3 ms·
Every level of this comment is wrong. 1) You do not own RF spectrum on your property, just like you do not own the mineral rights or the airspace above it. Cla
by superuser2 12y ago
Every level of this comment is wrong.
1) You do not own RF spectrum on your property, just like you do not own the mineral rights or the airspace above it. Claiming that you ought to be able to jam RF on your property is equivalent to claiming you ought to be able to shoot down aircraft overflying your property.
2) Jamming is a B2B issue. The customer loses, but the person whose rights have been violated is the legitimate licensee of the spectrum. It's one business violating the property rights of another. Owning a piece of land does not mean you own the spectrum on it; the licensee (effectively) does, regardless of whose land it's on. In this case, the licensee is "everyone who is not deliberately causing harmful interference." Mariott fell out of that definition when they started sending deauth packets. The manufacturer and operator of a cellular jamming device are violating the property rights of Verizon/Sprint/ATT. Just like local police would go after you for breaking and entering at their offices, the FCC will go after you for transmitting on their spectrum.
3) No, the acoustics analogy doesn't work, because what's happening here isn't some kind of "right to communicate." It's an unauthorized use of a communications medium that it doesn't own. You do actually own the physical medium of the air in your building; regulations are focused on what happens at the edge of your property (air quality, sound pressure level, etc.) Still, because the club is a public place with a food-service and liquor license, as well as a workplace, there are almost certainly relevant local ordinances and OSHA regulations that cap the maximum allowable SPL.
4) This isn't a proclamation; it's pretty uncreative application of law that's existed for nearly a century. '
>Any time you heat a frozen dinner such that Wi-Fi is cut out, you're potentially violating. (Panasonic, are you getting this?)
5) Go look closely at your microwave. There's an FCC certification etched onto it somewhere (near the Underwriters Laboratories certification, usually.) The FCC evaluates every RF-capable device sold in the U.S. for precisely that concern, and has determined that the level of EMI from your microwave is acceptable.
It still knocks out WiFi, yes, but that's acceptable because of the way the FCC classifies 2.4GHz. It would deny certification to a device that interfered with spectrum considered more important, like something reserved for military/emergency communication.
- kazinator 12y ago> Claiming that you ought to be able to jam RF on your property is equivalent to claiming you ought to be able to shoot down aircraft overflying your property. Your comment is incorrect in two ways. Firstly, shooting down an aircraft, unless it is an unmanned drone, constitutes murder. So you're equating jamming with murder. By doing that, you're attacking a strawman version of my argument: a weakened version of my point which goes like this: "anything whatsoever can be done by a property owner, on their property". Secondly, the aircraft is thousands of feet above. So it can be considered not to be on your property on the grounds of being outside of that 3D volume which constitutes your property. You're pretending that I have a strawman definition of "property" which is "the entire shadow volume of a designated patch of land, from the center of the Earth out to infinity". I have not revealed the use of any such definition; nor made any argument about what is the definition of property at all. Even the air space of a country is not indefinitely high. If you're the government of a country, you can in fact shoot down an invading aircraft, but not some foreign satellite that is passing over, 500 km above.
- superuser2 12y ago1) So make it an unmanned drone. 2) It remains that only matter, not EM spectrum, within the 3D volume of your property is actually yours.