 joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | The school can ban certain networks if it wishes quote:
Legally, the college has absolutely no right to try and regulate use of the 2.4GHz spectrum.
What does that mean? Of course they can't regulate the spectrum, just like they cannot regulate how coca-cola is made. They can bar students from bringing coca-cola into certain buildings, and they can ban them from using "unauthorized" Wi-Fi. Hell, they can even ban all students from having laptops on campus if they wanted to.
I agree the rule is stupid, but the school has the right to implement it. | |
|
 | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Re: The school can ban certain networks if it wishes As a state-run school, they have less leeway to implement arbitrary policies. Being that the spectrum is crowded, there may be a rational basis for this rule, though. | |
|
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: The school can ban certain networks if it wishes said by vpoko  :
As a state-run school, they have less leeway to implement arbitrary policies. Being that the spectrum is crowded, there may be a rational basis for this rule, though.
Even as a state-run institution, they can be as arbitrary as they wish so long as they do not violate the Constitution, civil rights laws' or an individual's due process.
Or to put it differently, they can have inane, arbitrary rules, but as state run institution they cannot be arbitrary in enforcement and must provide due process to those accused. But there is no requirement the rule by a good one, so long as it is semi-rational. If they want to ban gum from an auditorium, they don't have to prove that people are sticking their gum under the desks, they can just ban it. | |
|
| | | Syth
join:2002-06-05
Katy, TX
| Re: The school can ban certain networks if it wishes Really? Then why was I not allowed to keep a firearm in my dorm room? Why am I not allowed to bring a firearm into a bar or a liquor store? The Constitution says I can keep one on me, but it wasn't allowed at my school. That is because in order to attend a university and to live on that university's campus, you sign a contract and agree to follow their rules. If they say no wireless access points, then they have the right to kick you off of their property and out of their school if you violate that rule. | |
|
| | | | Syth
join:2002-06-05
Katy, TX | Re: The school can ban certain networks if it wishes Blah, the above is a reply to the wrong post. | |
|
| |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| "Absolutely no right"? Huh? There are only so many possible wireless access points that can fit in a given area, and an enterprise often spends considerable effort to spread the access points around such that they don't interfere with each other (say, putting the same channels on the opposite sides of the campus).
Demanding that members of that enterprise not interfere with that seems really reasonable to me.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
|
| |
| | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
1 edit | Re: "Absolutely no right"? Well, you have an argument there, but I suspect the court would come down on the side on the school, but it would place an additional burden on the school to prove its reasonable.
But a school can still regulate its students more than you might think. At my college, many students faced "disciplinary action" for being in the dorm room of the wrong gender after a certain hour, even if he/she was behaving themselves. If a school can regulate when a student can visit another in the dorms (something, say, an apartment generally cannot do) then I have little doubt that they can regulate whether a student can set up a wireless network on campus. Students in dorms have less rights than a general renter.
But I like the new phrasing on the summary better. "Some would argue" is a more accurate description than "absolutely no right". | |
|
| | | 
IgorKane
@140.192.x.x
| Re: "Absolutely no right"? I don't know if we (I work for a private university) officially ban private access points, but if we want something off the network, we find out where it is and disable the port on the router. Let them come to us and explain. I think we could do the same with wireless access points, but that would be a helluva waste of time. | |
|
| |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by Karl Bode :
There's still plenty of debate over whether a landlord or a spectrum user has the right of way....
Well in this case, "landlord" has nothing to do with it: en loco parentis-type reasoning has been dramatically on the upswing, with colleges legally being able to do nearly anything in the place of the parent.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
|
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: "Absolutely no right"? Well that's a fair argument, but there was widespread suspicion that the airports simply wanted to treat it as a revenue issue. In the case of UT, they do permit wireless access point usage as long as it's set up in a non-interfering manner, so they have a much better case for a legitimate reason for restrictions than does the airport.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
|
| | | | | | | 
b_zen
Premium
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·TTNet
| Re: "Absolutely no right"? I'm not sure of the legalities behind it... But by owning land, you usually own the surface-down to a specified max. By using airwave (FCC domain), even if originating from within your premise, I wonder the kind of argument you have, and whether you can/cannot enforce it.
I guess you'd have a case on the point of origin of the wave, eventhough, it seem you would have to ban the hardware altogether, not the servicing...
Any thoughts?
--
UWB over Wire is the future!
3Plink.com |Voice|Video|Data| | |
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA
1 edit | Why? im not seeing why a college student would need their own wireless network. | |
|
| navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Re: Why? a laptop in his or her dorm room ... they may want to sit on their bed do the work, take it in the hall ... another room close by... back to topic now... | |
|
| | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Why? Is it not possible to change to a different channel than the schools' system? I thought that was the whole idea of channels on Wireless as well as cordless phones. So if you were to put an AP in your room, turn down the signal strength to a respectable level, and turn off SSID broadcast, would it really hurt anything?
puritan | |
|
| 
StingerMoD
join:2002-10-16
Calgary, AB | So they can have their own P2P network where they can share music? Nabie the RIAA had some intervention? | |
|
| | 
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs: | Re: Why? WiFi doesn't make it any easier to share music, especially given the limited range and the low speed when compared to 100mbps ether.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
|
|
fundamentalz
The Basics
Premium
join:2004-04-30
Moorpark, CA | considering dorms arent very big, they can just buy a 25 foot ethernet cord for like 10 dollars. | |
|
| | 
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: Why? they don't have Dorms at UTD. Only apartments. | |
|
| |
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | How will the catch students? Are they really going to do a fox-hunt with direction-finding equipment? If they do, how will they know they're not following a 2.4G cordless phone signal? | |
|
| dustyd
join:2004-09-09 | Re: How will the catch students? Grab your nearest PocketPc with a wireless card, install MiniStumbler... you're set. | |
|
| | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: How will the catch students? Not if you turn off SSID broadcasting. You will never find it.
puritan | |
|
| | | 
cailyoung
join:2003-06-30
Australia
| Re: How will the catch students? said by wentlanc :
Not if you turn off SSID broadcasting. You will never find it.
You can still see signal strength, AP MAC (and therefore vendor), and amount of data transmitted though. So, disabling SSID broadcast doesn't make you any harder to find. | |
|
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | yes but They are just going to irritate the rank and file, to the point where they will all just turn them on and ruin it for everyone. | |
|
navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Umm... not exactly they do have the right to say how their campus internet is used | |
|
| TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs: | Re: Umm... not exactly But it seems that they are trying to regulate a "non-campus" network - service provided by SBC/Comcast. | |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Silly news item What a waste of space this item is.
That last sentence about the legality of regulating the spectrum is silly and almost seems to be a trolling comment.
Everyone that has posted so far before me is right on. | |
|
| 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Silly news item How is it silly?
They're threatening legal action over something that's still very murky in regards to the law, opening themselves up to significant damages if a court teeters one way or the other.... | |
|
| |
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Silly news item Not silly how it's written out now. Earlier, before the news item was amended, the last sentence was too conclusory.
I think it's fine now. As a lawyer, I feel that legal conclusions without any basis in law are automatically--alebeit rebuttably--faulty. | |
|
| | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Silly news item Yes thanks, I changed it...it was too absolute for sure.... | |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | Well I see the solution to this. Plant the hotspots off campus, with high gain point to point links into campus connected to the person's client. Technically the on campus person isn't running a hot spot, just connected to one. | |
|
warriors
It's A Great Time Out
join:2001-06-05
Alviso, CA | United States has 49 states and Texas. Ban Wi-Fi? Go Figure! | |
|
| |
apsinkus
join:2002-06-25
Chicago, IL
| it won't stand up in court FCC Part 15 rules don't allow ANYBODY but FCC to regulate 2.4G range. HAMs have priority in this band and others are secondary users (including this school). Since those kids are feeding their access points with broadband from SBC or Comcast, school has NO RIGHT to tell them what to do.
You will see, if this goes to court, school will be the looser.
Also, what is a WISP sold a connection to one of those kids and pointed a fine strong sector at that building? School would loose to. I have a feeling UT is just doing this, because they think that students can't afford to sue.
School can only require that those APs are not connected to school network.
Imagine this, a municipality tells everybody that only city APs are allowed and nobody else is allowed in a 2.4G range. This will hold up in court like my argument that I deserve a Lamborghini for free.
Sorry guys, but most of you are wrong here, read the laws. | |
|
|
See 25 replies to this post |
|
navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Not Unique By the way - this isn't unique, Texas Tech University does this as well, UT (I believe), UTA, and A & M (I believe). | |
|
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| So 2.4GHz is crowded... The students should run 802.11a (5GHz) access points instead and see what happens. Then it can be determined if the school is trying to prevent interference or trying to protect a monopoly.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| achuchma
join:2001-04-11
Tampa, FL
| Re: So 2.4GHz is crowded... I honestly think that the school is doing it because of interference with their own network.
If the students move to a different frequency range, then I do not see where there could be any issues.
Just my $0.02
--
Playing the Tuba isn't an art, it's an adventure! http://www.lakesidepride.org | |
|
| | |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by n2jtx :
The students should run 802.11a (5GHz) access points instead and see what happens.
said by the university:
No 802.11b or 802.11g wireless access points may be installed within the Waterview Apartments by residents. Only 802.11a wireless access points will be allowed and those must be set only to the specific channels provided for that purpose (see list below). In other words, no access points using the 2.4GHz band may be used and only certain frequencies in the 5GHz spectrum.
I guess that pretty much spells it out.
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
|
| |
| |
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Its simple If you can't get the campus wireless signal in your dorm, then set up your wireless router. If you can, there would be no point in setting your own up. A college should have no problem with someone setting up wireless in an uncovered area. | |
|
| Hellfish
join:2003-02-26
Naperville, IL | Re: Its simple i think these are people in private rented apartments though. This is where the issue arrises where the campus has no say over private residences | |
|
| |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| Re: Its simple said by Hellfish :
i think these are people in private rented apartments though. This is where the issue arrises where the campus has no say over private residences
It's on University property with a private company contracted for management. The U gets to call the shots here.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
|
| | 
jolmy
The Spring 2004
join:2003-03-20
Malaysia
| said by Hellfish :
i think these are people in private rented apartments though. This is where the issue arrises where the campus has no say over private residences
This is absolutely right. Suppose I live just next to the university on my very OWN premise, and I set up a 802.11b wireless AP at my premise, and it causes intereference to the university's network, they have absolutely NO right to ban 802.11b in my premise. | |
|
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| If its true your in a private apartment, then the university has nothing. Any lawsuit they bring should be thrown out immediately when the judge see they are suing over the rights to unregulated spectrum. If they want their own private signal, they can go and pay the billions it costs to buy the rights to some spectrum. Otherwise they have the right to shut up about it. Now if your on dorm property, as long as its in the contract you signed, they can give you the boot with no problems. Only I wonder how they determine who is spilling out the wireless signals? Then to repeat myself, if you can get their signal in the dorm, why would you want to set up your own router? Seems pointless. | |
|
Forgotmypassword
@indiana.edu | Security, not frequency Indiana University does it too, but not for the same reasons.
These kids don't know how to secure their WAPS and thus would be giving free service to anyone who is within range.
It's a security issue really. | |
|
| Queasy
join:2004-01-20
Lawrenceville, GA | Re: Security, not frequency This would be a security issue for Comcast or SBC then, not the University. These WAPs are being used to connect to other service providers, not the campus Wi-Fi provider. | |
|
apsinkus
join:2002-06-25
Chicago, IL
| here is where my comments stem from... I stand by my claim that this would not hold up in the court of law. THEY CAN PUT ALL THEY WANT in the leases of apartments, contracts are only worth the paper they are written on if they are not written with the law AND cases backing it. Good example are non-compete employment contracts. A huge chunk of them never hold up in court when contested. It does not matter that you signed them and etc. at times employer has no right to enforce certain non-compete clauses. I can leave my job tomorrow (I do have non-compete) and go to a competitor, as long as I don't do certain things, there is nothing my current employer could do.
I am also talking from experience:
I do operations for my 204-unit condo association. We were considering doing free wireless access to our residents. We had to scrap the plans, because of interferance issues and ability to enforce certain rules to reduce it. Our attorney did show to us that there was no way we could prevent somebody from doing WiFi in their units no matter how we spin it, we could not stop somebody from using a device in an unlicensed spectrum UNLESS we could prove it was a public safety issue (that is where that airport case comes in). Airwaves are owned by the federal government and ONLY federal government can tell you what you can or can not run.
That all said, if I had a lease that told me that I can not have my own access point fed by my own data pipe from my own provider, I could ignore it, because it will NOT hold up in court if I choose to fight them. All these schools are just using the fact that those kids might not know how to get pro-bono legal advice and defence or can't afford an attorney (and federal cases are expensive to litigate). What they also don't realize is that someone will take this to court and all those schools will have to change their policies because they are dealing with UNLICENSED spectrum.
WE CAN ALL ARGUE UNTIL OUR HEADS TURN BLUE, but the bottom line is that over time courts will show who is right and who is wrong. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Nam Vet
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Allentown, PA
| lets put it this way I have a cell phone and I get on a Greyhound going from point a to point b can Greyhound forbid the use of cell phones?
Or I visit my mother in the hospital and there is a sign at the door stating that cell phone use is prohibited because it "might" interfer with equiptment. then you see every single employee of that hospital, from janitors to surgens using cell phones and after asking finding they use the same system I use!
--
There's No Place Like 127. 0. 0. 1 | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
|
| 
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The FCC already decided this one... said by qworster :
Recently, the FCC ruled AGAINST a state airport authority who decided that as the landlord of the airport, THEY had the right to decide where, when and by who hotspots could be used. The FCC ruled that they had NO RIGHT to regulate anything.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···44A1.doc
Under FCC rules, fixed wireless customer antennas protected by OTARD are those used to receive and/or transmit “fixed wireless signals” – i.e., commercial nonbroadcast communications signals “to and/or from a fixed customer location.” ... The rules prohibit homeowner associations, landlords, state and local governments, or any other third parties from placing restrictions that impair a customer antenna user's ability to install, maintain, or use such customer antennas transmitting and/or receiving commercial nonbroadcast communications signals when the antenna is located “on property within the exclusive use or control” of the user where the user has a “direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property, except under certain exceptions for safety and historic preservation." And that is why the university would win. The Over the Air Reception Devices rules pertain only to commercial nonbroadcast communication signals. In the airport case, this involved business tenants (airlines) maintaining wireless signals for internal operations of the business. The WAPs are not being used to relay service to a customer or carry out business operations. As well, the in locos parentis rules governing the relationship between a student and a university might be applicable (depends on the state) which would affect the exclusive use or control clause.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
| | telarium
join:2004-02-28
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The FCC already decided this one... There is a small flaw in the above argument.
Being this is a state school, the students residing on its campus have both direct and indirect ownership of the campus - in fact, every tax-paying citizen within the state where this campus resides holds some form of direct and indirect ownership. We wouldn't consider this 'real' property in the law world, but nevertheless property of some sort - and public property at that.
I don't really see the connection between in locos parentis and laws governing the use of spectrum. Even if the college did have some form of legal, parental, guardian control over the students - there is simply no precedent that states explicitly that a college can act as a guardian ad litem , per se, between the parents and the state, and especially between the state and the federal government.
This is, however, a state school - and thus I find the students being unsuccessful on the grounds that the college, or essentially the state/federal government, would probably apply the rational basis test:
Is the government's (or in this case, the school's) action a rational means of accomplishing a legitimate end? I believe it is.
Does this infringe on some fundamental right? I believe it doesn't. -- But assuming it does, does preventing interference to a publicly funded network situated on public property constitute a compelling state interest? Still, I believe it is a compelling state interest to prevent interference.
There was a case some time ago that went something like this (mind you, this will be slightly abridged):
A group of people went to the public library to study the reading habits of random people during certain weeks. They would stand in line and record (write down) what people were checking out. They caused problems with holding up the line, confusing people checking out, and generally disrupted the flow of library operations. The library ejected them - not on the grounds that they might have stepped on the fundamental right to privacy -- but merely on the grounds that they were interfering with a public service.
Brad | |
|
| | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The FCC already decided this one... said by telarium :
I don't really see the connection between in locos parentis and laws governing the use of spectrum. Even if the college did have some form of legal, parental, guardian control over the students - there is simply no precedent that states explicitly that a college can act as a guardian ad litem , per se, between the parents and the state, and especially between the state and the federal government.
I wasn't sure on that one either, but I know that in some states the college is able to regulate whether or not students may subscribe to cable television (even if available) on school property through in locos parentis, but I'm only familiar with broadband rulings, so maybe there is another reason for that power (like ROW).
It does look like the government may have a case just by looking at the OTARD rules themselves. The FCC protections for over the air receivers (and transmitters) only apply to commercial communication signals, and if SBC/Comcast do not support home networking, then the WAPs are not an extension of their commercial service and hence not commercial service receivers.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
| | | | telarium
join:2004-02-28
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The FCC already decided this one... Even if SBC/Comcast did not support home networking - someone could make a prima facie (gosh, all this Latin) case that essentially, a WAP is merely an extension of a commercial service if it is connected to that service, even if the commercial provider explicitly states that they may not use WAPs in their network (for reasons other than public interference) or do not support networking (again, for reasons other than public interference).
I look at it this way - everything not in the public or religious realm, is essentially a commercial service. If money is being transacted (in this case, transacted through a company conducting interstate commerce) then it must be governed and termed as commercial. Even if a device relating to a service, but not specifically authorized, attaches itself - it becomes another link in the commercial chain, automatically relating itself to some form of commercial service.
I need to get some case law on this to help better provide some foundation -- but I'll need some time.
Brad | |
|
| | | | |
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: The FCC already decided this one... said by telarium :
Even if SBC/Comcast did not support home networking - someone could make a prima facie (gosh, all this Latin) case that essentially, a WAP is merely an extension of a commercial service if it is connected to that service, even if the commercial provider explicitly states that they may not use WAPs in their network (for reasons other than public interference) or do not support networking (again, for reasons other than public interference).
That would probably be precisely the case that would have to be made. The airline/airport ruling that keeps getting cited is clearly not applicable since that pertained to a commercial tenant running their own wireless networking for the use of customers and internal business operations.
I do not think it has ever been made clear by the FCC or the courts whether or not a home wirless networking would constitute a commercial non-broadcast wireless signal if hooked up to an internet service. I have been trying to brainstorm out a similar type of equipment, but everything else I can come up with is definitely considered by the service provider to be an extension of their commercial service.
I guess vague and unresolved rules are the whole point of going to court in the first place 
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Member: American Association of Geographers, American Geophysical Union, American Water Resources Association | |
|
|
|
|
College Wi-Fi Ban
·
·