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...
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.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't matter, federal law trumps all state and local regulations. The university is very likely (though IANAL) to loose any case that is brought against them in regards to this issue. The courts are very likely to say that the code of conduct cannot be used to ban unregulated wireless because only the federal government has that right.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever even rented an apartment?
landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.
I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.
There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.
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 pr
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 pro
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 righ
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.
Here's the problem: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this
Re:Here's the problem: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't tell you that you can't use 2.4Ghz cordless phones either. That's not their right since they don't own that particular spectrum. Do you realize a licensed HAM takes precedence over all unlicensed use
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Informative)
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 li
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 fo
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:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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
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.
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: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.
Re:Federal regulations trump that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Too Bad they don't OWN the property.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Federal regulations trump that. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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, 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.
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this apply here? Probably not, at least not right now. The Satellite Dish rules were a very specific case. But, just assuming that the contract is enough to make them lose is going too far.
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:5, Interesting)
Actually, they are suggesting that the students use 802.11a for their private wireless if they don't want to string up CAT-5 wiring. But my real question is, if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?
Perhaps the students want to use their computers for gaming, pr0n, running servers, p2p sharing, or other activities that universities tend to frown upon people using their academic networks for. This university in particular sounds a bit capricious in their policies, and it's not hard to see why students would want Internet access that
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Interesting)
My employer keeps confidential data on its network and has prohibited the use of unauthorized WAPs due to the sensitive nature of the data.
Does the FCC's rules trump those of my employer's? Should I be allowed to set up an access point without fear of losing my job to insubordination?
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 i
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
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: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:5, Funny)
You're forgetting
(3) Knock on the door and say "If you share your pot with me, I wont (2)"
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
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:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a police station with the purpose of intentionally interfering with the department's administrative computers, you might get arrested for obstruction of justice.
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into your office with the purpose of disabling a corporate network, you might get reprimanded, fired, or sued.
If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a competitor's office with the intent of manipulating the company's stock price by disabling their computer network, you might be charged with securities fraud.
If you sign an agreement with a college stating that your enrollment is contingent upon agreeing with campus policies designed to protect the college's network, then you can't use a wireless jamming device without repercussions. This is regardless of whether the "wireless jamming device" is a "wireless access point" that merely has the potential to jam.
Of course, intention will play a role in any of the above scenarios. But the important thing here, people, is that you're not allowed to walk around wherever you want saying, "Who are you, you're not the FCC!"
The FCC only handles circumstances in which two independent entities are in conflict over the usage of such airwaves when no federal or state law exists to regulate the legal behavior between two independent entities with respect to those airways.
A college and an enrolled student are not considered "independent entities", as there exists an expectation to abide by the rules defined in the relationship between the college and the student. NOTE: this goes both ways - the student can sue the college if the college acts in ways that are contradictory to the expectations of the relationship. The college can't fail a student without reason and then say "Who are you, you're not the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, you can't regulate how I pass or fail you!"
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
correct. however, the FCC _is_ the only entity that can restrict the usage of 2.4GHz devices that comply with part 15 of the FCC rules and are registered as such. you ever see the little notice on most RF devices about their compilance with part 15 of the FCC rules? it usually goes something like this:
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
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:5, Informative)
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: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: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: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 wir
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've read the article, and finally the FCC ruling (which was slashdotted for while). And, I would agree with you except for one problem: UTD appears to be enforcing this pol
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, maybe not purple...
Re:Where's the problem here? (Score:3, Informative)
Not a bad time.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wah Wah Wah my rights! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
In soviet Georgia Tech... (Score:5, Informative)
Not the first place to do so (Score:3, Informative)
interference (Score:2)
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: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.
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.
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]
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 w
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?
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 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.
How about a nuke plant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that this is not an absurd situation. We have banned cell phones from the control room, and I've personally observed a handheld walkie talkie cause a trip.
But it is hypothetical as I'm in Canada and the same laws don't apply.
Re:You guys don't get it (Score:3, Interesting)
In the fairly unlikely event that you're subject to a home invasion (i.e. armed robbers forcibly entering your home) what are you going to do? Say "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again?" An armed individual who doesn't respect your rights
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.
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.
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.
Or on the basis that it's THEIR NETWORK (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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:Oh FFS (Score:3, Insightful)
oooh a fun thing to do.... (Score:5, Interesting)
and get you and a few friends to wander around campus with laptops running it.
it will completely hose the wifi police trying to find accesspoints cince the program broadcast's thousands of fake AP's.
great fun...
From a university IT guy's point of view (Score:3, Interesting)
Setting up a wireless node implies that the node connects to the external network. That means it uses university bandwidth, and that means it falls under the university's computer use guidelines (here: http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/tcs/general/policy.htm [utdallas.edu]
If the node isn't on the LAN, perhaps that's a different story. But I'd hate to have to discover and figure out which ones were live and which ones were contained. It's a drain on resources, and a pain in the ass.
If you're doing something that requires you to have your own network, go get an account with a service provider or use the facilities provided by the school. Going that far out of your way would seem to indicate that a rogue wireless node probably is not the right solution anyway.
Rabid dogs (Score:3, Insightful)
Could be Worse: NO Extension to the Network at NU (Score:3)
They have a right and responsibility to maintain security and quality of the network, but I don't think micro-management is the solution for this, especially in academic environments. I could see the need for some corporate or government IT shops to ban the use of any outside machines from accessing their internal network, but Universities generally allow (or require) you to bring your own system(s). If we want to build a small cluser, we are supposed to either choose to have it disconnected from the network (inconvenient), or pony up what amounts to an additional 10% of equipment costs to have more ports provided.
The win-win solution should be that the University chooses not to support people who use routers, etc. If one computer behind the access port is spreading a worm or distributing copyrighted material, the whole access port should go down.
Fortunately, this rule is violated all the time, as I'm sure the UT rule will be violated. I'm glad that some choose to break it--during the peak of worm seasons, it has been the people who have a router with a built-in firewall that weren't infested.
I can understand why they do this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Funny)
University regulations vs. Federal law
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Funny)
Hm, yes, that does look pretty promising for the tenant.
*awkward pause*
Well, that was interesting.
*further awkward pause*
Well, I guess I'll be off home, then.
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)
Re:It's their network... (Score:4, Interesting)
No. They are specifically banning access points connected to outside providers, on the grounds of interference with the campus WiFi network.
This might be an interesting test case of FCC policy.
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.
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 b
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.
WRONG! Bzzzzt (Score:3, Insightful)