  jwsmiths4Part Man, Part Mac
Premium Member
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA |
Pwned! I guessUnless it was interfering with some mission-critical element of their network I don't see why anyone should be able to say they have a right to manage the 2.4Ghz spectrum on land they own. I mean my neighbors (whom I don't know) named their WAP "queerspace" (I kid not) and at first they were interfering with my signal and I had to find a channel that wouldn't interfere with my other neighbors networks but I don't think I had a right to go over to my neighbors and tell them they had no right to interfere with my network... That situation seems somewhat similar to what UT had IMHO
PS 1st Post | |
|
 |  SSX4lifeHello World
Premium Member
join:2004-02-13
kudos:3 |
SSX4life
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 1:28 pm
Re: Pwned! I guesswell it should be the same as people not wanting electrical towers/lines in their back yards. They have no say over it (emenimant domain) and therefore it is the same for the landlords. | |
|
| |  alien9999999Your Head Looks Nice
Premium Member
join:2002-05-21
B-3000 |
Re: Pwned! I guessit's different if they _route_ their network to and/or from the campus network...
--
Alien is my name and headbiting is my game. | |
|
| DSLrgm
Premium Member
join:2002-08-22
Oak Park, MI |
to jwsmiths4
said by jwsmiths4:Unless it was interfering with some mission-critical element of their network I don't see why anyone should be able to say they have a right to manage the 2.4Ghz spectrum on land they own. It is called cash cow. Or so they think. Cellular took away all their payphone income, except laptop dialup services. This will take it all away. They want their 'fair share'. | |
|
 yaplej
Premium Member
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR
2 edits |
yaplej
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 1:18 pm
Their networkWhen those hotspots are connected to their network you bet your butt they have the right to say no. That's a huge security issue to have un-administered wireless access points floating around in all the dorm rooms you have gotta be nuts if you were going to allow that on a college LAN.
If I were the network admin of a college network and found a student was running a WAP in their dorm I would suspend their access immediately, and leave them disconnected for a month after they removed the device. Just to make sure they got the idea of how big of an issue it is.
Granted even with internal security setup properly someone getting access shouldn't be able to do to much damage, but none the less the student is providing an unsecured means of accessing a secured network without the network administrators knowledge. They ban the use of routers in the dorm rooms because most of them now come with WAPs built in for this very reason. | |
|
| | |
Re: Their networkIt's NOT their network. The tenants have their own telecom services that are in no way dependant on the Airport's service. --
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
|
| | jwsmiths4Part Man, Part Mac
Premium Member
join:2003-10-25
Savannah, GA |
Re: Their networkExactly. But even if they were on the college network I think it would be stupid of the college network admin to have the dorms running on the same network as the research facilities - gotta keep those two well separated seeing as how many college kids don't run their OS updates and have a habit of downloading a lot of less than trustworthy files. So I don't know that I would necessarily ban the student for running a WAP - I'd ban the Net admin for not making sure the research networks were well guarded. | |
|
| | |  calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: Their networkExactly. I mean, if you're running a network serving wild college kids in their dorm rooms, who the heck are you afraid might compromise security by hooking up from the parking lot?
(And Cicso Wannabe, with your attitude of exclusion and punishment, I'm glad you're just a wannabe and not a current Cisco policymaker....)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | yaplej
Premium Member
join:2001-02-10
White City, OR |
yaplej
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 3:35 pm
Re: Their networkThe college I went to did enforce the ban of WAPs, and routers in the dorms and it was specifically mentioned in the paperwork you signed when you got in the dorm. I don't remember exactly how long you got your access cut off for but it did happen.
They had a separate wireless network you could request access to if you needed it or wanted to use your laptop on the campus network, but setting up your own was not allowed.
If you were setting a wireless network up in your own apartment then you are not on their network so it didn't matter. | |
|
| |  John GaltForward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8 |
to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D:It's NOT their network. The tenants have their own telecom services that are in no way dependant on the Airport's service. I think that you touched on the key word... tenants. The efficient functioning of an airport requires that everyone 'play nice' and 'get along'...that's just the way that it is. --
A is A | |
|
 Wills9
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL |
Wills9
Member
2004-Nov-15 1:18 pm
Recinded or not?What's the deal newspeople? Click on the banned students link and it says they've backed down, yet this front page headline says their still trying to control it. Which is it? --
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. | |
|
 richk_1957If ..Then..Else
Premium Member
join:2001-04-11
Minas Tirith |
PossiblyI can see an airport restricting the use of any RF radiation because of possible interference problems.
Hospitals, too. Ever try to use a cell phone in one?
But no one else. | |
|
| | |
Re: PossiblyAs someone working in the "bowels" of several airports there isn't a technical reason why they should have control other than an overzealous IT department who wants to control everything. Of course these are the same guys who think that the fire alarm should run on the same network as the baggage system and T-mobile hotspot with nothing but 802.1q tagging to protect it.
All of the airports air traffic and emergency communications take place at frequencies below 2.4Ghz. The only thing near that freq is the ATC radar, but since it is located far from the terminal it isn't a problem.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: PossiblyLet's face it--the real reason isn't technical or security, it's money. The airports are making a greedy money grab, having heard there's money to be made in Wi-Fi (whether there is or not) and are worried someone else will make it or, worse, someone will give it away and spoil it all for the greedy public employees who probably couldn't hold a real job, anyway.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | John GaltForward, March
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8 |
Re: Possibly said by calvoiper:Let's face it--the real reason isn't technical or security, it's money. The airports are making a greedy money grab, having heard there's money to be made in Wi-Fi (whether there is or not) and are worried someone else will make it or, worse, someone will give it away and spoil it all for the greedy public employees who probably couldn't hold a real job, anyway. Calvoiper WOW...does someone have an ax to grind, or what? The reason they want to 'control it' is so that the traveling public can have access. They want to avoid a situation where a bunch of uncoordinated APs are all blasting with no coherent plan, and nobody gets service. There is no way to 'make money' in this environment that even comes close to covering the REAL costs of providing it. It is MUCH different than slapping an AP up somewhere like it was your house or something. --
A is A | |
|
| | | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: PossiblyNo--what the airports are afraid of is that the Java Joe they rent space to for coffee sales might either make a few bucks off of Wi-Fi, or might impede the airport from charging through the nose for their own brand of Wi-Fi.
Airports are specialists at enforcing monopolies and extracting all the profit they can from the travelling public.
The only axe to grind that I have is one which says that publicly run monopolies are generally overpriced and deliver inadequate service--take your pick of garbage collection, parking lots, whatever.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | | | | | |
gortons fisherman
Anon
2004-Nov-16 7:26 am
Re: Possiblygee, perhaps moving would cure that? or paying more attention to other more pressing issues? holy christ, can i trade my axe for yours...parking lots?! are you serious? | |
|
 ·Charter
|
This is NOT telecommunications!That Tampa director repeatedly refered to any communication as telecommunication. Wireless networks have nothing to do with telecommunications, thus are not goverened by the same rules, taxes and exemptions and such. Then, on top of that, 2.4Ghz is unlicensed. Tampa airport is about to waste a lot of money getting a law firm involved. If anything, why don't they just plan out the network while making sure their tenant's private networks will work along side theirs? --
] :: my trivial ramblings :: [ | |
|
 cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 |
cdru
MVM
2004-Nov-15 1:24 pm
Controlling the AirFeel free to regulate it. And if/when someone gets fined for breaking the regulations, it won't take long for the court case to be thrown out. Federal law saying that it's unlicensed frequencies trumps and local or state law or regulation.
From the way it sounds, this is more a pissing match between the airport authority and the airlines. The airport wants to control the network, thus making additional money off of the airlines as a user fee.
As far as I'm concerned, it would make me a lot happier if they wouldn't use WiFi at all except for public internet access. The way the article is written, it sounds like key networking devices are being ran off of WiFi. Is it really that hard to run a network cable guys? | |
|
| | |
Re: Controlling the Air said by cdru The airport wants to control the network, thus making additional money off of the airlines as a user fee. [/BQUOTE:It always comes down to money. | |
|
| | |
to cdru
Of course it comes down to money. As to running mission critical apps, United has been doing ticketing via Wifi since 1998.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
 dadkinsCan you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
kudos:18 |
Simple question...Say I am connected to a network by CAT5, but for some reason my laptop's wireless switch is in the on position... is this grounds for terminating my access for a month? After all, it is transmitting a wireless signal.  --
No Firefox here, move along! | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2004-Nov-15 1:38 pm
Re: Simple question...I think that there has to be a little bit of common sense used here.
Setting up network equipment (including a WiFi) in an airport (public or public building) would have to get approval to do so, as they are using public utilities (i.e. power, location, etc.). Setting up a WiFi hot in your dorm or appartment should not be an issue, as you are already paying for those utilities as part of your rent/lease. Running a business off of it may have some implications though. | |
|
| | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: Simple question...Your argument fails when you realize that it's legal tenants seeking to set up Wi-Fi in both situations--here the battle is with airport tenants (airlines, coffee shops, etc.) who already have space and power, just like a dormie.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| | cdruGo Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 |
to en102
said by en102:I think that there has to be a little bit of common sense used here. Setting up network equipment (including a WiFi) in an airport (public or public building) would have to get approval to do so, as they are using public utilities (i.e. power, location, etc.). That's just it. The airlines are paying rent to use the facility. With that rent, they pay some type of a fee for being able to use the building's electricity, telephones, network, etc. However, their is no wifi network to "plug into". It's part of the 2.4 Ghz unlicensed spectrum that anyone, be it a corporation or an individual, can use. They have just as much right to set up a wireless network inside the building as I do to bring two wireless PCs and setup an ad-hoc network. Now if the airport set up all the AP and the backbones hooking them together, and the airlines just have network cards accessing the airport's backbone, then the airport has a case. But the article doesn't say that. The way the article is written sounds like the Tampa airport claims to basically own the frequency space in the airport, something that federal law specifically says they don't. | |
|
| | |
to dadkins
An airport is just like any other building. If I setup networking equipment of any kind inside the space I lease I do not need to seek any approval. If it is outside of that space or a part of it travels outside then it would only need approval from the airport commision and any applicable permit bureau.
The only exception to this is if the lease states that a certain type of work or installation requires commision approval.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2004-Nov-15 2:12 pm
Re: Simple question...I agree - a portable device - not requiring any physical tie in to a building structure should not need approval (i.e. cell phone, wireless laptop, pda, etc.). Mounting a microcell inside a building and repeaters would require approval, as it is physically connected to the structure. | |
|
| | | calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: Simple question......and you both need to read the linked FCC comment, which says that tenants can set up Wi-Fi without permission from landlords. Tenants already have space, power, etc.
As for the signal "travelling beyond" the space, wireless signals are the exclusive domain of the FCC. I can't prevent my neighbor's Wi-Fi signal from entering my home--but I can configure my PC to ignore it, which I do.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 tomkb
Premium Member
join:2000-11-15
Tampa, FL
kudos:5 |
tomkb
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 1:31 pm
Whatever happened too....The Communications Act of 1934 allows you to receive any radio signal that comes to you. But when you aren't "authorized" to receive it, you cannot tell others what you heard or exploit the content for "gain" (courts usually interpret "gain" as "financial gain"). | |
|
| calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: Whatever happened too....This general doctrine has been limited in MANY ways--most notably in matters relating to encoded satellite broadcasts where the receiving party is avoiding paying a subscription fee.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 exocet_cmPirates?
Premium Member
join:2003-03-23
Virginia
kudos:3
1 edit |
This is how I see it...•1) I am the landlord. I provide internet access. One of my customers sets up their own wireless AP for OTHERS to connect to my network. I would stop them.
•2) I am the landlord. I provide internet access. One of my customers sets up their own wireless AP so THEY (the customer) can connect to my network. I would allow them.
•3) I am the landlord. I provide internet access. One of my customers sets up their own wireless NETWORK so they, and their neighbors can share information. They are not using my interet access. I should have no say in what they are doing.
Update:
•4) I am the landlord. I have my own wireless network and provide access to my customers. One of my customers sets up their own wireless network. It interferes with my network. Although mad, I shouldn't be able to shut down their network (or deny them access).
--
I know that God is real, but I don't think He created this vast universe just for us.
Seti@Home & Seti@Boinc
| |
|
|
••••• |
 TamaraBQuestion The Current Paradigm
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Clearwire Wireless
Apple AirPort Extreme (2013)
SonicWALL TZ215
Cisco SPA122
|
TamaraB
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 1:44 pm
Property rightsThe Airport authority owns the physical property, and can pretty much do what they want with it and within it. What if they placed 802.11 transceivers all over the airport facility, and activated all the channels (leasing bandwidth of course), in doing so, drowning out any "non authorized" use? Seems to me, whether they own the airspace or not, they can indeed control it all very easily, simply by using it all up. The same can be done in apartment buildings by the landlord; they may not own the air-rights, but they own the structure, and can do pretty much do what they want to do within their property. Bob --
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here. | |
|
|
•••••••••••••• |
| |
airwavesif their airspace is 'theirs', that makes my airspace 'mine' ... so, what if a neighbors 'airwaves' cross into my 'airspace' ... I demand rent be paid or trespassing will be declared. --
Been brain-washed lately? Remember, CNN is available 24x7 on the air and online - scrub scrub scrub! | |
|
|
••••• |
 MystBlade
Premium Member
join:2002-10-21
Lacey, WA |
Then they should ban radios tooIn Theory a 2.4 network is nothing more than a smaller radio network with limited range.
I think if they can ban a 2.4 gig network then they should also ban having a Radio or Cell Phone. It does not make no sense to ban a 2.4 gig network. Its free space, soon are the landlords going to charge you for the Oxygen in the air that you consume each month? That is in THERE SPACE. I mean get real | |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian Conservative
Premium Member
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro |
Tzale
Premium Member
2004-Nov-15 6:50 pm
Yes and NoYes, the landlord should be able to decide yes or no.... The landlord can say NO wifi equipment, but he can't say NO wifi signal. Which means he doesn't want a transmitter on his land but he can't stop you from setting one up in your car and parking outside his land.
-Tzale | |
|
| calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA |
Re: Yes and NoTzale,
If you're saying landlords SHOULD be able to ban 802.11 equipment, that may be your opinion. If you are saying that landlords ARE able to ban 802.11 equipment, then you are wrong. See various posts above, including the references to satellite dishes under 1 meter and the references to sexual and racial discrimination laws.
Calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
| |
nowaynohow
Anon
2004-Nov-15 9:25 pm
Ignorant LandlordsThe ruling was made in part because of landloards saying they could dictate use of 2.4 so those who claim otherwise are being ignorant. » wifinetnews.com/archives ··· 937.html | |
|
| |
d3matt
Anon
2004-Nov-16 10:53 pm
University of Texas at DallasJust wanted to verify something... It was the University of Texas at Dallas that did this, not UT. | |
|
| |
MNguyinAZ
Anon
2004-Dec-1 11:53 am
Airports Charging?What airports charge for access? I was just in Portland, Oregon (PDX) and they have free WiFi access throughout the terminal. It was great to sit there with my laptop and wait during my layover and not pay a dime!
I think all airports should offer this service for free.
As for the landlord control or university policy for dorm rooms, there is plenty of case law to show the landlord cannot overstep their authority dictating what types of equipment one may possess in their rental space, unless it is illegal or inherently dangerous (chemicals, etc). Not allowing a 2.4 Ghz Wireless Device of any kind would be like banning a cordless phone operating in the same FREE unlicensed band.
As for the trespassing of signals, part of what kept the hope alive for residents of the former East Germany was that they could listen to radio broadcasts from neighboring West Germany and keep up with world events that were censored by their own state-run communist media. Radio frequencies know no concrete political boundaries. | |
|
| |
Pedro_duarte
Anon
2004-Dec-18 3:06 am
Private-Public NetworkI am no expert on the subject but when thinking about the implications of WIFI and the improved performance of the hardware (reach, connectivity, interoperability), I can't avoid thinking of a community of WIFI equipment owners (individuals not operators). If a community develops and an agrrement is put in place, the whole community -if geographically seamless- could share freely its resources between users as long as each member has the capability to re-transmit other users data. This would in fact make mobile operators obsolete and people would then be able to "talk for free".
Does anyone here know of any such iniciative in the world or any practical example of this? Is any such community developing?
Thanks! | |
|
|
|
·
·
·
