Re: wifi blocking [was Re: Marriott wifi blocking]
I have a question for the company assembled: Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property. What would change in the several arguments that have been presented? -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Cell phone service relies on specially licensed wireless spectrum whereas WiFi relies on specifically unlicensed spectrum. The rules/laws/expectations are fundamentally different for the two cases you outlined. Dan On Oct 7, 2014 5:29 PM, "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property.
What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?
-- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods. Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where the mobile carrier is the primary or secondary user. [name of company] has no right to even use the frequencies in question. Seems pretty consistent to me. K On 10/07/2014 05:28 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I have a question for the company assembled:
Suppose that instead of [name of company] being offended by people using their own data paths instead to the pricey choice offered, [name of company] took the position that people should use the voice telephone service they offered and block cell phone service on (and near) their property.
What would change in the several arguments that have been presented?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims <ktims@stargate.ca> wrote:
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive behaviors --- also, if there are other businesses nearby, it could lead to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this giant faraday cage. The local authorities might eventually require some modifications. :)
Actively interfering with the RF would probably garner them an even bigger smackdown than they got here, as these are licensed bands where
It's even worse.... these frequencies are licensed, and willfully transmitting into the frequencies with enough power to block cell calls from an unauthorized station has severe penalties, even if it never interferes with a single phone or the licensee's use of the restricted frequencies. If it DOES interfere, then you have two potential violations (Unauthorized emission PLUS Interference) and there are likely more stations they would be interfering with than WiFi APs, so there are more violations and more complaints likely to be generated. And these violations are more severe, since they can interfere with emergency communications (E911); I think it's fair to say penalties would likely be larger. The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special" local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. -- -JH
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special" local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent.
I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
The SF Bay Area Rapid Transits System) turned off cellphones in 2011. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/BART-admits-halting-cell-service-to-stop-... and the FCC emphasis that future actions "recognizes that any interruption of cell phone service poses serious risks to public safety" http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-cell-phone-shutdown-rules-adopted... On 10/7/2014 6:36 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special" local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent. I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:36:26PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special" local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent.
I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
Getting paid by third parties to abuse your customers seems to be working well for certain other industries. - Matt -- "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo, The Princess Bride
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:36 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 20:10:44 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
The only way to legally block cell phone RF would likely be on behalf of the licensee ---- In other words, possibly, persuade the cell phone companies to allow this, then create an approved "special" local cell tower all their phones in the same building will by default connect to in preference to any other, which will also not receive any calls or messages or allow any to be sent.
I wonder how many customers the cell phone company will attract by doing that.
BART experimented with something even safer than this (hosting provider microcells in the underground bart stations on the condition that bart could cut them off when they determined it was “in the interest of public safety”). The first time BART exercised this “turn-off” capability, it drew quite a bit of fire from a number of directions and complaints were lodged with the FCC. FCC doesn’t appear to have made any ruling on the matter as yet (at least none that I could find), but the wording of the various initial responses definitely didn’t seem to favor the idea of allowing cellular service disruption at the whim of a local transit agency. Owen
On Oct 7, 2014, at 6:10 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Keenan Tims <ktims@stargate.ca> wrote:
I don't think it changes much. Passive methods (ie. Faraday cage) would likely be fine, as would layer 8 through 10 methods.
Well... actually... passive methods are probably fine, as long as they are not breaking reception to nearby properties, BUT it might result in some proceedings or investigations regarding anticompetitive behaviors --- also, if there are other businesses nearby, it could lead to some objections when you go seeking permits to build this giant faraday cage. The local authorities might eventually require some modifications. :)
Actually, if you turn your building into a faraday cage, I’m not sure there’s any legal basis on which to tell you that you have to permit RF through, even if it blocks the signal downstream. Creating a shadow is very different from actively emitting “harmful interference” and I don’t know of any laws or regulations which could be used to prevent you from doing so. Owen
participants (8)
-
Daniel C. Eckert -
Jimmy Hess -
Keenan Tims -
Larry Sheldon -
Matt Palmer -
Owen DeLong -
Roy -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu