15 ms·

Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

349 points by kjhughes 12y ago

rbc 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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
  - placebo 12y ago
    true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.
    - anextio 12y ago
      > the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking. This projection of supply-and-demand is uncalled for, I think. Maybe it would be valid if a) they were blocking wifi in all their hotels, which it seems that they aren't yet, and b) that consumers know it is the hotel that is blocking the wifi, and not just technology fucking up as usual. It's not fair to characterize this as a "do nothing, the market has spoken" situation when it's clear that the scenario is not widely present and consumer information is low. The only people talking about this are tech people.
      - placebo 12y ago
        > The only people talking about this are tech people If that is the case then I stand corrected. One can only hope then that this information will find it's way outside the tech circles.
  - dsjoerg 12y ago
    the relevant number is not their net income, but the gains they think they are making by wi-fi blocking.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and contract with persons to deploy blocking equipment 4) lobby (and potentially strongarm) law and rule making bodies to accept their will.
      - Vivtek 12y ago
        Because Marriott's core business is not blocking wi-fi. It's renting rooms. The decision to block or not block is based on the marginal gain from that decision, not on their entire income. If an officer were to make that his or her quixotic personal vendetta by spending money on strongarming legislative bodies to permit wi-fi blocking on their part, that officer would be replaced very quickly indeed.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        The law is very clear, blocking peoples' communications is intolerable. The reason for the blocking doesn't matter. If you operate a device it must not interfere with others' devices. Whether or not Marriott was blocking or wants to continue blocking communications for marginal gain is irrelevant. Its duty is to operate its devices without disrupting everyone else, not to pursue marginal gains. Marriott's core business has no bearing on whether it is allowed to cause interference, nor is it anyone's responsibility to determine or consider what the entity's core business is. Also, Marriott (and subsidiaries, associates, industry partners, and more) did attempt to permit interference[1][2][3]. [1] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 [2] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 [3] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951
  - jerf 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        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.
      - lmm 12y ago
        I found Death of a Pirate an interesting read; basically a history of British pirate radio.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    It was $600k for doing it at one hotel. Had there been an indication that it was a corporate-wide policy, not a site-specific one, the penalty would probably have been much larger.
    - electromagnetic 12y ago
      That hit likely made that hotel run at a loss that year, which when you're a massive corporation it might not look like much, but Marriott uses a franchise model. The corporation can't risk a franchisee revolt, and you'll get that if the franchisees think there's a corporate policy out there that could potentially wipe out their profits for a year.
      - cube00 12y ago
        Surely Corporate would pay for it, unless it was the franchise's idea.
        vonmoltke 12y ago
        That might assuage the franchisee somewhat, but there is still the effective loss of revenue from that particular hotel as well as indirect costs the franchisee will have to bear, such as lost business and time spent dealing with FCC enforcement actions.
- colechristensen 12y ago
  The teeth it actually has is up to $16,000 a day per violation when you fail to comply with a warning. That is at least one violation per property, perhaps several. When you don't comply they can remove your equipment with force if necessary. And boy, do they do a lot. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    It seems like all the forfeitures listed there are monetary forfeitures, not actually taking away radio equipment. I'm also unclear as to what differentiates a fine from a monetary forfeiture.
    - colechristensen 12y ago
      "monetary forfeiture" is a fancy phrase for "fine" When I said they did a lot, I didn't necessarily mean they often seize radio equipment. A 5-digit fine is usually enough to dissuade anyone, and most interference violations aren't with equipment used entirely for jamming, but legitimate equipment used on the wrong frequency, with excess power, or otherwise in a prohibited way.
  - justin66 12y ago
    I picked three items at random. None of them had anything to do with wifi interference.
superuser2 12y ago
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?)
- gramsey 12y ago
  I want to know the answer to this question as well; my university purposefully blocks non-authorized networks.
  - superuser2 12y ago
    It is possible/likely that this refers to what Mariott was specifically doing, which is attacking cellular modem/AP combo devices that were not connected to Marott's network in any way, just physically located in/near their hotels. University Wi-Fi blocking is usually targeted at APs that students have attached to University network drops without permission, which is a completely different thing. However, the FCC did not appear to draw a distinction, which is interesting.
    - matthewmcg 12y ago
      Agreed. The university unquestionably has the right to prevent you from connecting a device to its wired network. The only question is whether it can use wireless "self-help" to prevent you from doing so.
      - gramsey 12y ago
        Right, of course they have the right to prevent me from connecting to their network. But as I understand the FCC advisory, they do not have the right to stop me from using my own personal cellular hotspot, for example.
        pb2au 12y ago
Selfcommit 12y ago
Is this targeted to people who would block residential in home wifi from Comcast and others? That would be disturbing.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Shivetya 12y ago
  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in-hotels-is-prohibited/?rss=1 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-f... Article with some more detail, this was because of Marriot
  - Selfcommit 12y ago
    Thanks for that - makes more sense.
delbel 12y ago
Of course stringray is (quasi) legal. Wifi blocking, well son that's a $600,000 fine.
- pacificmint 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    Are you brave enough to put a law enforcement agent under citizen arrest for this constitutional violation?
gtrubetskoy 12y ago
So now you can be fined $600,000 for running your microwave?
- gizmo686 12y ago
  Microwaves are fcc approved and designed to minimize interference.
  - pixl97 12y ago
    So taking out the magnetron and putting a beamforming waveguide on it was a bad idea?
    - delecti 12y ago
      > bad idea Well lets not make value judgments, but it would be illegal.
    - krasin 12y ago
      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
- dedward 12y ago
  IF you modified it and used it in such a way as to intentionally interfere with otherwise licensed (or license-free) spectrum, then hell yes, you could be. Your microwave oven, as designed to be used, is certified for it's intended use. If it was leaky by accident, and interfering with stuff though.... you'd have to not use it - and continuing to use it after a warning would put us back to the first part of this discussion. It may not cause harmful interference.
dkokelley 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.
  - matthewmcg 12y ago
    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."
    - asavadatti 12y ago
      That would block cell phone signals as well. Their customers will get angry pretty quickly..
    - shagie 12y ago
      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-wifi-wallpaper-lets-cellular-and-radio-through/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...
      - learc83 12y ago
        And then they block cell signals. I don't think anyone would stay at a hotel with zero cell phone reception.
josefdlange 12y ago
Damn, I'm a felon because of my old microwave!?
- kps 12y ago
  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.
Kenji 12y ago
"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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    Thank you. This kind of legal blindness gets annoying around here.
    - Kenji 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        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/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        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.
grecy 12y ago
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.
- JoshTriplett 12y ago
  Nope, blocking cell phones is even more serious. Not least of which because you'd be blocking 911. You could, on the other hand, have a policy of "turn off your phone at the door, and if your phone rings or you pull it out, we'll kick you out". EDIT: Yes, you can build a Faraday cage. Consider carefully whether you really want to do so, or just set a policy ("go outside if you need to answer a call").
- itake 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    >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 12y ago
      And if you traped by fire in a back room? and do bars in the USA have payphones in them any more.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
astrojetsonjr 12y ago
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
- cortesoft 12y ago
  Eh, it makes sense that they would do that, and I don't think it is fundamentally wrong to try to get a rule changed that you disagree with. While I disagree with their disagreement, I am not bothered that they are working to change the rule... I just think we should work to make sure it ISN'T changed.
- learc83 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
natch 12y ago
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?
nickhalfasleep 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
inDigiNeous 12y ago
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.
jasonlfunk 12y ago
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.
- mattkirman 12y ago
  My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.
  - jasonlfunk 12y ago
    Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?
    - mattkirman 12y ago
      I think so. Mariott made a request last year asking for permission to block "rogue" access points from inside their hotels. This is the response.
    - HCIdivision17 12y ago
      Right. A subtle point came up elsewhere in these comments noting that there's an exception for security. The fine point appears to be securing the wired LAN - if you plug in a rogue access point, you can rightly disable it. If someone's wi-fi access point is merely shouting on the airwaves, well, that's what the airwaves are there for and you've no right to block it. Think of it as the positive side of the Tragedy of the Commons. Normally we complain about someone peeing in the swimming pool, but the FCC holds that such an analogy doesn't make sense for our airwaves. I actually have no idea where the FCC stands on things like EM anechoic chambers (like Faraday cages). It may or may not be ok to set those up around buildings; likely it requires certification and - if not a lab - some way for 911 and police/fire/rescue to do their jobs unimpeded. EDIT: Specifically about the newness of the law: turns out a lot of this references The Communications Act of 1934. It could be interesting to see how the philosophy of the radio communication acts are different from our modern interpretation of how to use the higher frequency radio spectrum.
kazinator 12y ago
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?)
- tomswartz07 12y ago
  It seems pretty clear that they say that this is illegal for commercial properties to do this. I have no experience with the FCC rules, but I would imagine that it's perfectly fine for you, as an individual, to do what you want in your home. You're allowed to purchase a short-range FM transmitter for your car, so (in theory) there's nothing wrong with purchasing a very-short-range device of a similar manner to block signals in your place.
- rbc 12y ago
  Property rights don't apply to radio spectrum. Once that packet leaves the hardware and enters US radio spectrum, it's regulated by the FCC.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    "Spectrum" is frequency domain, not time domain or space domain. It is a completely different abstract space. The concept of "US Spectrum" is nonsensical. A packet does not leave hardware and enter spectrum; that is nonsensical. A packet leaves one space and enters another space. The spectrum part is already settled in the oscillator inside the hardware. Control over parts of the spectrum is demarcated by space. For instance, you can transmit in certain bands, but only for a certain range. Inside an electronic box, all sorts frequencies can occur, as long as they don't escape in excessive amounts. It's all about space. When two users use the same frequency band in the same space there is a conflict.
hckr1292 12y ago
"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 12y ago
  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.
tjbiddle 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 :-)
hellbanner 12y ago
Just out of curiosity, the fine is paid to the government, right -- not the people mariott interfered with?

349 points by kjhughes 12y ago

rbc 12y ago

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 12y ago
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
- placebo 12y ago
  true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.
  - anextio 12y ago
    > the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking. This projection of supply-and-demand is uncalled for, I think. Maybe it would be valid if a) they were blocking wifi in all their hotels, which it seems that they aren't yet, and b) that consumers know it is the hotel that is blocking the wifi, and not just technology fucking up as usual. It's not fair to characterize this as a "do nothing, the market has spoken" situation when it's clear that the scenario is not widely present and consumer information is low. The only people talking about this are tech people.
    - placebo 12y ago
      > The only people talking about this are tech people If that is the case then I stand corrected. One can only hope then that this information will find it's way outside the tech circles.
- dsjoerg 12y ago
  the relevant number is not their net income, but the gains they think they are making by wi-fi blocking.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and contract with persons to deploy blocking equipment 4) lobby (and potentially strongarm) law and rule making bodies to accept their will.
    - Vivtek 12y ago
      Because Marriott's core business is not blocking wi-fi. It's renting rooms. The decision to block or not block is based on the marginal gain from that decision, not on their entire income. If an officer were to make that his or her quixotic personal vendetta by spending money on strongarming legislative bodies to permit wi-fi blocking on their part, that officer would be replaced very quickly indeed.
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        The law is very clear, blocking peoples' communications is intolerable. The reason for the blocking doesn't matter. If you operate a device it must not interfere with others' devices. Whether or not Marriott was blocking or wants to continue blocking communications for marginal gain is irrelevant. Its duty is to operate its devices without disrupting everyone else, not to pursue marginal gains. Marriott's core business has no bearing on whether it is allowed to cause interference, nor is it anyone's responsibility to determine or consider what the entity's core business is. Also, Marriott (and subsidiaries, associates, industry partners, and more) did attempt to permit interference[1][2][3]. [1] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 [2] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 [3] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951
- jerf 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
    - lmm 12y ago
      I found Death of a Pirate an interesting read; basically a history of British pirate radio.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  It was $600k for doing it at one hotel. Had there been an indication that it was a corporate-wide policy, not a site-specific one, the penalty would probably have been much larger.
  - electromagnetic 12y ago
    That hit likely made that hotel run at a loss that year, which when you're a massive corporation it might not look like much, but Marriott uses a franchise model. The corporation can't risk a franchisee revolt, and you'll get that if the franchisees think there's a corporate policy out there that could potentially wipe out their profits for a year.
    - cube00 12y ago
      Surely Corporate would pay for it, unless it was the franchise's idea.
      - vonmoltke 12y ago
        That might assuage the franchisee somewhat, but there is still the effective loss of revenue from that particular hotel as well as indirect costs the franchisee will have to bear, such as lost business and time spent dealing with FCC enforcement actions.
colechristensen 12y ago
The teeth it actually has is up to $16,000 a day per violation when you fail to comply with a warning. That is at least one violation per property, perhaps several. When you don't comply they can remove your equipment with force if necessary. And boy, do they do a lot. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  It seems like all the forfeitures listed there are monetary forfeitures, not actually taking away radio equipment. I'm also unclear as to what differentiates a fine from a monetary forfeiture.
  - colechristensen 12y ago
    "monetary forfeiture" is a fancy phrase for "fine" When I said they did a lot, I didn't necessarily mean they often seize radio equipment. A 5-digit fine is usually enough to dissuade anyone, and most interference violations aren't with equipment used entirely for jamming, but legitimate equipment used on the wrong frequency, with excess power, or otherwise in a prohibited way.
- justin66 12y ago
  I picked three items at random. None of them had anything to do with wifi interference.

superuser2 12y ago

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?)

gramsey 12y ago
I want to know the answer to this question as well; my university purposefully blocks non-authorized networks.
- superuser2 12y ago
  It is possible/likely that this refers to what Mariott was specifically doing, which is attacking cellular modem/AP combo devices that were not connected to Marott's network in any way, just physically located in/near their hotels. University Wi-Fi blocking is usually targeted at APs that students have attached to University network drops without permission, which is a completely different thing. However, the FCC did not appear to draw a distinction, which is interesting.
  - matthewmcg 12y ago
    Agreed. The university unquestionably has the right to prevent you from connecting a device to its wired network. The only question is whether it can use wireless "self-help" to prevent you from doing so.
    - gramsey 12y ago
      Right, of course they have the right to prevent me from connecting to their network. But as I understand the FCC advisory, they do not have the right to stop me from using my own personal cellular hotspot, for example.
      - pb2au 12y ago

Selfcommit 12y ago

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

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Shivetya 12y ago
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in-hotels-is-prohibited/?rss=1 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-f... Article with some more detail, this was because of Marriot
- Selfcommit 12y ago
  Thanks for that - makes more sense.

delbel 12y ago

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

pacificmint 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Are you brave enough to put a law enforcement agent under citizen arrest for this constitutional violation?

gtrubetskoy 12y ago

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

gizmo686 12y ago
Microwaves are fcc approved and designed to minimize interference.
- pixl97 12y ago
  So taking out the magnetron and putting a beamforming waveguide on it was a bad idea?
  - delecti 12y ago
    > bad idea Well lets not make value judgments, but it would be illegal.
  - krasin 12y ago
    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
dedward 12y ago
IF you modified it and used it in such a way as to intentionally interfere with otherwise licensed (or license-free) spectrum, then hell yes, you could be. Your microwave oven, as designed to be used, is certified for it's intended use. If it was leaky by accident, and interfering with stuff though.... you'd have to not use it - and continuing to use it after a warning would put us back to the first part of this discussion. It may not cause harmful interference.

dkokelley 12y ago

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 12y ago
Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.
- matthewmcg 12y ago
  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."
  - asavadatti 12y ago
    That would block cell phone signals as well. Their customers will get angry pretty quickly..
  - shagie 12y ago
    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-wifi-wallpaper-lets-cellular-and-radio-through/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...
    - learc83 12y ago
      And then they block cell signals. I don't think anyone would stay at a hotel with zero cell phone reception.

josefdlange 12y ago

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

kps 12y ago
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.

Kenji 12y ago

"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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Thank you. This kind of legal blindness gets annoying around here.
  - Kenji 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        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.

grecy 12y ago

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.

JoshTriplett 12y ago
Nope, blocking cell phones is even more serious. Not least of which because you'd be blocking 911. You could, on the other hand, have a policy of "turn off your phone at the door, and if your phone rings or you pull it out, we'll kick you out". EDIT: Yes, you can build a Faraday cage. Consider carefully whether you really want to do so, or just set a policy ("go outside if you need to answer a call").
itake 12y ago
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 12y ago
  >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 12y ago
    And if you traped by fire in a back room? and do bars in the USA have payphones in them any more.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

astrojetsonjr 12y ago

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

cortesoft 12y ago
Eh, it makes sense that they would do that, and I don't think it is fundamentally wrong to try to get a rule changed that you disagree with. While I disagree with their disagreement, I am not bothered that they are working to change the rule... I just think we should work to make sure it ISN'T changed.
learc83 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.

natch 12y ago

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?

nickhalfasleep 12y ago

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 12y ago
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

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

inDigiNeous 12y ago

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.

jasonlfunk 12y ago

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.

mattkirman 12y ago
My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.
- jasonlfunk 12y ago
  Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?
  - mattkirman 12y ago
    I think so. Mariott made a request last year asking for permission to block "rogue" access points from inside their hotels. This is the response.
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    Right. A subtle point came up elsewhere in these comments noting that there's an exception for security. The fine point appears to be securing the wired LAN - if you plug in a rogue access point, you can rightly disable it. If someone's wi-fi access point is merely shouting on the airwaves, well, that's what the airwaves are there for and you've no right to block it. Think of it as the positive side of the Tragedy of the Commons. Normally we complain about someone peeing in the swimming pool, but the FCC holds that such an analogy doesn't make sense for our airwaves. I actually have no idea where the FCC stands on things like EM anechoic chambers (like Faraday cages). It may or may not be ok to set those up around buildings; likely it requires certification and - if not a lab - some way for 911 and police/fire/rescue to do their jobs unimpeded. EDIT: Specifically about the newness of the law: turns out a lot of this references The Communications Act of 1934. It could be interesting to see how the philosophy of the radio communication acts are different from our modern interpretation of how to use the higher frequency radio spectrum.

kazinator 12y ago

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?)

tomswartz07 12y ago
It seems pretty clear that they say that this is illegal for commercial properties to do this. I have no experience with the FCC rules, but I would imagine that it's perfectly fine for you, as an individual, to do what you want in your home. You're allowed to purchase a short-range FM transmitter for your car, so (in theory) there's nothing wrong with purchasing a very-short-range device of a similar manner to block signals in your place.
rbc 12y ago
Property rights don't apply to radio spectrum. Once that packet leaves the hardware and enters US radio spectrum, it's regulated by the FCC.
- kazinator 12y ago
  "Spectrum" is frequency domain, not time domain or space domain. It is a completely different abstract space. The concept of "US Spectrum" is nonsensical. A packet does not leave hardware and enter spectrum; that is nonsensical. A packet leaves one space and enters another space. The spectrum part is already settled in the oscillator inside the hardware. Control over parts of the spectrum is demarcated by space. For instance, you can transmit in certain bands, but only for a certain range. Inside an electronic box, all sorts frequencies can occur, as long as they don't escape in excessive amounts. It's all about space. When two users use the same frequency band in the same space there is a conflict.

hckr1292 12y ago

"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 12y ago
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.

tjbiddle 12y ago

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 12y ago
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 :-)

hellbanner 12y ago

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