Slashdot Mirror
University Bans Wireless Access Points
Slayk writes "The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network. While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC. Students have until the 15th of September to comply with the policy, disable their wireless equipment, and string cat5 over the floor, or be subject to 'disciplinary action.'"
If those apartments belong to the University, and the presence of your access point harms/disrupts the operation of their own network then to me it looks like it is well within the rights of the university to demand this - and as they can't single out a specific access point to cause the problem it seems just that they require ALL to be shut down.
On the other if those apartments do not belong to the university, then I wouldn't see how they should even try and enforce this.
In either case, it's not much of an issue - and it's not a freedom of speech / censorship issue, since they DO allow private access to the internet by wired means...
Looks like it's not a bad time to consider putting up some of this: Anti Wi-Fi Wallpaper
mattdev@server$ touch
cannot touch `/dev/genitals': Permission denied
The college has a perfect right to restrict the use of those devices on their property. Perhaps the submitter/editor doesn't understand that you can tell people what to do on your property. You don't have a fundamental right to install a Wifi router wherever you see fit.
At Georgia Tech, wireless access points are already banned from rooms. You can usually find some though by war.. roaming down resident halls. The rooms aren't really big enough to need wireless anyway, though.
i) Sign up at school
ii) Fail to follow school rules
iii) Bannination occurs.
iv) Obtain job at favourite fast food outlet
Where's the problem here?
Their rooms, their rules.
Duh.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Just because they own the land doesn't mean they own the airwaves on it.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
My school did the same thing. Luckily i worked part time in IT, and the network guys knew that I knew how to lock down my wifi router, so they didnt bitch about mine. Now they even have a kid with a PDA go down the halls of the dorms and "war-walk". Luckily, they say they "dont support wifi" and that "you are responsible for everything on your connection" etc, etc, so they are more friendly than the school in the article.
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
Students can use the university's access points. If they set up their own they would interfere with the network that the university has setup. The university should have the right to protect their network infrastructure on campus.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
The university I attend and work for has this exact same policy. The issue is not FCC regulation, but you being a student at the university and having to live under their rules that you agreed to live under when enrolling as a student. Stop whining and just use their wireless network. There are far too few 802.11* channels for students, faculty, and staff to have their own rogue WAPs in the same vicinity as official university ones.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
I'm sure I want to receive my education from a school that can't learn to deal with changes in technology. I mean if they are incapable of dealing with something this simple, and just choose to ban use, why would I think they take the easy way out with other tough questions?
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
This is news. I haven't even read it, but here at UofM we don't get to have any sort of router in the dorms (inc wireless). Something about newbs putting junk on the network and ruining things. Mike www.vafrous.com
mix_master_mike
vafrous
Bah.
What a whiney tone for a posting from a supposedly-neutral editor.
"regulated by a body that is not the FCC"
Try and put 802.11b/g hot spots:
1) All over the mall
2) Up and down your street, in trees, etc.
3) In your neighbor's house
I think the FCC will be one of the last places to complain. Much like joining the army, when you decide to live on campus, you agree to lose certain rights. Deal with it.
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
Big deal...
Go buy an 802.11a access point...and operate at 5Ghz
Sure....it costs more and has less range but it should be adequate.
Part 15 devices are REQUIRED to accept all interference from other devices. The FCC will spank them just to protect their turf, and that will be the end of that.
Unofficial access points are prohibited at Georgia Tech too (Wireless Policy). From a security standpoint, it makes perfect sense.
I guess this will be the great return of 802.11a since it runs on the 5ghz spectrum.
Technically I think it's pretty much unenforcable as I doubt they'll be running around sniffing out WiFi networks. I think its more of a "if your WiFi gets hacked you get blamed" type policy. Without such a policy, you really wouldn't have a clue who to hold responsible for their actions on their network.
Some students in Waterview have been experiencing problems when trying to connect to the UTD Wireless Network. The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites.
The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students not wishing to utilize these "unknown" access points, as the wireless network cards attempt to connect to the nearest and strongest signal available - which is often the "unknown" access points. Locking down the access points does not help this problem, but actually makes it even worse.
A letter has been sent to Waterview Apartment residents describing the situation in some detail and advising them that no wireless access points other than university-installed ones will be allowed - with a specific exception.
No 802.11b or 802.11g wireless access points may be installed within the Waterview Apartments by residents. Only 802.11a wireless access points will be allowed and those must be set only to the specific channels provided for that purpose (see list below). In other words, no access points using the 2.4GHz band may be used and only certain frequencies in the 5GHz spectrum.
Another simple option is to use ethernet cabling to connect everyone in an apartment to the commercial broadband connection. This can be done using a cheap router and some ethernet cables, all readily available at the UTD Tech Store, Radio Shack, Microcenter, CompUSA or a multitude of other places.
Connect the commercial modem (cable/DSL) to the router, then plug in the ethernet cables and connect them back to each computer in the apartment.
NOTE: We do not recommend drilling holes in the walls. This will ultimately cost you more money!
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
This is an unfortunate situation that has problems no matter what the resolution may be. But the free wireless service provided by the university in Waterview must take precedence over those few users who may choose to do something different.
So if you are using a wireless access point (not a wireless card or adapter for your desktop), then you should immediately start considering your options. Sometime within the next few weeks, someone will be knocking on apartment doors to notify those with "unknown" access points that they will need to shut those devices off.
We ask your patience and cooperation during this period and we are working to be sure that both Comcast, SBC and other providers do not recommend using a wireless access point.
802.11a Available Channels:
There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE) (149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)
We have the same rule at my Uni (an unnamed UK Uni, to save the admin's blushes), but unregulated DHCP (no need to register your MAC address) for wired connections. Madness!
we're gonna be seeing a lot more regulation of the networks. Just think how easy it would be to coordinate illegal activities (warez, music distribution) using a hijacked Wi-Fi network...
UT Dallas expects enrollment at its engineering school to drop to zero for the upcoming school year.
What a bunch of petulant screaming for a total non-event. Just when you think Slashdot's editorial efforts could get no shoddier, you get a surprise like this.
Your own apartment is the way to go.
there's a better solution than an outright ban?
Can't they just specify certain channels for private student networks?
The university is breaking the law by forbidding WiFi.
c h/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf
The parent article/post points this out with this link:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat
In other words, the FCC forbids ANYBODY from telling you that you're not allowed to use your WiFi (Or, as I read it, any other device with an antenna less than one foot in length).
So, if we're not allowed to complain when somebody (UofT) breaks the law and denies us our (Well, Americans') rights, when ARE we allowed to complain?
One thing for certain though is they do own the infrastructure you are trying to access. Therefore, they can restrict or limit how you access as they see fit.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
The university has the right to control what sort of devices are on their network. I'm sure the students would be allowed to set up their own Wireless LAN that was not connected to the university network if they so chose.
They don't have "rights" to use the spectrum if the University doesn't allow it. The fact is, those students are subject to the rules and regulations of their student handbook and University policies. As others have undoubtedly already said (because they type faster than I) - if they're living in University-owned apartments or dormitories, then the University can do what it wants. If the property is not owned/affiliated with the University, then there's no way it will be enforced. I think this is likely a nice troll story to start off my Thursday morning.
Then again, I went to a private University with must stricter rules than any public school. Even then, they weren't that bad. But I learned nice and quick that the school makes the rules and you're the one that is choosing to attend. That doesn't mean you have a "right" to attend. It's a little different with public schools, but the idea is still the same.
I guess I should fight the man by demanding the right to bring in my own popcorn and soda at the movie theatres too.
While I disagree with this policy, my school has the same take on it too, this hardly elevates the issue into "Your Rights Online". You don't like this, goto another school.
Leave Wi-Fi alone!
Baylor University is already the same way and has been for a while. First, it's impossible for a wireless router to get an IP address from DHCP (since it cannot be registered) and second, it creates interference for our wireless network, AirBear. It's a private university, they can do whatever the hell they want.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
That is old news at Rochester Institute of Technology http://www.rit.edu/. ITS doesn't allow us to have our own WAPs either in the dorms or in the apartments and they'll shut off our ethernet if they detect it. Didn't stop me from puttin' in an airport extreme. :)
It's to ensure security of their internal networks, they say - don't need non-students somehow gaining access to sensitive info (and there are some info there that only the RIT community can see, like floor maps of every building on campus).
Visitors can use the campus-wide wireless network for up to a certain time and then they must register their laptops with ITS.
My school, Plymouth State in Plymouth, NH has a similar policy (sorry, couldn't find a link). No non-campus owned access points. Main reason being security control. The excuse they give to students? Using an access point might knock someone else in the building off the network.
But... do they enforce it? Not so far.
Well, clearly the University can't prevent the students from operating the wireless points just because they are the landlords. But can they do it as part of the student agreement? Can they do it in a housing contract? My questions are:
1) Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the contract? The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of their contract or demand payement for it? I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.
2) Can the university bar the access points as a condition of being an enrolled student? If so, can they also ban other legal activities such as gambling, marching in protest or interracial dating? Not sure of the answer, but my guess is they can't.
I'm inclined to believe that the U. is without recourse here, at least one an affected student gets a lawyer. If they wanted to control the spectrum, they should've used a licensed band instead. I expect the policy won't last long.
As we know, the signal is not confined to a single room unless you've got some of that silver wallpaper that was mentioned a while back.
Otherwise it's quite feasible to get a signal through two or three walls or a floor.
A large percentage of people still do not bother to / are able to configure WEP/WPA security on their access points. These people would be opening up the university network to unauthorized access, making their own internal server infrastructure (including valuable data like research material) for anyone close enough to an access point to see.
Yes, it's a rather draconian measure, but what other choice is there? They can't insist on setting up all student access points themselves (and then changing the password) can they?
This raises an obvious question. In the article, they say that this is causing problems because students' wireless cards automatically connect to the access point with the strongest signal. Maybe someone who knows about WiFi can explain: How do you get your card to connect to the access point of choice? Is this possible? Why isn't the university just telling their students how to do this?
Woodruff had the largest rooms, I believe. Then they built ULC - friggin apartments for mostly the athletes, complete with stoves, fridges, et al. Don't know what happened after the olympics, though I think all of those dorms went to Georgia State
/RANT
Seriously, can a private (or even state funded) entity ban the public from accessing an FCC licensed spectrum? I know that organizations, such as home owners associations, etc. cannot prevent an individual from accessing the sky, even if it interferes with architectural restrictions, etc.? Not saying they can't, but I would like to find the relevant law on the subject matter.
What's to prevent students from creating ad-hoc networks?
The university owns the buildings - they do have the right to say what can and can not be put in them. It's a private contract between a student and the university. No one is forcing you to go there.
From the UTD website: "The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students not wishing to utilize these "unknown" access points, as the wireless network cards attempt to connect to the nearest and strongest signal available - which is often the "unknown" access points." Thus, the obvious fix here is to hand out the SSIDs of legitimate access points to those students trying to connect to UTD's wireless LAN and tell those kids to turn off the option to connect to the "nearest & strongest signal."
That's read the supplemental links. The FCC has established that use of unlicensed radio equipment is your RIGHT and that they alone can impose restrictions on that right. Since it is YOUR spectrum in those apartments I am not clear how they feel they can do this.
This is likely becoming a more and more common thing--when morons don't configure their fucking Wal-Mart Linksys router, it's a security hole.
Many unsecured, unfiltered APs=many security holes and conflicts within the network.
It's only right.
Probably some NASA shit going on with Houston.
"They do own the infrastructure you are trying to access" ??? No - when I was living on campus I had my own private high-speed connection. At the time I did not have WIFI, but if I did have it, I dont' see why I would've had to stop using mine so that the University's would work better.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
There is no reason why anyone should be allowed to connect a WAP to a network that doesn't belong to them.
This is a similar concept to banning modems.
If the Uni wanted their network to have public access then they would provide public access on their terms not through students plugging in WAPs and inadvertantly letting every joe in reception range surf anonymously through the Unis network.
It's pretty standard network design to only allow WAPs to exist in the dmz. Not a good idea to have them on the trusted network at all.
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
It's not like they're trying to tread on the FCC's toes and license the spectrum themselves, they're just trying to maintain a semblance of network security in a relatively open environment. You're not allowed to plug a WAP into your company's LAN, are you? Why should this be different? If somebody puts up an AP, but doesn't plug it into the network, then they're exercising their right to use unlicensed spectrum, just like they would by using a 2.4GHz wireless phone or a microwave oven. But the owner of a network has every right to set policy prohibiting rogue AP's on the LAN.
I have the strangest feeling that "apartment" means "dorm room" in this context. At least, the article gave no indication that the problem was being caused by students living off-campus. So, the first problem is that they're renting space from the school. The school certainly has the right to set ground rules on their own property.
The second problem is that it's the school's network that's getting boned by this behavior, and that means that students' wireless networks are screwing over other students. The school also has the right to set ground rules regarding on-campus network usage.
In any case, nobody ever died because they had to use Cat5. I did it at my alma mater for four years, because either nobody had or nobody could afford wireless gear at the time. I'm sure you and your classmates will survive, somehow, this minor restriction in privilege.
Canthros
While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC.
The comment above from the original poster seems to be a bit on the daft side. Sure, it's unlicensed. However, they are providing access to the school network. They aren't infringing on any rights of students by protecting their own network.
If it were me, I'd have said "get rid of them, or you can pay our internal security guy $200/hr, with 2 hours minimum, plus cost of hardware, to come out and install our own wireless AP in your place"
It's stupid, uninformed, biased crap like the original comment above that makes people look more, and more stupid as time goes by.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Cordless phones are next - especially those that operate in the 2.4GHz range!!!!
...as the FCC has sole jurisdiction in this area. See for example this ruling where the landlord (Denver International Airport) was not allowed to prevent tenants (airlines) setting up independent networks, even though it was claiming safety grounds. AFAIK landlords cannot include a prohibition on private 802.11 networks in a lease, and if they do, that prohibition will not be upheld by a court.
The point is, if you want a guarantee against interference, you need to get a licence for a *licenced* band, pay the FCC fees, and do your thing there - 802.11 is unlicenced, and as such you have no guarantee to be free of interference.
I don't see how the university would be any different (perhaps in some jurisdictions university residences can fall outside normal tenancy law; still in this case it appears that the FCC is quite clear on it being the body with total jurisdiction.)
This whole story should be modded Score:-1, Overrated. A university apartment is *not* the student's property - it's *university* property and the university can impose regulations like this as they see fit. The FCC aren't going to care if a university prohibits the use of a non-University provided AP, there's no law stopping the University from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students. If the student doesn't like the policy they are free to rent privately or go to another university. It's no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot. That's not pre-empting the FAA which regulates airspace - it's simply the landowner (the university) imposing conditions of using their land.
Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different - if you don't like the rule, rent an apartment where the rules don't forbid 802.11b. It's entirely reasonable for the university to restrict 802.11b access points being plugged into *their* network too from a security point of view (non-secured AP + wardriver = nice big hole through any firewall they have).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
go and grab a copy of this
and get you and a few friends to wander around campus with laptops running it.
it will completely hose the wifi police trying to find accesspoints cince the program broadcast's thousands of fake AP's.
great fun...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
my former college has had a similar policy.
http://www.moreheadstate.edu/Morehead State University has the same policy as the one mentioned in the article. Many of my friends who live on campus have had to remove their wireless router.
U 's tech policy
http://www.morehead-st.edu/units/it/policy.htmlMS
The technology policy is pretty wordy and never really says they are prohibited I don't think, but many people are finding out the hard way that it doesn't have to be written down I suppose.
"The life of a repoman is always intense!" --Harry Dean Stanton
jackass knows not of what he speaks. -1 clueless
UTD is not the only college campus to have those points banned, many university IT departments, such as Boston University, ban them and cut off connections to these wireless access points. Anyways, if the apartment is connected directly through the college's own network, it's gotta be directly owned by them, so it's a null point anyways as they can determine what they require to 'secure' their network.
The University of Tennessee, where I matriculate and work, has the same policy. There are three main reasons why the students have no right to complain about it:
1) When you live in a school's dorms/apartments, you agree to follow its rules. For example, the school is a dry campus - you agree not to have alcohol in your abode.
2) The school provides your internet access. If you feel like putting up a AP, go ahead! If we find it we'll turn off your port!
3) When your computer gets compromised because you didn't secure your AP properly, guess who you'll come crying to - us! Think of it as preventative medicine...
That said, like the alcohol rule, the rule is only rarely enforced, basically only if you're not secured or you are on a channel that is being used by our APs.
i) Sign up at school
ii) Fail to follow school rules
iii) Bann occurs.
iv) Obtain job at favourite fast food outlet
PROFIT
Duh!
The notice explains clearly why they are doing it: the hundreds of WiFi access points set up by students are, in fact, interfering with each other.
This shows two things. a) Yes, folks, it really is necessary to have a regulatory agency like the FCC control use of the frequency spectrum. The Invisible Hand of the Marketplace will not magically solve technical engineering problems by itself.
b) The FCC currently isn't doing its job; they are allowing companies to set standards and sell gear that does interfere.
(This is nothing new, of course. The reason why your television set only picks up channels 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, etc. that the FCC botched the initial allocation of VHF spectrum. Adjacent channel assignments (2, 3, 4) weren't supposed to interfere with each other, but did)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Problem solved. As long as you know the names of your wifi spots, and where they are, you can jut join them manually, rather than roaming for it. Further, if you're not broadcasting your SSID, the wifi cops at the Uni's NOC won't have a clue you're running the device, and ghapless students, wanna be hackers won't netstumble upon your WiFI connection. It takes 20 seconds to diable the SSID, then you can have an underground list/map of wifi spots, their SSID,s etc circulated to those "in the know". On a Uni, with all the potential for abuse, I wouldn't be broadcasting my SSID, encryption or not...
2) The university can prohibit those things as the condition of being an enrolled student. I guess you're not familiar with Bob Jones University :) Yeah, it bans dating, and for a while (i'm not sure if they still do) bans interracial dating.
But that is a private school. UTD is public, so the question is even more strange given that Texas has standardized leasing laws for apartments + UTD is a public institution.
You are not allowed to extend the school network in *any* way. As in, you cannot use your own hubs, switches, wireless routers/access points, etc. You get one network jack, in your room, and that's it.
However they are installing WAPs through campus and have many places where you can just plug in your laptop.
Note that this internet connection is installed offcampus to non-university owned apartments as well. But since it is still the schools internet connection the same rules still apply.
Don't like it? Get a cable modem, DSL connection, or your own wireless connection.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Yup my small liberal arts college (Dickinson College) did not have a wireless network to use unless you loaned a school owned ibook. In this case it would only work in the library plus you had to return it after 3 hours. The library wireless was mac address locked down so you could not use it with your own computer. They also banned us bringing our own wireless access points. Oh and they used this http://lis.dickinson.edu/AboutLIS/Policies/wireles s.htm/ really ridiculous wireless policy saying that it was impossible to secure wireless internet access for use on a campus network.
This is very interesting. My first guess was that the University bans access points that connect on their network. This is within their rights. But when I read the policy, I was surprised. Are they try to regulate the use of unlicensed spectrum in private residences that connect to commercial broadband services? This is weird. It would seem to me that the residents there who use WiFi have as much right as asking the University to disconnect its own access points!
It may be the case that the apartment complexes in question belong or are being managed by the University. If so there may be a clause in the lease that empowers the University to enact such restrictions. This is obviously something for lawyers to look at.
If, however, the University has no legal right to dictate to tenants what to do with unlicensed spectrum, the policy is totally absurd (not to mention illegal). High density of access points is bound to creare electromagnetic interference. The particular fraction of the RF spectrum is unlicensed and FCC has no jurisdiction here. The funny thing is that recently a Wall Street Journal article hailed this experiment with unlicensed spectrum as proof that the FCC and its bureaucracy become obsolete. Who's going to mediate the situation at UT and how?
And what's next? The University will ban the use of 2.4 GHz cordless phones? What about cell phones or microwaves? They do, might interfere with the University's WiFi infrastructure. And, given the density of WiFi emissions on campus, will the University by liable to protect those with page makers? Surely if the University notices the interference, the electromagnetic fields might be significant enough to affect pacemakers around campus!
Cmon people, work out a realistic solution instead of dictating unenforceable policies. What if a resident continues to operate a WiFi point in his/her apartment. What the University do? Arrest the student? I would not be surprised if there is a clause in the Patriot Act allowing something like this, but other than that how to do you enforce such a policy?
...does not mean it's not funny!
Meanwhile, those four little words pretty much describe the entire situation.
University rolls out major wireless network for students.
Univesity places some restrictions on what type of services may utilize the wireless network (I'm guessing this is why certain students chose to subscribe to a commercial cable/DSL package).
"Information Wants To Be Free" chanting students begin providing "unofficial" wireless access points.
Uninformed, thoughtless students providing unofficial access begin to disrupt normal usage.
University says stop it.
Uninformed, thoughtless "Information Wants To Be Free" chanting studetns cry that their rights have been soiled.
Sure, there are ways around this... to a degree. Require authorization before accessing unauthorized network, etc... But really, doesn't that just create more work for the university? They are, after all, there to provide an environment for education... and should not be forced to watch dog students 733t off-campus activities.
If you want to use an outside service... make sure it doesn't effect those who are happily using the service provided by the institution -- regardless of your post-teen angst driven need to rebel.
#SickNotWeak
show the average American's willingness to allow someone else to control their freedom. In France people would be chanting in the streets for their freedom. In the states they just accept, comply and fear. It's almost as if it were a facist country.
The real problem, as told to me by a friend who goes there(I used to go there) is they implemented campus-wide Wifi. In order to prevent unauthorized people from using the network, they put in 802.11x(the authentication mech, forgive me if I got the name wrong). It works, but only near an access point, not behind the repeaters, i.e. only a few people can use it in the apartments at all. So they are blaming it on other people's Wifi interfering with the auth mechanisms, but calling it "piracy" to get people to do it and make it sound more kosher.
My friend is sure as hell glad he doesn't live on campus, he made that mistake last year and a few years before that(moved off then back on b/c of scholarship).
You aren't even allowed to burn candles in those apartments, it's just silly, there is no service, and the water sprinklers go off every morning, rain or shine, for no reason, and long enough to create patches of dead grass b/c of overwatering and to create giant mud puddles.
You guys are funny. Of course the University can't regulate your usage of the 2.4 GHz spectrum. However, the campus network belongs to them, and they have every right to regulate what devices are allowed to connect it it and what can't. Even if it's behind a NAT/firewall, it's still connected to their network, and they have sole authority over it.
Go cry somewhere else.
Life does not exist within the confines of contract law. Thank goodness.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Sigh.
They're still within their rights to limit what devices you can and cannot use on their property. You can't use your cell phone on an airplane in flight. They always tell you it's "Federal Regulations". Nope. It's neither the FAA nor the FCC. It's the airline.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I just turned 21 and live in the dorms. (I can't cook and fast food is too expensive.) In my state I am now legally able to drink. All the dorms on campus do not allow any sudents to drink or smoke even if they are of legal age. I personally have no problem with this. I decided to live here.
The University has the right to regulate your behavior to a certain extent. When you have thousands of students living in quarters you must have rules. This includes more than music should not be heard from two rooms away.
Seriously though, not advertising your network plus encryption? They'd have to do a physical look around to find your equipment to enforce this..
Maybe UTD will be the first l33t access point modding community?
Putting APs behind posters, built into sculptures, etc...
Considering APs are essentially static fixtures, why not make them art?
I would agree with the ban, if the students were connecting their access points to the universities network. But even the policy statement admits the access points "are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
So students a paying for their own, non-university internet connection, and sharing it with their neighbors. Taking into account the FCC document, I don't think there is much the university can legally do.
This has nothing to do with students' rights. No one has a legal right to use however they wish something that does not belong to them. Sure, they may have a right to use a wireless access point in their dorm room, however they do not have a right to connect that to the network without permission. They perhaps may have given up even the right to possess such a device in their room by signing a housing contract, however, so we shouldn't be crying foul. Basically, if you live on a college campus (i.e. property owned by the school) you are completely subject to their rules and regulations.
I am feeling fat and sassy
Bingo Foo's (parent) post:
Here's an idea...
Let's whine about it!
#SickNotWeak
Either way UTD's wireless sucks. What a farce.
Yeah, but internet in the room is only provided by Cable or DSL that you pay for, the Wifi is the only one the school gives out for free.
Okay, so maybe the dorm room is only 8 feet wide, and my laptop sits right next to the access point, but I still want it!
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Just dont broadcast your ssid. they will not be able to find the ap then. DOH :) If they want you to remove the ap's... Just hide the dam thing under you bed and Dont broadcast the SSID!
You can be prevented from doing anything legal if you agree to it contractually. If you signed a contract to live in the university's housing that says you have to abide by the their rules, that's a decision you have to live with until the end of the contract. If you don't like a rule they enacted this year, you're free to find housing elsewhere with rules you can live with.
Hot plates with open burners have banned from dorm rooms at most universities for decades, and while decidedly low-tech, they're otherwise perfectly legal.
If the university doesn't want various APs conflicting with their network, than the university should get a licesned network and install that. 2.4ghz is unlicensed, anyone can use it so long as they are not too powerful.
If equipment doesn't exist for licensed bands, or i too expensive, well TOO BAD, they choose to use cheap stuff, they can deal with the hardships.
Note that HAMs can get a license for the 2.4 ghz band, and shut you down if your AP causes problems, but the university is unlikely to qualify for that license.
The apartments are just that Apartments they dont have dorms. And as of when I moved out non of their lease agreements specified anything about not being able to use wi-fi, they do restrict halogen lamps by fire code but hotplates are not a problem as the all have their own kitchen. Anyway the reason Students are setting up their own AP is for their cable modems which are much faster and more reliable than the school network which crashes regularly usualy on a weeken when no one is there to fix it so it stays down all weekend, not to mention when something happens on a break. On A side note As a shool that bills it self as a major EE/cs school ( makes up almost a third of their student body) you would think that they would have a more competent it dept no?
Having your own wireless access point hasn't been allowed on my campus (Northwestern) since I've been there.
It's too much of a security risk for the university.
I agree with the universaties. If students use wireless routers only one person on the floor would have to buy the internet access from the school and aeverybody else would get it for free. If the access points are on their grounds or o ntheir network they have a right to demand them to be shut off. Its like me putting a server on your network and you cant shut it down or disconnect it.
The article referenced students setting up access points to share third-party cable/DSL - the access points were not connected to the campus network at all. The issue was not to do with security but
rather "interference".
This supposed "interference" seemed largely to due to the fact that devices would connect to the strongest signal - suggesting that rather than *actual* interference clients were not properly configured to prioritise connection to the university WiFi SSID rather than just "any SSID".
It is as simple as that - Ever been to a LARGE conference (1000+) that offers wireless ? Every time I have gone - it takes about 2 days for the networking people to shutdown all of the stupid idiots that have open wireless on their laptops so the network can stabalize.
So what you are asking for is for the University to not be allowed to run a stable wireless network.
This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band - anyone can push a signal there, making interference the norm. Of course if it was regulated, none of us could use the spectrum, and it would be useless.
I think a happy medium is for the University to provide a wireless network, and then ask its users to not build a second network inside of it - to reduce interference. After all, how would you like it if I started broadcasting an encrypted wireless network in such a way that you couldn't use your wireless connection - or it always interfered and you could never get a clean signal ?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Here at CMU we have the same policy and it really is a none-issue. We have wireless coverage ac
as if UT has enough people to detect and enforce it.. with 52,000+ students it would be pretty hard to deal with..
i think it's the RIAA/MPAA trying to cut down on file swapping, not "protecting" their network..
silly t-sips..
i hate microsoft.
I fail to see what regulation the university is breaking by enforcing its own policies on its own dormitories...
When you sign an apartment lease, you may have to agree to pay a fee if you have a dog. That's not the apartment complex prohibiting you from owning a dog, it's prohibiting you from owning one on their premises, as one of their residents (unless you pay the fee, of course).
The university is not prohibiting students from owning 802.11b/g APs, they are prohibiting their residents from operating them on their premises, as one of their residents. When students move in, they agree to abide by the university's policies.
As callous as it may sound, if students don't like that policy they should find someplace else to live, one that does allow the unrestricted use of WiFi access points. I'm sure the university would reconsider its new policy if there was a mass exodus from the dorms by upset students.
But where has all the sig' gone?
Well...I guess the interesting question is that if the University can state that no toaster ovens or hotplates are allowed in dorm rooms (cause of the fire hazard) then they pretty much have full authority to do what they want on anything else especially if it affects the infrastructure of the school.
I've actually had 2 coffees, which might explained why i'm all pumped up against this.... I guess you're right. But only if it was EXPLICITELY written in their lease agreement, that the use of 802.11b routers was prohibited, at the time they signed the contract. And somehow i doubt the University administration thought that far ahead.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
No, it's called a lease agreement, with a change clause. Use the spectrum all you want, they are prohibiting a device, just like they can prohibit hotplates. If you don't like it, feel free to move out.
State law trumps (and voids) any lease agreement terms that the state has prohibited. (Example: lease terms that prohibit having a visitor of a particular race.) Voiding the term does not void the rest of the lease.
Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.
Federal law gives the FCC the exclusive authority to regulate the use of the RF spectrum, and the FCC has used this authority to write regulations that explicitly permit anyone to use the unlicensed spectrum (AND mount antennas no larger than one meter) despite any lower-level law, regulation, or contract to the contrary (such as zoning laws or landowner covenants forbidding external antennas). Students in student housing are EXPLICITLY mentioned in the cited FCC memo clarifying the regulation.
The FCC says the students can use the unlicensed spectrum. The FCC has the power to issue that regulation and override the university's Board of Regents on this issue. The Board of Regents or their agents can not penalize the students in any way for violating the voided regulation and exercising their privileges under the FCC ruling (because doing so would mean the regulation was not voided).
The students win.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Nope. There are several things you CANNOT give away.
Also, this banning is for no good reason so is unlikely to be held up.
The point is you can put *anything* you damn well like in a contract. Whether you'll get anywhere enforcing it is another matter....
The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.
[....]
There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE)(149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
[Some editing made to list of channels from original, due to what appeared to be formatting errors]
you are all missing the damn point. these wifi routers are connected to the campus network. they're worried about people roaming around causing havoc or just generally screwing with other students. here at school.... still... i have had quite a few chances to screw with people but have chosen not too. its the other geeks and script kiddies who want to cause havoc just because they can.
admittedly, they could allow wifi networks to exist as long as they don't connect to the network... but who among you wants to be that peon who gets to run around every day checking wifi routers.
this story is total bunk. i wish slashdot would implement a commen sense clause in the submission process.
too lazy to log in.
Don't broadcast the SSID, encrypt the communication, and don't worry. It's not like they can shut you down w/o knowing who you are.
I do security
I know that here at Chapel Hill, the same policy is enforced, and for good reason--there have been too many cases of dumbasses putting unsecured WAPs in dorm rooms (especially those with routers builtin) and disrupting network connectivity for others. I dont see a problem with this--its their network, their dorms, and therefore their rules. They do have a bit of a dont-ask-dont-tell policy for those that know what they are doing, but any WAPs they find will have their owners network connectivity cut off.
Seriously, their house, their rules. This isnt affecting the rights or ability to learn of any of the students.
1) String cat 5 everywhere
2) Trip over
3) Sue
4) Profit!
...that the FCC has explicitly ruled (as linked in the article) that landlords *cannot* make rules that forbid the use of 802.11.
The university can indeed restrict what is plugged into *their* network, but this deals with APs plugged into third party cable/DSL (presumably popular to get around restrictions/filtering on the university internet connection.)
So, if I take my wi-fi enabled laptop to the control room of a nuclear plant, and the signal causes a plant trip to due super-sensitive electronics used to measure signals in pico-amps, the plant has no right to prevent the same thing from happening again?
Note that this is not an absurd situation. We have banned cell phones from the control room, and I've personally observed a handheld walkie talkie cause a trip.
But it is hypothetical as I'm in Canada and the same laws don't apply.
There are 2 issues here, the University's right to control their own infrastructure, and the right of the students/faculty to use WiFi equipment of their own.
These issues are not in conflict with each other though. The reason being that the university could employ a multitude of tactics to make sure that the WAP's are not used on their infrastructure. Once such technique would be to authorize only specific MAC addresses (yes i know MAC's can be spoofed by WAP's). Another technique would be to run NMAP scans against the IP addresses on the networks to determine possible OS fingerprinting. And yet another technique woudl be to access any WAP's being used in the vicinity and see if they are able to access the campus network, and THEN track where the WAP is and take action on the owner/violator of the AUP.
As you can see these are all tactics that do not require banning Wi-Fi (which only the FCC would have the authority to do) and also secures their infrastructure.
I go to a small liberal-arts college, and I have an unsecured wireless access point hooked up to my network drop. The school has a campus-wide wireless network as well. Why would I do such a thing? Well, for one thing, being a dungeon, my dorm's walls are so damn thick that I can't get reception inside my dorm, and nobody can get reception from outside my door. I'd secure it, but there's not really much of a point, considering that the dorm's in the middle of the campus, and the walls of my dorm are so thick that I can't even detect my router from 20 feet away outside the dorm. Anyone who wants to freeload off of it is welcome, if you're willing to squat outside my locked door praying to whatever gods that govern radio to allow you to surf.
The article states that the APs are being used to service connections provided by cable and dsl providers. Read the article so you don't waste an entire paragraph.
The college has a perfect right to restrict the use of those devices on their property.
The FCC has the exclusive power to regulate such devices. It has exercised this power to explicitly override the regents (and any other landlords) on this issue. This regulation voids such lease terms, without voiding the rest of the lease, EVEN IF the lease is signed AFTER the regulation was issued. (The boilerplate in the lease becomes unenforcable noise.)
Students in student housing are explicitly mentioned as a case where the FCC has chosen to exercise this power.
Even the federal antiterrorist operations can't ban radio use by terrorists without going through the FCC.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What other Bands are they going to Ban? I am gonna start selling Using your microwave is not a crime t-shirts, or howabout "Wi-Fi free america"
Excuse me... I am gonna go WarSpot and set up my Router in my car with an Inverter and broadcast my pirate 2.4gHz signal...
Steal the air
Your analogy is incorrect, because the premise of your argument is incorrect. The students are creating a private wireless network. The school is attempting to ban them from doing so. Get your facts straight:
"The reason (for the network problems) has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
Read that? These access points are plugged into private connections (SBC and Comcast) and not as you assert the school's network. The school is arguing that the students' signal is interfering with the school's signal. However, the school does not own the spectrum of their signal. They are operating in an unlicensed band as all 802.11b/g devices do, and are required, per the FCC, to accept crosstalk on this unlicensed and unlicensable spectrum.
This mandate from the school is not a matter of them asserting their network property. This is a matter of the school superceding the FCC's mandate and trying to create new law and new rules. No-one owns the unlicensed spectrum, but this school wants to. Someone should explain that by attempting to assert exclusive rights over airwaves they do not own license to, they are currently commiting a civil crime.
Umm. No. Not if they also say that you must abide by the University's Rules & Regs (or whatever they call them) and in those rules it says they are subject to change at any time.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
sometimes I hate my treo...or maybe just sprint
at the university of south florida in tampa. We run them anyway, its completely uninforced.
...the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC...
Like the right of the travelers to use air waves (cel phone) on international areas in the privacy of their own couch in their airplane do obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC...
Oh wait its not their couch but the property of the air line and you pay to uses it not to own it and they can decide of the rules onboard. Like for your own apartment on your campus that is not yours and that is not on your property.
I still think it suck to prevent students from using the 2.4GHz but please let use coherent arguments.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
I am a "CCA" at Rice University. In terms of network problems, this year has been really crazy because people are bringing wireless routers on campus. They accidentally plug the ethernet cable into one of the LAN ports on the device. This causes a rouge DHCP server to be on the network harming other people's connection.
My opinion: if the university is not allowed to regulate wifi - they should be allowed to turn off any wifi user's internet connection.
When all I needed to hide was our bong and half-keg.
free online diet tracking.
No contract can require the signing parties to do something which is illegal. For instance, a contract which allows one party to take the other as a slave, or kill someone, or requires one party to drive 35 mph down an interstate, is not enforceable. In this case, the University is attempting to regulate the use of unlicensed spectrum, which is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the FCC. The University simply does not have the right to tell me that I can't use an AP, because federal law gives me the right in spite of what any landlord may say to the contrary. They can tell me that I'm not allowed the plug my AP into their network, but that's not what's happening here.
Where do people get this idea that rental contracts or student agreements can supercede federal law? If a landlord decideds to write into my lease that I'm not allowed to have any black roommates, that doesn't supercede federal anti-descrimination laws - they can't tell me that, whether they own the land or not. Likewise, if I decided to put a DirecTV antenna on my university owned house, there's not a thing the school could do about it no matter what the damned student agreement or rental contract says - the feds grant me that right in spite of any objections by my landlord.
We'd like to keep everybody and their brother from hooking up WiFi. We have some equipment in the 2.4GHz range that doesn't work well with WiFi. See FCC public notice from June 24, 2004. ...In response, we reaffirm that, under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive
authority to resolve matters involving radio frequency interference [RFI] when unlicensed
devices are being used, regardless of venue. We also affirm that the rights that consumers have
under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the
operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of
equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC....
.
Then you don't need wifi access points.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Since these people all have wireless cards, why can't one hook up an ethernet cable to the modem and just put their wireless cards into an ad-hoc network? Still no wires running all over and their equipment isn't just sitting idle.
I was the student (or at least one of them, I don't want to take the credit unfairly) who brought this question up to the campus IT department when they were doing presentations to our freshman class.
One of the major issues I brought up was the fact that our microwaves spew out crap on 2.4Ghz. I told them that my own microwave causes interference with my internet access and they didn't have an answer for me as to what they thought about this. They did say, however, that they would discipline you for using a 2.4Ghz cordless phone.
I agree that the wireless access is problematic (though I haven't had too many problems in my section of the apartment complex) given the descriptions of others and I understand the desire to try to eliminate interference, but I highly doubt its "illegal" (their words) APs causing the problems. The problem is coverage and density of users, not interference. UTD is willing to string up CAT-5 everywhere on campus but they will not wire apartment for it.
Given the dillema of supporting spectrum rights and the University's desire to try to eliminate interference (which I think is a bogus argument being used), I want to support spectrum rights. The 2.4Ghz band is a band for all users to enjoy equally and I do not think the University should be allowed to usurup our FCC given priveliges to use this band just becuase the University doesn't want to give its students real networking options in our apartments.
-Darren Dupre
darren@dmdtech.org
1. i believe the apt complex (school housing) is NOT owned by the university, it is owned by First Worthing (a private company) 2. the access points being set up by students are through DSL and cable modems external to the university access. about 1/2 of the students can not recieve an adequate signal within the buildings and resort to other forms of internet access. the wifi points placed in the apts are just being repeated from building to building there is no hardwire cat5, so the signal/connection progressively gets worse.
My company bans wifi from the premises due to security reasons. Can you imagine someone complaining that the CIA bans their employees from installing private wifi networks at work? So why should it be different at Uni?
I went to UTD several years ago (before they rolled out wireless,) but I still have several friends that live there, so I'm pretty familiar with their setup.
First of all, the housing on campus isn't run by the university at all. It's a "privately managed community ... and conveniently located on the UTD campus." http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/housing/
Previous to the university's wireless rollout, residents were unable to connect to the university's network directly and had to rely solely on standard residential broadband (cable/DSL.) After enough pressure, the university caved in and started setting up their own wireless system using standard, unlicensed 802.11b. Each building has a panel antenna mounted on the roof for a backhaul to the campus (about 1/2 a mile away in parts.) That runs down to smaller panel antennas mounted in the center hallway of each floor. They use bluesocket centrally for access control.
Now theoretically you should be able to walk around the apartments and stay connected to their access points. It obviously never works like that, and even sitting in the same place you're subject to very frequent disconnects.
I'm still rather mixed as to how I feel about this overall. I can understand the interference issue with the university-sponsored network, but it was their choice to use unlicensed spectrum. Under FCC Part 15 there is no legal action they can take. I think its ridiculous they didn't even plan on a flood of unlicensed devices migrating in.
Puts on black hat. On the plus side, it was quite amusing to sit in any apartment and see 10-15 access points at once, only a small fraction being encrypted.
RTFA
UTD bans all APs, even those connected to private networks
I wouldn't even think about setting up a Wi-Fi environment that broadcast it's station ID.
Most wireless stations can (and should) be configured with SID Broadcast disabled.
Then lock the Wireless Router down to known MAC addresses.
Pre-Shared Key, mixed with the highest level of encryption available is the way to go.
Generate the longest possible key-sequence (you can use cut and paste to store the key in a password protected, encrypted file).
I store mine on a USB drive to be used when setting up new systems.
Use this key for the workstations to be added to the private wireless network.
Make certain to configure the wireless card to ignore unknown wireless networks (in other words, disable the "log onto first/best/avail network").
Only use manually defined / properly configured wireless access points.
Where I live, there are approximately 6 unlocked access points available, I have my workstations defined to ignore these.
I've yet to have anyone get onto my wireless network, and have no troubles with my systems not logging into the correct wireless lan.
It takes more time, and patience to properly setup a wireless network when compaired to a wired network, but it can be done.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
What about NICs in Ad Hoc mode? Any wireless nic is potentially a source of interference. Microwave ovens?
This is why bans on items do not work. 'Disciplinary action' are merely threats. What should have been done is that a mutual understanding that high powered APs on the same or overlapping channels as the campus APs will interfere with each other, and a channel be allocated for private APs.
Always one step ahead of me eh ? You do raise a good point. Companies/Organizations always do tend to use "which may change at any time" clause. At least I don't have to worry about this in Canada. You can't even kick out your tenants here for not paying their rent. Let alone for using prohibited routers :)
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
I'm a PA (same as an RA) at UTD. Its a great school, but the wireless network has always been pretty shakey. They recently upgraded it to 8021x, and it seems to be more stable, but still is not great. Many students opt to get SBC DSL or Comcast Cable, and since many of the apartments are duals or quads, they set up a small Linksys wireless router so everyone can have access in the apartment. I can tell you that this new policy is pissing off everyone on campus. I've had residents come and complain about it already.
That said, the apartments are *not* owned by the University. They are owned by First Worthing, a private company who owns Waterview Park (the apartments here). However, the University owns the property they are on, so its somewhat of a sticky subject. For example, you can smoke in the apartments, but not have candles or incents. These rules are set by Waterview, not the University. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the future. I dont really see how they have any way of enforcing this rule.
-Vic
UT isn't saying they can't have wireless networks - they're saying they can't have wireless networks which connect to the UT network. This is not airwave regulation, but is a stipulation of usage and code of conduct for their own proprietary wired network - Fully legal.
I understand that some time ago the Airport authority in some city decided to regulate the wi-fi activity of the different airlines inside the airport. They were trying to force them to use a unified par-pay system instad of individual ones. After complaints from the airlines to the FCC the government agency affirmed that neither the Airport authority nor anyone in general can regulate the use or radio waves except the FCC.
Let me say that I am from the University of Minneapolis, and they have also banned private. wireless access points
If it's anything like my university, I'd just smile, nod and then promptly continue to violate whatever stupid rule was just passed.
Software piracy is victimless theft.
One thing for certain though is they do own the infrastructure you are trying to access
We'll just leave out the technicality that the "owners" are primarily taxpayer funded.
I don't mind having the product of my work (money) being used to write rules against me. Why should anyone else?
You want to use my money to pass laws which limit me to 40 sq ft? Sure. You want to use my money to pass laws to re-enable the buying and selling of employees? Sure. You want to use my money to send politicians to conferences to dream of ways to set up companies like Enron? Sure. You want to use my money to create databases which allow insurance companies to profile me and have an excuse to raise the rates on government mandated insurance, again? Sure.
Why not? It's all part of life. BOHICA.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
And these guys in Dallas are screwed. They gave away control of layer 1 connectivity, and now they are faced with multiple third-party incusions into the physical layer provisioning of data services within the geography of their WiFi network.
Additionally, unless the FCC is going to make/has made an exception for higher ed institutions, the Denver ruling is the standard. If the tenant, reguardless of who owns the building, has a data connection to the internet not regulated by the University IT infrastructure policies, and they hook a WAP to it, there really isn't much they can do except renegotioate the ownership of the telecom service infrastructure with the apartment management company and get all the cable and telphone lines back under university control.
The key point here is not that it is on University property, or that it is a contracted livingspace, but that the University has divested itself of the telecom infrastructure, so these WAPs are not on the University network. If they were, this would be a no-brainer and the University could regulate them all they wanted.
One of the reasons why wi-fi is being banned it is because it creates a lot of hassles on the university network. Understandable, now if you have an access point and it creates a private LAN no problem. There is nothing like having your DHCP server being replaced by a nice little Apple Airport. Secondly is because Wi-fi will increase the average weight of the college student. We all know that Texas is the heaviest state in America. There are tons of overweight and fat people there. If they have wi-fi they will plop down eating and use their computer. But if they can be stopped via walking and ploping down to use there wi-fi connection then the best thing they can do is just have to walk around to find food and then walk all the way back to the computer. Thus giving these people enough excerise to fight obesity off. I can be totally wrong about this. But kid's in college should party, experiment with substances and discuss politics and start a revolution. Wi-fi will not help either their weight loss or there intellectual stimulation.
Well, sort of. I think what they are really regulating is what you connect to their physical network, which I don't think the FCC would oppose at all. If you want to be an ass and assert your "rights" in this matter, then I think that you would be entitled to operate your wireless device as long as it remains unconnected to their network.
You freshmen are funny. . .
I go to University of Richmond and have spent a lot of time working for their IS department. Our college has always had a "no routers or wireless of any sort" policy. They keep a tight lid on how many computers are connected to our network and who is responsible for each. Why do they do this? . . . Because people in colleges are *stupid*: students, staff, and faculty a like. I can't have a router, wireless access point, fish, hot plate, halogen lamp, generic surge protector, or candles. Some of these regulations are justified and some aren't; but that is the way that universities do business.
The university is NOT banning the use of the RF spectrum, the university is banning the use of Wireless APs. Just as banning hotplates does not ban having heat in your apartment, banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range.
I mean, what's the point of living...if you don't have a dick?
Just because something is in a contract does not mean it is enforcable. If you sign a lease contract for an apartment that states you are not allowed to install a DirectTV dish, it is unenforcable. It is not possible for a landlord to prevent you from installing a DirectTV dish via a rental contract.
The question here is whether the FCC 'exclusive enforcability' that trumped the airports ability to restrict airline tenants' usage of wireless networks applies to the particular situation of students and dorms.
Since they say you can't operate an access point because it messes up their wireless network, what's to prevent the following: Flood the 2.4GHz band with noise. It shouldn't take an EE long to build a broadcaster tuned to that frequency range, drowning out ALL wireless within range.
where did you go to law school? the pat buchanan / fox news center for legal studies?
Perhaps, they are relying on this clause in the regs: "In addition, under some circumstances, the availability of a central or common antenna can be used by a community association or landlord to restrict the installation of individual antennas"
My guess would be that resnet wifi is available, students want private access because it is less restrictive (blocked ports, etc).
Could be a very interesting battle if someone will dissent. Personally speaking, I think university totally overstate their powers anyway.
Just because they own the land under the building , that doesn't mean they get to pass arbitrary laws in violation of other laws. This should be obvious, but for some reason /.ers think land ownership == having your own country.
Ah, beat me to it, thou fast fingered AC
Bob Jones is just a state south from me, so I hear about them on the radio alot (mostly because they're a juicy target for DJ's to stir up trouble)
As far as I know, they ban any form of PDA starting at holding handS (!!) on campus, as well as interracial dating. How they get away with it, even being a private school, is beyond me. OTOH, why anyone would CHOOSE to attend such a facist school is also beyond me.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
The University of North Texas also has a similar ban. Ours has been in place for quite some time though. Faculty members may apply for the ability to run such devices (our wireless security lab in CS for example). However, no students are allowed the use of those devices.
We have a similar policy in effect here at GA Tech. Students are not permitted to operate their own wireless access points. Granted, you can hide your access point from their scan, and thats sort of the point, isn't it?
The reasoning behind the no WAP policy is simple. If you have an unsecured WAP (i.e. one they can easily detect as they walk around buildings) then you pose a security risk to the entire campus. Anyone with a laptop could walk right up to a dorm, sit on a bench, and now be on the better side of the campus firewall. Not only that, but the student who's access point they use would be to blame for any damage caused.
They're not "regulating" squat, Junior. They're saying their network, in their building, providing tools and services to their students, paid for by their "customers" (your PARENTS) is hosed by a bunch of clever kids who don't think ahead or think much of cooperating so everyone has a good connection. They're trying to unhose something, not oppress you, Sparky.
So, what would you suggest? Really? If you stopped moaning about your rights, how would you fix it? I'm sure the administration would appreciate some solid answers and even some assistance, if appropriate. But if you imagine you're going to surprise and shock the administration into seeing that your right to swap music and play Half-Life is more important than their carrying on the business of running a university, well....keep imagining.
Wireless access points are and have been banned from GWU for a while now. Why is this considered something new?
My sisters college has the same rules. Since I used to work for the IT department, and I still know some people there I just gave them a call to ask just how strongly they're enforcing the rules. Basically, they didn't want an Open WiFi dishing out connections to their network.
So I hooked up a hub, enabled encryption, and limited the connection to only the MAC addresses of my sisters and her roommates laptops, and disabled remote administration (hopefully hiding what brand / model of hub it is).
This weekend I'll probably go down there and disable the broadcast of the SSID so those of you who are 'war walkers' can't find them ;-).
Of course, this is with just a basic cheap Netgear router. I have it running an internal network (dishing out 192.x.y.z IP's) and utilizing one externally facing IP. Ideally, I'd like to utilize the campus' IP's and get access to the local shared drives and what not, but this would have taken more than the 30 minutes I wanted to spend on it. (set it up to use the 'uplink' and campus' DHCP - but this would put another 'spike' in the network analyzers...). So, I'm not entirely sure they will be 'invisible' to the network or not... But it's a start.
Any others have insights they'd like to add? Suggestions for ways to keep your WiFi hidden?
(Unfortunately, you can't hide a WiFi by throwing a towel over it like you do a microwave or alcohol).
This is like the 50th post I've read that says "I'm sure you can run your own WAP as long as it is not connected to their network".
THEY SPECIFICALLY BAN WAPS CONNECTED TO COMMERCIAL, NON-UNIVERSITY NETWORKS. LEARN TO READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE NEXT TIME.
Cool...another college banning wireless routers in the dorms. I don't see the big deal, I go to Georgia Tech, and they have had them banned for a while now. At least the past few years. Even at a high ranked tech school, people are stupid. If 1 out of 5 dorm rooms had a wireless router, more than likely 1 out of 5 would be open for attacking. And that leaves a large amount of access points to the internal network for people who might happen to be wanting to get into the network. I heard about a few years ago someone hacked in and got everyones credit card numbers. It is just to risky to have the wellfare of the entire school dependant on whether or not some crack head can configure his wireless router properly.
and stunned that /. is picking the logical viewpoint of this issue. Universities have every right to ban wireless access points from being hooked into their network. Everyone here with wireless set up in their house knows that probably over half of the networks in their neighborhood are SSID'd "default" and "linksys" and "netgear" without any encrption at all. Our University even went as far as to ban routers. Why? Cause morons would plug them in backwards and bring down the whole hall. Few people out there really take the time to understand the technology they have in their home. Until the day when they do and understand it's power, F 'em
I doubt the FCC would accept that "loophole" - it erodes their authority. The university could simply progressively ban more and more things that use the 2.4GHz spectrum.
not ban having heat in your apartment
There is no federal law allowing everyone to use heat and saying that the Federal Heat Authority is the only organization allowed to regulate the use of the spectrum.
banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range
It bans the use of the 2.4GHz range for Wireless APs - which is the same as regulating it. They could try banning antennas which broadcast at 2.4GHz as well, saying "we're not banning the use of the spectrum!" but I'd still say they're full of it.
And also!
Remember that you can use certain wireless cards as APs, using the "hostap" driver. The university can't ban wireless cards, obviously, as they need the students to be able to use them! And if it tries to say "You can't use the wireless cards as APs" that is clearly them attempting to regulate the unlicensed portion of the spectrum. They can't do this - they overstepped their authority.
Whether or not the university has the right to prohibit the use of APs connected to other ISPs is an interesting issue.
More interesting is that WiFi technology isn't scaling. Here we have a real world situation where the density of devices operating in unlicensed spectrum is so great as to cause a significant degredation in utility to the extent that the uni is trying to impose its own regulations.
That seems to be pretty specific and clearly delineates that neither the University, nor any other institution that is NOT the FCC may impose regulations upon either the frequencies themselves, NOR the equipment used to access them. The University CAN deny access to their network, but the original article clearly indicates that these students are using their own, private ISP broadband connections (cable and DSL) and this means the University is just as cleary SOL.
-AC
LEARN TO READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE NEXT TIME DIPSHIT
"The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
THEY'RE NOT ON THE GODDAMNED NETWORK YOU FUCKING IDIOT. WHY THE FUCK IS EVERYONE SCREAMING "OH IT'S THEIR NETWORK" - IT'S NOT THEIR FUCKING NETWORK!
I am shocked....
that you cant RTF ARTICLE SUMMARY
The policy applies to APS EVEN CONNECTED TO CABLE/DSL CONNECTIONS.
"The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
They're complaining SPECIFICALLY about WAPs that connect to OTHER NETWORKS THAN THEIR OWN.
The FCC does not give them this leeway, and I hope people challenge the fuck out of it. This is ILLEGAL for the University to do, just as it would be ILLEGAL for any other landlord to do.
How the FUCK are so many people missing the point which I bolded above?
Dude, did you read the policy page? It specifically mentioned that most of the 'problem' AP's were connected to Cable Modem, DSL, or other providers, not part of the University network. And it didn't say that you couldn't attach an AP to their network. It said you could only use 5Ghz APs in the building at all.
Fully 50% of the posts in this story ignore the fact that the University wireless policy states this:
"The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites."
In other words, UTD is breaking the law by extending this policy to non-University networks.
PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE AND DETERMINE THIS BEFORE YOU POST. You'll save me and others time in having to correct your ignorant asses.
More than 100 wireless AP's setup in an area the size of a quarter block. If 90% are off-the-shelf units, that means 90 or more AP's trying to force themselves into eight channels. Throw a distribution curve at it based on student motivation, and 75 of those are trying to use channel 6 or 7. This isn't about preventing students from using wireless. It's about ensuring equal access for all the UofT-D campus to wireless by preventing the massive interferance caused by limited channels in the spectrum. It's not even worth going into the technical 'what-ifs' that situation creates.
As for the FCC policy, if you read the fine print you'll see that the rules are to prevent WiFi from being over-regulated by ISPs. There is nothing in the law that remotely pertains to this situation. In fact, a strong argument could be made that UofT-D has a responsibility to maintain the existing network because of it's mission to the taxpayers of Texas. Network access isn't restricted, just the means to do so in a manner that allows the most people the greatest accessability. Don't take my word for it, go ask Student Judicial Affairs.
In short this is about your school doing it's best to provide service to everyone with a limited technology. The only man you're fighting is the misguided one in your mirror. Ditch the victim mentality, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and make it your mission in life to create a low cost, narrow spectrum wireless system that has hundreds of channels with a huge range and high tolerance for interference.
I absolutely agree with the university's decision. There's already a wireless network in place, and since it is overseen by the IT staff, I think it's safe to assume that somebody there has the responsibility of making the network secure and functional for all the students, staff, and faculty to use. Use that, for everybody's sake. Be neighborly.
) One guideline is that "infrastructure modifications are to be performed only by authorized departments." Adding a wireless node counts as infrastructure. I assume that a student doesn't count as an authorized department. You lose. Sorry.
Setting up a wireless node implies that the node connects to the external network. That means it uses university bandwidth, and that means it falls under the university's computer use guidelines (here: http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/tcs/general/policy.htm
If the node isn't on the LAN, perhaps that's a different story. But I'd hate to have to discover and figure out which ones were live and which ones were contained. It's a drain on resources, and a pain in the ass.
If you're doing something that requires you to have your own network, go get an account with a service provider or use the facilities provided by the school. Going that far out of your way would seem to indicate that a rogue wireless node probably is not the right solution anyway.
You are allowed to use 2.4Ghz spectrum there isn't any policy stopping wireless phones. The policy is against private wireless access points. So they haven't infringed on your right to use the spectrum but rather use a particular device. Shotguns are legal, but try and keep one in a dorm. They own the building, you signed an agreement. Don't like it? You can always move out. If the are unable to fill dormitory space due to unreseanable demands, they will relax them. But as landlords, they ahve every right to decide what items can be used in their buildings.
But remember that there is no law that says that they have to provide campus-wide wireless access, or even drop points.
They can pull that out altogether and go back to 'computer labs', with no dial in or drop point access at all. Just like the olde days! How wonderfully retro!
And they will, if they think they have to to save or cover their asses.
Students - Be careful when you go squealing "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!" and starting your own 'nam-style activist campaign.
You might just get exactly what you are asking for.
**>>BELCH
If someone can tell you you can't use cell phone on their property, why can't they say you can't use wireless routers. Or does this mean I can sue movie theater for not allowing me to use my cell for in the theater.
Open and shut.
/.)
The airwaves are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC, and ONLY the FCC. No other body, including Universities, landlords or State Governments may tell you what you can and can't do with regard to public spectrum. There are execptions, the biggest being for safety. Note that the military probably is also exempt from this, though it is a tougher call.
If a landlord put "can kill you anytime during this agreement", would it be legal? Hell, no! There are certain rights that can't be given up just because you sign a piece of paper.
Arguments about landscaping, paint, hotplates or anything NOT REGULATED BY A GOVERNING BODY like the FCC are not relevant.
No, the University could not legally bar you from using an AP as a condition of being enrolled. This is still an attempt to indirectly regulate the public use of airwaves, which is the sole purvue of the FCC. They might try, but it should be found illegal if challenged. (IANAL, I just play on one
Yes, the can ban other stuff not covered by reglating bodies.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
University is not just banning the students from using Private Access Points but they also have restrictions / limitations on what kind of Wireless Access Cards students can use. "Please note that due to inconsistent performance with other products, UTD supports Orinico (Lucent) and Intel based products" http://webapps.utdallas.edu/irweb/index.html
If students use different brand / integrated cards with the Network, University Information Resources Department simply refuses to help the students. The slimy excuse given is that "your" card is not supported. So for all of us who have Integrated Wireless Cards with Notebooks, Other brand of wireless cards there is no support.
Most of the students end up using Private Internet Connections because the Wireless Signals for UTD Networks are poor and not reliable. Last month, there were major outages and whole network was sporadic. What are students supposed to do at these times? Just keep hoping that University connections will be up. Keep trying.
I just hope that UTD first updates their policy for support and improve the quality of their wireless network before they enforce any such policy of banning private Wireless Access points. Why will anyone want to get a separate Internet Connection when UTD offers once for free.
What, like the rule that says that landlords can't stop tenants installing a satellite dish? (Yes, the physical object.)
There is no way that the university could get away with this if they were a normal landlord; the only possibility is if the student accommodation does not fall under normal tenancy law (as is the case in some jurisdictions).
The idea that people would be allowed to put a backdoor that could be abused by any spammer with a wok or pringles can and line-of-site to the dorms, well, I cannot conceive of the confusion in the mind that would lead people to consider this even vaguely acceptable.
The university is just trying to make everything work for the whole student body. If you really
READ the notice before firing your wad you'd have
seen that they are trying to work things out.
Besides, do you really need wifi in a 10x12 dorm
room... come on that's just lazyness IMHO.
Universities are an institution, they regulate EVERTHING by nature. Autocratic proclaimations are
thier answers to problems.
---- The world is a network, just some people are still using 300 baud dialup. ---
I attend and work for the IT department of Amherst College, a small liberal arts college (1600 undergrads, no grad students) in the Northeastern USA. Our wireless network here only covers freshmen dorms, libraries and select classrooms. The policy disallows WAPs in those areas, and allows WAPs in the other areas as long as they are configured properly. (We've had about one misconfigured router/WAP fucking with our DHCP server every week or so in the last two years--it seemed to have gotten better this year...) It's sort of a compromise for not outfitting the older dorms with wireless yet. The fun thing is that once someone got approval to set a WAP up on the roof of a house and an entire hill plus the coffee shop on the bottom of that hill got WiFi. =) I can see why people like WAPs, but why the hell would you need one when you have a campus-wide wireless network? And I know from experience that making sure that everyone who uses a WAP configures them properly is a pain in the ass even for a small school like this. (Some people who set them up don't know what they're doing at all, while some have their parents set them up incorrectly for them and don't know how to fix it.) And if there's wireless already it just adds unneccessary crap to the department's support list.
read the bunni comic
Can the FAA regulate on non USA territories, when you are over the ocean?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
This is surprising given the UT system's leadership in integrating new technology into the campus environment. According to Intel (the link escapes my memory right now), UT Austin has the #2 or #3 best wireless coverage of any university in the US. Wireless access is pretty good all over campus, but especially in the libraries.
I attened UTD several years back when they were building the apartments. The apartments are owned by the University who leased the right to manage them to a 3rd party. This case boils down to voluntary contracts which restrict activities. The FCC is not involved in this case because this is not a governmental body trying to regulate the spectrum. Federal law does not trump anything here because federal law is the controlling law. One can voluntarily restrict yourself above and beyond any law. When you buy a house with deed restrictions that limit satillite dishes etc... that is exactly what you are doing. People sign voluntary restrictions all the time. As mentioned by others, you can leagally use the spectrum, but you will be punished outside the legal system by the school. The school can not criminally prosecute you for using the spectrum, mearly withold the priviledge of attending their university and their lease no doubt says they have to attend the university to live there. If there is a catch all phrase that allows arbitrary rules in either the lease they sign or the university admissions, and you can bet there is, then there is no probroblem here. They might be able to have some wiggle room due to the introduction of the rule after they signed what ever document is the enforcing instrument. However this objection will go away as soon as the students resign their lease or sign up for another semester with the new rule added.
I'll admit, I'm fairly new to wireless, but doesn't this fall under Part 15, Section 'J' of FCC regulations?
"This device may receive interference that may cause undesired operation." and "This device may cause interference with other devices."
To my knowledge, this just means that yes, we (The FCC) authorized the use of this bandwidth, however, we haven't assigned anything to any specific frequencies, so be careful using it as its not really regulated.
In either case, UT Dallas needs to remove their heads from their asses ASAP and stop pushing students around. If they're having that much of a problem with wireless signals, they should consider surveying their antennas and signal-right-of-ways. There could very well be an antenna physically blocked, damaged, or even set to use a channel too close to another antenna. You should always stagger your channels so that they don't collide with one another (diagram shown below).
----------------
| 05 | 03 | 11 |
----------------
| 08 | 07 | 09 |
----------------
| 02 | 10 | 04 |
----------------
In the diagram shown above, notice that frequency #6 is missing. This is done on purpose since most "out-of-the-box" APs are shipped with a default configuration for, yes, you guessed it, channel 6. So if the kids are using channel 6 and you're not, you shouldn't have any problems. Another tip would be to configure this for a "closed wireless network" and not broadcast the SSID.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
And there is the key, "upheld by a court". How many students could afford to fight this in court? How many that tried would find they suddenly had trouble registering for classes (more than usual), their grades and course credits got lost, and their courses were graded very harshly all of a sudden?
As an RA who but recently graduated from a small, private university, I did indeed carry a master key when I went on rounds. Residents are notified in their houseing contracts and on move-in what specific powers the RAs have. We _are_ designated as university employees as associated with security in our contracts. "Security" was a regulated law enforcement body with commissioned officers.
Your "reasonable" expectation of privacy is just that. It doesn't extend past the four walls of your room. If you behave yourself, are quiet, etc, it will never come into question.
--
If there was a minor disturbance, I knocked and asked politely for the resident to simmer down.
If I had reason to believe they were smoking pot or unconscious and dying or something - and they didn't answer the door after knocking - I could declare my intent to enter and key-in to the room.
If I suspected they were violent, roaring drunk, etc, then I called campus security to back me up before I did anything. They, in turn, were in contact with the city police. But our security force was unexpectedly competent for a campus unit.
--
No, you are absoultely right that _we_ can't _search_ their rooms. But anything that is in plain sight is game. And if we have reason to believe someone is, say, hiding in a closet, we can ask the resident to open the closet. If they do not comply, yes, then we have security do it.
Generally, people weren't too obstinate about it.
For example, if you're drinking under age (on private property), you'd rather have the us & the university deal with it than the legal system.
If they argued with us, we called security. If they argued with security, well... You'd get anything from a few hours community service to suspension (automatic, any drug offense) to expulsion (any second drug offense), and possibly criminal charges, if it were serious enough.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Got my BSEE from UT Dallas
The school leased a large parcel of undeveloped land to an aparment company. The Apartment folks built aprtment buildings there, and manage them. They're regular apartments, but they reside on land owned by the school, so the apartment management co. works with the school. There's something like 8 phases, with a total of 1200 aprtments. You have a lease, and my roommate had to have a cosigner. YOu have to get your own cable, electricity, and phone, just like in any other apartment. You do have to be a student to live there, the rent is pretty cheap, and it's right across the street from the engineering building.
I think that after 20 years or something like that, the apartment buildings revert to owership of the university, after the land lease is up.
Is it possible that the University charges on a room-by-room basis for internet access? If one person pays and then opens up a WLAN point, everyone within 30 metres is going to get the internet for free.
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Interested in Wi-Fi coverage from a wardriver's perspective? Check it out here on, or here on.
I figure that if the students aren't providing a security risk, it shouldn't be an issue. I wonder how the students will work around the school's demands.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
They are just choosing not to give you a wired internet connection if you have such a device attatched.. That is perfectly legal and within their rights, FCC or not..
The University of Alabama in Huntsville has had a ban on wireless access points for 2-3 years. It should be well within their rights, because the students are not using them on private cable/dsl connections, but rather on the university connection. In the agreement to use the University's network, it states that wireless access points, routers, switches, and hubs are forbidden. This includes using ICS on a win xp box.
Atleast at UAH it would be fine to have wireless setup on a private network, and *maybe* even with a box that hooked up to the University, but they have room to bitch there if thats the case. In general tho, they dont care as long as your not sharing University bandwith on the Wifi AP.
My roomate had wireless setup, and its great to see them walk around with their little keychain detectors and knocking on peoples doors. University tech departments are so far behind its not even funnny...hehhe
I don't recall there being anything in the Constitution giving you the right to wireless access. Schools don't allow people to smoke inside anymore, does that violate smoker's "rights"? No. It's their building, they can do what they want with it - that's THEIR right. You don't like it, move off campus.
--- This
Yes they can. They can also ban cellphones in their classrooms and require to remove your hats in the cafeteria. They can prevent you from installing a satellite dish to the dorm (eventhough there are rules that allow apartment dwellers to do so with some limitations), they can also prevent you from getting your own cable connection or phone connection. They have the rights to enforce their own rules of conduct on their campus/property. If you are living on campus you are not a tenant as much as you are a guest. Living in campus is not a right, it's a choice and priviledge. If you choose to live on campus, you have to follow their rules of conduct or get kicked off from the dorm.
By the way, I also have that right to require these things when you're in my house.
Too much money to burn?
Perhaps privacy... although truly with the current state of wireless security for the average person the concept may be mutually exclusive to running a wireless net.
I do not doubt that the Uni blocks or monitors connections. Some things that come to mind are p2p, pr0n, and other materials that the uni might deem "objectionable." If they're regulating their airwaves (in an unregulated spectrum at that) then sure as tootin they're probably regulating their internet...
The University of Texas, which does receive some funds from the federal government, and probably some research grants, too, does not have the right to ban the presence of wireless access points on the campus. They do, however, have the right to restrict what types of devices can connect to their network (unless the network is funded with public money).
SECURITY
While the University may have a right to dictate what devices can connect to their LAN, they don't have a uniform security policy nor do they seem to have taken the means to enforce it properly.
The security policy on the one hand bans 802.11b and 802.11g devices from use on the campus. However, the security policy does not implement strict guidelines for using MAC authentication, WEP/WPA encryption, and/or disabling auto-connect to the nearest/strongest signal.
Note that they don't ban radios, cell phones, pagers, cordless telephones, CB or other transceivers, PDAs, etc. Many of these devices operate at or near 2.4GHz.
If the University implemented a uniform security policy that addressed all interference issues, recommended authentication standards, etc. as I mentioned before... the local interference or security gaps they cite wouldn't necessarily be an issue.
A good policy will be able to balance the needs of the students while implementing as adequate security as possible. Simply banning the devices doesn't really accomplish that.
A security policy for a place of learning should be robust but not be too tight that it restricts people's right to conveniently access information networks. That is contrary to the scope and purpose of an institution of learning... but then so are basketball scholarships.
This post is probably going to get buried in the deluge of flames and arguments going on here, but I have to say it. I've recently noticed a trend in the Slashdot forums, rabid dog behaviour. Disgruntled people jumping in to attack whatever they feel is too restrictive. And its just not the forums, even the articles that our "esteemed editors" are approving seem to be of the same type - "Little fry vs big unyielding giant". It's not always wrong to enforce unyielding rules.
From http://www.utd.edu
An electrical engineering professor at UTD has been awarded a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to investigate new methods for broadband multimedia wireless communications.
What will they do about new cell phones that are coming out that associate with WiFi hotspots to increase their coverage and cheaper voip charges you get.
Either way I think this will end up in court with both the students and the school losing money to the lawyers.
My university has the same policy. The difference being that we provide wireless routers in all the dormitories so, in theory, the students should have wireless access. Whether this proves to be true I am not sure. The interesting thing is that no one has been able to come up with a good reason for telling students they can't use their own routers. Interestingly enough not all the wireless routers in the dorms haven't been "turned on" yet. So only some students have wireless access, and those that do have it complain that the signal is weak.
The students have no leg to stand on. They are interfering with the network (9 User APs and one University AP on Channel 1 means no APs working) and they are most likely providing network services to non-University personnel. The first violates our AUP and the second is an offense with punishments ranging up to dismissal from the University. Its agin da law! If they think the General Counsel of the school didn't do its homework on this one, they are nuts.
We don't provide wireless in the dorms anyway for this very reason (our freshman men's dorms are a veritable Wild West of APs) and for the simple fact that each student has a dedicated 100mb (soon gig) link in their rooms. Why use wireless at 11mbs (I am cutting it all to g this year) shared? So you can be in bed when you are flogging the bishop to Anime Porn? Wah. Wah. Wah.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
So wait.. If a pipebomb used 2.4GHz unlicensed, only the FCC has regulatory power over that pipebomb?
Sweet!
Here at Virginia Tech, as part of the AUP, you are only allowed to connect one MAC to each portal. This holds true, even if that device has NAT enabled. Basically, you pay for hooking up one computer, not for one port to be used however you like.
When enforcing this policy, they usually try to be as reasonable as possible. So as long as your actions don't cause any problems for anyone else, there is usually no problem.
As soon as a wirless router interfears with other people accessing the internet (be it through a fake DHCP server, or whatever) they just turn off the port to that device.
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
The university may not be able to ban wireless devices outright -- however, they're probably well within their rights to say what can and cannot be connected on their network.
Tweet, tweet.
I don't mind having the product of my work (money) being used to write rules against me. Why should anyone else? Whether the rule is favors or disfavors one is based entirely upon one's point of view. If one cannot access the campus network because of another's AP, one is probably not too sympathetic to another's desire to use said AP.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Obviously you don't know what the laws are, which is pretty sad for someone in your posistion of power.
This isn't about how competent the lawyers are, its about what they think they can get away with, and in this case, UTD will soon see that they cannot get away with this.
Colleges have no right to make unlicensed shared spectrum that falls under part 15 rules pertaining to interference and sharing as their own domain.
If UTD or any other college wants to "own" the spectrum, then they legally have to use licensed RF spectrum. In either case, UTD cannot do a damn thing about any hams in the nearby neighborhoods from craking up their 2.4Ghz equipment at 1500 Watts and blasting their signals legally (under FCC amateur radio regulations - which supercede Part 15 users' rights in the spectrum)
After R'ing the FA, they claim that they are doing this because people who want to connect to the university WAPs are being DOSd because the signal of the private WAP is too strong.
If you read the details in any RF device that uses an unlicensed frequency, it says something like
"This device must accept any interference generated from outside sources, and if this device interferes with the operation of any other equipment, the operator must take steps to remedy the interference or cease usage of this device."
So if it's interfering, the owner may have to reduce output power (which many WAPs can do), shield the antenna until it's barely enough power to run within their dorm or whatever, install a directional antenna if they're trying to network with someone else, so as to reduce the stray signal, or shut the thing off.
Well, here at UTD the apartments seem to be sort of a hybrid property, under control of the state but owned by an apartment company. They are on campus, their parking is regulated through campus police, and all trouble is addressed by campus police.
As for not having wireless access points, I can understand UTD's concern, as these apartments have direct access into UTD's network. The school already has wireless access points up all over campus, but they have strict security measures to ensure that only students are getting access.
If someone drops an access point onto the end of this network that is not locked down, wardrivers or hackers can get in and have plenty of fun on the school's dime. Likely the school would be responsible for any criminal activity on this unauthorized network access.
To me it sounds basically the same as IBM not allowing personal wireless access points around the office, for security reasons.
I'm sure if the student could prove their access point has no access to UTD's network and never would, then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Greg
I work with several colleges who have deployed campus wireless networks. If you are plugging the AP into their network in any way and if you are in their dorm they have the ability to regulate their own property. At Colorado College where I have done some wireless work they scan on a regular basis to insure that there are no rouge access points that have been put up by students. It is a security nightmare and also can interfere with the college run network. It's no a question of FCC regulations or any of that it's a question of the college being allowed to have control of their own network which they are responsible for.
Well, I don't know where you went to university, but in many students have a long tradition of objecting to unreasonable regulations, and *will* fight them. It's also the sort of case student unions are willing to take on tenants' behalf; we also had free individual legal advice provided by the student union.
;-)
Having said that, I was the tenant representative on the housing committee of our university, and we resolved a lot of things with the landlord through negotiation (albeit backed by pressure from the student union and legal advice). Perhaps in this case it could be agreed that those running private networks would encrypt them, or not broadcast the SSID, so that unconfigured clients would *not* automatically connect to them.
I would find it very difficult to believe that any university would let this relate in any way to registration, grading, etc. Accommodation and IT services would completely separate from registration and grading in any university I am aware of, so it would require official cooperation between many people, almost certainly leaving a trace, to sabotage grades. Besides, the philosophy/engineering/physics professor grading your paper likely does not care that you are campaigning against a campus accommodation WiFi rule; they possibly would even support you.
The worst that would happen would be that the students involved would be screwed over by accommodation/IT services (as happened me - didn't get my deposit back the year I was tenant rep and didn't get in to the campus residences the following year; guess that shows I was doing my job
How is this even a controversy. I attend Texas A&M, which like UTD has a no Wi-Fi poliocy in all their housing. We also are not allowed to hook up routers, hubs, switches, and DHCP servers. They make us run a virusscan tey provide (which installs an ActiveX plugin to check) before we can get on the network. Guess what: it is their network, so they can inconvinience me with security and bandwidth concerns. It is not my right to be able to hook whatever I want up to their network. I could move if I was not willing to deal with the prohibition (or just disobey it, which my roommate and I were discussing doing the other day.) I've seen the UTD apartments before... 802.11a probably would do it. Drag around an ethernet cable, it isnto your right to go wireless. btw, this was actually linked from my school's tech page (although I got here directly.)
Knoppix + PC + 802.11b adapter =
possible banned AP
Almost any PC could be a banned AP. This should create a massive headache for wireless "cops".
If they are actually going to monitor for rogue APs, build an random sequence of AP time and locations and watch their heads spin.
If they actually remove a rogue AP, point out that all those systems with wireless adapters are in violation of the rule.
Create a your own AP on the universities hardware, Yes the university will need to remove the offending system.
Install a new 802.11 pre-N router that is not part of the banned 802.11b/g routers. Organize several just off campus locations with this new longer range wireless and you could cause a significant civil disobedience event without violating the on campus rules.
This is a great chance for high tech, organized civil disobedience.
The spectrum is not the problem. The allowing access to others and the interference with governmental infrastructure is. You can't use 2.4Ghz equipment at 1500 watts to maliciously interfere with signals. Tell you what sign up for a class at UTD and then sue. It'll get tossed out. How do I know? We have little lawyer-type students who try this shit all the time. "I paid for it. I can do anything I want." Nope. You signed a contract to not cause interference with governmental infrastructure and to not provide access to that governmental infrastructure by unauthorized parties. Do a FindLaw or, if you can, get on Lexis and look.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Note carefully that university regulations, including a university AUP, are not the law. If a party with an interest brings suit, a court will determine applicability of the law. Students affected are likely parties with an interest. I wouldn't bet on a university winning in a case like this since the FCC is jealous of its authority.
I was going to say - as a solution, why not set up a spare laptop as a wireless access point. When they come to ask you about it you say, "this is my workstation - who I share my workstation with, and more importantly, what processes I run and sockets my machine opens is my business".
Of course, if someone does something bad via your access point, you are responsible - but no less than would be the case for a dedicated piece of hardware attached to the same connection in your dormroom.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It's not a privelege, it's a lease! I paid through the nose for campus housing, and I'll be damned if you're gonna tell me I was just living there out of the goodness of GaTech's heart. And no, I don't have to follow their rules of conduct if said rules are illegal. Only the FCC has the authority to prohibit use of unregulated spectrums. The university is not the FCC, ergo...
Dyolf Knip
Here at good ol' Miami, they banned all 2.4ghz portable phones in the dorms. I'd like to see them enforce that.
move out... You can live off campus for much the same price as living on campus plus you don't have to deal with all the B.S. like this or getting kicked out on holidays etc.
Only reason I lived there for 3 years is because of the ease of short lease as I was leaving the country each summer. I really wish I would have just got a long term lease and sublet it to a friend over the summers as I would have saved money and I also would not have given that money to the evil university housing.
The university has every right to ban WAPs, although I would prefer them to wait until the next school year, so people can choose to go there or not if its a 'deal breaker' for them.
Think about it. You go to their school, you agree to their rules.
There are laws against playing your stereo too loud. Sure, it might be in your house, but the signal is escaping your house and bothering the neighbors, their neighbors, and the adjacent blocks. It should be about the same way in this case.
As long as you don't bother anyone else (eg, very low power on your WAP) and it doesn't create any (potential) problems within the school, it should be allowed.
Of course, the problem being that most people buy them, hook them in, and think they work automagically. They have no idea what settings are, power levels, etc, etc.
If so inclined, the university could choose a night and have a WAP Orientation class where they show people how to use their WAPs to get them in compliance with the rules I listed.
After all, how are they going to detect your WAP if the power is so low that it won't leave your room?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Years ago at the University of Utah a NetWare 3.1x server got lost. It was still in use, worked fine but they couldn't find the physical box. It took awhile but they finally found it (with the help of Novell) in a small space that had been sheetrocked off years ago. Finding it was difficult and that thing was on an ethernet connect. Good look finding a wireless router buried deep in a dorm wall, ceiling or crawlspace.
Why do I think this is more for control of content instead of user "confusion"? I assume there's someone in almost every college dorm that's running a file sharing box who's only network connection is an anonymous wireless network that is not connected to the Internet and virtually impossible for the school to control.
The school is trying to solve a purported software engineering issue with a social engineering solution. It's not the right answer and is bound to fail, just pissing off a bunch of students who paid to be there.
Spend the effort on educating the students on real problems like binge drinking and not something silly like rogue wireless routers.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Your opinion is worth the electrons it's printed on, as is mine. A court will determine if a suit is filed. I think you're correct in that the university can restrict access to its network (at least until a court says no). However, the university may not be able to regulate spectrum usage. You can't crank a KW into 2.4GHz as a ham _unless_ it is required for communications. A ham is required to use the least amount of power necessary for communications. Necessary is the key word here, but if the ham is going for 2.4GHz moon-bounce and demonstrates need, then max power may be justified. BTW, contracts are superseded by law. Name calling doesn't hack it as in "little lawyer-type sudents." That'd be like me saying "little weenie-type system administrators with delusions of power and grandeur because they know the root password, we encounter them all the time." I'm a little weenie-type system administrator that runs the smallest WLAN in a rural area ;-) It's subject to FCC regulations, too.
My understanding is that they aren't breaking the law at all. Rather, it would seem to me that the interpretation you (and many others) appear to have of what the FCC forbids is simply overbroad.
If the issue escalates high enough, there will probably even be an official word on it coming up soon to clarify this misunderstanding.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Even if the University owns the land and the arpartment, the students are renting it from them. This means there is a lease and an expectation of privacy. Nothing in that lease can 'trump' state or federal law and federal law gives very little power to landlords,associations, county officials, or state officials when it comes to regulating unregulated bands. Basically, the school can't do shit.
Its the same as your landland sending you a letter to shut off all your wireless phones or cell phones.
There is a loophole but its arguable. Since the landlord already has a 802.11a antenna which provides the same service. The rules are ambiguous about this plus the students are obviously using it for home networking so they don't have to run cat5 anywhere, the loophole would not apply.
These are NOT university property. http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html
These are private WAPs connected to private internet connections running in the same airspace as Waterview's crappy and unreliable wireless internet. I'm paying $50 a month for private Comcast internet, plus the price of a wireless router, and they want to require me to shell out even more for a 802.11a router, forget it.
The AUP is a contract. Break the contract, suffer the consequences, which is why you read the fine print and why, personally, I don't use commercial software. ;-)
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
There reasoning? Viruses. I kid you not. Or at least that's the lastest excuse coming from InformationSystems. Although the main spreading of viruses comes from the fact that the few Faculty (last I heard it was 7) who has access to sending mail to allstudents@myuniversity.edu all but refuse to take simple measures to keeping viruses from spreading.
And it's not like the few who would use the wireless are going to do any more damage the the hoardes of students who infect the campus network from their machines as soon as they plug them in to the wall.
This is a bit inaccurate. There are restrictions that the landlord can put on you, and in some cases you can't have the dish at all. If you have to modify the structure in any way, i.e. drilling through a wall, or you have to place the dish in a public area, the landlord can deny your request. That is what the FCC says.
What's the big deal. My old school banned WAPs too. Only the ones the university set up were allowed to be on campus. I mean the last thing you want is to secure your system just to find out some freshmen has setup a WAP with no security.
No. They have arbitrarily decided to ban access points from their dorms. They can do that because it's their land and they can do whatever the hell they want with it, including telling you you're not allowed to have phone books or any other damn thing. You *always* have to abide by the rules of the dorm. Yes, it's absurd, for example, to tell adults that they are not allowed to have sex in a dorm they have paid to live in, but nevertheless a court will support the school's right to tell them so.
If this were only a matter of signal, then yes, the students would win. But the students are putting a banned object onto school property. Not ok.
+++ATH0
Northwestern University disallows any students, faculty, or staff from using ANY device that will extend the network: no routers, hubs, switches are allowed: wireless or wired. You can have a single CAT-5 cable running from your access port to your choice of wired periperals. They expect you to pony up $150-230 for the installation of each access port, plus additional monthly fees for service. This is significant when ~3 grad students mush share one office with ONE port, not to mention the computer labs.
They have a right and responsibility to maintain security and quality of the network, but I don't think micro-management is the solution for this, especially in academic environments. I could see the need for some corporate or government IT shops to ban the use of any outside machines from accessing their internal network, but Universities generally allow (or require) you to bring your own system(s). If we want to build a small cluser, we are supposed to either choose to have it disconnected from the network (inconvenient), or pony up what amounts to an additional 10% of equipment costs to have more ports provided.
The win-win solution should be that the University chooses not to support people who use routers, etc. If one computer behind the access port is spreading a worm or distributing copyrighted material, the whole access port should go down.
Fortunately, this rule is violated all the time, as I'm sure the UT rule will be violated. I'm glad that some choose to break it--during the peak of worm seasons, it has been the people who have a router with a built-in firewall that weren't infested.
The person that owns the apartment has the right to restrict this.
Its not a 'basic human right' ( yet ), so no laws were violated..
Sure it may suck, but the student can choose another place to live..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's not a lease. You're more like a guest in a very exclusive (yet poorly appointed) hotel. You're a paying guest, and they can kick you out (with or without a refund) if you break the house rules. They can enter your dorm room at any time, wether you're in it or not, and don't have to even tell you they were there. And yes, they can ban all kinds of FCC allowed devices if they want to, just like I can do the same if you visit my house.
You'll find out that laws have limitations, many of them don't apply on private property. It is for example perfectly OK for theater owners to make you check in all electronics devices at the door.
I'm sure the campus AUP prohibits sharing of copywrited material.
If one cannot access the campus network because of another's AP
I agree. What we have here is a blanket policy which is completely devoid of consideration for a responsible neighbor. The University is taking the easy way out and using ethically questionable powers to enforce it.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I don't think the policy is about controlling the radio spectrum, as much as it is about controlling how one accesses the campus network.
I empathize with the network administrators at the university for doing this.
Thinking back to my college days, neighborly responsibility was not very high on my list or that of my peers. Questioning authority, on the other hand, was only a couple below drinking as much beer as possible. :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
FCC Unregulated does not mean anyone can at will do anything they want under any conditions in any location.
The students enter into a contract to use the campus.
This college bans student WiFi APs.
My college banned frisbee playing on the quad.
My elem school bans cell phones for students.
Your school could ban left handed wall stretchers for all it wants.
It's a private contract.
Sign or don't sign or work for change.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You'll find out that laws have limitations, many of them don't apply on private property. It is for example perfectly OK for theater owners to make you check in all electronics devices at the door.
This one does: "We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."
Looks like the FCC has just said that you can use your bluetooth and WiFi gadgets anywhere you like, with no restrictions above the existing power limits.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I'm a little rusty on wireless, but lets see... There are 11 possible channels. Say a dorm room has 50 kids in it and half of them have an AP. Who's going to get called when they all start clashing? The university tech dept....
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
I would guess that is because the students do not want to live with the university's terms of service and possibly because of University filtering or proxy servers.
But could it be defended in a court of law if it ever got there? No. My university has the same same policy on wireless access points in residences. I don't live in the residences, so I can't provide any personal experience on the matter, but I haven't heard anything about actual enforcement of this policy. The reason they do it (as stated in this article) is that it can interfere with the operation of the university's wireless network. I think they have the "policy" more to scare students out of installing APs than to actually prohibit it.
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
Are you high? I don't know where you live, but in California if ANYONE fully enters your apartment without your PERMISSION, (besides law enforcement) you have the right to shoot them on the spot. This is a fact. I know the state in question here is Texas, but I doubt their laws on shooting people are any stricter than California's.
"Patience is not a virtue, it's a waste of time."
I suppose you could install a dish inside of your apartment, regardless of what the landlord said, but the owner of the building should have the final say in regards to attaching the dish to the outside of the building. It is, after all, his/her property, and renting an apartment in the building does not give you the right to modify the outside of the building in any way. Nor does it give you the right modify or alter the interior of the apartment.
As for using a WAP, if you live in housing provided by the college, they make the rules. They can certainly say what is allowed ot be connected to their network, and they can limit or regulate the devices used on their property. They can ban the use of a specific class of device, such as a hotplate, toaster, or microwave oven. They can ban using a WAP. They are not necessarily regulating the spectrum, they are just saying that you can't use that specific type of device.
If the rule was, "Students may not use any devices which transmits in the XXXHz to YYYHz range," things might be different. It comes down to property rights, the college owns the land and the buildings. It is well within their rights to regulate activities on that land.
Imagine you own a home and someone comes over. They are within their First Amendment rights to say what ever they want, but that doesn't mean you have to put up with it. It's your house, you can tell them to leave, and not come back. The same applies to a university.
Put another way, does a university have a right to regulate smoking in its buildings and dorms? Smoking is perfectly legal, assuming you are 18, but yet many places ban smoking in dorms. Some also ban drinking.
Hockey - Canada's gift to the world
And what if your AP interferes with your neighbor's or your roommate's ability to get on the UTD wireless network? Why do the rights of your neighbor matter less than yours?
That's complete BS. Universities *are* landlords, and they have to comply with all rules, regulations, and laws governing landlords.
Now, you can *waive* your rights and give them permission to do things that landlords ordinarily could not (such as searching your dorm) - that's what you are doing when you sign your housing agreement (which every university that I know of makes you do in order to live in the dorm) If you didn't sign the housing agreement and somehow ended up living in the dorm, then the university could do nothing that a landlord couldn't.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Use 802.11a
Good one, boys. Just spreading more FUD, you are. This is a non-issue. The University is simply putting a policy in place to cover themselves. Big deal. This is *NO* different than the thousands of campuses who in the past have told students they cannot use microwaves in their dorm rooms. It's just another device. Don't make it into one of these "your individual rights are being violated" issues. When you agree to pay tuition and enroll, you agree to abide by their standards. If you don't like it, transfer. The "you're not the FCC" line is ridiculous as well. By that logic, airlines couldn't tell you what you can and can't use on their planes either. And hospitals couldn't make you turn off your cell phones. Seriously, someone stop the FUD.
I go to UTD and am a frequent reader of WaterviewSux. This is not the first time that the university and the apartment complex have been violating rules and stomping on student rights.
Check it Out!
But then you end up with a pipe bomb that can't have sex as that's bad for the children.
Grumpy grumpy grumpy pipe bomb.
In July O7, I got a mac pro. There's no punchline. Just endless joy and wonder.
Hat
Sounds like an excellent alternative to that antiquated tinfoil.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Yes, it's a contract. You said it was the law. They're not the same thing. Besides, the article said that students were hooking APs to cable and DSL connections. So theft of service isn't even the University's problem, it's Comcast's problem. The University is within its rights to restrict student behavior on its property, but the theft of service argument is bunk. They can't press charges for misuse of Comcast Internet.
It's also disappointing that someone with such a closed-minded misunderstanding of the law is in your position, if you're telling the truth.
enough said.
I still bet that the current FCC won't overrule the Universities on this one. They're too busy fellating Verizon and SBC to even notice.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
The point of /. is to READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE and then discuss it.
Dipshit.
Clauses of a contract don't apply where the law supercedes them.
Fine print can go to hell if say, a local, state, or federal law specifically grants you a right and the contract says you can't use that right.
For example, say a renter gets a note from his land-lord that the land-lord will show his apartment in five minutes. The renter can say hell no, and be perfectly within the law. Even if the rental agreement specifically states that the land-lord can enter the premises with "a warning" or can show the apartment "at reasonable hours".
At least, that's the case in most states. And it makes those parts of the contract null and void.
The same idea applies here; because the equipment uses the electromagnetic spectrum, the FCC and only the FCC has regulatory power in the United States. Even the US military has to obtain permission from the FCC for military bands.
IANAL, but I play one on TV. But I know for a fact that the FCC has won at least one case in the past where a company said that people couldn't use a certain frequency due to a contract, but that company didn't own the license for that frequency.
Now, as owner of the school's network, the school can block access from that room on the school's end. But they can't physically disconnect the WAP. The students have the right to setup whatever they want in their room as long as it's not illegal. A contract saying that they couldn't put daiseys in a vase in their room is void. (Unless those daiseys are flesh-eating plants that walk. Then that's a threat to student safety and school property.)
I don't have problems with Unversities having a policy like this and then only enforcing on students who have anonymous access points. For the same reason you can't have NAT routers on the network, students shouldn't be allowed to give anonymous wireless access. Students computers might then connect to a students router without them even knowing it. And then if the connecting student gets a virus, the wireless access point gets its internet shut off which doesn't actually solve the problem (we had a problem last year where Mac users were getting shut off for spreading worms since Windows users were getting a NAT address from them). Basically it takes away power from the networking team that it needs to be able keep a LAN working, not to mention possible privacy invasions by those running the wireless routers.
Those students who have wireless routers with proper WAP encyption poses really no such threat. It means a student connecting to that router knows what router they are connected to.
Sorry to rain on yours, but in this case it *is* a lease. The apartments are not owned by the college.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
They can when they enter into bilateral agreements with similar governing bodies from the other countries over whose airspace one is traveling.
I would guess that similar laws to seagoing vessels would apply to airplanes as well, though I'm not entirely clear how those work.
I would guess that as long as an airplane is over neutral territory (ocean) the laws of whateve country the plane is registered to apply.
[C]
Because there's
a) FCC regulations against using cell phones on airliners.
b) FAA regulations explicitly allowing the pilot in command of an aircraft to prohibit the use of portable electronic devices.
Now, as to why isn't my local DMV breaking the law with their "no cellphone" signs? I think they probably are and haven't been called on it.
This
It's simple. The university is in a position to enforce its arbitrary abuse of petty power; so it does. What are YOU going to do about it?
Yeah I thought so, now you fucking slackers make sure you send in your goddamn tuition checks on time and remember to read the pamphlet on binge drinking so that when we don't bother to do OUR job, there's nothing you can fucking do about that either.
Right, right. Like the 1st Amendment gives me the right to free speech and peaceful assembly in your living-room.
What money grab??
UTD does not sell any access points and never has. How in the hell can this be a money grab?
This is motivated by one thing: the need to protect the rights of UTD students to get to the UTD-provided APs without interference from non-UTD APs.
So wait.. If a pipebomb used 2.4GHz unlicensed, only the FCC has regulatory power over that pipebomb?
Only the FCC would have regulatory power over the pipebomb's use of 2.4GHz, and whether or not people are allowed to use the pipebomb to access and utilize the 2.4GHz band.
Obviously pipe bombs have other purposes, and the FCC doesn't have regulatory power over those uses.
The same argument can't be made for Wireless APs, and in any case, the university *is specifically attempting* to exert regulatory power over the ability of the Wireless APs to use the 2.4GHz band.
Example: Universities can't prevent you from having a candle in your room. They can only prevent you from having a *lit* candle, for safety reasons. Ditto for animals - only for safety/health reasons.
There's no such argument against owning a wireless AP, so the University can't prevent you from simply *having* a wireless AP, and they're not trying to. Just if you're *using* one. Therefore they're attempting to control the *use* of it to access the band, which is the FCC's domain.
My 802.11b and g have more channels, or at least they say they do? How is there effectively only 3? I havn't heard about this, can you please explain?
I understand the specific article, I was replying to previous posts (arguably off topic) which were about university dorms.
Because the FAA, another federal agency, has coordinated with the FCC in order to limit the use of possible sources of radio interference on an airplane due to safety concerns.
[C]
I see nothing in that language that prevent any private institutions or property owner to regulate what gets installed on their premises.
The language merely says you're breaking no laws and therefore nobody (government or adjacent property owners) can have any beef with you if you install such things on your property. That's fine - you still can't bring your AP in my house, in the dorm, or most likely in your cubbicle at work.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about, but nonetheless you have such a strong opinion that you feel that you are somehow able to competely argue it.
Hams can blast as much power as they need to conduct their communication (you are not allowed to use excessive power when it is not needed). If I need 1.5KW to blast signals for moonbounce and my feed dish happens to point in the general direction of both UTD and the Moon, then there is not a damn leg you have to stand on.
This is the pitfalls of unlicensed spectrum - you are on a equal playing field. Governments do not get to change the rules just becuase they are a government agency, the FCC clearly states the rules of the road here. Case law agrees.
The water are definetely murkier at state universities and the rules may vary from state to state in terms of how "public" they really are. But public property or not, I would be willing to bet good money that I am not allowed (by law or otherwise) to just go walk around the dorms at the local state university (unless I am student living in that dorm that is) under the grounds that it's public property so even public property (like the Grand Canyon) can put serious limitations on what you can do there.
they can do whatever they want or not allow you to have campus housing if they're a private school... i graduated in 2001 and my college did not allow cordless telephones. i don't even remember what their insane reasoning was. my college did not accept government funding, and to my understanding, that pretty much allowed to make any sort of silly rule without recourse. sure a student could probably battle it with a lawyer but the school will have more resources.
Hogwash...
Of course they can say what you can and can not do. It's not illegal or regulated by any government body when you take a camera into a store but you are on their property and they can ask you to leave for doing it.
A university can not punish/restrict you for who you are (race... religion... etc) but they can restrict you for anyything you do that doesn't infringe those areas.
The university can't control your use of the spectrum... but they can sure control the use of their property. It would be fairly hard to graduate from a university that you were never allowed on campus again.
With your reasoning the University would not be able to require parking stickers because the cops don't. They are after all the governing body for all things traffic related.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
I had to use wireless for a few weeks before we finally cracked down and ordered cable from comcast. The wireless would go down for hours at a time. Good luck even connecting during peak hours, not to mention any peer-to-peer is blocked (which I shouldn't complain about but I mean come on, it's a college campus)
>Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the
>contract? The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a
>DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they
>were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of
>their contract or demand payement for it?
>I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.
It seems very likely to me that big developers will soon start prohibiting 802.11 access points in new housing developments, and instead profit from the fiber lines that they put in, and we'll have absolutely no recourse.
Here's why:
Satellite TV antennas are specifically excepted from the CC&R (codes, covenants, and restrictions) by FCC regulation. Other types of antennas, such as amateur radio antennas (see Antenna Restrictions are excluded. Note that part of the 2.4 GHz 802.11 spectrum is actually a ham radio band, and the wireless APs are FCC Regulation Part 15 devices...so you can't even get around CC&R (or HOA -- homeowner association) rules by claiming it's for ham radio use.
Fortunately, PRB-1 prevents local government from prohibiting antennas or over-regulating them, but nothing prevents CC&Rs or Homeowner's Associations from doing so. In fact, a bill recently made it through the Hawaii legislature only to be vetoed by Hawaii's Republican Governor on the grounds that it interfered with "private contracts." Unfortunately, when big developers develop half of a town and put CC&R's in place, they're impossible to remove. Good luck finding somewhere to live.
Join the fight against senseless antenna restrictions.
Actually, it's all three.
The FCC says that you can't use cell-phones on a plane, because it can potentially cause havoc with cell-phone systems that expect you to be on the ground. However, it's not the airline's responsibility to enforce these rules.
The FAA says that use of any electronic devices on an airplane must not interfere with the avionics critical for safe operation of the airplane. But, there is no blanket prohibition of cell-phones.
However, it is the aircraft operator's responsibility to determine whether a specific or class of electronic devices interfere with the aircraft's avionics. I don't have the exact words in front of me, but it's effectively: "you must be sure that it doesn't interfere. If it does interfere and there is a subsequent problem, it's your responsibility".
As a result, the airlines take the safe route and prohibit all devices that transmit RF. Of course, there are still those devices that emit RF in normal operation without intentionally transmitting (i.e. inadequate shielding), but the airlines generally allow those except when manuevering close to the ground (takeoff and landing).
FCC regulations are not law. They carry the weight of law in some cases, just as a tort does between two agents. We called General Counsel after seeing this thread (doubts even here?) and they told us that the students could not interfere with our wireless (FCC regulations require the user to mitigate all interference), we were there first (209 years) and that is good old English common law. Secondly, if anyone from outside of the university connects to one of those rogue APs connected to our network (not UTD's) the student is responsible for whatever happens up to facing the law (like perverts cruising kiddie porn on the AP registered in their names) and dismissal from the school.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
you still can't bring your AP in my house, in the dorm, or most likely in your cubbicle at work.
Apparently, you can. You can also install a satellite dish in a rented property.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Don't be a tool. Your workplace is not your residence. You work at your employer's pleasure, you lease your apt.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The US military bands are regulated by the FCC as well.
I see both sides of the story. The school which I attend, WPI, has been doing this for a long time. You will get your port shut off and your internet access denied if you set up your own router of any kind, including wireless. Any extra computers on the network after the first one is extra money out of your pocket. Our school even goes around with wireless sniffers to detect student set up wireless networks and many kids have been busted for this.
Well, your comment just proves that even college students can't read. How do you guys make it through your classes?
The ban doesn't apply to just AP's connected to the school network, it applies to APs connected to private networks, cable modems, etc.
The school's network uses public part 15 frequencies that they are legally obligated to share and co-use with others without the expecation of no interference. This is where the school's arguments end and the LAW rules.
I know because I just went through this whole thing with my leasing company, but I'm moving so I no longer have to deal with those losers and the new place will let me mount a dish on my balcony railing, but they don't HAVE to.
Also, if you rent a house and want to mount it, the landlord can tell you where you can and can't mount it, they can't however stop you from doing the old bucket-o-cement mount, since that does not cause any damage.
Free Mac Mini
Well you are right, they do own those apartments though, they are managed by a 3rd party, but the apartments are owned by UTD, the property as well as the buildings.
Apparently, you can't. Once again, a dorm room is not a rental property. You don't have all (if any) the rights of a tenant. All the students on here that think they do are doing a whole lot of wishful thinking with very little basis in reality.
Never mind satellite dishes, on most dorms you can't even use pushpins! And by the way, as a side note (it's completely irrelevant to the current discussion), satellite dish thing has some very strict limitations - only out your window or on your balcony. So if you're apparment faces the wrong way, you're SOL.
"The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students not wishing to utilize these "unknown" access points, as the wireless network cards attempt to connect to the nearest and strongest signal available - which is often the "unknown" access points. Locking down the access points does not help this problem, but actually makes it even worse."
Why not just configure your computer to only connect to the offical campus Access Point and not to automatically connect to the strongest signal? With the Windows XP built-in wireless client this is possible, and I imagine most manufacturer provided client software this is also possible.
I know interference may be the issue here, but the post on the University website makes it sound like the users don't know how to select their AP and that is the problem.
Also as an alternative solution, why not just reserve channels 1-6 for the University APs and then set them all to channel 1, leaving channels 2-6 as a kind of buffer range?
What about cordless phones that operate in the 2.4 Ghz range? If they are going to ban non-approved WAPs, then they should ban 2.4 Ghz phones as well. In my experience, these phones bring more havoc to a b/g network than a rogue WAP ever will.
They can use whatever equipment they want.. The school obviously cannot manage their own network. I'll sit infront of the school in my car with a wireless router and then what? Bunch of idiots trying to ban a router. HAHA!
RTFA - this is not a "DORM ROOM" issue. It is an apartment building.
Very different from Dorm life.
Perhaps the University of Texas at Dalas needs to invest in some strategically placed Wi-Fi Blocking Wallpaper.
... that a lease can prohibit sex between consenting adults (no-cohabitation clauses in many dorms), but not the operation of 802.11b wireless access points?
+++ATH0
I thought that most apartments were owned by private individuals.. not governments..
Man I'm behind the times.. when did we move into full socialism ?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
UMass Amherst has the following: "Wireless Airspace Policy"
If you choose to live on campus, you have to follow their rules of conduct or get kicked off from the dorm.
UTD does not have dorms. Get your facts straight before you post.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I feel as a student of UTD, I should step in and offer a perspective as to why this generates such bitterness among the student body. The 802.11 b network was first deployed 4 years ago when the wireless standard was fairly new. I used the wireless network for all of my freshman year and it was plagued with frequent disconnects and service outages. I think I lost connectivity for a period of 4-5 hours best case at least once a week that year. To give some data as to the quality of the connection, it was common among my roommates to see packet loss of 25 - 30 percent when the network functioned and pings in excess of 200 ms to web servers hosted in Dallas. Consequently, I decided that connection was too unstable for my needs, so I began paying for DSL. I used a Netgear wireless b access point to share the connection with my roommates as the fire code is rather vague about running cat-5 about everywhere. We occasionally used the university wireless service that year and didn't experience difficulty in switching between my private network and the university public network. I currently run an 802.11 b/g network in the Waterview Park Apartments and I know for a fact that it does not interfere with the University ran access points. I have worked on my neighbors computers regarding their connectivity to the University wireless network and they all can connect correctly. My AP is roughly 3 meters from the University AP and they don't not interfere with each other beyond a marginal hit to signal-to-noise ratio. I have a decent level of security on my network through various methods and try my best to run a stable, non-interfering network and seem to be succeeding. The real issue is that UTD has had a very unstable network since its inception and the instability of this network drives students to pursue other commerical options. The letter we recieved is full of accusations that the sole reason for having a private connection is to share illegal material. Also, the implicit allegation is that the non-university APs interfere with the intergrity of their network. I think no one will deny that some illegal traffic does proceed over the private lines. The non-university APs, however, are not the issue preventing the network from working correctly. The issue is in the quality of equipment and setup of the network. I had a class where they discussed with the UTD IR department regarding how the university wireless network is setup. The setup is as follows. Each apartment building has approximately 12 aps for the clients. These APs are then wired to a radio transmitter on the roof of each building. These transmitters send to a repeater for roughly 15 apartments each. I believe there are 8 or 9 of these repeaters now. This repeater passes its signal to a central receiver which is then wired directly to the main university fiber lines. I strongly feel that any network using that many radio signals to send data around is asking for poor throughput and reliablity. After extensively thinking about this article, I believe this is a FUD campaign by UTD IR to get rid of poorly configured access points operating in the same frequency range as their network. The 802.11 standard is supposed to be robust enough to handle interference from multiple radio signals within the same vicinity. I don't feel I and other apartment residents like me should be the spacegoat for UTD's wireless internet problems. It is not our fault. Wireless clients have the capability to recognize an access point as beloning to a certain SSID and connect to access points reflecting that SSID. My ssid is not broadcast and wireless clients should not be attempting to connect to my network for any reason. I hope I have made it clear that UTD's claims do not stand up to the reality of how the 802.11 standard is implemented. They have a history of a poorly performing network and this new campaign isn't going to change that problem. UTD IR needs to look at the real problem, the quality and design of their network infrastructure before turning the students into scapegoats.
I'm betting they could stop you from taking a walky-talky into class durring finals. They use the unregulated part of the spectrium too, jsut like the APs.
It has always been our college's policy to disallow wireless networks and personal routers to be attached to our network. You can have such devices as long as they are not linked to our network in some fashion.
-Foxxz
user=owner of device; it is a two edged sword.
If the owner of the AP in the dorm experienced interference from your AP, they have to mitigate that. The university is the user with respect to their AP's and are thusly required to mitigate interference with their AP's. Their AP's still have the FCC part 15 boilerplate(*1) about interference on them.
Physical possession of a piece of property does not infer possession of any piece of spectrum that is on/through it; the spectrum in its entirety is public property administered by the FCC. "Ownership" of a part of the spectrum is actually a contract with the Federal Government in which the government guarantees prosecution of other entities utilizing that frequency in that geographic area. The FCC is the sole trier when it comes to disputes involving spectrum interference; they have administrative procedures established to deal with this. Surely your university is required to implement CFR and USC, which means that the university must seek remedy within the structure of that framework; eg if you have a complaint about interference, take it to the FCC.
Part 15 rules are 47 CFR 15. Point your council at it. In particular, pay attention to the definition of harmful interference: (47 CFR 15.3(m)(*2))
(*1) This device complies with Part 15 rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
1. This device may not cause harmful interference, and
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
(*2) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with his chapter.
Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter I, Section 151 would beg to differ with your statement that FCC regulations are not law.
Title 47 is from the US Code... a composition of the laws that are used to run the country.
In any case, the FCC does have the power to do whatever it wants with the electromagnetic spectrum, within reason (such as not going against the public interest).
In Section 151, it states that: "there is created a commission to be known as the ''Federal Communications Commission'', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter".
Now... Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 302a, paragraph (f) states defines the "State and local enforcement of FCC regulations on use of citizens band radio equipment", that says that the FCC can enforce rules through law enforcement agencies for CB radio.
I am assumming with this specific mention of the FCC being able to enforce its regulations through law enforcement that the commission could enforce its regulations via law enforcement in other cases.
The FCC also has the ability to fine licensed radio operators.
Also, the ability of the FCC to regulate the EM spectrum is governed by the FCC's powers given to it from congress through application of the part of the Constitution concerning commerce between states, indian tribes, and foreign nations.
You are correct in that the students' equipment may not interfere with your school's equipment. That's one of those rules governing the use of home electronics. (FCC 15, part B, I think...). The device shall not cause interference... or something like that. Which limits both antenna length and power levels for the students' radio equipment.
We dont allow students to put up AP's in residential halls / campus owned apartments at baylor. We provide 802.11b and do a damn good job of it. Now we're not nazi's about it either. We just hunt them down and ask them politely to turn it off and use our wireless network which is accessable by all studnets and faculty/staff. There's no need to be nazi's about the whole thing. Of course there are a TON of nerds at UTD :D
See Sig! See Sig Zig! Zig Sig Zig!!!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The students have no leg to stand on. They are interfering with the network (9 User APs and one University AP on Channel 1 means no APs working) and they are most likely providing network services to non-University personnel. The first violates our AUP and the second is an offense with punishments ranging up to dismissal from the University.
Dear Zod, man, get your facts straight. These are private cable/DSL connections we're talking about here, not the university network.
In fact, UTD's network doesn't have any wired connections. It's all wireless, and their network sucks so horribly that everyone who can afford a Comcast line has one.
And read the FCC decision. Only the FCC has the power to restrict use of unlicensed public airwaves. The decision clearly says ``the rules prohibit [...] landlords [...] from making restrictions''. That means that UTD is the one breaking the law here--unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, and if interference happens, tough.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
" If you sign a lease contract for an apartment that states you are not allowed to install a DirectTV dish, it is unenforcable."
You know, this wins the award for THE STUPIDEST EVER POSTING ON SLASHDOT. Of course a landlord can ban you from affixing property to the exterior of a unit.
What a bunch of maroons.
Physical possession of a piece of property does not infer possession of any piece of spectrum that is on/through it; the spectrum in its entirety is public property administered by the FCC. "Ownership" of a part of the spectrum is actually a contract with the Federal Government in which the government guarantees prosecution of other entities utilizing that frequency in that geographic area. The FCC is the sole trier when it comes to disputes involving spectrum interference; they have administrative procedures established to deal with this. Surely your university is required to implement CFR and USC, which means that the university must seek remedy within the structure of that framework; eg if you have a complaint about interference, take it to the FCC.
Very well said by the AC.
Federal law gives me the right to put up a Dish antenna on my home, even if I live in a neighborhood with covenants restricting said antenna. Federal does not give you (the tenant) the right to put a Dish antenna on my property (that you lease) without my permission.
As a matter of fact, it DOES. In exactly the FCC regulation in question.
When you rent out an apartment (whether you're a private landlord or a university), you are explicitly trading "quiet enjoyment" of the property for money. You can TRY to make limits on what constitutes "quiet enjoyment" of your particular property. But both your state and the federal government can override your claimed limits in the tennent's favor. The tennent gets to do what he wants and as a landlord you're S.O.L. Your lease provision is unenforcable and the rest of the lease still holds.
Mounting antennas (including satellite dish, TV, WiFi, and other "licensed or unlicensed spectrum" antennas {provided they're under a meter, except on a designated historic structure, not to replace a TV antenna and distribution system provided by the landlord, yadda yadda}) happens to be one of those federal overrides. Operating in the unlicensed spectrum (even if it interferes with other users of it) happens to be another.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm not saying that it's a generic right that you can have a dish, I'm saying there's specific legislation pertaining to your right to install a dish in an apartment building. The landlord has NO right to prevent you from installing a dish just because he doesn't like the way it looks. There are provisions allowed as the previous poster mentioned for restrictions against some methods of installation. The following is from an apartment association informing its landlord members their rights:
"The NAA has advised our members they can require a tenant who wishes to install a satellite dish to sign a liability agreement and keep proper liability insurance. Secondly, the tenant can be prohibited from drilling holes in the roof or walls to hook up inside the apartment. Thirdly, the tenant cannot place the dish where it will cause more than ordinary wear and tear to the premises."
This means that, if your apartment has its own well-built balcony and you install a directv dish with c-clamps and run the wire through your window or screen door, the landlord has no ability to say that you cannot use it or continue to have it installed. Even if in the contract you signed it said "no satellite dishes allowed!" It is not an implied right but one that is specifically legislated by the FCC.
If your contract said "no palm trees on the balcony" that would be enforcable. See the difference?
Can be reached: efnet #utdlug
According to the wireless policy of the school I attend:
Wireless networks use a finite and shared part of the radio spectrum. To ensure that all members of the community have fair access to this system, the university will regulate this airspace. The University reserves the rights to limit and restrict access to the wireless airspace on campus. No one may install their own wireless access point on the campus as it may interfere with the university-installed units. Because the wireless infrastructure differs from the wired network, certain limits on bandwidth will have to be maintained.
In order to insure reliable access to the wireless network, air space must be free of devices that could cause interference. The airspace on the university campus will be monitored for interfering devices. Should any such device be found, we will notify the party of the issues concerned with the use of that device.
link is here.
there is a 1996 (or 94) federal court ruling
regarding satelite dishes
that states
that housing associations (in this case the college)
can't prohibit tenants from putting
up satelite dishes for any reason.
the ruling is worded such that it applies in this case
It's already clear that the main discussion is about legality. So I'll suggest something else: This is incredibly stupid policy for a university that claims to be educating its students.
;-)
...) administrations. So the UT is preventing their students from learning to install and manage wireless comm networks. Wonderful! This makes the job prospects so much better for our graduates. Let's encourage other universities to "protect" their students this way.
...
For a few decades now, I've hung out with the MIT crowd, where there is an interesting contrary policy. For example, MIT's administration has a firm rule of no institute-level firewalls. The air over MIT is purportedly the densest concentration of microwaves on the planet, because the official policy is no restrictions. (There are a lot of jokes about roast squab falling out of the air.
Why do they do this? Simple. They want their graduates to have experience with such things. If you install a firewall, everyone is protected - and nobody but a chosen handful can get any experience. If you control wireless comm links, your pigeons are safe - but your graduates have no experience setting up and managing wireless comm equipment.
This UT policy will just get grins from the MIT (and Cal Tech and
I wonder what Texas A&M's policy is? I don't know, but I'll stick my neck out and guess that they encourage their students to learn about setting up wireless comm networks. If not, well, they just dropped from first tier to fifth tier
It might be interesting to get together a list of such policies at various schools. This could be useful to someone trying to decide where to go to get their tech degree. Anyone know if there's a list like this online somewhere?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
As a student and (former) resident of said university, let me clarify a few issues. UTDallas provides free wireless internet connectivity to all residents in the Waterview Park apartment community. Waterview Park is a privately operated apartment community residing on state held land and is exclusively for students of UTD. When you move into Waterview, you sign a standart TAA (Texas Apartment Association) lease with three or four addendums. These addendums govern your stay in the apartments. These are the ONLY applicable restrictions on a contractual basis. No where in those rules does it mention internet connectivity.
The university is using a campus policy prohibiting the operation of wireless equipment by faculty and staff in the classroom buildings to try to ban the operation of private access points in residences governed under tenant law, not campus policy. That is unenforceable. The only problem is that most students will simply capitulate in order to avoid trouble.
A word on the wireless access itself. It was originally installed in phase eight of the campus housing in the fall of 2001. That was my freshman year. Connectivity was decent, but there were many restrictions. If you uploaded too many files by FTP, for example, you would be dropped and banned for one hour. Since I worked in web design and internet applications programming, this was unacceptable. I got my own connection. Since then, the wireless has been expanded to all residential housing. It has never been the same since. Instead of installing wiring to each phase and then using wireless inside the phases, all the phases are operating on a giant radio mesh back to phase eight where the connectivity to campus is. Bandwidth is terrible. Many times it is non-existant. In order to alleviate security concerns, they recently rolled out 802.1x authentication using PEAP.
Now the network doesn't even work for most users. Many of my friends and myself are now unable to connect, even when assisted by the campus help desk. Instructions are followed to the letter, with the result of "802.1x authentication failed."
This leaves residents with no recourse but to seek other connectivity.
The simplest way to share a connection in these apartments is with wireless connectivity. It is also the safest, since the fire marshall will write tickets for cables running across the apartment during his regular inspections (these are allowed through an addendum to the lease contract). So, running cables can result in a fine.
The campus information resources department is now blaming all their problems on "rogue" access points. They claim that the connectivity issues are being caused by too many access points in the phases. I would like to point out that even when WAP's were still $200-$300 and no students had them, the connectivity was bad.
The advice I give to my friends is this: Turn off SSID broadcast. They are too stupid to be able to find them if they can't just browse them. On top of that, simply refuse them access to your apartment. The only people allowed in are campus police, maintenace, and the fire department. That is in the contract, hold them to it. Last, don't be afraid to call a lawyer. Free money is free money. There are probably many lawyers out there who will see this as a goldmine.
If a campus official is reading this, here is a message: Maybe you should have run this by the campus legal department first. These apartments are governed under tenant laws, not campus policy. By detecting and shutting down access points, you may be committing several punishable hacking offenses. (Warchalking, anyone?) By governing unlicensed spectrum, you are very possibly in violation of federal law.
And by saying that access points running on seperate channels are interfering with your connections (despite evidence from students that this is not the case), they are simply showing your ignorance of current technologies. They should ban cell phones, wireless phones, and water heaters first. All of those cause proven interference.
RTFR (read the f* responses) - I know, we've diverged from the article very early on and are talking more about general "students rights on campus" issues.
If they attempted to take punitive action against you in enacting a restriction they had no right to apply in the lease agreement, wouldn't they be breaking the law? At the very least, they'd be open to civil suit, I'd have thought... Bah, where's a judge when you need one?
as much as landlords and housing associations
want to prohibit tenants from putting up
satelite dishes, they cannot
according to a federal ruling
the same ruling applies in this case
renters have rights
--
You're missing the point that as a lessor, your have certain rights.
And no, cops (city/county) are not the sole governing body for all things traffic related. They are on PUBLIC STREETS, but not PRIVATE PROPERTY.
There is no such thing as private property as it relates to wireless spectrum. It is ALL in the public trust and thus private property rights DO NOT APPLY.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I have worked at the campus Help Desk for the University of Alabama, and our policy was the same.
We provided 'wired' internet access to the dormatories via a service named ResNet -- and through this every person had their own individual accounts. This allowed us to manage accounts, and also turn off offenders who had become virus infected and were sending out massive amounts if viral information to other campus computers - or beyond.
If you allow AP's that are not University managed, then you open the door to having uncontrolled internet access, with no way to manage, or put in check individual computers if a problem might arise.
Needless to say, you also allow people who shouldn't have ResNet the ability to hop on a neighbors AP, and steal the connecton...
Apparently, you can't. Once again, a dorm room is not a rental property.
These are apartments owned by some other corporation. It may or may not be a dorm room - I'd wait for a judge to determine that.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Well, the Wifi network is new, and as I stated in one of my other emails, it doesn't work in the apartments all the time, the students are blaming the routers, the school is blaming the student's access points(Yes, I know what the article is says, but that's just not the case). The school internet is also pretty slow, it is based on campus and in the apartments it is a bunch of repeaters as well as access points. It was done as an afterthought in most apartments. When I lived there, they had it, but I didn't have a wifi card. One of my roommies did, but you had to be in the hallway by the door to use the Wifi, not even in the living room could you get access to it.
STORY AT 11
Ummm... how many dorms actually have you sign a lease? But anyways...
Your argument on cops is also flawed... A cop can legally pull you over for doing above 55 mph (or the posted limit if there is one) on private land (aka a parking lot at the mall or such). A cop can give you a ticket for parking in a handicap parking space on private property... etc.. etc.. etc...
They are totally within their rights to require you to not use a device while on their property. If you are not on their property and your signal is bleeding on to their property there is nothing they can do... but they can require whatever they want when you are on their property.
A good example of this is that is is common now to have drinking and smoking prohibited in student housing. They can not say that you can not drink... but they can say if you do it here we will ask you to either leave and never trespass again or face other consequences.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
First off, let me say that I am an amateur radio operator. (Call sign N1ZZH)
2.4ghz spectrum is primarily allocated to licensed users specifically government users of narrow bandwidth FM for land mobile radio. Secondary allocation is to the amateur radio service - as a licensed allocation under FCC part 97. WiFi is licensed under part 15 - intentional radiators.
From a regulatory standpoint, part 15 devices have the following conditions: they must not interfere with licensed users of that piece of the spectrum, and they must accept any interference from other users. The university chose to use part 15 devices, and must therefore tolerate other users of that spectrum.
With respect to student use of non-university resources in non-university owned buildings: the students, under current regulations, have precedence under the law. Wifi devices operate in FCC controlled spectrum, and with antennas less than one meter in size. FCC has preemptive jurisdiction in this case, and the existing regulations favor the students.
Jacques Richer N1ZZH
Sorry, but storeowners can't not let in blind people with seeing-eye dogs because they just don't like dogs. Similarly, a landlord is explicitly forbidden from preventing one of their tenants from having a non-destructively installed directv dish. They are not forbidden from requiring you to have purple curtains, that is enforcable.
If the university's network access is being disrupted by other wireless connections... GO BACK TO WIRES! Anyone who wants an internet connection on the university network can get it through a wire with no interference. If they really want it wireless they can get up their own AP from their port. (Perhaps build Faraday's cages [or that new wallpaper BAE Systems is making] into all the rooms to stop access being spread outside).
If invididual student's wireless AP's are interfereing with each other, they can either sort it out among themselves or go back to the wires.
Either way, access to the network itself is not interfered with unless a student is using their own 3rd party equipment.
It's also by far the best way to keep the network secure against outside access.
FGD 135
Not true, if you are rich enough to have a large driveway and you put a STOP sign on it that looks a little bit official, then a police office is in his full right to give you a citation if you don't stop for it, even if it's on your own driveway. And if your neighbour paints a yellow line on your curbs, he can give you a parking ticket too.
If you havn't read yet. The university is trying to regulate an appartment complex that primarily has students in it, but is not owned or regulated by the university. Since they don't own it, they can't say what you can or can not do there.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Som cities have regulations expressly requiring that landlords permit pets. Don't like it? Don't offer an apartment for rent in the city.
New York City has rent control - all sorts of detailed regulations about how much you can rent an apartment for.
There are all sorts of laws restricting the rights you can sign away.
The University cannot restrict wireless APs, but they can restrict what gets connected to their network. I can say from personal testing that baby monitors, microwaves, and 2.4 Ghz phones interfere with wireless much more then other APs, but that isn't the point. It is a security issue for dumbasskids to leave their APs wide open and insecured.
Ummm... how many dorms actually have you sign a lease?
I have no idea, and that is a crucial point. If you aren't considered a lessor, but rather a guest...totally different.
Your argument on cops is also flawed...
Well, my argument didn't actually specify. Publically available businesses are different than private, private property. They are regulated differently by nature of their allowing access to the general public.
If I decide to drive 100 MPH on my private road on my property in Western Montana, there isn't a darn thing any cop can do about it. The road isn't available to the public, and neither is the land. There is no posted speed limit, so I'm not breaking any law. That is the key -- not breaking a law.
Smoking and drinking, again, don't have governing bodies that overrule the Univ. Well, the smoking bit is probably a law now in most places. Still, electromagnetic spectrum IS a special case.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why not just disable the SSID broadcast. Been doing it for 1.5 years at my school and no problem so far. We're not allowed to use routers (Linksys style) also... Posting AC just in case the networking folk read /.
What's next,
the tenants can only have 6" television sets,
so now they all have to go out and buy
inferior technology?
I hope these tenants are smart enough to squash this
(the law is on their side).
From: http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
Hemphill appartements (graduate housing). Ran an access point (with WPA) all the time. I could pick up the signal from a couple of other access points, too - all used encryption. No one ever even thought about it, and I really fail to see the problem.
Cellphones on airplanes are covered by 47 CFR 22.925 "Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones". It really IS a Federal Regulation.
Acadia University also has this policy. Although understandable I do not see the threat that is posed if I have a WAP in my room, the center of campus. Oh well...
This notice appears on my part 15 unlicensed router and most likely appears on the university's access points as well:
A simple workaround for the aparement students, although illegal, would be to load European or Japanese firmware into their 802.11B equipment. This will open up several more channels just above the US channels and would no longer cause interference with the university's equipment, provided the apartment users restricted operation to these out of band channels.
My laptop simply has a box to check (stating that I am in Japan) to open up the extra channels.
Chances are that the university would not be scanning the out of band channels, so the chances of getting caught are very low.
In any event, the FCC rules and regulations state that the university must put up with the interference because they are operating unlicensed equipment.
Keep reading...
Q: Does this mean that I can install an antenna that will be used for voice and data services even though it does not provide video transmissions?
A: Yes. The most recent amendment expands the rule and permits you to install an antenna that will be used to transmit and/or receive voice and data services, except as noted above. The rule will also continue to cover antennas used to receive video programming.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Or, more to the point, the June 24, 2004 clarification:
c h/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmat
"We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC."
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
But... the FCC keeps referring to "commercial" broadcasts. I need to dig to see about "non-commercial" broadcasts.
They *do* address mesh and point-to-point, surprisingly.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
By the way, I also have that right to require these things when you're in my house.
Actually, no, you don't.
You have the right to ask me to leave, sure. But there's a difference. You do not have the authority to tell me to stop using any unlicensed portion of the spectrum. Only the FCC does.
How is this different? You can't call a police officer and force me to stop using an unlicensed portion of the spectrum. But you COULD have the police officer remove me from your house. Note the difference.
The only authority anyone has in this country is that which is backed up by law. Since the students have signed a legal agreement to be allowed to live in that location, they have a legal right to be there.
People here are saying "well, sure they can say that!" That's ludicrous. Ask the question - what is the University going to do if they don't agree? The police can't stop the students from doing it. They can't fine them. They can't kick them out of the apartments. Maybe they could expel them, but given the fact that it's something that's occuring within someone's living space that has nothing to do with the University, I'm pretty sure that the student (while expelled) would be able to sue the University for a whole lot of money.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's not a lease.
Dorm contracts are leases as far as the vast majority of "tenant/landlord" law is concerned. They're specifically mentioned in most laws on the subject, actually.
They can enter your dorm room at any time
No, they can't. The police can thanks to the PATRIOT act, but Universities can't enter dorm rooms except via the exceptions that allow landlords to enter your apartment/dorm/home. Keep in mind that landlords can enter tenant's residences for quite a few reasons, and those same reasons are what allow the staff at dorms to enter as well.
And yes, they can ban all kinds of FCC allowed devices if they want to, just like I can do the same if you visit my house.
I don't have a legal right to be in your house. If I did, you would not be able to ban those devices. Students do have a legal right to be in their dorms.
It is for example perfectly OK for theater owners to make you check in all electronics devices at the door.
No, it's not. It is perfectly okay for them to restrict entrance to those who don't, however. There's a difference.
... stop broadcasting your ESSID? How would they even know its there, unless they are walking around sniffing the 2.4GHz band looking for hotspots.
All Your
Base Are Belong
To Us.
I do believe that the FAA may have something to say on this account. It is not just up to the airline.
At least read the fucking summary. Jesus Christ man, its on the top of the fucking page. Here is a choice excerpt from teh summary you were obviously too busy to read:
The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network.
Would turning off SSID broadcast prevent that hated knock on the door? Or are they going to search your place for your wireless router if they suspect you have one? I would not imagine any sort of landlord would be savvy enough to enforce this anyways...
Please note that the original poster said "in your apartment" not "on your apartment." You are both quite right-- the landlord absolutely cannot restrict placement of a dish of 1m diameter or less within property that is rented exclusively to you (inside the apartment, or within but not protruding past the edge of a balcony or exclusive patio). Drilling holes is subject to whatever rules your landlord already has about the structure, which is why most apartment dish mounts end up being the "dish on a pole in a bucket of cement" variety, with the cable run through the balcony/patio door. Several people at the last place I lived actually took them back inside when they were done watching, and just used little marks to line it up next time.
I realize that & didn't argue that this wasn't the case. It would be mighty boring to argue only one facet of a multi-faceted issue.The school isn't and can't pretend to stop someone from setting up an 802.11 transmitter across the street from the school & broadcast onto their property. This isn't the same as saying they can't regulate what equipment that you use on their property: of course they can. This is an extreme and bad example, but even if you have a permit to carry a firearm, you can't necessarily carry it to school with you (well, it is Texas, so maybe...).
The 2nd post I commented on specifically said "Government", and we are discussing a University.. not a Government
My comment was based on that statement.
The university is not the government, so they can 'come down harshly' purely because they want too, its their house, their rules, regardless of their motivation's accuracy..
So take your RTFA, and place it where the sun doesnt shine..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What he is saying that as the blacklist is prejudicial then by having to take you to court, hw will be put on the blacklist. AS this will prohibit them from ever renting because of YOUR illegial actions you have to pay damages to cover that loss - same as if your actions damage the future livelihood of somebody, you would have to pay to cover that loss as well. Basic idea of damages you see....
Unless the university has a policy of regularly searching your dorm room, your signal will rarely leak out. When they walk by outside with a scanner, they won't detect your AP.
Then you can still surf cable-free inside your own room.
I'm a UTD student who lives in the apartments that banned the APs. Even though they're not enforcing the ban yet, I've seen a noticable decrease in the WLANs around me. Scanning used to bring up 5 or 6 non-university SSIDs; now I only see about one.
I'm still having problems with the wireless connection dropping out at random times, sometimes as much as every 10 minutes. The connection only seems to have gotten especially bad since they switched over to PEAP 802.1x authentication (which is a Good Thing, I admit).
RTFA! The WAPs in question were connected to PRIVATE (Comcast) networks. This is a question of interference, not security.
Here are the facts as far as I can asitane:
* The AP's and the upstream link are the properly of the residents.
* The AP does not connect to the university network.
* The AP does not violate the ISP's contact.
* The apartment residents are legal tenants.
From the tenancy point of view, the FCC has ruled that landlords can not restrict the use of AP's by the tenant as long as it complies with the law. This applies even if the university is the landlord.
The university can only restrict the use of AP's if the AP is illegally on the university properly (note that if the land is rented the university has no say, even if it's stated in the tenancy contact as the FCC has ruled this void) or the AP is connected to the university network (this would imply the first case).
The only argument that the university has is that the tenants AP's are causing intentional jamming to the existing network. This would be a very thin argument as both the Universities as well as the tenants AP's work as intended. There is no intentional attempt to jam the universities AP's as a service is provided, it's just not the universities one.
Basically the University is attempting to ban the tenants AP's because its users are switching to the tenants AP's when they get a stronger signal from them. Looking at it from a legal point of view the tenants could cite unauthorized use of their AP if they had taken steps to prevent this use. Technically this could be resolved by placing AP's on the outside of the building (if the university is the landlord) or placing AP's a close as legally possible to the building.
Note that if the university attempts to enforce this is its regulations, this would be a case of indirection and again the FCC ruling would supersede it as the regulations are a contact between the students and the university.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
Dear Citizen of Middletown,
as you have ceartainly read in the press over the recent weeks, more and more Middletowners make use of wireless access points in their homes for convenient internet access. This is a great and promising new technology that will enable each citizen to acchieve greater goodness and universal wellbeing.
Unfortunately, as with each new technology, we face new challenges with this. More and more citizens complain about interference and genereal discomfort when their PC connects to the internet. In order for all citizens to continue to enjoy uninhibited internet access we will therefore have to put some structure into this.
City Hall has therefore decided to contract with WellMeaningCuteTelco, Inc to run our city's Wireless infrastructure. As you are all aware, WMCTI is a stable, well regarded Telecommunications service with decades of experience with this kind of business. All citizens will be able to rent an accredited WMCTI access point for their home, to connect to WMCTI's broadband service, for the small added charge of only US$14,95/month. WMCTI also hopes to enable access to other telco's broadband connections from its wirless APs, but there are still some technical issues to solve. In order to avoid undesired interference all access points not licensed by WMCTI have to be shut down within 3 months after this notice. Our environemental affairs office has a brochure ready for you how to dispose them in an evironmentally acceptable manner.
I sincerely hope you all enjoy our new service and wish you all well connected surfing.
Your Mayor
Here are the facts as far as I can asitane:
* The AP's and the upstream link are the properly of the residents.
* The AP does not connect to the university network.
* The AP does not violate the ISP's contact.
* The apartment residents are legal tenants.
From the tenancy point of view, the FCC has ruled that landlords can not restrict the use of AP's by the tenant as long as it complies with the law. This applies even if the university is the landlord.
The university can only restrict the use of AP's if the AP is illegally on the university properly (note that if the land is rented the university has no say, even if it's stated in the tenancy contact as the FCC has ruled this void) or the AP is connected to the university network (this would imply the first case).
The only argument that the university has is that the tenants AP's are causing intentional jamming to the existing network. This would be a very thin argument as both the Universities as well as the tenants AP's work as intended. There is no intentional attempt to jam the universities AP's as a service is provided, it's just not the universities one.
Basically the University is attempting to ban the tenants AP's because its users are switching to the tenants AP's when they get a stronger signal from them. Looking at it from a legal point of view the tenants could cite unauthorized use of their AP if they had taken steps to prevent this use. Technically this could be resolved by placing AP's on the outside of the building (if the university is the landlord) or placing AP's a close as legally possible to the building.
Note that if the university attempts to enforce this is its regulations, this would be a case of indirection and again the FCC ruling would supersede it as the regulations are a contact between the students and the university.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
The students should band together, and force the school to replace the wireless with direct fiber to each building, with gigabit runs to distribution points and 100Mbit switch runs to each dorm / apt room.
Telling students that they cannot do what they wish, within a non campus/college owned facility simply because they were too ignorant to figure out that students would be making use of wireless themselves is a load of horse-puckies.
From what I've read from students posting, even if the students weren't running their own AP's within the complexes, the network wouldn't work, because the campus doesn't have enough repeater/booster units to cover the entire area.
It was a piss-poor idea, implemented in a piss-poor fashion, and now students have had to pay for their own internet connections due to the shoddy design / implementation of the college.
To even suggest that the students would now have to "give up" their property and then buy 802.11a (even at a discount) equipment to go wireless is pure BS.
Someone needs to take the management of that college's networking facilities and do something particularly nasty to them, like papering their office with that RF blocking wall-paper, and disallow connectivity to the network they manage from anything but wireless, preferably old 1Mbit equipment, with a shoddy antenna.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
ACUTA has asked the FCC about similar situations, so read page 2 of:f m?Doc Num=964/ fcc98 273.pdf
o using/gene ral/
http://www.acuta.org/relation/DownloadFile.c
This basically states that for dormitories are exempt from the OTARD rules. That exception is documented here, page 16, point 73:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Cable/Orders/1998
If you look on UTD's website you will see that the Waterdown Apartments are not owned by the university, but by Worthington Management Company. Elsewhere on the website there is reference of leasing:
http://www.utdallas.edu/student/slife/h
All combined, this suggests that UTD has no say over another company's private property, and that even the company leasing the apartments has no say over spectrum use because the FCC prohibits such restrictions.
The FCC has already stated that such a probibition by private parties such as landlords, or by state or local governments or agencies of such is not permissible.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
U. Rhode Island is doing this too. I am a dorm tech. don't know what I think about it yet. But one thing is for sure, whatever they are doing for wireless sucks. They should just ban Windows. That would save more time and money.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
I work for the University of Kentucky ResNet and over the past few years wireless access points have popped up everywhere. I can pretty much open my laptop near any dorm and pick up 4-5 access points on the spot. All unprotected and they even have their default names like linksys, default, gateway, netgear. These students know nothing of protecting or restricting their basestations. Communications' official policy is no wireless access points also they aren't supported by UK ResNet either. When helping a student, they sometimes complain that they are having problems with UK's wireless then I discover that their laptop, running an outdated version of XP is connecting to someone's personal basestation. What's also funny is that UK is requiring all students to register all computers and ethernet enabled devices. If something ever goes down, the owner of the basestation will be liable!
- Danny
I got my BSEE and my MSEE both from UTD and still have friends there that live in the apartments there. Their wireless sucks big time. It constantly drops connection and if you do a search for available networks it becomes obvious that a large part of the problem is that at any spot in any of the 8 phases of apartments I can easily find at least 4 or 5 wireless networks that I can see so who knows how many there are with mac address blocking that are there that I cannot see. Anyways the point is that a lot of people get their own networks because they dont get a good connection but they dont get a good connection because so many people set up their own networks.
Anyways, its about damned time.
AT LEAST ITS NOT A MINING SCHOOL LOL
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
>> if we have reason to believe someone is, say, hiding in a closet
Ok, I'm curious. a: Why would someone hide in a closet, and b: Do you really care that someone is hiding in a closet, and c: What would you do about someone in a closet anyway?
Unless of course you're talking about people being 'in the closet' in which case getting Security to help them 'come out of the closet' raises a whole new set of mental images..
Organize with other students who want to use wifi.
Agree to use only the frequency not being used by the university.
The moment that the university tries disciplianry action:
-- start DoSing their wifi (especially effective if you're using hard/software that allows you to fake your MAC)
-- use portable APs to start falsifying "violations" at inconvenient locations all over campus, such as profs' offices, the main Admin building, etc.
http://www.computerworld.com/mobiletopics/mobile/s tory/0,10801,94124,00.html
Same thing, different playground.
Here we go kids...the answers you're looking for:
/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf
1) The apartments are operated by First Worthing, and are on the UTD campus. Only students may reside in the apartments, but UTD does not own nor operate them.
2) Nothing in lease regarding personal WAP's. In fact, this "policy" is less than a week old.
3) FCC has very clear rules regarding this, and says it specifically apples to Multi-Tennant Environments, which it says, specifically include Universities, and also applies to Landlords. It is very clear that the FCC alone has the authority to make the calls when it comes to radio interference, including wifi's. (Which it again, specifically names.) read it here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch
So, the verdict? UTD is overstepping its legal bounds.
May I also suggest visiting the site the students there have to rant about their apartment complex: http://www.waterviewsux.com/
Piece and Brownies
I went to a Jesuit University in New York. Sex in a dorm was a violation of Residential Life policy. If you were caught, you could be written up - and it's happened.
+++ATH0
That ruling applies only to commercial non-broadcast wireless signals. In this specific case, the airlines are commercial business tenants of the airport and the wireless network is employed in commercial operations carried out by the airlines. This ruling would not apply to a home network. A home network could fit into the OTARD rules if it is used to receive a commercial service (i.e. from a wireless internet provider) or is composed of approved equipment as an extensive of an internet service (i.e. the DSL or cable internet provider supports wireless home networking). Otherwise, the equipment is not used to transmit of receive a commercial non-broadcast wireless signal and hence would not fit under OTARD rules. The only except to this is the use of HAM radio and wireless networking does not have the same hobbyist protections as HAM radio at this time.
You won't have the speed, but if your uplink is the bottleneck anyway, it's not necessarily a show-stopper.
a) It being a Methodist-affiliated university, women weren't allowed in mens' rooms after midnight, et vice versa.
b) See a). No, I personally don't care and only ever wrote people up for it if they were being completely obnoxious. It's just university policy.
c) Just tell them to leave, generally. If it was someone I'd talked to before, I was supposed to refer them to the head resident or write them up. Happened occasionally.
Lol. Wouldn't suprise me in the least, actually. They university was always looking for more minority/ethnic/etc groups. I wonder if either of the gay students on campus got aid because of their lifestyle...
No, really.
Welcome to the rural mid-west. Student body: 97% white. 51% female, 49% male. Where the "Latino Student Organization" had 12 members, 3 of which were actually hispanic.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
I am a UTD student and I have been in contact with the Executive of Information Resources and he has rescended his statement banning the use of private access points.
If anyone is still following this stroy- the university backed down after eing told of the FCC rules.
... such as peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted materials."
http://www.utdmercury.com/news/2004/09/07/News/Tru ce.Declared.In.Wireless.War-715827.shtml
UTD Information Resources officials said Sept. 10 they are reversing their previous decision to ban private wireless access points in Waterview Park after the discovery of an FCC ruling prohibiting such a move.
In a Sept. 8 letter distributed throughout Waterview Park, UTD threatened disciplinary action against residents running personal wireless access points. The move was intended to solve connectivity issues, said Doug Jackson, director of information resources.
However, a public notice dated June 24, 2004, from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) - which regulates all wireless signals in the United States - affirmed that consumers have the right to install and operate wireless access points.
The access points allow private DSL or cable modem Internet connections to be shared among multiple people within range of the access point.
The FCC notice also states, under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC holds exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio frequency interference issues.
"Based on what they (the FCC) say, I'm going to have to back away from the policy," said Bill Hargrove, executive director of information resources. He suspects the university could make an argument to support the decision, "but it's not worth the brouhaha."
The initial policy sparked a firestorm among affected students on websites including waterviewsux.com, utdmercury.com and slashdot.org, a national online discussion forum of technical issues.
Many students expressed anger over a portion of the distributed letter which speculated that users with private access points may be engaging "in activities
"It infuriated me, to see it insinuating that we were all pirates for choosing to use our own Internet connection. It made my blood boil pretty quick," said senior electrical engineering major Trent Jacobs.
Jacobs installed DSL in his Phase Two apartment several years ago before the wireless network existed and continues to use it so he can access his computer as a file server from off-campus, which cannot be done through the campus network. He also said he cannot access UTD's wireless network in some parts of his apartment.
IR is working on various solutions to improve the connection and the access point policy was seen as one method to combat the troubles the system has had, Jackson said.
"We went out and did some serious investigation and discovered a correlation between locations with multiple access points and the people with connectivity issues," Jackson said.
Once the IR department asked users to turn off their access points, the problems went away, he said.
Previously, only a few existed on campus but, "we went from a handful to hundreds this fall," Jackson said.
The connectivity problem stems from the fact that, if not told to do otherwise, many wireless cards will automatically connect to the strongest signal available. In Waterview's case, a network card might jump onto a neighbor's stronger access point instead of the possibly weaker UTD wireless network. The network swap can cause a "denial of service" conflict and a failure to connect to the Internet, Jackson said.
IR officials said they hoped shutting down personal access points would stop cards from arbitrarily swapping their signal source.
Other universities including George Washington, Georgia Tech and UT Austin presently ban private wireless networks, although only in university-owned residences.
Hargrove also took into account the fact UTD does not own all of the apartments.
"It (Waterview) falls into a gra
I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but... they could simply adopt the policy that is used here at the University of Nebraska. Residents in university housing aren't allowed to use routers of any kind. (Of course, this is on their network, and you can't get any other type of access from the rooms, although there are no wireless points in those buildings either. But when you have 100Mbit to multiple T-3s, there's not much of a reason.) I'm sure it could be worded to include wireless access points. Of course. if the problem is occuring in housing near the university but not under their jurisdiction (there are downtown apartments near the university that are close enough to potentially cause that here), the university would be pretty much helpless.
Personally, I still like a more secure and more identifiable wired network....
The same sort of policy is in place at my school (Kansas State). If they find you have an AP, they confiscate it and you get slapped on the wrist.
:).
Furthermore, they require every machine on the network to be personally inspected by a representative of the university in order to be allowed on the network. This inspection includes installing Microsoft's SUS and a managed version of Symantec AV. Linux users are of course exempt from the software hassles
An aquaintance who complained to the cretins that drafted this policy was reportedly told that "if he didn't like it, he could go to another school."
Just the image a large university should be propagating....
Personally, I think that something needs to be done about schools dictating more and more fascist policies about their networks. Universities seem to be having more and more network/security related issues cropping up, while you rarely hear about ISPs having the same problems. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that could be done, but the fact remains that schools are contorting "fair use" to mean whatever they think it should.
I don't give a shit what my school is legally allowed to do, it comes down to a matter of being civil to the students.
I think you've cornered the issue here.
We agree you can sign away your rights - perhaps even up to the right to life - by signing a do not rescusistate will.
What the state cannot do is be complicit in a deprivation. So is the state depriving their first amendment right to speech because wireless is a media of speech - is this a state colledge - or is the state complicit in the operation of the college. I would argue generally that if the state accepts the credientials of the collegs fo government grants or jobs then the state is complicit because without state recognition - the university could not justify its cost.
So the argument should be that the state cannot deprive the right to speech without due process, which means a knowing agreement, contract and quid pro quo. Moreoever the state cannot coerce the subject to reliquish their rights.
I think this is actionable under the first amendment - let's hope.
AIK