$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi devices (2015)

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by NateyJay on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:35AM (#13316404)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by msravi on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:37AM (#13316421)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by NateyJay on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:50AM (#13316480)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by boomlinde on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @02:57AM (#13316512)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by nitrogen on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @11:14PM (#13324683)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by Kadin on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @11:08AM (#13319389)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$718K penalty against M.C. Dean for blocking Wi-Fi device... by disiplus on Wednesday January 04, 2017 @03:46AM (#13316697)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]