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.'"

Comments

Where's the problem here?

[beh]

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...

Re:Where's the problem here?

[VCAGuy]

The trouble is that the 2.4GHz spectrum is unregulated. The college has no right to tell you that you can't use a legally licensed device in the 2.4GHz spectrum in the apartment.

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Mr Guy]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Sc00ter]

They can make it against the rules to smoke in your dorm room, yet that is a legal activity. Face it, you're on their property, it's their building, tough titties. You don't like it, move off campus or go to a different school.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[ptbarnett]

The apartments in question do indeed belong to the University.

There's no problem here, other than a whiny Slashdot editor.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[JamesD_UK]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Mr Guy]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Quimo]

The problem with this is that the FCC specifically states that only they can resolve matters with regards to unlicensed spectrum. The statement in particular is that they have Exclusive Authority regardless of venue. That states to me that they can't force you to disable it. They can ask you to just about anything with regards to wireless access but they have to authority to demand.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Mr Guy]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[bluGill]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Sc00ter]

So the school tells the privately owned company to tell their tennants to stop using device X or they have to move the property off the land I they own.

Schools do this kind of thing all the time. Some schools ban couches on front porches because they end up being used for bonfires after games. No different.

All these rants about spectrum and the FCC and blah blah blah. They're banning a DEVICE, a thing, schools do it all the time, like the above example, or hotplates, or whatever the item may be. This is no different.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[voidptr]

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

Re:Where's the problem here?

[ptbarnett]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[voidptr]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[WindBourne]

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

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Xardion]

Yup, yer right. If a student excercised their right to use the spectrum by setting up their own access point, and the school decided to try an expel him, he could take them to court over it. If it were determined that no harm was being caused by the student's use of the device, the court would have to rule in his favor (as only the FCC has the right to regulate the usage of the spectrum), and he could probably sue the school for court fees, moving and living expenses incurred from being forced to leave, and for tuition. Of course, they would probably still be expelled. IANAL of course, but this would seem appropriate. It hacks me off when colleges pull shit like this, and I like to think that they'd get what they deserve. In reality though, this probably wouldn't happen.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[cjpez]

lose! lose!

Re:Where's the problem here?

[jwthompson2]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[RazzleFrog]

You should really preface your post with IANAL because you obviously didn't consult with your lawyers before posting.

College students do not hold leases on their dorms and even if they did it is quite obvious that this is now included.

The college is not regulating the spectrum in anyway. They are not saying you can use 2.4Ghz phones. They are not saying that you can't use the airwaves in anyway. They are banning a specific piece of equipment. As somebody else pointed out it is just like banning hot plates and microwaves. They aren't telling you that you can't eat in the dorm.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[eam]

Bullshit.

If you try to use your unregulated wireless device in my house, I can kick your ass out. I don't even have to give a reason. I also believe that the courts would support me.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[VCAGuy]

Dorms are different only because of the lease agreement that you sign. The RA can call the campus police and look in your room because you agreed to this at the time you signed the lease. No problem here.

However, the brunt of the FCC ruling is that any clauses prohibiting the use of unregulated devices are held legally void. Even if you signed an agreement that says you're not going to use an unregulated device, this FCC ruling voids those terms. Why? Because Federal law trumps everything else.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Pirogoeth]

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!

Re:Where's the problem here?

[JamesD_UK]

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

There's an ammendment to the order updating it so that it applies to antennas designed for receiving and transmiting fixed wireless signals, not just TV services.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost, in this case the UTD service doesn't cut the bar:

1) The person recieves the particular fixed wireless service that the person desires - i.e. you can recieve the wireless service from a specific provider not simply a provider selected by the association.

If you really want SBC DSL or Cox cable internet, UTD doesn't give you that option - you have to go through THEIR internet.

The central-antenna exception really applys to landlords who, in the past, provided you a cable in your apartment that recieved TV signals. In that case it'd be "pick any provider you want" since you were in control of the tuner. When it comes to wifi this isn't the case since the "provider" is easily not just the IP you want but also the carrier of your wifi signal.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[GreyPoopon]

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?

Re:Where's the problem here?

[daveashcroft]

Maybe the university has a really good pr0n filter / p2p block.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[richardbowers]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Spiffed]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[MarkGriz]

If an RA walks past your door and smells pot, they have two options: 1) Knock on the door and ask to come in to inspect what is going on; or 2) Call the police.

You're forgetting

(3) Knock on the door and say "If you share your pot with me, I wont (2)"

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Zak3056]

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

Ah, but you yourself quoted 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)

The wireless APs being used by the University connect to their network--and not to the local cable network, which is what the users in question want. My reading of the above says this trumps the centralized antenna.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[chill]

The hotplate analogy is incorrect. Hotplates are a safety issue, which is specifically exempted by the FCC. Not that the FCC regulates hotplates.

As a leaseholder, you have certain rights regardless of what the property owner says. The school is wrong and I doubt they are playing semantics.

If they are, then hell -- get two wireless NIC cards and put one in AP mode. Semantics all your own.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Lord Kano]

If they are, then hell -- get two wireless NIC cards and put one in AP mode. Semantics all your own.

Or use as many wireless NICs are you want and set them up in Ad-Hoc mode. Since it's essentially Peer To Peer, there is no AP and the University can go pound salt.

LK

Re:Where's the problem here?

[gueido]

Actually, the apartments do not belong to the university.

According to http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html, 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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[pudding7]

Federal law allows people to carry shotguns. I doubt the dorm would have any problem prohibiting students from hanging their blunderbust from a gun rack over their bunk bed.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Jimmy the Barrel]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[voidptr]

The OTARD rules simply illustrate their jurisdiction.

They've ruled on other occasions property owners can't prohibit tennants from installing their own WiFi network instead of requiring them to use the property owner's service.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[null etc.]

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!"

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Pirogoeth]

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?

Re:Where's the problem here?

[farnz]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you try to use your unregulated wireless device in my house, I can kick your ass out. I don't even have to give a reason. I also believe that the courts would support me.

Perhaps, but that's only because I'm not renting it from you.

For tenants who you're renting a house to, you have no such luxury to break US laws at your whim.

Sure you try to tell them

• If you have a bible I'll kick your ass out out.
• If you have non-organic vegetables I'll kick your ass out.
• If you have prescription drugs I'll kick your ass out.

But if you start trying to regulate spectrum where there are laws giving exclusive powers of such regulation to the FCC, you'll be breaking the law.

If your house is in the US, it's appreciated if you abide by US laws. If you want to make up you're own laws, you should secede from the country.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Experiment 626]

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?

Perhaps the students want to use their computers for gaming, pr0n, running servers, p2p sharing, or other activities that universities tend to frown upon people using their academic networks for. This university in particular sounds a bit capricious in their policies, and it's not hard to see why students would want Internet access that was not subject to the university's whims.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Pirogoeth]

I did RTFA.

The debate here seems to be that people can't be prohibited from using the spectrum for wireless use because of a misinterpretation of an FCC regulation. The logic seems to be that I should be allowed to set wireless access anywhere I want, regardless of other rules set forth by the property owner.

Suppose my employer has their own wireless network installed for employees to use, and for some reason, I choose to set up my own little mini-network that is detached from the company network. That network is causing interference and preventing people from accessing the company's network. Can the company tell me to shut mine off? According to some of the people here, the answer is no.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[JDevers]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[ptbarnett]

OTOH, another poster pointed at a computer world article that states the FCC has ruled explicitly on the rights of property owners prohibiting tennants (in this case, airlines in airports) from installing their own WLAN. This would appear to make our discussion moot, and place the University squarely in the wrong, legally speaking.

I've read the article, and finally the FCC ruling (which was slashdotted for while). And, I would agree with you except for one problem: UTD appears to be enforcing this policy under their student/university agreement (i.e. code of conduct), rather than any landlord/tenant agreement.

Since the basis for the original act (and clarifying ruling) was the landlord/tenant relationship, I'm not sure that it's a slam-dunk against UTD. Stir in a little ambiguity because UTD isn't absolutely prohibiting WiFi (just excluding all B/G and some A channels), and I'm not sure how it will turn out.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[avdp]

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).

Re:Where's the problem here?

[benzapp]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[bigman2003]

And when you cease to be a student at the University...trying staying in your rented apartment.

When you sign up for university housing, you are entering into a very different contract from the standard renter's contract. They can boot you for many different reasons. You don't have the same rights, because you waive some of those rights when you sign the contract.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[LaForce]

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[macdaddy]

Actually they can't enter your room at any time regardless of whatever their lawyers put in their silly little contracts. You are renting that space from them and you and they are therefore bound to the laws governing residential rental units in your state. In Kansas those laws are found in the Kansas Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. To kick you out of your residential rental in Kansas takes approximately 90 days. They can't kick you out overnight like they'll tell you they can or like the TV shows depict. It is a rent unit and both parties do have rights under the rental laws that govern both parties.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[macdaddy]

It isn't legal. Neither the university (if they were the actual landlord) nor the actual landlords can regulate federal airspace no matter what catch-all clauses are in their silly little contract.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[jhoffoss]

Yes, but the University has a right to define its Terms of Service (ToS) for a student to use the University network. Port scanning may be legal, but that's probably against their ToS too. And if they want to require all cat5 cables on their network be purple, well, they can probably do that too.

Well, maybe not purple...

Re:Where's the problem here?

[macdaddy]

Using the logic that they don't want you operating your own APs because they interfere with the the school's AP, would suggest they would also tell you to not use 2.4GHz cordless phones (which is actually feasible if they have a digital phone system, and provide the students with their own phone).

They can't tell you that you can't use 2.4Ghz cordless phones either. That's not their right since they don't own that particular spectrum. Do you realize a licensed HAM takes precedence over all unlicensed users in the unregulated spectrums? A licensed HAM can legally interfere with the 2.4Ghz range, disrupting everyone else if they choose. If an unlicensed operator's device interferes with a HAM device (whether or not the HAM's device was built to the specs that deal with interference or not) the unlicensed operator is required by law to shut their device down. Did you know that? Doesn't matter whot he unlicensed operator, beit ma and pa farmer or bloated ego university. I was with a group of HAMs once that were talking about that. They pulled out the FCC reg that gave them that right too. Interesting as hell. I wish I had the time to be a HAM.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[macdaddy]

Obviously you didn't read the article. So allow me the opportunity to say "read the fucking article or shut up." Ah. Much better now.

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."

Re:Where's the problem here?

[macdaddy]

I think you may have a fundemental misunderstanding of federal law. If I *own* a building, and can set the rules, pretty much regardless. That doesn't mean I take someone to court if they break them, it means they signed a contract and I can legally throw them out for not abiding my my rules.

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.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[ender_the_hegamon]

The school's wireless network has been entirely unreliable for the past 3 years, when it was put in place. It has been overloaded and had very long sporadic outtages, which typically occur, as you guess, the night a big paper is due. We pay for private connections so that when our access goes down, we can call someone who cares (well, who cares more than the school does, at least), and is obligated to fix the problem since they (the private provider) have entered into a service agreement with us customers

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Yet Another Smith]

And likewise you also don't know jack shit about the law.

Have you ever written a lease agreement?

There are many sorts of behaviour that landlords are expressly prohibited from restricting.

While I do not know specifically about unlicensed transmitters in the 802.11 frequency, I do know that many other types of recievers and transmitters are protected by federal law. Landlords cannot prohibit satellite antenae less than one meter in diameter in any space under the sole control of the tenant.

Leases can prohibit some legal activities, but there are also specific limits to allowable lease terms.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Quattro Vezina]

A dorm/student apartment is totally different. If a RA or whatever they're called at whatever school can check your room for pot if they smell it walking by. You can't do that in a normal apartment.

Except that these are normal apartments. UTD does not have dorms. UTD does not have RAs. In fact UTD doesn't even own these apartments--they're owned by a private company.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[benzapp]

Unfortunately, you are ignorant of some legal terminology here. The term "exclusive jurisdiction" has a very precise meaning that is not applicable to private contracts. In this case, the paragraph you cite is intended to establish only the FCC has the right to make law regarding the use of RFI, as opposed to state governments or any other governmental body.

Why don't you read the definition on FindLaw

It is also amusing you so casually dismiss the firearm example. The bill of rights establishes your right to own a firearm, and landlords can and do force you to relinquish that right... yet some bullshit congressional act regarding radio frequencies doesn't carry the same weight?

Try and think logically here, at the very least.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[kelnos]

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.

correct. however, the FCC _is_ the only entity that can restrict the usage of 2.4GHz devices that comply with part 15 of the FCC rules and are registered as such. you ever see the little notice on most RF devices about their compilance with part 15 of the FCC rules? it usually goes something like this:

This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
1. This device may not cause harmful interference.
2. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.

note point (1) above. the FCC defines "harmful interference" as: "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 this Chapter." this clearly allows for the need to prohibit the use of a jamming device inside a police station. as for jamming your corporate network, the jammer is causing harmful interference based on the latter portion of the definition "a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this Chapter."

as for signing an agreement that your enrollment in a university is contingent upon certain things, if those certain things come into conflict with any local, state, or federal laws, the laws win out. the FCC has been granted _exclusive authority_ to regulate the RF spectrum. any attempt to regulate the spectrum by a private entity, whether directly or indirectly, is disallowed. that's the mistake you're making - the "exclusive" part.

a wireless access point (operated according to US law and FCC regs) is not a "jamming device". they have been certified by the FCC not to cause harmful interference, and any attempt by the university to suggest otherwise will be dismissed outright.

the students and the university are, in fact, independent entites. the existence of a contract (such as terms of enrollment) between the two cannot change that fact. in any case, the situation is even more separate here - the college does not own the apartments that the students live in, nor do they provide or own the internet connection the students are using to connect the APs to the internet.

you make a convincing argument, but it's unfortunately based on incorrect assumptions.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[bigman2003]

Well, I'm not a lawyer either...but I can Google like one:

read about waiving your rights

If you are granted a right, you can waive that right. The University granted you the right to live in the housing. You sign a contract where they have the ability to kick you out for their specified reasons.

On the other hand, when you are just renting a regular apartment, I really doubt you would sign something that says they can kick you out if you don't maintain at least a 2.0 average.

And YES- you can sign away your rights- even the first 10, the vaunted 'bill of rights'.

If you disagree, then obviously you've never been in the military, or served the government in one of the many, many positions where you do sign your rights away.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[Yet Another Smith]

There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation.

As I suspected, the FCC begs to differ.

From the second paragraph, "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."

If Waterview wants to provide exclusive service over their apartments, they are welcome to do so in FCC restricted bandwidth in accordance with FCC law. But they cannot legally prohibit operation of 802.11x transmitters.

Not that I would expect this to bother you since in other posts you've shown that you really prefer not to respect the rights of your tenants.

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

Did you mean to say, "landlords (like the university) routinely illegally restrict all kinds of behavior"? You may be able to bully your tenants (if they actually exist and all this isn't just juvenile internet bravado) into compliance, but that doesn't make you right.

Re:Where's the problem here?

[mgrennan]

The first six channels for WiFi are in a amature radio band. If a user operates their "radio" in complience with part 47 of the FCC rules the university will have even less ability to rule over it's use.

If a student connects to the university from say AOL how is this different from a student connects to the university through the Amature Radio net (HM) (44.0.0.0). Even if the HM is one side of a Linux box and the university is another?

The FCC provides me a privelage to use amature radio devices as a part of federal law. Unless the university wants to icolate itself from the enitre internet they can not punish a student for their method of access unless a direct aggrement (contract) has been created between the student and university about this matter.

Not a bad time....

[mattdev121]

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

Wah Wah Wah my rights!

[jbltk]

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.

Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights!

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

When you rent your property out you give up a subset of those rights. The students do not live in a dorm as 'invited guests'. They are paying tenants and as such have rights.

According to the FCC you do have a fundamental right to install WiFi routers wherever you see fit. There was a link to that specific bit of info cleverly hidden in plain view in the article.

Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights!

[saderax]

On their property yes. But if I were a tenant there, and it wasnt explicitly prohibited in my leasing agreement, how can this be enforced? Can they tell me not to listen to the radio while in my room (dorm)? No. Can they tell me not to use my cell phone in my room? No. Why should they tell me that I cannot make use of other areas of the spectrum?

Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights!

[jbltk]

You're wrong. It's their property. They can tell people what is acceptable behavior and what is not acceptable behavior. As long as a student is on their property, they must abide by their code of conduct.

Again, while the radio waves may be unregulated and under FCC jurisdiction, the action of setting up a wireless AP can be restricted.

Get over your geeky selves and realize your right to use a radio spectrum doesn't trump a property owner's right to tell you what to do while on their property.

Just because smoking is legal doesn't mean you can't be prevented from doing so on someone's property. There's no violation of your rights if they do so.

In soviet Georgia Tech...

[Laivincolmo]

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.

Re:In soviet Georgia Tech...

[ravenspear]

This is a totally non-enforced policy at GT. A ran a WAP all last year (and this year) without any problem. It helps if you disable the SSID broadcast to conceal it better. But it really doesn't matter. Last year my CA even found out about it and came by my room to tell me it was not permitted. I told him to fuck off and after that no one else ever bothered me about it.

Not the first place to do so

[nb caffeine]

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.

OMG

[mix_master_mike]

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

don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead

[Danathar]

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.

Re:don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead

[Fishstick]

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.

Re:don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead

[keller999]

This is besides the point. The students shouldn't just lie down and take it when the University is trying to regulate a spectrum it has no rights to. I'm a Waterview resident, and I've already paid tuition, $50/mo for Comcast internet, for my wireless access card, and for my 802.11b access point, and I absolutely REFUSE to shell out more because it's easier.

The FCC will spank them...

[Temkin]

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.

Re:The FCC will spank them...

[scseth]

Achem, except that they are plugging their wireless access point into the University Network.

Sure, if students wanted to create a Local Wireless Network, that did not connect to the University's network in any form, perhaps the students could be protected by the FCC. But that is not what is happening.

This is just like an enterprise telling employees not to plugin wireless access points into the enterprise network. The IT dept cannot monitor, manage, and ensure security on a "rogue" access point. The University has deployed wireless access points - so its not like the students do not have that as a service.

I don't see the story here. Universities, enterprises, hospitals, etc are banning "rogue" APs to ensure the use of sanctioned, managed access points. Seems like logical sense to me.

Re:The FCC will spank them...

[Igmuth]

Achem, except that they are plugging their wireless access point into the University Network.

No, they are not! From the article:

These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access

Re:The FCC will spank them...

[voidptr]

There are certain things the government has decreed are not legal, even if you put them in a contract.

A contract that says I'll work for you for less than the legal minimum wage is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't install a DBS dish under any circumstances is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't use a HAM radio on the property is unenforceable.
A property deed that says I can never resell the property to someone with a different skin color than mine is unenforceable.

And in this case,
A lease that says I can't install a wireless access point in unlicensed spectrum is unenforceable.

Same policy exists at Georgia Tech

[derkaas]

Unofficial access points are prohibited at Georgia Tech too (Wireless Policy). From a security standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

Re:Same policy exists at Georgia Tech

[ian mills]

Those are Access Points connected to GT's wired network. UTD is trying to ban all access points, none of which are connected to thier network.

802.11a

[Unixfreak31]

I guess this will be the great return of 802.11a since it runs on the 5ghz spectrum.

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

You guys don't get it

[Guspaz]

The university is breaking the law by forbidding WiFi.

The parent article/post points this out with this link:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatc h/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

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?

Re:You guys don't get it

[Zak3056]

look you jackass, i may have a rule that says you're not coming into my house with a gun. yeah, im taking your fucking rights away and you cant do anything about it. got a problem with it? too bad, you're still not coming into my house. too bad you're too thick to understand

In the fairly unlikely event that you're subject to a home invasion (i.e. armed robbers forcibly entering your home) what are you going to do? Say "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop' again?" An armed individual who doesn't respect your rights is GOING to enter your home with that gun. Period.

On a more serious note, with civilized people it is of course a different story. I normally carry a handgun, and I do have friends that ask that I not bring weapons into their homes. I respect their wishes, and leave it locked in the trunk when asked--though for the most part I prefer a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Plymouth State University

[jclinux]

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.

Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & shu

[fname]

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.

"Privacy of their own appartment"?

[Yelskwah]

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?

University of Rochester has this, too

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Good Idea

[b4rtm4n]

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.

Re:Get over it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[mulls it over]

University regulations vs. Federal law ... Gee, which takes precedence? Sounds like a complicated decision!

Re:Not rocket science

[gowen]

When they say everybody has a right to a portion of it, no one else is allowed to keep others from using it

Err, wrong. In fact, thats a completely misunderstanding of the law.

Anyone who signs up for college agrees to follow their rules practices. That's a contract, and its binding. They can't stop you from using the unlicensed spectrum, but they can kick you off their campus, as its theirs.

Similarly, I've a right to use my cellphone, but if I try it on an airplane, they'll kick me off.

I've a right to privacy, but if I try and board an airplane without ID, they'll tell me to fuck off.

It's their property, and they decide what you can and cannot do while you're on it.

Um....

[Marthisdil]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Oh FFS

[Alioth]

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.

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).

Re:Oh FFS

[GoRK]

I jumped in here with the same attitude until I noticed someone who made reference to a ruling in a federal court specifically GRANTING the use of ISM band devices in situations where private, local, or other non-federal regulation exists (such as in a lease contract). While the dorms/apartments might be owned by the university, they can certainly not regulate the use of the devices unless it's plugged into their own network. So unless you plug it into a campus-provided ethernet outlet, they don't have any say.

The last point of whether or not they can regulate the equipment attached to their network is also debatable. This could be likened to your ISP preventing NAT-based routers from being attached to their network; but at any rate, this is a seperate debate altogether.

oooh a fun thing to do....

[Lumpy]

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...

Re:It's their network...

[Glock27]

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.

They're not the only ones

[frangipani]

my former college has had a similar policy.

not such an uncommmon practice...

[genpan]

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.

Re:Get over it

[bluGill]

Private schools do have stricter rules. However no university in the US is allowed to enforce policy that conflicts with federal law. Any student who wants to fight this should have an easy case. And most universities have a student legal service who will represent you for free (a lot of fine print in there though)

Where is your address again ???

[MerlynEmrys67]

I would like to put a huge 2.4Ghz blaster outside your residence so you can not use any of your 2.4Ghz equipment...

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 ?

Re:Where is your address again ???

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I would like to put a huge 2.4Ghz blaster outside your residence so you can not use any of your 2.4Ghz equipment...

Jamming is illegal. In fact, using wireless network equipment at higher than stock power output is also illegal if the maker didn't certify it for the higher output. Running a non-stock antenna is illegal if the maker didn't get it certified with the gain for that type of antenna that you are using.

This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band

Unlicensed != unregulated. The band IS regulated, it is simply set aside to allow unlicenced use, as in you don't have to go in for certification and testing for the right to operate the equipment.

Re:It's their network...

[Fishstick]

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.

Federal regulations trump that.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

[Incongruity]

Right, except in this case, if you RTFA, the access points in question are in use by students using third party ISPs such as Comcast or some DSL provider. Your point is right on but doesn't particularly apply in the specific case that this article is referencing.

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

[Pedrito]

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.

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

[avandesande]

Many universities also regulate off campus behavior.. like freshmen cannot have cars or fraternity membership is not allowed.

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

[Spacepup]

The point you have missed is the property at issue does not belong to the University, but does have some agreements with the university to rent primarily to students and to allow the university to set up and maintain a WAP. However, the tenents of the apartment complex do not have to be students of the university and are securing housing as private citizens and not through a university owned entity (aka a dorm).

IOW, the appartments are private residences that are not owned and opperated by the University.

Not all of the residents can or want to use the university's WAP connections.

The FCC has ruled (see the link to the massport ruling) that landlords can not regulate the use of unlicensed radio frequencies and specifically states that tenents in multi tenent facilities have the right to set up their own, individual, wi-fi networks within the multi tenent facility.

Further, the FCC states that all users of unlicensed radio frequencies must accept all interference and may not interfere with licensed radio frequencies. (Which is why you can't use your cell phones and other electronic devices during take off, they interfere with the radio freqiences that the air port has licensed.)

If any of the students decide to contest the university on this point, they will likely win.

How about a nuke plant?

[mks113]

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.

False.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

just to clarify...

[vorovsky]

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.

Re:And? So do lots of schools...

[Anita Coney]

Actually, it is affecting the rights of the students to use a portion of the public spectrum. The FCC has ruled that only it can regulated access to that spectrum. Thus, the unversities are clealy violating student's rights.

However, I do think that any university has the right to keep its own network from being accessed via a WAP.

So, for example, let's assume a dorm with two students with one computer each. They have the right to set up file sharing between those computers via a WAP. The university has no right to stop that. However, the university has every right to restrict the sharing of its network.

I guess it all depends on how a university is banning WAPs. If its an all-out ban. Than the univeristy is violating the students' rights. However, if a university is only banning WAPs which connect to its own network, such a ban would be legal.

Re:Burning down the house

[Fishstick]

>As long as they are not interfering with University communications

ah, but that is exactly what is happening

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.
...

The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students

Re:You're missing the point

[RuB1X]

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.

Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open &

[rpenguin]

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.

Re:You're missing the point

[barawn]

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.

Re:You're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

By banning the devices, the University is effectively banning the use of the frequencies those devices use. Furthermore, the FCC article SPECIFICALLY states:

"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.

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

WRONG! Bzzzzt

[JSBiff]

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.

From a university IT guy's point of view

[GMFTatsujin]

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.

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) 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.

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.

Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open &

[chill]

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.

Re:It's their network...

[Fishstick]

>Instead, they pussy out and ban ALL privately-owned WAPs. Regardless of their configuration.

*sigh*

I normally don't reply to AC's, but I'll make this exception.

>If they wanted, they could actually put some effort into it and dedicate one or two channels for private WLANs and the rest for the Uni's network.

The AC obviously did not read the article because the University has just about done exactly that.

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.

Um, don't know where you went/go to school

[Venner]

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.

Re:Get over it

[kahei]

Hm, yes, that does look pretty promising for the tenant.

*awkward pause*

Well, that was interesting.

*further awkward pause*

Well, I guess I'll be off home, then.

There are several issues here...

[SnowDog74]

RIGHTS

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.

Rabid dogs

[bungeejumper]

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.

Or on the basis that it's THEIR NETWORK

[weston]

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.

Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open &

[Keith Mickunas]

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.

Here's the problem:

[StarKruzr]

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.

Re:Here's the problem:

[macdaddy]

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.

Could be Worse: NO Extension to the Network at NU

[Noksagt]

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.

I can understand why they do this ...

[Chris Daniel]

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.

Re:Don't get it? Get this.

[voidptr]

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.

Re:Stop smoking crack

[macdaddy]

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.

Actually a contract can not waive even those rights. Signing a college's silly little housing contract doesn't userp your rights granted to you by your state.

Some Clarification

[patryn20]

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.

Re:Stop smoking crack

[xtort17]

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...)

Too Bad they don't OWN the property....

[Fallen Kell]

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.

University of Kentucky

[DannyiMac]

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!

UTD vs FCC

[jjordan]

Here we go kids...the answers you're looking for:

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/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

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/

university backs down

[crazyray]

If anyone is still following this stroy- the university backed down after eing told of the FCC rules.

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 ... such as peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted materials."

"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