Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

University Bans Wireless Access Points

Posted by michael on from the fight-the-man dept.

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.'"

8 of 1,211 comments (clear)

  1. Where's the problem here? by beh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Where's the problem here? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Never confuse volume with power.
    2. Re:Where's the problem here? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Repeating it doesn't make it more valid. Students enter into a private contract where they agree to behave in certain ways and obey arbitrary rules in order to live certain places and attended colleges and universities.

      Students have every right to access part of the spectrum, but the University still has the right to expell them if they violate the part of the agreement that lists what they may and may not use in their dormroom.

      --
      Never confuse volume with power.
    3. Re:Where's the problem here? by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.

      You might be able to parse it to apply to services provided by the resident, until you get to this:

      Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?

      A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.

      Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.

    4. Re:Where's the problem here? by jwthompson2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The rule is not restricting use of the spectrum directly. It is prohibiting use of a particular class of device, the actual access point devices, within the scope of a voluntary contractual agreement. The 'hot plate' analogy presented by a previous poster is very accurate. The rules say you are not permitted to operate the following devices inside your dormitory, hot-plates, wireless access points, interplexing beacons, etc...They are not restricing use of the frequencies directly, since they are possibly allowing use of microwave ovens; but only in an indirect manner.

      --
      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
    5. Re:Where's the problem here? by Pirogoeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So I'm free to set up a wireless access point in the next plane I fly on? Who cares if the airline prohibits it? Federal law trumps the airline rules, navigational interference be damned!

      --
      Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
  2. Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & shu by fname · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Federal regulations trump that. by Pedrito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.

    Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.

    Just as a store can disallow the use of cell phones, a university can say that you can't use certain wireless equipment on their property. You're not breaking a law by doing so, but you're breaking the "rules" of the institution and they're within their rights to remedy the situation if someone breaks the rules.

    This isn't a legal issue, so don't confuse it. This follows along with other "rules". Perhaps they have a rule that you have to attend a certain number of classes to pass. If you don't, you fail the class. That's rule, not law. There is no law that affects it. Just as there are no laws preventing them from using wireless equipment. Simply rules.