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.'"
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.
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
Now, hooking that AP up to the ResNet is certainly against the college's AUP, but that's not what's happening here. Students with private cable modems are setting up a private WiFi network. Since the 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC has sole regulatory authority over them--the college, no matter how prestigious, does not.
Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
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.
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)
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?
That's not the case. The FCC has exclusive rights to resolve matters such as these under the Communications Act of 1934, including those regarding unlicensed devices such as wifi. FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rules (OTARD) specifically prohibit landlords, state and local governments and third parties from placing restrictions upon users of these unlicensed devices.
As sort of a double whammy, there's also the: Code of Conduct that has clauses that ALSO specifically allow them to institute arbitrary rules for the good of the campus community, as determined by them.
Never confuse volume with power.
The FCC has ruled repeatedly with regards to HAM Radio antennas, DBS dishes and OTA TV antennas that landlords cannot unduly restrict tenants from installing them. They've also ruled the same regarding anything in the 2.4 GHz band.
So:
a) University banning connection of WAP to their network: OK
b) University banning WAP anywhere on their property if it's not connected to their network: Not OK
This
Except in this case, the Federal Government, through the FCC has ruled that your right to use unlicenced radio equipment trumps any lease restriction. There's no similar ruling that says I have a right to a couch on the front porch of my frat house, but there is a federal ruling that I have a right to run a 2.4 GHz access point, and the only person I have to answer to is the FCC.
This
Actually, I think Mr Guy gets it best. The FCC Law is about disputes between 2 parties on different lands. IOW, if You and I have adjacent homes, if my phone interferes with your wifi, well, that goes to the Feds rules. Instead this is a single private property and the FCC states that in that band width, if any legal devices are being used, you must accept the interference.
Personally, I am a bit surprised why they did not upgrade to 802.11A where there is so much more bandwidth or simply require that the students use it
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
nope, RTFA (first paragraph at least) ;-p
In this case, these devices are not being connected to the university network...
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.
So what? The problem is that it is preventing students from getting access to the campus 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.
Someone already pointed out there are only so many channels available. If these 100 AP's are dominating the school's network, denying students access to the internal UDT network, I think they are correct to do something about it.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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
good idea -- they thought of it too...
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.
In fact...
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 is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
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.
I, for one, used to live oncampus, and got tired of dealing with the apartment complex. The problem is that the buildings are owned (some of them) by the university, but leased out to the complex, Waterview Park Apartments. I'm looking at my old copy of my lease, and it says "This lease contract is between you, the resident ____________ and us, the owner: Waterview Park". I know that many of us had problems with the apartment complex and took them to the University. However, the university's take on it is that they don't control the buildings or the maintenance, and have no juristiction over them. Their police department patrols them, and you can be subject to discipline for underage drinking in them, but their main take on it so far (at least they tell the students) that if you have a problem with something in the apartments than you should "take it to the leasing office". I, and many others, moved out of there because of this. And, on the issue of wireless, I do remember 2.4Ghz phones being a huge problem, because everyone's parents bought them for their kids before they went. I'll bet if they started taking those away, there'd be a lot less issues. Also, it was common knowledge (for us engineering/CS majors there) that all you had to do was browse the network (i.e. browse in Network Neighborhood) and you could access all the unsecured boxes out there that were just broadcasting their info for all to see. And, of course, you can take into effect that the #1 answer by their IR (Information Resources staff: http://www.utdallas.edu/IR is to either reboot it or use the computer lab. In fact, if you look at their FAQ, they have lots of detailed posts about Kung-Fu, but not too many on how to fix the wireless. Those of us who needed wireless help researched it ourselves and went through trial-and-error to get a solution.
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
The property is under private ownership. http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html
After a little call (local for me), they use a standard Texas Apartment Association Leasing Agreement.
So I would think, since its a standard apartment agreement, and the university has no ownership or managerial duties involed. That the students who live at those apartments can do whatever they want as far as wi-fi goes.
Seems to me legal presedence is on their side if they are dealing with an outside leasing agent who is a member of the TAA, and dealing with private property issues.
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.
That is a public safety issue though, this is not.
Basically, if there were a federal law that stated "any entity which uses shotguns MUST allow shotguns to interfere with them" THEN your analogy would be appropriate.
Here is the problem: UofT is using 802.11 APs for it's own local network, by using those APs they are explicitly required to allow any interference caused by other devices in that wavelength. They are now asking students to remove their APs because they are interfering with their own network. This is against the law. If UofT wanted complete control over a chunk of spectrum, they could have purchased a license from the FCC to do so, instead they saved a LOT of money by using UNLICENSED spectrum and are now effectively saying they control that spectrum they didn't license. It would be equivalent to them not allowing 2.4GHz processors because they interfere (regardless if that is or is NOT the intention of the device) with the network in some way. They can NOT do that.
If the wireless APs were connected to THEIR network, you have a very different reason to disconnect them...not because of interference, but signal theft. That would be an acceptable removal reason, but is not the reason they have stated.
the status of the university is quite a bit different from that of a landlord. Universities have the rights to do a lot of things landlords can do, including intering your dorm room at any time for any reason. They can also kick you off campus pretty much at any time at their discretion. You're not a tenant of that dorm room, you're more of a paying guest (read: less rights that you would in a hotel room).
The assumption that everybody seems to be making is that the university owns the apartments in question. A quick google got me this page: U.T. Dallas has no University owned and operated housing facilities. However, the Waterview Park Apartments are located on the U.T. Dallas campus within easy walking distance to all campus facilities. U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units.
The university does not own nor operate the apartment building in question. Also, while university students have priority for apartments, it's implied that not all of the residents of this apartment complex are associated with the university. The article mentions that they are sharing Comcast cable. Comcast allows routing over wireless, and will even set it up for you for an additional fee, so they're not in violation of the internet provider's TOS.
In short, the university has banned use of a non-university regulated internet connection on non-university regulated property by people who may or may not even be university students(but probably are). Unless the apartment complex has some clause in the lease that tennants have to obey the whims of the university, I doubt this is legal.
Actually no. The university can not say what can and can't be done in their dorm rooms. Those rooms are rental units and thus regulated by the state and federal laws that pertain to residential rental units. In Kansas this is called the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It gives both parties specific and limited rights and a process by which to settle grievances. The university is a landlord and does not have the right to restrict an unlicensed spectrum in their rental units, nor do they have the right to tell you what device you can and can not have in that rental that is not explicitly granted to them under the law. There is no grey area here folks. Places like UoT do things like this (this **AA) because they have size, prestige, and money behind their whims. That doesn't (or shouldn') give them any more legal standing in a courtroom. They are still a landlord and their actions are controlled by the law.
The university installed APs in another person's commercial property that is adjacent to their campus (and thus commoningly used by students). The university does not own the property nor does it have any contracts with the residents in those residential rental units. That would be irrelevant even if they did since they can not regulate an unregulated airspace. Doing so would be illegal. There's that very special word again. Illegal. Only the FCC can regulate their unregulated airspace.
Allow me to say it one more time, "read the fucking article or shut up."
Actually you can't. The law explicitly states what rights are your's and what rights are the tenants'. Depending on the state in which you live, rights not explicitly granted to the landlord are granted to the tenant. A contract for a residential rental unit can only contain very specific things. Clauses that open holes for arbitrary changes almost always invalidate rental contracts (or they have in every case I've ever researched in my state which would be dozens).
The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.
Again, no it's not legal. It would in fact be illegal. If the law doesn't explicitly state what items the landlords can ban (firearms for example) then the landlord can not ban them.
Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.
Irrelevant. Their intention does not trump their action. What they're doing is still illegal, even if it is in the name of security.
"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."
Ah. Another person who didn't bother to read the article before attempting to talk out their ass like an expert. The university does not own the property. It's owned by a private entity (not the unv). The Unv installed APs to provide 'Net access to its residents (who are mostly Unv students). The APs in question by the residents do not connect to the campus network but instead connect to a commercial ISP's network (such as ComCast which explicitly permits such things). There university's TOS and AUP do not apply to these residents since the residents are not using the campus network.
If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.
Logic and intentions have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of law. The university is trying to tell a neighbor's friends that they can't do something on the neighbor's property. That's not the univerisity's right.
Sorry, but I live at the apartments in question. The University says they are NOT my landlord - when my washer broke and it took 3 monthes to repair, the Unversity said I had to take that up with Waterview Apartments because they don't own the apartments. I was told the same thing about the lights being out in my stairwell (which have been out since I moved in during July...)
You can't say the University is the landlord for wireless purposes, but not for the rest of the things a landlord is responsible for...
And as for changing the lease agreement - I have yet to be sent anything from Waterview saying this is a new stipulation to my lease, as the lease that I signed said would occur if any changes happened.... Plus, my leases says I'm not subject to those changes until my lease ends (which occurs in July of 2005, well after Sept 15th anyway...)
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"