UTD Lifts Ban On WiFi Equipment 180
boredMDer writes "As seen in this /. story, the University of Texas in Dallas had issued a ban on students operating 2.4 GHz WiFi equipment. However, UTD has now lifted said ban, because of 'the discovery of an FCC ruling prohibiting such a move.'"
FCC regs. (Score:5, Informative)
For more information on the Part 15 docs, see this site:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47c
An apology was issued. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, there's been much geek rejoicement over the past week.
Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points (Score:5, Informative)
-Vic
Re: They almost own the apartments (Score:1, Informative)
It doesn't own the apartment complex per se, but it does own the land.
UTD didn't have undergrads for a very long time, and no dorms either. So they decided to let a private company build student housing. It was their way of outsourcing all those dorm problems that become university administration problems to somebody else.
That way they can try to mandate their own rules, while ignoring most the problems. I hated living at Waterview.
Re:Rights (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, there are limits as to what contracts can and cannot allow. The FCC has said that landlords cannot prohibit the private use of spectrum. There is no constitutional right to free-for-all contracts.
There are also a few cases where this is shown, one case involving a municipial airport authority trying to regulate 802.11b and struck down by FCC, and another case of apartments trying to regulate use of wireless and struck down.
Re:This was predicted time and time again (Score:4, Informative)
Which part of the FCC rules specifically allow this? Not the one that allows for the placement of satellite TV dishes (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) for fixed wireless signals. The FCC Fact Sheet [fcc.gov] specifically states in one paragraph:
"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
Yes, I can put up a 2M whip in an exclusive use area (a back porch exclusively for my own use). But I couldn't get away with much for the >= 20M band.
Re:Rights (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC has very specific rules and wording that does not allow a landlord/property owner/housing association etc.. to limit your ability to pickup and use certain pieces of the radio spectrum. I am not aware of any national laws that specific for guns or alchohol. I guess using the the radio spectrum is more of a passive activity so it was able to get through the process to become a law easier then if someone tried that that with guns on a national basis.
There are areas of the country where guns laws and sale of alchohol are more relaxed then others. These areas are not consistant either, an area in NC may not allow alchohol sales at all but you can carry a gun into the grocery store. In upstate NY, you may be able to drink all you want 24/7 but they severly limit where you can carry a gun. These rules were passed based on what society in those areas would tolerate. The nation as a whole will never equal out enough to have a one law fits all for those activities.
Re:FCC regs. (Score:3, Informative)
My University (Score:4, Informative)
It's banned on campus here as well with no plans to remove the ban.
When I enquired further no response was given but I was lead to believe it was a policy decision not a technical descision (security is a technical problem).
Other Colleges and Universities (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What should I tell my school about this? (Score:3, Informative)
What concerns me more is the prohibition of non-900MHz cordless phones. This clearly IS illegal and YOU should make a stink about it. The 2.4GHz and 5.6GHz bands are degignated for part 15 devices (unlicenced) and they MUST accept interference from other part 15 and (most of all) licenced devices. You should start by contacting the student paper, send a well researched written warning to the university and contact the FCC. Of course if you really want to teach them a lesson you should become a licenced HAM radio operator. Part of the 2.4GHz spectrum is availible for high power HAM use and you could easily kill access points for miles around by turning on some of that stuff.
Re:Rights (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Other Colleges and Universities (Score:4, Informative)
We tend to go out and slaughter morons who put wireless access points on our network. Why? Well, it's rather simple.
First, we have our own wireless network. It has a sentry authentication system that keeps access restricted to only those with an account. The primary reason for this is so that we can track usage; if someone decides to do something illegal or waste bandwidth, we have a log telling us exactly what IP was on at what time and can track them down so we can kill, or at least slap them around some.
Second, a WAP on one of our own networks opens the network to anyone with a laptop. Not only can they use our network without authorization, but they can swipe the IP's of important systems, resulting in Denial of Service. Additionally, when their Windows craptops eventually get 0wn3d by some virus, they'll start spewing crap out to the Internet from one of our IP's. Who gets the shit from other ISP's complaining about it? WE DO! And we have no idea who to kill (or at least maim a bit) since the access wasn't authenticated in any way.
Anyway, that's the point of view of an actual admin.
-Z
Re:My University (Score:1, Informative)
At Guelph, there is no alternate method of getting an internet connection, since they use a VOIP phone system. So any student-run WAP would have to be connected to resnet. I'm pretty sure it's legal to ban those under the network's AUP.
I guess I could get cable, but I'm not sure if cable internet is available. Anyway, resnet is reasonably fast, has coherent bandwidth policies (cutoff after 2GB in a week, not whenever Rogers feels like it), is reasonably fast, and is free. Cable TV+internet would probably be close to $60/month.
What is annoying is that they ban cooking devices, and halogen and lava lamps. Those devices use electromagnetic radiation in the visible and IR frequencies. Is it legal to ban those, or are they under the came agreement as the 2.4GHz bands? Note that this would be with CRTC, not FCC.
Wouldn't matter if university owned the buildings (Score:4, Informative)
The Denver Airport as well as Massport in Boston wanted to require tenants to use its (for pay) wifi network and prohibited them from setting up their own, claiming that since they own the airport they have the right to restrict tenant use over the wireless space. The FCC stated in a ruling that it alone has exclusive jurisdiction over radio frequency space regulation and a legitimate tenant has the same right to use unlicensed radio-frequency space as any other user, and that no one else, state or local government, nor any private party including a landlord, has authority to regulate or control use of unlicensed radio-frequency space.