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.'"

Comments

FCC regs.

[fimbulvetr]

Many fellow /.s predicted this would happen, mainly because like it said, these devices _must_ accept interference.

For more information on the Part 15 docs, see this site:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/47cf r15_01.html

An apology was issued.

[Slayk]

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.

Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points

[krs-one]

As a student who goes to UTD, Information Resources did provide a page just for that after the network was upgraded.

-Vic

Re:Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This was predicted time and time again

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

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.

My University

[Deliveranc3]

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).

Other Colleges and Universities

[AnimusF6]

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?

Re:Other Colleges and Universities

[ZorinLynx]

As a network admin at a major university, I have to chime in here.

We tend to go out and slaughter morons who put wireless access points on our network. Why? Well, it's rather simple.

First, we have our own wireless network. It has a sentry authentication system that keeps access restricted to only those with an account. The primary reason for this is so that we can track usage; if someone decides to do something illegal or waste bandwidth, we have a log telling us exactly what IP was on at what time and can track them down so we can kill, or at least slap them around some.

Second, a WAP on one of our own networks opens the network to anyone with a laptop. Not only can they use our network without authorization, but they can swipe the IP's of important systems, resulting in Denial of Service. Additionally, when their Windows craptops eventually get 0wn3d by some virus, they'll start spewing crap out to the Internet from one of our IP's. Who gets the shit from other ISP's complaining about it? WE DO! And we have no idea who to kill (or at least maim a bit) since the access wasn't authenticated in any way.

Anyway, that's the point of view of an actual admin.

-Z

Wouldn't matter if university owned the buildings

[rfc1394]

I replied to the previous article without a full understanding of the issues, but now that I know a whole lot more I have to comment again. If this housing is owned by the university, then the students are subject to the university because first of all, they are students, and second, the university is their landlord.

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.