As others have said, the hotel doesn't have any authority over the spectrum itself so it can't impose any rules on it.

Take the ham operator scenario: One operator can't broadcast a continuous whistle so that nobody else can talk. It's impossible for an operator to obtain consent to do this. A hotel acting as an operator can't do it even if they got permission from every guest because the guests don't have any authority to grant it. It's simply prohibited for any operator to behave that way, full stop.

There are a couple of things a hotel could do though:

1) Kick anyone using wifi in a way they don't like off the property.

2) Encase the exhibition area in a giant Faraday cage so that nobody's cell phone works. Their APs are the only ones with internet access so no point for anyone else to turn one on.

I don't think either option would end well for any business that tried it. The reason they like the deauth method is because they can lock out competitors without the non-technical public realizing what's going on.

It's because the WiFi frequency bands are publicly owned. They don't have the legal authority to ask for consent to deauth because they don't own the channels in the first place. Intentional interference can get in the way of municipal internet access, it can cause safety problems (some channels in some bands are reserved for safety equipment), and of course it can be anti-competitive. Private entities are only being allowed to use WiFi bands in the first place under condition that they will not intentionally interfere with other devices.

Because it's a criminal offense. The illegal act is sending signals which willfully interfere with communications.

Also, the FCC determined that those clowns were jamming the Wi-Fi of buses passing the convention center.

But if the convention-goers "agree" to receive deauth frames as a condition of entry, it's an expected transmission desired by the recipient, so not interference. Of course, if they block people outside the building, there's no justification.

I don't think you can "agree" your way out of a criminal law.

Similar to the fact that you can not agree to someone taking you as a slave. It is still illegal.

You can't have a contract that specifies illegal things. Well, you can, but the government will decline to enforce it.

But surely two parties can agree to send deauth frames between each other, for testing, development, etc. What makes this materially different?

Sure, you can deauth all you want for testing and development inside your own home or business where you arent bothering anyone. You cant "test" your deauth technology by blocking every single AP in range at a conference center, then extorting hundreds or thousands of dollars to get access to the only authorized networks. If you cant see the difference between the situations, then go read what the FCC letter says again.

edit: Imagine if this convention center entered into an exclusivity agreement with Verizon, then jammed the frequencies used by the other cellular carriers. Would that be OK?

Charging for a service that one can reject paying for is by definition NOT extortion.

I can choose not to pay you to use your WiFi.

But I can lawfully use my own WiFi hotspot, even while I am lawfully on your property. You may own the property, but you do not own the radio spectrum.

Imagine you meet an entrepreneur who has a gun and proclaimed he'll shoot everyone in sight by default, but that he provides a service in which he can exchange the bullet for the "BANG!" flag for a small fee. It's not extortion - you're free to refuse the service after all.

That's not at all the same case, you're being threatened. I'm impressed at the dishonesty on this one.

Imagine you're at a hotel, you can access their WiFi but you have to pay for it. Imagine you're at another hotel, you can use their pool but you have to pay for it. Are you being extorted? No. That's a better example.

Yes, but in your example you need to add that I have with me an inflatable pool that magically doesn't spill, and the federal law allows me to use it instead of hotel one - and I get kicked out of the hotel for actually using it (or worse, they make my magic water supply stop supplying water).

Most people buy drugs in private for just this reason.

Less glib, sure I doubt the FCC would care at all if they weren't spamming passerbys.

Presumably it being broadcast in public.

The fact that they're wilfully interfering with communications.

In the same light that minors can't consent to legal procedures, a citizen cannot 'give up' public goods.

Wireless spectrum is one of those things.

The FCC legally regulates use of the electromagnetic spectrum. For example, FCC conformance for EMI in electronic devices is not some optional stamp of approval for the benefit of discerning consumers. It's a legal requirement.

The FCC says don't maliciously interfere with other people's transmissions, yes. But if someone agrees to be sent deauth frames by the hotel, it's not interference anymore, it's the agreed and expected behaviour.

I can stand just outside the venue and sue them for sending me deauth frames... I haven't entered the venue, I haven't agreed to their terms, and they're interfering with my transmission/reception.

Very true! I'm only questioning the case where the blocking is limited to people inside.

The classic hotel-is-a-faraday-cage case...

That would be the Trump hotel in Las Vegas. There's a metal film on the windows that interferes with cell signals, or at least it did last time I was there a few years ago.

That case isn't what's under dispute, and is unlikely to exist, since most buildings make pretty poor Faraday cages. So it's not really that relevant.

Furthermore, even if the building was a perfect Faraday cage, there are other issues, such as the laws governing public accommodations, and the special scrutiny imposed on "contracts of adhesion" (take-it-or-leave-it standard form contracts) when analyzing them for unconscionability, plus the FCC's mandate which doesn't stop at property boundaries and generally can't be overridden by private contracts anyway. It's not clear that it would be allowable even if you set aside the near-certainty of interference outside the property of the interferor.

afaik it does not work like that. same as u cannot agree that i can kill you.

the agency regulates the spectrum, and nobody else, the spectrum is not my or from the hotel, so i cannot agree that they can block it or not.

If I sign a contract saying you can kill me and you do, it's still murder.

Contracts cannot override the law.

> Contracts cannot override the law.

Indeed, but they can stipulate other consequences.

For example in current $WORKPLACE, being found to operate an unapproved wifi AP will result in a disciplinary action. Too many of those and dismissal follows.

that's not quite the same thing. It becomes obvious if you up the stakes.

In current $WORKPLACE, being found to murder children will result in disciplinary action. Too many of those and dismissal follows.

So, the dismissal matters not at all, murdering children is the underlying problem. It's illegal and no contract can make that ok.

Operating an AP is not illegal, so I don't see how that example is relevant.

Conversely using a mobile phone to make a phone call is legal, but it's not allowed on the trading floors of banks. So it can be legal to refrain people from performing some legal activities on your premises. So I think a hotel probably can ban guests from operating a wireless AP, but jamming such activity using active measures is going too far.

The banks, presumably, have a fairly good reason for restricting that activity, and the people on the trading floor have been given significant consideration (employment, perhaps, or access to the trading floor on behalf of their employer) in exchange for agreement to those terms.

Chucking a "you can't bring your own WiFi [because we want to make more money selling it to you]" term into the standard language on a hotel agreement might have a much harder time passing muster.

Further, there's a lot of caselaw built up over time that treats dwelling places, even temporary ones like hotels, differently than workplaces. (E.g. it's perfectly fine for your employer to set up cameras in your office to keep an eye on employees, but if a hotel did that in guests' rooms they'd have a problem on their hands, and I strongly suspect that wouldn't change even if they put some "you consent to be photographed!" small print on the check-in agreement along with the no-smoking policy and other boilerplate.)

> So I think a hotel probably can ban guests from operating a wireless AP, but jamming such activity using active measures is going too far.

Exactly. It's the jamming which is illegal, not the ban.

A member of the public has no capability to immunise another from a criminal activity.

While the hotel owns the property (land) it does not own the spectrum. Spectrum is a limited resource that government manages for the public good. The hotel cannot interfere with my lawful use of spectrum, even if I am lawfully on their property.