Slashdot Mirror
UTD Lifts Ban On WiFi Equipment
boredMDer writes "As seen in this /. story, the University of Texas in Dallas had issued a ban on students operating 2.4 GHz WiFi equipment. However, UTD has now lifted said ban, because of 'the discovery of an FCC ruling prohibiting such a move.'"
Many fellow /.s predicted this would happen, mainly because like it said, these devices _must_ accept interference.
f r15_01.html
For more information on the Part 15 docs, see this site:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47c
Not only was the ban lifted, but an apology was issued from the head of IR at UTD. He took full responsibility for the ban (which wasn't run by him before being put in place, afaik) and the less than tactful accusations in the notice.
Anyway, there's been much geek rejoicement over the past week.
As a student who goes to UTD, Information Resources did provide a page just for that after the network was upgraded.
-Vic
UTD didn't own the apartments in question
It doesn't own the apartment complex per se, but it does own the land.
UTD didn't have undergrads for a very long time, and no dorms either. So they decided to let a private company build student housing. It was their way of outsourcing all those dorm problems that become university administration problems to somebody else.
That way they can try to mandate their own rules, while ignoring most the problems. I hated living at Waterview.
As state institution, they have to follow the constitution. They cannot say "We dont like the way the federal government is working, so we will simply ignore their laws". They cannot just decide that Part 15 doesn't exist and re-implement band plans and regulations of said bands.
Secondly, there are limits as to what contracts can and cannot allow. The FCC has said that landlords cannot prohibit the private use of spectrum. There is no constitutional right to free-for-all contracts.
There are also a few cases where this is shown, one case involving a municipial airport authority trying to regulate 802.11b and struck down by FCC, and another case of apartments trying to regulate use of wireless and struck down.
and amateur radio equipment as necessary.
Which part of the FCC rules specifically allow this? Not the one that allows for the placement of satellite TV dishes (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) for fixed wireless signals. The FCC Fact Sheet specifically states in one paragraph:
"Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio, Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
Yes, I can put up a 2M whip in an exclusive use area (a back porch exclusively for my own use). But I couldn't get away with much for the >= 20M band.
That is an interesting point. I believe it boils down laws are passed based on what the current society will tolerate.
The FCC has very specific rules and wording that does not allow a landlord/property owner/housing association etc.. to limit your ability to pickup and use certain pieces of the radio spectrum. I am not aware of any national laws that specific for guns or alchohol. I guess using the the radio spectrum is more of a passive activity so it was able to get through the process to become a law easier then if someone tried that that with guns on a national basis.
There are areas of the country where guns laws and sale of alchohol are more relaxed then others. These areas are not consistant either, an area in NC may not allow alchohol sales at all but you can carry a gun into the grocery store. In upstate NY, you may be able to drink all you want 24/7 but they severly limit where you can carry a gun. These rules were passed based on what society in those areas would tolerate. The nation as a whole will never equal out enough to have a one law fits all for those activities.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I just spoke with the University of Guelph resnet (I used to work there wanted job)...
It's banned on campus here as well with no plans to remove the ban.
When I enquired further no response was given but I was lead to believe it was a policy decision not a technical descision (security is a technical problem).
Keep in mind that UTD is not the only educational institution that has banned WAP. Dickinson College http://lis.dickinson.edu/AboutLIS/Policies/wireles s.htm here in Pennsylvania is, I imagine, one of many others. It may be a small little place, but we should be just as worried. It would be a shame if the enforcement of it's WAP policy were to be used as precedent. Yes, it violates federal law, but I'm not sure how much it would take to convince the FCC (either current or Kerry's) that the college was right and law had to be changed... Does anyone know of other institutions that have violated this law?
I took interest in your post becasue I have a cousin who is a senior at WFU and an uncle who is a former instructor there. I think that the spirit of that regulation is that you cannot have an access point attached to their network which is legal for them to say. If you want to setup your own network you certainly could have an AP, and if they stopped you that would be illegal.
What concerns me more is the prohibition of non-900MHz cordless phones. This clearly IS illegal and YOU should make a stink about it. The 2.4GHz and 5.6GHz bands are degignated for part 15 devices (unlicenced) and they MUST accept interference from other part 15 and (most of all) licenced devices. You should start by contacting the student paper, send a well researched written warning to the university and contact the FCC. Of course if you really want to teach them a lesson you should become a licenced HAM radio operator. Part of the 2.4GHz spectrum is availible for high power HAM use and you could easily kill access points for miles around by turning on some of that stuff.
NDA agreements don't restrict your first amendment rights. The first amendment doesn't grant you the right to say whatever you want, rather it prohibits congress from restricting what you can say. Schools can disallow guns because there are no laws prohibiting them from doing so. The 1934 Communications Act, however, gives the FCC sole authority over regulating the airwaves meaning the FCC is the ONLY body that can tell people where they can, and cannot use antennas. If Congress passed a law saying the department of ATF has sole authority over regulating gun use the situation would be different.
The Denver Airport as well as Massport in Boston wanted to require tenants to use its (for pay) wifi network and prohibited them from setting up their own, claiming that since they own the airport they have the right to restrict tenant use over the wireless space. The FCC stated in a ruling that it alone has exclusive jurisdiction over radio frequency space regulation and a legitimate tenant has the same right to use unlicensed radio-frequency space as any other user, and that no one else, state or local government, nor any private party including a landlord, has authority to regulate or control use of unlicensed radio-frequency space.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.