for example, I'll sell you my patented photocopier only if you agree to buy all your unpatented paper from me as well. [EDITED:] I'm not saying the first two laws apply in this case. I am suggesting that anti-trust law, and perhaps federal communications law, might analogously limit the ability of the owner of a business to require guests, as a condition of admission, to forego their lawful access to the public spectrum. That practice seems roughly analogous to the conference company saying, "you can attend our conference, but only if you travel to the conference center in one of the expensive private limousines that we've arranged for, instead of in a cab."
- skinnybatch 12y ago
  Or, you can travel in our limousines, which will drop you at the front door, or instead, you may arrange for a cab, which may only drop you off at a designated cab dropping location, conveniently 3.2 miles away from our front door down at the bottom of the hill. Are we going to treat WiFi according to airspace protocol? Can a company or operation claim ownership to a quasi-physically-contained airspace? Perhaps invoke claims of trespassing by other non-approved, non-financially viable, sources? If you're living/working/visiting under my roof, then my rules, my WiFI.