University Bans Wireless Access Points 1211
Slayk writes "The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network. While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC. Students have until the 15th of September to comply with the policy, disable their wireless equipment, and string cat5 over the floor, or be subject to 'disciplinary action.'"
In soviet Georgia Tech... (Score:5, Informative)
Not the first place to do so (Score:3, Informative)
OMG (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, hooking that AP up to the ResNet is certainly against the college's AUP, but that's not what's happening here. Students with private cable modems are setting up a private WiFi network. Since the 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC has sole regulatory authority over them--the college, no matter how prestigious, does not.
The FCC will spank them... (Score:4, Informative)
Part 15 devices are REQUIRED to accept all interference from other devices. The FCC will spank them just to protect their turf, and that will be the end of that.
Same policy exists at Georgia Tech (Score:4, Informative)
Article Text (Score:4, Informative)
The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students not wishing to utilize these "unknown" access points, as the wireless network cards attempt to connect to the nearest and strongest signal available - which is often the "unknown" access points. Locking down the access points does not help this problem, but actually makes it even worse.
A letter has been sent to Waterview Apartment residents describing the situation in some detail and advising them that no wireless access points other than university-installed ones will be allowed - with a specific exception.
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.
Another simple option is to use ethernet cabling to connect everyone in an apartment to the commercial broadband connection. This can be done using a cheap router and some ethernet cables, all readily available at the UTD Tech Store, Radio Shack, Microcenter, CompUSA or a multitude of other places.
Connect the commercial modem (cable/DSL) to the router, then plug in the ethernet cables and connect them back to each computer in the apartment.
NOTE: We do not recommend drilling holes in the walls. This will ultimately cost you more money!
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
This is an unfortunate situation that has problems no matter what the resolution may be. But the free wireless service provided by the university in Waterview must take precedence over those few users who may choose to do something different.
So if you are using a wireless access point (not a wireless card or adapter for your desktop), then you should immediately start considering your options. Sometime within the next few weeks, someone will be knocking on apartment doors to notify those with "unknown" access points that they will need to shut those devices off.
We ask your patience and cooperation during this period and we are working to be sure that both Comcast, SBC and other providers do not recommend using a wireless access point.
802.11a Available Channels:
There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE) (149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)
You guys don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
The parent article/post points this out with this link:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat
In other words, the FCC forbids ANYBODY from telling you that you're not allowed to use your WiFi (Or, as I read it, any other device with an antenna less than one foot in length).
So, if we're not allowed to complain when somebody (UofT) breaks the law and denies us our (Well, Americans') rights, when ARE we allowed to complain?
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
University of Rochester has this, too (Score:2, Informative)
Many unsecured, unfiltered APs=many security holes and conflicts within the network.
It's only right.
Probably some NASA shit going on with Houston.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You guys don't get it (Score:1, Informative)
Try reading the *whole* policy next time. This pertains to RF devices on your own property and network. I've never met a college student that actually purchased their dorm room from the uni.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The FCC will spank them... (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, if students wanted to create a Local Wireless Network, that did not connect to the University's network in any form, perhaps the students could be protected by the FCC. But that is not what is happening.
This is just like an enterprise telling employees not to plugin wireless access points into the enterprise network. The IT dept cannot monitor, manage, and ensure security on a "rogue" access point. The University has deployed wireless access points - so its not like the students do not have that as a service.
I don't see the story here. Universities, enterprises, hospitals, etc are banning "rogue" APs to ensure the use of sanctioned, managed access points. Seems like logical sense to me.
They're not the only ones (Score:2, Informative)
My University has the same policy. (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.morehead-st.edu/units/it/policy.html [morehead-st.edu]MS
The technology policy is pretty wordy and never really says they are prohibited I don't think, but many people are finding out the hard way that it doesn't have to be written down I suppose.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
So:
a) University banning connection of WAP to their network: OK
b) University banning WAP anywhere on their property if it's not connected to their network: Not OK
not such an uncommmon practice... (Score:2, Informative)
1) When you live in a school's dorms/apartments, you agree to follow its rules. For example, the school is a dry campus - you agree not to have alcohol in your abode.
2) The school provides your internet access. If you feel like putting up a AP, go ahead! If we find it we'll turn off your port!
3) When your computer gets compromised because you didn't secure your AP properly, guess who you'll come crying to - us! Think of it as preventative medicine...
That said, like the alcohol rule, the rule is only rarely enforced, basically only if you're not secured or you are on a channel that is being used by our APs.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think Mr Guy gets it best. The FCC Law is about disputes between 2 parties on different lands. IOW, if You and I have adjacent homes, if my phone interferes with your wifi, well, that goes to the Feds rules. Instead this is a single private property and the FCC states that in that band width, if any legal devices are being used, you must accept the interference.
Personally, I am a bit surprised why they did not upgrade to 802.11A where there is so much more bandwidth or simply require that the students use it
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's their network... (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, these devices are not being connected to the university network...
These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites.
So what? The problem is that it is preventing students from getting access to the campus network.
Some students in Waterview have been experiencing problems when trying to connect to the UTD Wireless Network. The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents.
Someone already pointed out there are only so many channels available. If these 100 AP's are dominating the school's network, denying students access to the internal UDT network, I think they are correct to do something about it.
Federal regulations trump that. (Score:5, Informative)
State law trumps (and voids) any lease agreement terms that the state has prohibited. (Example: lease terms that prohibit having a visitor of a particular race.) Voiding the term does not void the rest of the lease.
Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.
Federal law gives the FCC the exclusive authority to regulate the use of the RF spectrum, and the FCC has used this authority to write regulations that explicitly permit anyone to use the unlicensed spectrum (AND mount antennas no larger than one meter) despite any lower-level law, regulation, or contract to the contrary (such as zoning laws or landowner covenants forbidding external antennas). Students in student housing are EXPLICITLY mentioned in the cited FCC memo clarifying the regulation.
The FCC says the students can use the unlicensed spectrum. The FCC has the power to issue that regulation and override the university's Board of Regents on this issue. The Board of Regents or their agents can not penalize the students in any way for violating the voided regulation and exercising their privileges under the FCC ruling (because doing so would mean the regulation was not voided).
The students win.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:1, Informative)
The terms of your lease cannot, however, trump the FCC
Re:The FCC will spank them... (Score:2, Informative)
No, they are not! From the article:
Re:In soviet Georgia Tech... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.
There's an ammendment to the order updating it so that it applies to antennas designed for receiving and transmiting fixed wireless signals, not just TV services.Re:don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In fact...
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
False. (Score:3, Informative)
"The reason (for the network problems) has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
Read that? These access points are plugged into private connections (SBC and Comcast) and not as you assert the school's network. The school is arguing that the students' signal is interfering with the school's signal. However, the school does not own the spectrum of their signal. They are operating in an unlicensed band as all 802.11b/g devices do, and are required, per the FCC, to accept crosstalk on this unlicensed and unlicensable spectrum.
This mandate from the school is not a matter of them asserting their network property. This is a matter of the school superceding the FCC's mandate and trying to create new law and new rules. No-one owns the unlicensed spectrum, but this school wants to. Someone should explain that by attempting to assert exclusive rights over airwaves they do not own license to, they are currently commiting a civil crime.
just to clarify... (Score:2, Informative)
I went to UTD several years ago (before they rolled out wireless,) but I still have several friends that live there, so I'm pretty familiar with their setup.
First of all, the housing on campus isn't run by the university at all. It's a "privately managed community ... and conveniently located on the UTD campus." http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/housing/ [utdallas.edu]
Previous to the university's wireless rollout, residents were unable to connect to the university's network directly and had to rely solely on standard residential broadband (cable/DSL.) After enough pressure, the university caved in and started setting up their own wireless system using standard, unlicensed 802.11b. Each building has a panel antenna mounted on the roof for a backhaul to the campus (about 1/2 a mile away in parts.) That runs down to smaller panel antennas mounted in the center hallway of each floor. They use bluesocket [bluesocket.com] centrally for access control.
Now theoretically you should be able to walk around the apartments and stay connected to their access points. It obviously never works like that, and even sitting in the same place you're subject to very frequent disconnects.
I'm still rather mixed as to how I feel about this overall. I can understand the interference issue with the university-sponsored network, but it was their choice to use unlicensed spectrum. Under FCC Part 15 there is no legal action they can take. I think its ridiculous they didn't even plan on a flood of unlicensed devices migrating in.
Puts on black hat. On the plus side, it was quite amusing to sit in any apartment and see 10-15 access points at once, only a small fraction being encrypted.
Re:Burning down the house (Score:2, Informative)
ah, but that is exactly what is happening
Some students in Waterview have been experiencing problems when trying to connect to the UTD Wireless Network. The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents.
The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's their network... (Score:1, Informative)
- Someone already pointed out there are only so many channels available. If these 100 AP's are dominating the school's network, denying students access to the internal UDT network, I think they are correct to do something about it.
It doesn't matter. If they wanted, they could actually put some effort into it and dedicate one or two channels for private WLANs and the rest for the Uni's network. Then vigorously police this and make sure that private WLANs are only set up on the dedicated channel.Instead, they pussy out and ban ALL privately-owned WAPs. Regardless of their configuration.
Re:You're missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
That seems to be pretty specific and clearly delineates that neither the University, nor any other institution that is NOT the FCC may impose regulations upon either the frequencies themselves, NOR the equipment used to access them. The University CAN deny access to their network, but the original article clearly indicates that these students are using their own, private ISP broadband connections (cable and DSL) and this means the University is just as cleary SOL.
-AC
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
They've ruled on other occasions property owners can't prohibit tennants from installing their own WiFi network instead of requiring them to use the property owner's service. [computerworld.com]
Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & (Score:4, Informative)
The airwaves are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC, and ONLY the FCC. No other body, including Universities, landlords or State Governments may tell you what you can and can't do with regard to public spectrum. There are execptions, the biggest being for safety. Note that the military probably is also exempt from this, though it is a tougher call.
If a landlord put "can kill you anytime during this agreement", would it be legal? Hell, no! There are certain rights that can't be given up just because you sign a piece of paper.
Arguments about landscaping, paint, hotplates or anything NOT REGULATED BY A GOVERNING BODY like the FCC are not relevant.
No, the University could not legally bar you from using an AP as a condition of being enrolled. This is still an attempt to indirectly regulate the public use of airwaves, which is the sole purvue of the FCC. They might try, but it should be found illegal if challenged. (IANAL, I just play on one
Yes, the can ban other stuff not covered by reglating bodies.
Re:It's their network... (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh*
I normally don't reply to AC's, but I'll make this exception.
>If they wanted, they could actually put some effort into it and dedicate one or two channels for private WLANs and the rest for the Uni's network.
The AC obviously did not read the article because the University has just about done exactly that.
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.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps, but that's only because I'm not renting it from you.
For tenants who you're renting a house to, you have no such luxury to break US laws at your whim.
Sure you try to tell them
- If you have a bible I'll kick your ass out out.
- If you have non-organic vegetables I'll kick your ass out.
- If you have prescription drugs I'll kick your ass out.
But if you start trying to regulate spectrum where there are laws giving exclusive powers of such regulation to the FCC, you'll be breaking the law.If your house is in the US, it's appreciated if you abide by US laws. If you want to make up you're own laws, you should secede from the country.
Um, don't know where you went/go to school (Score:3, Informative)
Your "reasonable" expectation of privacy is just that. It doesn't extend past the four walls of your room. If you behave yourself, are quiet, etc, it will never come into question.
--
If there was a minor disturbance, I knocked and asked politely for the resident to simmer down.
If I had reason to believe they were smoking pot or unconscious and dying or something - and they didn't answer the door after knocking - I could declare my intent to enter and key-in to the room.
If I suspected they were violent, roaring drunk, etc, then I called campus security to back me up before I did anything. They, in turn, were in contact with the city police. But our security force was unexpectedly competent for a campus unit.
--
No, you are absoultely right that _we_ can't _search_ their rooms. But anything that is in plain sight is game. And if we have reason to believe someone is, say, hiding in a closet, we can ask the resident to open the closet. If they do not comply, yes, then we have security do it.
Generally, people weren't too obstinate about it.
For example, if you're drinking under age (on private property), you'd rather have the us & the university deal with it than the legal system.
If they argued with us, we called security. If they argued with security, well... You'd get anything from a few hours community service to suspension (automatic, any drug offense) to expulsion (any second drug offense), and possibly criminal charges, if it were serious enough.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, if there were a federal law that stated "any entity which uses shotguns MUST allow shotguns to interfere with them" THEN your analogy would be appropriate.
Here is the problem: UofT is using 802.11 APs for it's own local network, by using those APs they are explicitly required to allow any interference caused by other devices in that wavelength. They are now asking students to remove their APs because they are interfering with their own network. This is against the law. If UofT wanted complete control over a chunk of spectrum, they could have purchased a license from the FCC to do so, instead they saved a LOT of money by using UNLICENSED spectrum and are now effectively saying they control that spectrum they didn't license. It would be equivalent to them not allowing 2.4GHz processors because they interfere (regardless if that is or is NOT the intention of the device) with the network in some way. They can NOT do that.
If the wireless APs were connected to THEIR network, you have a very different reason to disconnect them...not because of interference, but signal theft. That would be an acceptable removal reason, but is not the reason they have stated.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Same policy exists at Georgia Tech (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
When you sign up for university housing, you are entering into a very different contract from the standard renter's contract. They can boot you for many different reasons. You don't have the same rights, because you waive some of those rights when you sign the contract.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
The university does not own nor operate the apartment building in question. Also, while university students have priority for apartments, it's implied that not all of the residents of this apartment complex are associated with the university. The article mentions that they are sharing Comcast cable. Comcast allows routing over wireless, and will even set it up for you for an additional fee, so they're not in violation of the internet provider's TOS.
In short, the university has banned use of a non-university regulated internet connection on non-university regulated property by people who may or may not even be university students(but probably are). Unless the apartment complex has some clause in the lease that tennants have to obey the whims of the university, I doubt this is legal.
Re:Don't get it? Get this. (Score:3, Informative)
a) FCC regulations against using cell phones on airliners.
b) FAA regulations explicitly allowing the pilot in command of an aircraft to prohibit the use of portable electronic devices.
Now, as to why isn't my local DMV breaking the law with their "no cellphone" signs? I think they probably are and haven't been called on it.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stop smoking crack (Score:3, Informative)
Actually a contract can not waive even those rights. Signing a college's silly little housing contract doesn't userp your rights granted to you by your state.
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
The university installed APs in another person's commercial property that is adjacent to their campus (and thus commoningly used by students). The university does not own the property nor does it have any contracts with the residents in those residential rental units. That would be irrelevant even if they did since they can not regulate an unregulated airspace. Doing so would be illegal. There's that very special word again. Illegal. Only the FCC can regulate their unregulated airspace.
Allow me to say it one more time, "read the fucking article or shut up."
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually you can't. The law explicitly states what rights are your's and what rights are the tenants'. Depending on the state in which you live, rights not explicitly granted to the landlord are granted to the tenant. A contract for a residential rental unit can only contain very specific things. Clauses that open holes for arbitrary changes almost always invalidate rental contracts (or they have in every case I've ever researched in my state which would be dozens).
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Again, no it's not legal. It would in fact be illegal. If the law doesn't explicitly state what items the landlords can ban (firearms for example) then the landlord can not ban them.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
Irrelevant. Their intention does not trump their action. What they're doing is still illegal, even if it is in the name of security.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
Ah. Another person who didn't bother to read the article before attempting to talk out their ass like an expert. The university does not own the property. It's owned by a private entity (not the unv). The Unv installed APs to provide 'Net access to its residents (who are mostly Unv students). The APs in question by the residents do not connect to the campus network but instead connect to a commercial ISP's network (such as ComCast which explicitly permits such things). There university's TOS and AUP do not apply to these residents since the residents are not using the campus network.
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Logic and intentions have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of law. The university is trying to tell a neighbor's friends that they can't do something on the neighbor's property. That's not the univerisity's right.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Have you ever written a lease agreement?
There are many sorts of behaviour that landlords are expressly prohibited from restricting.
While I do not know specifically about unlicensed transmitters in the 802.11 frequency, I do know that many other types of recievers and transmitters are protected by federal law. Landlords cannot prohibit satellite antenae less than one meter in diameter in any space under the sole control of the tenant.
Leases can prohibit some legal activities, but there are also specific limits to allowable lease terms.
a 1996 ruling regarding satelite that applies (Score:1, Informative)
regarding satelite dishes
that states
that housing associations (in this case the college)
can't prohibit tenants from putting
up satelite dishes for any reason.
the ruling is worded such that it applies in this case
Some Clarification (Score:2, Informative)
The university is using a campus policy prohibiting the operation of wireless equipment by faculty and staff in the classroom buildings to try to ban the operation of private access points in residences governed under tenant law, not campus policy. That is unenforceable. The only problem is that most students will simply capitulate in order to avoid trouble.
A word on the wireless access itself. It was originally installed in phase eight of the campus housing in the fall of 2001. That was my freshman year. Connectivity was decent, but there were many restrictions. If you uploaded too many files by FTP, for example, you would be dropped and banned for one hour. Since I worked in web design and internet applications programming, this was unacceptable. I got my own connection. Since then, the wireless has been expanded to all residential housing. It has never been the same since. Instead of installing wiring to each phase and then using wireless inside the phases, all the phases are operating on a giant radio mesh back to phase eight where the connectivity to campus is. Bandwidth is terrible. Many times it is non-existant. In order to alleviate security concerns, they recently rolled out 802.1x authentication using PEAP.
Now the network doesn't even work for most users. Many of my friends and myself are now unable to connect, even when assisted by the campus help desk. Instructions are followed to the letter, with the result of "802.1x authentication failed."
This leaves residents with no recourse but to seek other connectivity.
The simplest way to share a connection in these apartments is with wireless connectivity. It is also the safest, since the fire marshall will write tickets for cables running across the apartment during his regular inspections (these are allowed through an addendum to the lease contract). So, running cables can result in a fine.
The campus information resources department is now blaming all their problems on "rogue" access points. They claim that the connectivity issues are being caused by too many access points in the phases. I would like to point out that even when WAP's were still $200-$300 and no students had them, the connectivity was bad.
The advice I give to my friends is this: Turn off SSID broadcast. They are too stupid to be able to find them if they can't just browse them. On top of that, simply refuse them access to your apartment. The only people allowed in are campus police, maintenace, and the fire department. That is in the contract, hold them to it. Last, don't be afraid to call a lawyer. Free money is free money. There are probably many lawyers out there who will see this as a goldmine.
If a campus official is reading this, here is a message: Maybe you should have run this by the campus legal department first. These apartments are governed under tenant laws, not campus policy. By detecting and shutting down access points, you may be committing several punishable hacking offenses. (Warchalking, anyone?) By governing unlicensed spectrum, you are very possibly in violation of federal law.
And by saying that access points running on seperate channels are interfering with your connections (despite evidence from students that this is not the case), they are simply showing your ignorance of current technologies. They should ban cell phones, wireless phones, and water heaters first. All of those cause proven interference.
Re:Stop smoking crack (Score:3, Informative)
You can't say the University is the landlord for wireless purposes, but not for the rest of the things a landlord is responsible for...
And as for changing the lease agreement - I have yet to be sent anything from Waterview saying this is a new stipulation to my lease, as the lease that I signed said would occur if any changes happened.... Plus, my leases says I'm not subject to those changes until my lease ends (which occurs in July of 2005, well after Sept 15th anyway...)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't you read the definition on FindLaw [findlaw.com]
It is also amusing you so casually dismiss the firearm example. The bill of rights establishes your right to own a firearm, and landlords can and do force you to relinquish that right... yet some bullshit congressional act regarding radio frequencies doesn't carry the same weight?
Try and think logically here, at the very least.
Too Bad they don't OWN the property.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
as for signing an agreement that your enrollment in a university is contingent upon certain things, if those certain things come into conflict with any local, state, or federal laws, the laws win out. the FCC has been granted _exclusive authority_ to regulate the RF spectrum. any attempt to regulate the spectrum by a private entity, whether directly or indirectly, is disallowed. that's the mistake you're making - the "exclusive" part.
a wireless access point (operated according to US law and FCC regs) is not a "jamming device". they have been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference, and any attempt by the university to suggest otherwise will be dismissed outright.
the students and the university are, in fact, independent entites. the existence of a contract (such as terms of enrollment) between the two cannot change that fact. in any case, the situation is even more separate here - the college does not own the apartments that the students live in, nor do they provide or own the internet connection the students are using to connect the APs to the internet.
you make a convincing argument, but it's unfortunately based on incorrect assumptions.
Re:Federal regulations trump that. (Score:2, Informative)
IOW, the appartments are private residences that are not owned and opperated by the University.
Not all of the residents can or want to use the university's WAP connections.
The FCC has ruled (see the link to the massport ruling) that landlords can not regulate the use of unlicensed radio frequencies and specifically states that tenents in multi tenent facilities have the right to set up their own, individual, wi-fi networks within the multi tenent facility.
Further, the FCC states that all users of unlicensed radio frequencies must accept all interference and may not interfere with licensed radio frequencies. (Which is why you can't use your cell phones and other electronic devices during take off, they interfere with the radio freqiences that the air port has licensed.)
If any of the students decide to contest the university on this point, they will likely win.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
As I suspected, the FCC begs to differ. [fcc.gov]
From the second paragraph, "We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."
If Waterview wants to provide exclusive service over their apartments, they are welcome to do so in FCC restricted bandwidth in accordance with FCC law. But they cannot legally prohibit operation of 802.11x transmitters.
Not that I would expect this to bother you since in other posts you've shown that you really prefer not to respect the rights of your tenants.
landlords(sic) (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.
Did you mean to say, "landlords (like the university) routinely illegally restrict all kinds of behavior"? You may be able to bully your tenants (if they actually exist and all this isn't just juvenile internet bravado) into compliance, but that doesn't make you right.
University of Kentucky (Score:2, Informative)
This makes a lot of sense (Score:1, Informative)
Anyways, its about damned time.
Enough Said (Score:1, Informative)
Same thing, different playground.
university backs down (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.utdmercury.com/news/2004/09/07/News/Tru ce.Declared.In.Wireless.War-715827.shtml [utdmercury.com]
UTD Information Resources officials said Sept. 10 they are reversing their previous decision to ban private wireless access points in Waterview Park after the discovery of an FCC ruling prohibiting such a move.
In a Sept. 8 letter distributed throughout Waterview Park, UTD threatened disciplinary action against residents running personal wireless access points. The move was intended to solve connectivity issues, said Doug Jackson, director of information resources.
However, a public notice dated June 24, 2004, from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) - which regulates all wireless signals in the United States - affirmed that consumers have the right to install and operate wireless access points.
The access points allow private DSL or cable modem Internet connections to be shared among multiple people within range of the access point.
The FCC notice also states, under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC holds exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio frequency interference issues.
"Based on what they (the FCC) say, I'm going to have to back away from the policy," said Bill Hargrove, executive director of information resources. He suspects the university could make an argument to support the decision, "but it's not worth the brouhaha."
The initial policy sparked a firestorm among affected students on websites including waterviewsux.com, utdmercury.com and slashdot.org, a national online discussion forum of technical issues.
Many students expressed anger over a portion of the distributed letter which speculated that users with private access points may be engaging "in activities
"It infuriated me, to see it insinuating that we were all pirates for choosing to use our own Internet connection. It made my blood boil pretty quick," said senior electrical engineering major Trent Jacobs.
Jacobs installed DSL in his Phase Two apartment several years ago before the wireless network existed and continues to use it so he can access his computer as a file server from off-campus, which cannot be done through the campus network. He also said he cannot access UTD's wireless network in some parts of his apartment.
IR is working on various solutions to improve the connection and the access point policy was seen as one method to combat the troubles the system has had, Jackson said.
"We went out and did some serious investigation and discovered a correlation between locations with multiple access points and the people with connectivity issues," Jackson said.
Once the IR department asked users to turn off their access points, the problems went away, he said.
Previously, only a few existed on campus but, "we went from a handful to hundreds this fall," Jackson said.
The connectivity problem stems from the fact that, if not told to do otherwise, many wireless cards will automatically connect to the strongest signal available. In Waterview's case, a network card might jump onto a neighbor's stronger access point instead of the possibly weaker UTD wireless network. The network swap can cause a "denial of service" conflict and a failure to connect to the Internet, Jackson said.
IR officials said they hoped shutting down personal access points would stop cards from arbitrarily swapping their signal source.
Other universities including George Washington, Georgia Tech and UT Austin presently ban private wireless networks, although only in university-owned residences.
Hargrove also took into account the fact UTD does not own all of the apartments.
"It (Waterview) falls into a gra