Slashdot Mirror
FCC: Only We Can Regulate Unlicensed Spectrum
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."
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.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
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.
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*
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
This was funny a couple years ago. Please stop.
The more you know, the less you understand.
I'm going to go dance in the street.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then, uh, why are you reading slashdot comments anyway? Please stop.
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
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..
There's a huge difference between "You can set up your own network" and "You can set up your own crap on our network."
You can set up WAPs all you want. You just can't plug 'em into their hardware. If Bellsloth'll run you DSL to the dorms, plug it into that and have at... The ruling doesn't say they have to allow you to plug into their network. It says they can't tell you you can't have your own WAPs hooked into your own network.
-JDF
I recall hearing something (or perhaps I read it) about Carnegie Mellon Unv a number of years back (2000 or 2001 perhaps?) about CMY declaring that all the airwaves above their campus are their sole property and can not be legally interfered with by anyone on or off campus. Basically they wanted to ensure that their wireless network had no competition. I'm thinking it was CMU. I haven't been able to find anything about it though in a few minutes of Googling. The FCC's ruling would mean that CMU could no longer declare unlicensed spectrum to be their own for their own exclusive use (or licensing depending on how you look at it). I see this ruling possibly applying to students in a dorm that want to have an AP in their room. The school says no because they are offering their own wireless access. The FCC ruling would say that's a no no. Interesting ruling no matter how you look at it.
I'm also glad for this FCC ruling. After reading about the citywide network in Rio Rancho, NM, which has rather hefty subscriber fees ($50/mo for 1 Mb/s), I wondered if authorities were seeking monopolization of WiFi.
This statement from the FAQs could indicate that: It's important to have the involvement of city government in approving this type of deployment
Why? Maybe if the service were free and tax supported, not subscription based. All they really provide is WiMax routers on lamp poles and the 43 Mb/s backhaul. (You supply your own WiFi card/router.) The disruptive technology that Cringely extolled recently, regarding Linksys/Sveasoft DIY mesh networks, is much preferable.
What Rio Rancho gets out of the deal is subsidized bandwidth for emergency services, which taxes ought to cover. Now government officials have an interest in suppressing DIY mesh networks. And Rio Rancho is being held up as a model for other communities.
The FCC ruling is very much in the spirit of Open Source.
The difference between interstate and intrastate radio emissions is whether your receiver is on the same side of the border as his transmitter. Since electromagnetic fields don't observe political boundaries, I can't think of any other meaningful distinction.
The logical difficulty stems from trying to treat "what you agreed to" as if it were "what makes sense". We frequently accept restrictions on our behavior which are poorly-thought-out, or at least poorly-worded. Then we discover the problem, but it's too late to avoid it because we agreed to it. Our only recourse at that point is to renegotiate something more sensible.