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?

[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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

Not a bad time....

[mattdev121]

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Re:Get over it

[Daniel Dvorkin]

[mulls it over]

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

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.

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: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)

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: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

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.