Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC: Only We Can Regulate Unlicensed Spectrum

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the trump-card dept.

Wireless Networking 259

rfc1394 writes "In an article in ComputerWeekly, it was announced that the FCC has ruled that it has final jurisdiction over unlicensed wireless space, meaning that an airport authority can't force airlines to (pay to) use its wireless network and they may set up and use their own. This bodes well for the development of wireless networks in various areas as it means that you have the right to set up your own network even if your landlord would want you to use theirs."

cancel ×

259 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's just a codename for red tape... (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556929)

For those of you outside of Massachusetts reading here...

"Massport"... sounds like it's a business or something, but it's just a trendy name for the Massachusetts Port Authority, which is just a branch of the state government trying to sound a little more important than they really are.

Re:It's just a tsarkon reports DTI fuckers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556949)

CLITORIS CHOPPERS. Hi there you fucking Islamic career clerics, doctors of death, Waffen Schutzstaffel doctor Josef Mengele is a patron saint compared to you fucking ragheads. You suck. You aide and abet terror and death. You are partially responsible for the deaths of other fellow men. For this fratricide you shall pay dearly. Your soul is black with the stains of inaction, ineptitude and sympathies to those who walk the dark side. Your foul life is full of sins, not religious, just heinous, your karma is low, you don't confess, and you aren't in prison where you belong. You are your own dark, kept secret. I see through you, the worthless academic, the pseudo intellectual, the unproven unpublished un patented WASTE OF FUCKING FLESH. You are a drain on society, you are a member of the 1st world but pretend to not be. I hate you, you are a stained man.

Hi clitoris chopper, you islamists support clitoris carving. You are Islamic, and of course are a fucking animal. I hate you you pull-start camel jockey lover. Towelheads, Camel Jockies, Sand Niggers, Ackmids, Abeebs, Carpet Flyers, Dune Coons, Rag Heads, Sand Scratchers, Habeebs, Abba-Dabbas, Camel-Humpers, Demi-niggers, Fig-Gobblers, Hucka-luckas (hucka hlacka ghalcka ghugh), Lefties (If you steal, you lose the right hand so, since they are thieves...) Ocnods, Pull-Start-ables (imagine pull starting Ossama's dirty rag like a Briggs and Stratton), Roach-Ranchers (habibs cant kill roaches by a tenant of Is-slum), Sand Moolies.

Shut up all you dirty fucking Islamic pigfucking swinehundts and the pigs, the communist fuckin Islamic terrorist supporter.

Take your fucking Koran and cram it up your ass. The sooner the earth sees Islam leave it, the better off it will be. Your Koran is Goat Piss.

I hope if there is a God and a Hell, you have to drink the liquidy shit from a Pig's ass, and Jewish Rabbis defecate on you.

I hate the stupid ISLAM fucks who read into the trash they come up with. Saddam Hussein [who needs to take a dirt nap] is higher on my sanity list than fucking Muslim "clerics." In fact, I like Saddam more than most of the other Arab leaders because he is secular. We should fucking nuke the Saudis and Mecca and Medina and turn it into rubble, then tell Saddam to remove the heads of all the buttfucking "royalty" in the area.

I want to wipe my ass with Mohammad's shroud. I want to grind his body up into bone meal and fertilize my garden with it.

Our tortured dead scream out in HORROR, asking for vengeance:
  1. Kill all Camel Jockeys.
  2. Kill all Mohammedans.
  3. Kill all Dune Coons.
  4. Kill all Rag Heads.
  5. Kill all Towelheads.
  6. Kill all Arabs.
  7. Kill all Camel Rooters.
  8. Kill all Osama Bin Laden supporters.

Nuke their countries to hell.

Nuke them again.

Death to Islam.

I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I shit upon Mohammed. I wipe the cum for a freshly fucked pussy with Mohammed's shroud then throw it in the pig sty so it can mire in pig shit as it decomposes.
I only hate with words, you fucking wet towel fucking scum killer, you maim, your terror bomber.


You will be judged and cast away by the powers that be, your death will get none of my pity and you will have precipitated it upon yourself, YOU xenophobic pieces of shit, your elitist religious country club will be your own undoing..

In the great continuum that it time your are those who serve to disrupt it by ending the brilliance and lives of those who your zealous foul religion call heathens and infidels. Your death will be celebrated, you will not be missed.

My rhetoric is a reflection of my anger at your, your Islamic death leaders, and your religions unwillingness to admit to what it really is, a death mongering cult.

Your religion is one which produces nothing that is meritorious, your artisans are not accomplished or made pariahs, social and economic structures in Islamic states are defunct, your religion is rife with inconsistency and moral shortcomings, your anti progress and western religion which is rooted in pagan beliefs is a pathetic made up religion that is the backwash of a crazed terrorist and mass killer, Mohammed. You cry Jihad, and call for holy war, and call for the death of the west and the infidels. We will defend ourselves. And since we know deep down what is right, and value our existence and the lives of our children and the meaning of freedoms, aspirations and some semblance of equality, we will crush you defending it. Prepare for your doom, each terrorist event only increases our resolve and fortitude, we must be forgiving and kind because your precious centers of idolatry, Mecca and Medina, are not sheets of glass yet.

One day, we will open a gold course and the 19TH hole bar will be in that fucking stone shack you foul idiots covet. Idolaters, pagan based, misguided pathetic violent destructive foul piece of trash religion.

Your corrupt leadership doesn't even attempt to save face. And we notice. Your religions inability to do anything but destroy is noted, and punishment will be exacted for your infractions, probably 10 fold, and you pigs will have precipitated on your own women and children the lancing fires of justice from the sky. Your bodies vaporized to ash where you can be one with the earth again from whence you came maybe one day your atoms will be incarnated again as a useful life form.


And the pussy bitch that defends Islam needs to die. And the Nation of Nigger Is-SLUM, where those sub creatures live, in the SLUMS of their own creation, is a piece of racist shit. So I give it back. You hate me, I hate you back 10 fold. Death to All Non-Secular Islam and Nigger Nation of Islam. Death.

DEATH. JIHAD against the JIHAD. I want to harvest organs from Islamic peoples who take their stupid shit religion seriously so they can be useful. Then I want Jewish Rabbis to piss and shit in the hole I left cutting your organs out, then I want to feed your Islamic bodies to pigs, let them shit you out in your final resting place, the pig sty.

Re:It's just a tsarkon reports DTI fuckers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557356)

Your foul life is full of sins, not religious, just heinous, your karma is low, you don't confess, and you aren't in prison where you belong.

WHAT? The terrorists don't even bother to karma whore? They must post anonymously... just like you! Quick, Ashcroft! Get him!

Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (5, Funny)

doofusdog (748136) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556950)

Around here Masport is a brand of lawnmower and wood burning solid fuel heater

Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (2, Interesting)

Boone^ (151057) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557179)

You know, I always hear about the Port Authority (mostly of New York, but now of MA). What exactly do they do? Jump on every boat that comes into harbor and obtain duty taxes?

Re:It's just a codename for red tape... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557297)

"Massport"... sounds like it's a business or something

Wow, that's much nicer than what I thought it sounded like...

tsarkon reports death to islam nick berg! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556932)

death to all sand niggers

death to them

long live the memory of jew berg!

Cuold it be! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556933)

teh firstest of the firsteszt/???

It's the FCC's bandwidth, not anybody else's (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556946)

This makes it clear... anybody has the right to operate a WiFi device within the FCC-set limits, and if it bothers your WiFi device then well tough. It's unlicensed, but not unregulated.

It's the public's. (5, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557080)

The public owns the airwave, and the FCC just happens to embody the public interest right now. They can be done away with by a vote. In this case, I'm glad they stepped up to the plate and squashed the takeover attempt.

I'm going to go dance in the street.

Re:It's the public's. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557137)

I'm going to go dance in the street.

If by street you mean six-lane highway, great idea.

Re:It's the public's. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557299)

Go fuck yourself.

Re:It's the public's. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557367)

ok, but make sure you do that dance thing.

btw, you forgot to change the post title and say something like "how many fuckers like you does Bill Gates employ in Bangalore for this kind of shit"

Re:It's the public's. (1, Insightful)

trippinonbsd (689462) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557358)

The FCC does not embody the public interest. They have been screwing up telecommunications for decades now. There is no vote that I can cast to do away with them. I can't chose who serves for the FCC. They are un-fucking-constitutional.

Not so Fast (5, Interesting)

Exousia (662698) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557360)

I wouldn't get too excited. The FCC has authority derived from the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. Technically they have no authority to govern intrastate radio emissions. This has had little challenge in the federal courts up to now, because nobody gave a crap. There was no significant money to be made or lost one way or the other. However, this situation is different. There is significant money at stake. Look for challenges to FCC jurisdiction to spring up. Who knows, maybe a case will make it to the Supreme Court and put the FCC in their place with regards to this issue and similar issues.

Abolish the FCC? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556947)

Why abolish the FCC? They stick up for the little guys, too.

Re:Abolish the FCC? (4, Informative)

william_lorenz (703263) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557220)

I remember that Slashdot story [slashdot.org] . And just today, in fact, I was looking around on the FCC's website when I found that they do in fact auction [fcc.gov] off [fcc.gov] some [fcc.gov] of the spectrum [fcc.gov] . Although it's nowhere near enough to fend off monopoly-driven corporations from eating up the entire spectrum, as the author of the original article speculates. Moreso, as the author of the parent comment mentioned, the FCC sticks up for the little guys and the services that wouldn't necessarily be able to fund themselves, such as amateur radio, citizens band, family radio service, instructional television, and other wireless services [fcc.gov] .

In soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

Murf_E (754550) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556955)

unlicensed spectrum regulates you!!

A Most Excellent decision (5, Insightful)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556960)

I remember being outraged at the petty officialdom thinking that they somehow had exclusive control of the radiowaves around their airport. This is indeed a *Good Thing* and should serve as a reminder to other local fifedoms.

Re:A Most Excellent decision (4, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557014)

By extention, this basically says that users are allowed to operate any Part 15 compliant devices anywhere they're allowed to physically possess them... and anybody who wants to resolve conflicts in a high-traffic area must go through the FCC if they want anything more binding than handshakes.

When the FCC gives bandwidth space to the people, it belongs to the people.

Re:A Most Excellent decision (4, Interesting)

dekashizl (663505) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557254)

Just wait for the DMCA-related exceptions to start rolling in, late 2005. Once **AA realizes people are setting up unregulated spontaneous exchanges of data, they start trying to find ways to restrict it. Of course, you can always help keep them at bay by supporting the EFF [eff.org] ...

Re:A Most Excellent decision (2, Insightful)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557351)

That's a good point. With the potential overlap of private/semi-private Wifi nodes, how would the RIAA be able to determine the who, what and where of illegal filesharing? The monitoring costs are going to be boosted by another order of magnitude, at least, and right now they can't even accurately identify who's doing what on the public networks, even with what they're paying outside companies to do.

I may be talking out of my ass, but it makes sense to me that massively cheap and widespread Wifi is going to introduce even more major difficulties in fighting copyright violation. Other than successfully lobbying the FCC (which this decision essentially IIUC correctly has torpedoed) what can they do about it?

Want to share files? Jump in the van and go wardriving. Oh, wait...

SB

Re:A Most Excellent decision (2, Interesting)

hearingaid (216439) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557290)

You make an excellent point.

Here's a question point: If I have an FCC-approved wireless networking device (say, a cellphone), and I take it to work, can my employer prohibit me from using it?

I'll bet you anything the answer is "yes" if my employer's the NSA. :)

Re:A Most Excellent decision (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557193)

Well, if they can see how it causes harm and problems for a small institution to regulate the airwaves on a small basis, then why can't they see how it causes harm and problem when a large institution regulates airwaves on a large basis?

Re:A Most Excellent decision (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557205)

I'm with the FCC on this. Think about it.. Wireless networking isn't the only thing that users of the common space use. Imagine if cell phone and pager use were also prohibited so you had to use the pay phones. How would you be reached? The person to person wireless network that is not monopolized is a good thing. Just like getting bumped off a cell connection happens, it's better than prohibiting cell phones so the monopoly landlord won't experience the stress of some interferance once in a while.

Uh oh! Time to consult JabberKatz(tm) again (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556961)

Here's what JabberKatz(tm) says about the topic:

Federal and local law enforcement authorities had to regulate it. All over the information spectrum. This was an offshoot of the Geek Profiling, anti-Net hysteria that broke out all across the information spectrum. Still, it's always been inevitable that politicians, corporations and media companies would try to regulate and control the Internet.

Open Media are ascending all across the information spectrum. Closed Media -- newspapers, evening newscasts, on magazine covers, and pondered by newspapers all over the country on his public service network from the day he started, is much like being on the Web.

On CNN, a friend of the Kennedy family said on Tuesday that it planned to evade a court-ordered cutoff of network programming by supplying network signals directly rather than through another company. Regular viewership of network news has fallen from 38% to 30% in the past several years.

From e-trading to eBay, the lessons of the Web. The network is growing by the thousands, sometimes even considered malfeasance. This week, a genetic research company announced it planned to evade a court-ordered cutoff of network programming by supplying network signals directly rather than through another company.

" On the network, " writes Stefik, has been shrouded in its own terms, the dream is always self-defeating. As people add more and more multinationals will use in their ongoing effort to make up for lost time and commercialize the Net. Of the remaining 13 cases, two involved police officers posing as children, and in an increasingly wireless world, that may be a lot bigger.

I appreciated being called out on the network that broadcasts " Buffy. "

If Bok is right, then for the first time, the rapid dissemination and debate of civic information, and also gives the public a chance to enjoy the advantage of 'intelligence amplification' the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity. " But if the network should prove to do for years: why did the Russian people fight so hard and sacrifice so much -- more than 20 Web sites - none of which are translated or make any particular sense.

" On the network, " writes Stefik. The network has as much chance of keeping the " Buffy " is inane. In general, Goths wear black, hang out on the network that broadcasts " Buffy. "

Another problem I don't think the advantage of 'intelligence amplification' the network may exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual opportunity. " But if the site were going forward, I suggested, Pinkerton could at least set-up an e-mail account to receive and consider feedback from people involved in the first place he'd always wanted to come.

In canceling the finale, the WB TV network, politics had already become distinct and separate fields. If the explosive growth of the network, instead passing block-headed decency acts and fussing about sex online. The network has as much energy as a glass of water has as much chance of succeeding as their predecessors did. Lewinsky -- along with the Recording Industry Association of America uses to prevent DVD's from playing on unlicensed player.

This is all beside the point. All over the network, instead passing block-headed decency acts and fussing about sex online.

The MPA - along with the Recording Industry Association of America uses to prevent DVD's from playing on unlicensed player.) To further muddy matters, the movie makes clear, even on the network that broadcasts " Buffy. "

As Poole's book makes clear, even on the network since the duly corporatized Olympics in October. He looked up at the giant dome, whose roof was sparkling with a giant " 2000 " sign and various assorted Millenial electric twinkling, and climbed into the moving blue seats that take visitors up on a network newscast or, for that matter -- seems to get the news, if their wireless phone hasn't already alerted them.

Adam said he and his friends were furious. " And the next wave of scientific discovery -- wireless and nano-technologies, AI, genetic research, hand-held and wireless computing, supercomputers.

Civics. Democracy and inclusion, using network computing to break down elites, to bring the killer to justice. You can dispute inaccurate items with the source of the information on the network that broadcasts " Buffy. "

Even writing here, it's unusual to get the news, if their wireless phone hasn't already alerted them. This isn't a Utopian vision, but a campaign to regulate, curb and privatize the net and the Web.

Specifically, I'm interested not in Orlando itself, but in the network of almost any ISP. Sometimes, the writing is unforgiveably clunky, as when the WB network foolishly postponed the season finale. A generation ago, " Shadowrun " would have seemed the two shows cover the spectrum of contemporary TV.

The tragedy of technology is that we have undermined a terrorist network and overturned a repressive government in weeks, with only a few scratches.

all your frequencies... (4, Funny)

infernalC (51228) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556973)

are belong to us

Re:all your frequencies... (1, Insightful)

maelstrom (638) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557031)

This was funny a couple years ago. Please stop.

THREE REASONS WHY YOU'RE A GAY HOMOSEXUAL FAGGOT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557063)

  1. You're gay
  2. You're a homosexual
  3. You're a faggot

Re:all your frequencies... (4, Funny)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557070)

I cared about hearing other people's opinions a couple years ago. Please stop.

Re:all your frequencies... (1, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557166)

Then, uh, why are you reading slashdot comments anyway? Please stop.

Re:all your frequencies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557216)

Please Stop. Please stop.

Re:all your frequencies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557170)

> This was funny a couple years ago.

Was it? I must have been offline that day.

Re:all your frequencies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557060)

I have no frequencies you insensitive clod

Re:all your frequencies... (4, Interesting)

femto (459605) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557111)

That's a 20th centrury view of the world. In today's world, your quote should read
all your codes are belong to us

Freqency division multiplexing (ie. dividing the spectrum into frequency bands) is the old way of doing things. In the 21st century, radio transmission will be done using spatial, frequency and temporal coding (and maybe others).

Using only frequency division multiplexing is like living in a one dimensional world, not realising that the world has at least three dimensions which you can move around in. Correspondingly, in a multidimensional world, it is possible to avoid collisions that would otherwise occur in a one dimensional world. In other words, combining spatial, temporal and frequency coding allows many more users to use the electromagnetic spectrum.

A consequence of such a move is that it is no longer possible to just talk about radio frequencies. It become a more generalised mish-mash involving frequency, time of transmission and location of transmission. Any of these can be used to differentiate a user. A 'code' is a generalised multidimensional version of a frequency.

Welcome flatlanders, to the multidimensional world.

Colleges (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556979)

Does this mean colleges can't prevent their students from setting up their own wireless networks?

Re:Colleges (5, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557054)

Does this mean colleges can't prevent their students from setting up their own wireless networks?

Yes.

Just as the FCC, some years ago, also banned cities and counties from using zoning laws to ban satellite dishes and other legal radio antennas.

Re:Colleges (1)

jaxdahl (227487) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557107)

Could a dorm ban the actual equipment, ie, the access point from being in the dorm -- like banning pets such as dogs or cats?

Re:Colleges (1)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557272)

Yea, they can basically write anything they want into that housing contract. When they stick you on resnet, they can do whatever they want with that too.

Think of it this way. When you move into the dorm, you are signing some housing contract (that you never read) but you supposedly read it. In it probably has something about:
-you can't cook in your room
-you can't smoke in the room
-you can't make excessively loud noises at ungodly hours
-you can't walk around naked after a shower
-you can't slap a wireless router into resnet.

Then resnet says:
-you can't download/upload more than 2 gig/day
-you can't use p2p networks
-no routers.

its that easy as slapping "no routers" into the contract
-Grump

Re:Colleges (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557327)

Probably not, because that would be a de facto control over the wireless network. Last time I checked, radio waves didn't shoot out of our asses :)

Re:Colleges (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557077)

They don't seem to care about the FCC here at Georgia Tech:

Wireless Network Usage Policy [gatech.edu]

This has been officially in place for almost a year now I think.

Re:Colleges (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557101)

Set up your own network and see what they do. If you get kicked out, you should have watchdog agencies like the ACLU ready to defend you.

Re:Colleges (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557147)

you should have watchdog agencies like the ACLU ready to defend you.

Yes, you should have watchdog agencies like the ACLU ready to defend you, but unfortunately, the ACLU likes to cherry pick its cases. Want to take a guess of how many concealed carry cases the ACLU has taken on? :)

The bottom line is that if the ACLU decides that your case doesn't fit their agenda, they won't take it.

Re:Colleges (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557118)

Ma Tech has been fairly randy like that in the past anyway. I remember having to explain to an OIT employee why I had more than one computer hooked up in my dorm room, and why it wasn't using more than my allotted ResNet port.

Then again, that was a long time ago, and OIT isn't necessarily known for being bright at times. To their credit, they did get over that and actually change policy (or at least turn a blind eye).

I can kind of see where they don't want unsecured AP's floating around, though. And you know the STAC majors will have one.

Re:Colleges (5, Insightful)

Yebyen (59663) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557084)

That is correct. This means that colleges cannot prevent students from setting up their own wireless networks. It doesn't have anything to say about whether students are allowed to connect said wireless network to the college network. Most colleges (any that care whether you set up a wireless network) should have something in their AUP which outlines what you are and are not allowed to plug into their network jacks. If they say "You can only plug individual computers into our network," and you plug in a wireless router, they have every right to suspend your network access privileges.

Re:Colleges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557087)

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Re:Colleges (2, Insightful)

Niten (201835) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557120)

I'd guess that depends on whether your wireless network would be attached to the school's network. If yes, then it should still be well within the school's rights to include a clause in their network's acceptable use policy prohibiting the creation of any unauthorized wireless access points on their network. If no, on the other hand, this decision may provide a useful precedent.

Re:Colleges (1)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557134)

If you're on the school's property they still have the right to say no private wifi signals. I know RIT has done this, except they say it's because they need clear airwaves while they test the network they're setting up.

Either way, the campus can have final say.

Ultimately though, who the hell gave the damn FCC all this power. Gah!

Re:Colleges (2, Informative)

Mr. X (17716) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557160)

Actually this decision says colleges CAN'T say no private wifi signals.

Re:Colleges (1)

emorphien (770500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557185)

OH, I can read. Really. :-/

Even stranger then really. A private organization (like a private school, or even a controlling body at a public school) should have say over activities happening on campus. They've even got rules at some schools about no businesses out of dorm rooms, they'll find ways to continue to regulate wifi and other things as well.

This is going to be interesting for the FCC to enforce though with lots of little guys wanting to do their own thing.

Re:Colleges (4, Interesting)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557349)

They'll just ban the equipment.

At which point people will set up Linux boxes with wifi cards in them, and run them as APs. I'd like to them try to regulate the physical difference between that and a box with a wifi card that's getting on their network. If they're banning all wireless and just selectively enforcing it if you're not on their network, ask them why they're operating a wireless network if no one is allowed to be on it.

And, of course, nothing says the wireless routers have to be on their property, especially when you're talking about Georgia Tech, a college that does not have 'campus' per se, it's intermingled with the city. If they try to ban wireless access points, people will just set them up inside coffeehouses across the street from the dorm.

A very important question to ask them, in front of witnesses, is if they're trying to ban the equipment, student run networks, or just wireless broadcasting. And after they answer 'C', be sure to explain what 'unregulated' means. Watch them backpeddle.

Re:Colleges (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557361)

I agree. If a student is on private property, then the owner of that property can say "no" to anything they wish. If the student breaks the rules of the school, on school grounds, then the school can enforce their rules. However, if the student goes off of school property, then they are pretty much free to do whatever.

The FCC has stated before that if you limit yourself and your wireless activity because of private contracts or agreements _you_ enter into, then they have little control to change that agreement. Period.

Re:Colleges (1)

cfuse (657523) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557123)

Does this mean colleges can't prevent their students from setting up their own wireless networks?

Ask the RIAA/MPAA, I'm sure they'll have an opinion.

Re:Colleges (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557126)

This means if there is a dispute over wireless use in an area such as a dorm, the FCC makes the final decision, not the college or property owner.

Re:Colleges (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557172)

Does this mean colleges can't prevent their students from setting up their own wireless networks?

I think by extension the same theory applies, and that the students can setup their own systems if they wish.

However...

IMNSHO, the commission essentially blew it, big time, with this rule makeing. Now there will be huge amounts of interference from so many radios all running in the 802.11 bands. The users are essentially being told to suck it up and tolerate it. But at airports in particular, national security may depend on that (and thats piss poor management, security stuff should be hard wired, end of discussion) and that could have bad effects, plus in their efforts to achieve a reliable path, they will get into a pissing match just like the CB'ers of yesteryear, each one having a bigger (and just as illegal) linear amplifier.

This, it seems to me, should be approached more as a regulatory matter ala the telco's, where the amount charged, while representing a profitable exercise, may not be exhorbitant. I think this may be the current situation wherein the airport authorities are looking at this as a cash cow that is to be milked for all its worth just because its newer than a WECO 500 field phones still use in the maintainance hangers out in Podunk Junction.

If and when nothing can be transmitted timely and reliably due to the congestion, then and only then will the various businesses finally get together and decide the pissing match approach is the wrong one. I see nothing wrong with each airline having their own system, but it should be open for relay usage by the other airlines on either side of them, becoming basicly a repeater system that all co-operates to move the data.

The various airport authorities involved should set the specs for any installed stuff within their area such that this is automaticly achieved. But, the ability to set such specs runs against this ruling, so it won't work until such a gentlemens agreement is hammered out for the good of all.

What I envision as a working project will take a bit more than a bunch of $40 pci cards though as to be bandwidth economical they'll need to have some switches so the guys on the far end of concourse D 3/4ths of a mile away aren't seeing all the traffic meant for concourse A.

Cheers, Gene

Re:Colleges (1)

thedillybar (677116) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557305)

>(and thats piss poor management, security stuff should be hard wired, end of discussion)

Security stuff should be encrypted, end of discussion. What makes you think a clever individual couldn't eavesdrop a wired pipe? The fact that it is wired gives too many people a false sense of security.

Re:Colleges (2, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557328)

What???

This is for unlicensed bands. If you need spectrum upon which NATIONAL SECURITY rests, you use LICENSED spectrum, where it is a FELONY to use without permission. Duh. Airlines DO use licensed spectrum... and unlicensed.

THe issue here is an airport using commonly used unlicensed equipment and insising that the airlines that use it are NOT ALLOWED to use similar equipment on their own, but instead must use the airport's and pay the airport for that use..

Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (5, Interesting)

GrassyKnowl (547325) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556980)

Suppose you are an exhibitor at an expo.

Can the management of the expo say that you cannot hook up a Wi-Fi router to the network that they have a monopoly over in the convention center?

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557004)

Can the management of the expo say that you cannot hook up a Wi-Fi router to the network that they have a monopoly over in the convention center?

I'd say yes - it's their network, their rules.

Don't like it, don't hook up.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (1)

GrassyKnowl (547325) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557020)

I would say it depends.

If it is only for use in your own booth with no guest access then they would have no say.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (2, Insightful)

sr180 (700526) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557016)

The could make that as part of the conditions of hiring a booth at the expo. So yes, they can. They couldnt stop you from standing outside and running a wireless network form there though.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557079)

The Expo event planners could have their security people treat WiFi equipment as a contraband item and lock out all WiFi devices at teh door, what the FCC is effectively saying is that once you allow such things into your building, you can't go saying "Don't use that unless you pay to be part of our bandwidth allocation system! If you all use your devices you'll cause interference with each other." because if there's really an interference problem that's something that should be brought to the FCC.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (3, Informative)

Blastrogath (579992) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557074)

They sure can.

This decision says that they can't stop you from running your own network on Wi-Fi, not that they have to let you attach that network to their network.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (1)

anethema (99553) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557214)

Mod parent up :)

This is the perfect answer to the question asked.

Re:Can Management at an Expo say no to Wi-Fi (1)

SecretFire (578177) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557085)

Since it's a private event, it's within their discretion to kick you out.

That said, you could set up something outside, if you wanted to.

I do appreciate your optimism... (3, Insightful)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 10 years ago | (#9556984)

but your landlord can just put the "must use the landlord's wireless network" clause in your lease. You sign away many, many rights when you sign a lease already, this would just be one more.

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (2, Interesting)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557000)

Outside of Manhattan, you could just go find someplace else to live. Yay capitalism!

Manhattan OTOH is hell for both renters _and_ landlords.. Boo WWII emergency rent control!

(Less'n you can pay $4k/mo for 2br... Or move to the outer boroughs like any rational techie would since broadband became available..)

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (1)

uberfruk (745030) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557049)

pretty soon everything will be an EULA

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (5, Informative)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557140)

"prohibit airport authorities from limiting or restricting tenants from implementing and operating a wireless system".

Emphasis mine.

You'll find another clause in your lease that goes something like this:

"If any clause of this contract is found to be void by law it does invalidate other legal clauses."

You see, they recognize that terms of your lease might well be legally unenforcable, void, and if they don't have that clause such could be held to void the entire lease.

You are not bound by void clauses, even if you sign them. Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.

This statement by the FCC is that any such clause is void because your landlord has no legal authority to so restrict you, even by contract. It is prohibited.

No, I am not a lawyer, but I am a landlord.

KFG

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (1)

Rufus88 (748752) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557316)


Your landlord relies on your ingnorance of this fact to get you to follow the terms he wishes.


And if you prove, and exercise, your lack of ignorance, you may have a difficult time convincing your landlord to renew your lease next year.

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557348)

And if you prove, and exercise, your lack of ignorance, you may have a difficult time convincing your landlord to renew your lease next year.

Now that may well be the case.

KFG

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (1)

Halo- (175936) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557151)

This is a really good point, and I suspect you are right.

The airports will forbid the use of non-airport systems via a condition in the carriers lease, and a clause in the boilerplate on your ticket. (Which you are required to have to get through the security gate....) So I suspect this will be a short lived victory.

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (5, Informative)

breser (16790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557169)

Actually that's usually not the way it works. Federal law trumps any contract, local or state laws. Consider what happened with cable TV. Apartment complexes tried to say that you couldn't get satellite TV and had to use their cable provider. In the end the FCC ended up ruling that they can't restrict you from installing an antenna. [fcc.gov]

There are very few exceptions to this rule. Legitimate safey regulations (which is very narrowly defined), regulations related to the preservation of properties listed on the National Register of Historic places, you can't damage someone elses property with your antenna (drilling holes in a railing or roof you don't own), reasonable size restrictions, and finally it has to be in your own private space, not a common area.

If you take a look at a lot of apartment complexes these days you'll notice a lot of satellite antennas mounted to buckets sitting on decks. This ruling is why. The apartment complexes hate it, they think they're ugly, but there is nothing they can do about it.

Incidentally this same ruling was ammended to apply to fixed wireless, and yes they do mention Internet access. I don't think it's too difficult to say that this existing ruling already preempts any potential contract clause that you're worried about. At a minimum I think it shows how the FCC would end up ruling on the issue.

I can't seem to find this new ruling online yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if it also already dealt with this issue. I would imagine that the airlines lease included some sort of clause like this.

Re:I do appreciate your optimism... (2, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557342)

Again, the point of this ruling is that ONLY THE FCC CAN REGULATE SPECTRUM USE.

In other words.. if anyone else does it, it's invalid.

Your landlord could make you sign a contract banning the presence of wifi equipment befor ehe rents you the house, however
if he permits you to have such equipment in the house, he CANNOT regulate your use if ot.

I forget... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9556990)

It's monday... so do we hate the evil, censoring FCC, or do we love the wonderful "defender of the rights" FCC? I though the love part was only for the weekends...

That's easy... (1)

absurdist (758409) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557177)

We love the FCC when they stay within their mandated role of regulating technical issues. We hate the FCC when they overstep their mandate and attempt to regulate content. All clear now?

What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (3, Insightful)

bobhagopian (681765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557002)

The article says "the FCC has ruled that it has final jurisdiction over unlicensed wireless space"

I think the ruling is a good one, but something about the previous sentence bothers me: I don't like the idea that the FCC can decide what it does and does not control. Does anyone see the potential for abuse? *puts on tinfoil hat*

Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557038)

The FCC said that they "reaffirmed" that they have jurisdiction, anybody who's saying "ruled" is using a word that nobody at the FCC said on the record. Typical journalistic oversimplification.

Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557076)

I think the ruling is a good one, but something about the previous sentence bothers me: I don't like the idea that the FCC can decide what it does and does not control.

If you don't like it, take 'em to court. The courts CAN tell 'em they're full of hogwash.

But in this case the courts would almost certainly rule that they are right - that congress DID give them that exclusive regulatory authority, and that the supremacy clause extends that authority over the states and their subdivisions.

Re:What doesn't the FCC have jurisdiction over? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557117)

The FCC has jurisdiction as determined by Congress, as delineated by the Communications Act of 1934 (and subsequent amendments), which is codified as Title 47, United States Code (47 USC).

The FCC Rules and Regulations, which are the implementation of the authority granted through Title 47, United States Code, are delineated in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR). The 'unlicensed' stuff is spelled out in Part 15 of the FCC Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 15).

The important points are:

1.) The FCC determines how the non-government frequency spectrum is to be divvied up.

2.) Just because something is not licensed per se does not mean it's not under FCC authority. The various broadcast stations (AM, FM, and TV), two-way land mobile (taxis, trucking companies, state/county/municipal emergency services, etc.), as well as amateur radio, are all _licensed_ services - stations are assigned callsigns, are given individual authorizations to operate, etc.
Certain other activities, such as Wi-Fi and CB radio, are not _licensed_ as such, but are _permitted_ under FCC R&R. If you insist on breaking the rules, be prepared to shell out upwards of $11,000 per day per violation - dozens of pirate FM broadcasters have already found that out the hard way.

3.) Congress reiterated this delineation of authority in Conference Report 97-765, where it declared:

The Conference Substitute is further intended to clarify the resolution to the Federal Communications Commission over matters involving RFI. Such matters shall not be regulated by local or state law, nor shall radio transmitting be subject to local or state regulation, as part of any effort to resolve an RFI complaint.

(HR Report No. 765, 97th Cong., 2 Sess 33 (1982), reprinted at 1982 US Code Cong & Ad News 2277).

IANAL, but have been an FCC licensee for over 35 years. The various appendices in the ARRL FCC Rule Book go into much further detail.

A bigger issue than it seems... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557034)

Opti-Fi Networks [flyairpath.com] has been affected by this a few times. Several port authorities have demanded that we remove our AP's pending their approval, effectively removing competition in these markets. On the other hand, when the port authority runs things, the wireless networks tend to be more designed with the "total package" in mind -- the whole airport is usually wired then, and not just Airtran (In the case of Opti-Fi) gates.

Ahahaha (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557035)

computerweekly.com is slashdotted!

Ownz0red!

Anyway, guess this decision makes sense. Don't they have the same policy for radio waves?

don't get on his network (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557043)

Nope, my land-lord doesn't want me on his network -- that would reduce bandwidth needed for porn surfing. If I'm lucky he won't request to use some of my network bandwidth too. Some people are just wired in unique ways.

Hey... (3, Funny)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557050)

Wait, we can just do that now? Sweet! I rule only I have jurisdiction over wire mesh screens! Or did somebody else already call that?

Yes but... (-1, Offtopic)

c0dedude (587568) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557056)

Smokey the Bear: Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires! It's funny. Laugh.

Re:Yes but... (1)

1000101 (584896) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557083)

"It's funny. Laugh."


I'm laughing at you, not with you.

so what? (2, Informative)

dslmodem (733085) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557082)

how much does it cost to monitor and enforce the right?

if FCC has not limited the number of access points that one man can have, the landlord can muscle out its tenant's right easily. Just install as many APs as possible.

we need more geeky lawyers... new jobs!!! :-P

It is April first?! (4, Funny)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557133)

First we learn that Microsoft is essentially using the BSD open source license. Now the FCC is doing something that is pro-consumer. What gives?!

Link to the Public Notice (0, Redundant)

yositune (98185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557161)

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

Rather than settling for a press article, enjoy reading the real thing. It's a short, three pages.

Religion and Wi-Fi? (0, Flamebait)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557203)

I personally feel that the First Christian Church should have NO control over wireless at all. Don't they have souls to save or something? I have prayed for Gods help quite often with regard to my company's network, but that's just different.

The gov't might not act in the public interest... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557234)

But it certainly will act in its own interest. The FCC is not intervening because it is right, it's intervening because someone is trying to horn in on their territory.

If there were only some way to make it in the government's interest to save money and represent the citizens to the best of their ability, we'd be living in a golden age.

Cell phone use on airplanes? (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557274)

So... Only the FCC can regulate the use of the RF spectrum. Okay, clear enough...

What implications does this have for the ubiquitous banning of cell phone use on airplanes (in favor of the much more expensive payphones they have available for passengers who really need to make a call)?

Personally, I've always considered the cell phone ban during flights as nothing short of offensive. Yeah, suuuuure it interferes with their navigation. Hey, guess what, if cell phones interfered with airplane navigation, the very fact that your phone can get a signal (from huge many-megawatt transmitting cell towers) would cause far more problems than the RF output of your sad little portable transmitter (aka "phone").


Any thoughts, from someone who might really know the answer to this? Cell phones now kosher, or no? How about WAPs (ie, networked games between two people with 802.11 on their laptops on the same flight)? How about VOIP, if you can get a signal?

Re:Cell phone use on airplanes? (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557362)

Cell phone use on airplanes is banned by the FCC, so you have no luck there.

Big government (3, Insightful)

svenvder (778211) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557275)

Now thats all fine and good but am i the only one paranoid about the government acquiring more power. I say the government should have three jobs: 1) common defense 2) build roads 3) deliver the mail Thats it no more

baby out with the bathwater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557294)

means that you have the right to set up your own network even if your landlord would want you to use theirs

although you no longer have the right to speak freely over your network, since the FCC now has pervue over it to censor and fine you according to their prushish, clintonite whims.

Aye, Here's the Rub (5, Informative)

eyeota (686153) | more than 10 years ago | (#9557332)

Ironically, I've been dealing with this exact situation in airports, but the fight is between the dominating terminal tennant and the authority that controls the terminal/airport.

In short, the Authority controlling the terminal (varies by city/state) wants to control Wireless access to enable 3rd parties to come in (concourse is one of the larger) to sell wireless access with the authority getting profit from the deal.

The Dominating tennant, usually an airline, has quite a bit of say (They're actually responsible for maintaining the facility set forth by the authority), but has been fighting an uphill battle with frequency allocation. In Short, the authority is looking to make money. The dominating tennant is looking for stability. My company operates a 802.11b network throughout a terminal and we were 'assigned' a channel by the dominating tennant. Obviously, I could run on any frequency I choose, but if I did, they'd shutdown my equipment (my antennas are on their roof, in their IDFs, powered by their power, etc.) and prohibit me from operating. They can, kick me out of the terminal if I won't impact them too much (There's a termination for convienence clause in these leases) or, simply over power my network by broadcasting the same SSID and dropping traffic to an VLAN that goes no where.

Yes, the FCC says I have certain rights, but when you choose to co-exist with someone who's ultimately a) paying you and/or b) allowing you to make money, politics plays a huge deal so it's best to work it out peacefully.

fucke8 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9557347)

They 4re Come on [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>