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.'"

10 of 1,211 comments (clear)

  1. Not a bad time.... by mattdev121 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like it's not a bad time to consider putting up some of this: Anti Wi-Fi Wallpaper

    --
    mattdev@server$ touch /dev/genitals
    cannot touch `/dev/genitals': Permission denied
  2. oooh a fun thing to do.... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:Where's the problem here? by bluGill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doesn't matter, federal law trumps all state and local regulations. The university is very likely (though IANAL) to loose any case that is brought against them in regards to this issue. The courts are very likely to say that the code of conduct cannot be used to ban unregulated wireless because only the federal government has that right.

  4. Re:It's their network... by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    No. They are specifically banning access points connected to outside providers, on the grounds of interference with the campus WiFi network.

    This might be an interesting test case of FCC policy.

    --
    Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
    Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  5. Re:Where's the problem here? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

    Actually, they are suggesting that the students use 802.11a for their private wireless if they don't want to string up CAT-5 wiring. But my real question is, if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?

    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  6. Re:Where's the problem here? by richardbowers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAL, and I'm not sure about the specifics with regards to WAPs. However, the fact that the students entered into a legal contract doesn't necessarily make it binding with regards to networking devices. To take an only partially related idea - most people in the area where I live (Northern Virginia) are under Home Owner Association contracts or Apartment contracts that prohibit satellite dishes. The US government ruled those unenforceable in most cases as of a few years back. Hence, a lot of us who get sick of Comcast/Media General/Adelphia have satellite dishes instead, and there's nothing that the landlords can do about it.

    Does this apply here? Probably not, at least not right now. The Satellite Dish rules were a very specific case. But, just assuming that the contract is enough to make them lose is going too far.

    --
    Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained. -- Aaron Burr
  7. Re:Where's the problem here? by null+etc. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There seems to be a common misconception that since 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC is the only entity that can restrict the usage of 2.4GHz devices. This, of course, is false.

    If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a police station with the purpose of intentionally interfering with the department's administrative computers, you might get arrested for obstruction of justice.

    If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into your office with the purpose of disabling a corporate network, you might get reprimanded, fired, or sued.

    If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a competitor's office with the intent of manipulating the company's stock price by disabling their computer network, you might be charged with securities fraud.

    If you sign an agreement with a college stating that your enrollment is contingent upon agreeing with campus policies designed to protect the college's network, then you can't use a wireless jamming device without repercussions. This is regardless of whether the "wireless jamming device" is a "wireless access point" that merely has the potential to jam.

    Of course, intention will play a role in any of the above scenarios. But the important thing here, people, is that you're not allowed to walk around wherever you want saying, "Who are you, you're not the FCC!"

    The FCC only handles circumstances in which two independent entities are in conflict over the usage of such airwaves when no federal or state law exists to regulate the legal behavior between two independent entities with respect to those airways.

    A college and an enrolled student are not considered "independent entities", as there exists an expectation to abide by the rules defined in the relationship between the college and the student. NOTE: this goes both ways - the student can sue the college if the college acts in ways that are contradictory to the expectations of the relationship. The college can't fail a student without reason and then say "Who are you, you're not the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, you can't regulate how I pass or fail you!"

  8. Re:Where's the problem here? by Pirogoeth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, how about a different example:

    My employer keeps confidential data on its network and has prohibited the use of unauthorized WAPs due to the sensitive nature of the data.

    Does the FCC's rules trump those of my employer's? Should I be allowed to set up an access point without fear of losing my job to insubordination?

    --
    Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
  9. Re:Where's the problem here? by farnz · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Assuming your universities have similar usage policies to ours, then there are two reasons:
    1. Campus firewall. If it blocks what you're after (e.g. incoming SMTP), you're SOL.
    2. Usage policy. My alma mater has a usage policy that requires that your use of the network is predominately for academic reasons (we couldn't get private access). If private Internet access was available, I imagine that they'd ban non-academic use entirely.
  10. Re:Where's the problem here? by benzapp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am afraid to inform you that your level of understanding of contracts and law is abysmal. Yes, thats right, you don't know jack shit about what you believe you do.

    Have you ever even rented an apartment?

    landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.

    I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.

    There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts