To play devil's advocate, some APs support rogue triangulation. Ours plot any rogues on a building map so we know exactly where they are. When combined with a proper wireless survey, you could ensure that they don't deauth anything beyond the building perimeter. Not that I recommend that, since at the very least someone should be able to tether their phone if they want. But also because it puts additional overhead on your APs, which are usually already taxed in high-usage areas.
Why is this legal while the other practice is not? Say the conference center uses a wifi named HallWifi. Why are they allowed to block me from using the same SSID but not HallWifi2 or else? Also, what about blocking similar SSIDs like Hal1Wifi?
This seems one of those things where you have to write a 'I can't define exactly what is illegal, but I know it when I see it' law. I really don't like those types of laws.
Cell phones use licensed spectrum. If you want to operate a jammer, you're going to need permission from Sprint, which they're not going to give you.
Now, if Sprint wants to operate a cellphone tower on your property, then you can charge them out the nose.
If attendees were naming their personal hotspots "SmartCity" then SmartCity would have a point. They weren't.
Instead the law in the United States is that you aren't allowed to jam anyone, aren't allowed to interfere with the operation of other computers on the internet, and whether the computers are on your real estate or not has nothing at all to do with it.
They have a trademark on the phrase "Smart City Networks" within the area of wireless high-speed Internet.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4801:lwa...
What happens if we both have the same SSID and move into the same area? Who 'owns' that SSID? Smart City gets to just roll into town taking over any SSID it wants?
You don't think triangulation can be that accurate?
> they could and likely are, blocking WiFi located outside of that space.
You have even less basis for that statement than they had for theirs.
> They're claiming that they literally own the radio spectrum within a "proprietary space" which is a dangerous line.
Absolutely agree. That's why we need to have those conversations, instead of just oversimplifying into "bad guys" trying to meet their SLAs and "good guys" bringing whatever gadgets they want to the party.
> If your WiFi network is called SmartCityWiFi and you disconnect MyHotSpot then you're breaking the law
[citation needed]
> Good on the FCC for giving these guys a fine
I agree. In my opinion spoofing de-auth packets should be legally equivalent to jamming (currently it's not) and should be severely punished. The fine was deserved. On the other hand, let's not rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a serious issue here, which won't go away until we face it.
Does Cisco's anti-rogue AP tech perform triangulation? Why would it when it isn't designed to limit what people can do in physical spaces?
> You have even less basis for that statement than they had for theirs.
I know how the tech works. I know how the anti-rogue AP tech works. I have plenty of reasons for believing that they're disconnecting APs outside of a physical zone (since it isn't designed to do accomplish that to begin with).
>> If your WiFi network is called SmartCityWiFi and you disconnect MyHotSpot then you're breaking the law
> [citation needed]
Literally the article this entire thread is about... The FCC's fine of Smart City today that we're discussing is the citation. I cannot believe you even asked for that... Wow.
As another commenter so politely put it, and received no censure, absolutely wrong. You're trying to make a distinction based on SSIDs, and SSIDs have no legal standing. The string "SSID" doesn't even appear in the FCC's decision. Reasonable people can disagree on whether this was the right decision, and as it happens we do agree. Reasonable people can disagree on which statutes, definitions, etc. apply. However, reasonable people can not claim that the entire thread is about SSIDs. To quote you, "Wow."
> Rogue AP-connected clients, or rogue ad hoc connected clients, may be contained by sending 802.11 de-authentication packets from local APs. This should be done only after steps have been taken to ensure that the AP is truly a rogue AP, because it is illegal to do this to a legitimate AP in a neighboring WLAN. This is the reason why Cisco removed the automatic rogue AP containment feature from this solution.
You're arguing that it is illegal in all circumstances, Cisco disagrees. The FCC also has not brought a single enforcement action against anyone utilising rogue AP containment the way it was designed, they have only brought it against businesses using it to shut down third party WiFi (that wasn't pretending to belong to the same network).
[0] https://supportforums.cisco.com/document/143301/rogue-access...
Your Cisco quote is a complete non sequitur because you're assuming a very particular definition of "legitimate AP" when none is present or implied by law. A "legitimate AP" is one that is not itself being operated in violation of the law, and a "neighboring WLAN" is one that you do not own or have consent to manage. With correct or reasonable definitions, that quote doesn't support your position at all.
That's not how WiFi works. They cannot know for a fact that these WiFi hotspots are within the convention space, they could and likely are, blocking WiFi located outside of that space.
Additionally they're claiming that they literally own the radio spectrum within a "proprietary space" which is a dangerous line. What is stopping them from blocking all cellular signals or worse charging cellphone companies for the signal travelling through their space?
Their point about security is nonsense. The technology they're employing is DESIGNED to secure WiFi networks by disconnecting actually rogue APs (i.e. devices squawking the same SSID as their network), that is still legal, the problem they and the Hilten ran into is that they took tech' designed for security and mis-used it for monopolising the WiFi spectrum within their convention centers.
So, sorry, no. If your WiFi network is called SmartCityWiFi and you disconnect MyHotSpot then you're breaking the law and have zero security arguments to make.
Good on the FCC for giving these guys a fine. Too bad it wasn't more. I read their arguments and it has only made me side with the FCC more. What they're asking for would make the world a worse place in general and only helps their bottom line.