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.'"
Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other if those apartments do not belong to the university, then I wouldn't see how they should even try and enforce this.
In either case, it's not much of an issue - and it's not a freedom of speech / censorship issue, since they DO allow private access to the internet by wired means...
Wah Wah Wah my rights! (Score:2, Insightful)
don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Go buy an 802.11a access point...and operate at 5Ghz
Sure....it costs more and has less range but it should be adequate.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Get over it (Score:1, Insightful)
Then again, I went to a private University with must stricter rules than any public school. Even then, they weren't that bad. But I learned nice and quick that the school makes the rules and you're the one that is choosing to attend. That doesn't mean you have a "right" to attend. It's a little different with public schools, but the idea is still the same.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's no problem here, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.
Re:Not rocket science (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not quite that simple...while the rooms might be theirs, the radio spectrum everywhere is regulated as public property under the FCC's authority. When they say everybody has a right to a portion of it, no one else is allowed to keep others from using it. Their ownership of property where that radio transmission will occur has no bearing on that.
Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & shu (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the contract? The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of their contract or demand payement for it? I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.
2) Can the university bar the access points as a condition of being an enrolled student? If so, can they also ban other legal activities such as gambling, marching in protest or interracial dating? Not sure of the answer, but my guess is they can't.
I'm inclined to believe that the U. is without recourse here, at least one an affected student gets a lawyer. If they wanted to control the spectrum, they should've used a licensed band instead. I expect the policy won't last long.
"Their" apartment? (Score:2, Insightful)
The second problem is that it's the school's network that's getting boned by this behavior, and that means that students' wireless networks are screwing over other students. The school also has the right to set ground rules regarding on-campus network usage.
In any case, nobody ever died because they had to use Cat5. I did it at my alma mater for four years, because either nobody had or nobody could afford wireless gear at the time. I'm sure you and your classmates will survive, somehow, this minor restriction in privilege.
Re:Not rocket science (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who signs up for college agrees to follow their rules practices. That's a contract, and its binding. They can't stop you from using the unlicensed spectrum, but they can kick you off their campus, as its theirs.
Similarly, I've a right to use my cellphone, but if I try it on an airplane, they'll kick me off.
I've a right to privacy, but if I try and board an airplane without ID, they'll tell me to fuck off.
It's their property, and they decide what you can and cannot do while you're on it.
Um.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The comment above from the original poster seems to be a bit on the daft side. Sure, it's unlicensed. However, they are providing access to the school network. They aren't infringing on any rights of students by protecting their own network.
If it were me, I'd have said "get rid of them, or you can pay our internal security guy $200/hr, with 2 hours minimum, plus cost of hardware, to come out and install our own wireless AP in your place"
It's stupid, uninformed, biased crap like the original comment above that makes people look more, and more stupid as time goes by.
Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights! (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the FCC you do have a fundamental right to install WiFi routers wherever you see fit. There was a link to that specific bit of info cleverly hidden in plain view in the article.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Students have every right to access part of the spectrum, but the University still has the right to expell them if they violate the part of the agreement that lists what they may and may not use in their dormroom.
Oh FFS (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole story should be modded Score:-1, Overrated. A university apartment is *not* the student's property - it's *university* property and the university can impose regulations like this as they see fit. The FCC aren't going to care if a university prohibits the use of a non-University provided AP, there's no law stopping the University from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students. If the student doesn't like the policy they are free to rent privately or go to another university. It's no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot. That's not pre-empting the FAA which regulates airspace - it's simply the landowner (the university) imposing conditions of using their land.
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different - if you don't like the rule, rent an apartment where the rules don't forbid 802.11b. It's entirely reasonable for the university to restrict 802.11b access points being plugged into *their* network too from a security point of view (non-secured AP + wardriver = nice big hole through any firewall they have).
Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights! (Score:2, Insightful)
Again, while the radio waves may be unregulated and under FCC jurisdiction, the action of setting up a wireless AP can be restricted.
Get over your geeky selves and realize your right to use a radio spectrum doesn't trump a property owner's right to tell you what to do while on their property.
Just because smoking is legal doesn't mean you can't be prevented from doing so on someone's property. There's no violation of your rights if they do so.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Schools do this kind of thing all the time. Some schools ban couches on front porches because they end up being used for bonfires after games. No different.
All these rants about spectrum and the FCC and blah blah blah. They're banning a DEVICE, a thing, schools do it all the time, like the above example, or hotplates, or whatever the item may be. This is no different.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.
You might be able to parse it to apply to services provided by the resident, until you get to this:
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?
A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.
Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
Private schools do have stricter rules. However no university in the US is allowed to enforce policy that conflicts with federal law. Any student who wants to fight this should have an easy case. And most universities have a student legal service who will represent you for free (a lot of fine print in there though)
Where is your address again ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is as simple as that - Ever been to a LARGE conference (1000+) that offers wireless ? Every time I have gone - it takes about 2 days for the networking people to shutdown all of the stupid idiots that have open wireless on their laptops so the network can stabalize.
So what you are asking for is for the University to not be allowed to run a stable wireless network.
This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band - anyone can push a signal there, making interference the norm. Of course if it was regulated, none of us could use the spectrum, and it would be useless.
I think a happy medium is for the University to provide a wireless network, and then ask its users to not build a second network inside of it - to reduce interference. After all, how would you like it if I started broadcasting an encrypted wireless network in such a way that you couldn't use your wireless connection - or it always interfered and you could never get a clean signal ?
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The FCC will spank them... (Score:4, Insightful)
A contract that says I'll work for you for less than the legal minimum wage is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't install a DBS dish under any circumstances is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't use a HAM radio on the property is unenforceable.
A property deed that says I can never resell the property to someone with a different skin color than mine is unenforceable.
And in this case,
A lease that says I can't install a wireless access point in unlicensed spectrum is unenforceable. [computerworld.com]
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you try to use your unregulated wireless device in my house, I can kick your ass out. I don't even have to give a reason. I also believe that the courts would support me.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the brunt of the FCC ruling is that any clauses prohibiting the use of unregulated devices are held legally void. Even if you signed an agreement that says you're not going to use an unregulated device, this FCC ruling voids those terms. Why? Because Federal law trumps everything else.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The person recieves the particular fixed wireless service that the person desires - i.e. you can recieve the wireless service from a specific provider not simply a provider selected by the association.
If you really want SBC DSL or Cox cable internet, UTD doesn't give you that option - you have to go through THEIR internet.
The central-antenna exception really applys to landlords who, in the past, provided you a cable in your apartment that recieved TV signals. In that case it'd be "pick any provider you want" since you were in control of the tuner. When it comes to wifi this isn't the case since the "provider" is easily not just the IP you want but also the carrier of your wifi signal.
Re:Oh FFS (Score:3, Insightful)
The last point of whether or not they can regulate the equipment attached to their network is also debatable. This could be likened to your ISP preventing NAT-based routers from being attached to their network; but at any rate, this is a seperate debate altogether.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? So do lots of schools... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I do think that any university has the right to keep its own network from being accessed via a WAP.
So, for example, let's assume a dorm with two students with one computer each. They have the right to set up file sharing between those computers via a WAP. The university has no right to stop that. However, the university has every right to restrict the sharing of its network.
I guess it all depends on how a university is banning WAPs. If its an all-out ban. Than the univeristy is violating the students' rights. However, if a university is only banning WAPs which connect to its own network, such a ban would be legal.
Re:Federal regulations trump that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but you yourself quoted that (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association)
The wireless APs being used by the University connect to their network--and not to the local cable network, which is what the users in question want. My reading of the above says this trumps the centralized antenna.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
According to http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/waterv
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a leaseholder, you have certain rights regardless of what the property owner says. The school is wrong and I doubt they are playing semantics.
If they are, then hell -- get two wireless NIC cards and put one in AP mode. Semantics all your own.
Re:You're missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
not ban having heat in your apartment
There is no federal law allowing everyone to use heat and saying that the Federal Heat Authority is the only organization allowed to regulate the use of the spectrum.
banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range
It bans the use of the 2.4GHz range for Wireless APs - which is the same as regulating it. They could try banning antennas which broadcast at 2.4GHz as well, saying "we're not banning the use of the spectrum!" but I'd still say they're full of it.
And also!
Remember that you can use certain wireless cards as APs, using the "hostap" driver. The university can't ban wireless cards, obviously, as they need the students to be able to use them! And if it tries to say "You can't use the wireless cards as APs" that is clearly them attempting to regulate the unlicensed portion of the spectrum. They can't do this - they overstepped their authority.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the apartments do not belong to the university.
According to http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/waterv
WRONG! Bzzzzt (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Federal regulations trump that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.
Just as a store can disallow the use of cell phones, a university can say that you can't use certain wireless equipment on their property. You're not breaking a law by doing so, but you're breaking the "rules" of the institution and they're within their rights to remedy the situation if someone breaks the rules.
This isn't a legal issue, so don't confuse it. This follows along with other "rules". Perhaps they have a rule that you have to attend a certain number of classes to pass. If you don't, you fail the class. That's rule, not law. There is no law that affects it. Just as there are no laws preventing them from using wireless equipment. Simply rules.
Rabid dogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where is your address again ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Jamming is illegal. In fact, using wireless network equipment at higher than stock power output is also illegal if the maker didn't certify it for the higher output. Running a non-stock antenna is illegal if the maker didn't get it certified with the gain for that type of antenna that you are using.
This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band
Unlicensed != unregulated. The band IS regulated, it is simply set aside to allow unlicenced use, as in you don't have to go in for certification and testing for the right to operate the equipment.
Here's the problem: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this were only a matter of signal, then yes, the students would win. But the students are putting a banned object onto school property. Not ok.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:1, Insightful)
However, if you are only using the access point to access your lan, and nothing gets transmitted through the university's network, then you're legit, and the university will lose in court. How many of these people do you think don't connect to the internet via the AP?
Let's also not forget how good of an idea it is to piss off your school admins who have various packet sniffing abilities
Posted anonymously since I may or may not have an access point running on university property...
I can understand why they do this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, maybe not purple...
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that these are normal apartments. UTD does not have dorms. UTD does not have RAs. In fact UTD doesn't even own these apartments--they're owned by a private company.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
read about waiving your rights [lectlaw.com]
If you are granted a right, you can waive that right. The University granted you the right to live in the housing. You sign a contract where they have the ability to kick you out for their specified reasons.
On the other hand, when you are just renting a regular apartment, I really doubt you would sign something that says they can kick you out if you don't maintain at least a 2.0 average.
And YES- you can sign away your rights- even the first 10, the vaunted 'bill of rights'.
If you disagree, then obviously you've never been in the military, or served the government in one of the many, many positions where you do sign your rights away.