The arguments being made here are absurd. There's a huge difference between "causing interference to other signals" or "managing [a hotel's] network in order t

The arguments being made here are absurd. There's a huge difference between "causing interference to other signals" or "managing [a hotel's] network in order to provide a secure and reliable Wi-Fi service," and willfully sending malicious packets designed to disable other wireless networks. The latter is buried in the text, but is what they are asking for permission to do. It's somewhat unclear how such behavior is an FCC interference issue rather than a criminal matter. It's amazing that this is compared to "a homeowner using her cordless telephone that interferes with a neighbor's phone" and "a housewife whose use of a baby monitor device causes interference to a neighbor's garage door opener." It does lead to an interesting question: if seeing a wireless network, which an automated system will not be able to confirm is actually on their property (consider the plight of nearby homes and businesses!), constitutes a threat that can be attacked, is it allowable for an adjoining property owner, or a guest with a wireless network, to see the hotel's network as a threat, and attack it in the same way? The "alternatives" that hotels might be forced to implement if hotels aren't allowed to attack other networks are similarly entertaining: >For example, a hotel could decide to prohibit guests from bringing Part 15 devices on the hotel's property. Alternatively, a hotel could limit the areas where Part 15 devices may be used, for example, by restricting their use to guest rooms or common areas. I would love to see any hotel attempt this, even for one day.