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.'"
Okay, I can see one of the reasons they wanted to do this was, according to the article, not interference per se, but this:
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.
Now, just WTF are they thinking? Of course if I don't configure my WiFi card to a specific SSID, it'll use whatever network happens to be close by. Couldn't they just have set up an instruction sheet that said "if you want to use our network, set your SSID to campusnet" or whatever? In Windows XP this is trivial, with older ones you may need to go to network driver settings and punch it in there (or use software included with the card). With Linux you just say iwconfig wlan0 (or whatever your device is) ssid blahblah.
I'll grant that they do have a problem with gazillion wireless networks combined with default settings for Wifi cards, but they clearly went the wrong way of dealing with it. Considering that even warchalk markings include SSID names, I don't think it would have been too much trouble to give instructions on how to set up your card.
.. to see that in the last few years the FCC and FTC has been doing some good to citizens of the US. With this wireless policy, the law that states that property owners cannot prohibit a tenant to install a satellite dish as long as it is within the leased/rented property, the Do Not Call List, and the recent spam bounties, and the heavy charge for that jackson's boob incident. A "boob" like hers should have never been shown on TV. Just nasty...
The FCC is the only body with the legal authority to regulate the spectrum. The vast majority of the comments in the original /. story agreed with this.
UTD didn't own the apartments in question, even if they did they aren't allowed to prohibit their tenants from establishing legal wireless links. FCC regs allow tenants the ability to place dishes as necessary, antennas as necessary (so long as they're legal), and amateur radio equipment as necessary. Landlords cannot interfere with the above legal placements. End of story.
I'm glad to see that UTD backed down. As much as I loathe the FCC for going after Howard Stern, and for making a huge issue out of Janet's n1ppl4g3, this is a major victory for the average joe.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Either the UTD is staffed by total idiots, (which I doubt, but it is possible), or, more likely, they thought they could get away with this blatant, illegal attempt to intimidate their student body. (Sadly, not unusual behavior for a college/University).
"to see that in the last few years the FCC and FTC has been doing some good to citizens of the US."
The FCC is doing far more harm than good through their attempting to censor speech on the radio (not in their charter), giving away billions in spectrum, and their rulings that force DRM onto HDTV. It gives me a headache just to think about it.
Actually, I don't see where the FCC has jurisdiction over this. I mean, obviously they think they do, but think about it.
The university has no right to prohibit legal electronic equipment in the dorm...true. But the FCC has no right to force private property owners to allow the university to do something just because it has police and a military to back up their decision. Its utterly arbitrary.
The FCC is a bunch of idiots, run by an idiot son of a guy who sold his soul the biggest moron who ever occupied the oval office. And that's quite an accomplishment.
Why be worried? The college is banning the installation/use of unauthorized WAPs on the campus network.
From your referenced webpage:
You may be one of the growing number of people who have installed a wireless (WiFi) network in your home. While it is easy to install a wireless access point (WAP), the current state of the technology does not lend itself to securely installing one on the campus network. An unsecured WAP on campus represents a network vulnerability.
You want to have a WAP in your apartment? Fine, as long as you are paying for the Internet connection from a commercial ISP and are administering your own network.
As far as no unauthorized WAPs being added to the campus network, I'm all for it. How can the campus IT department keep out unauthorized access to its network if students are adding their own wide-open WAPs?
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Too US cetric, anyone?
You may not be able to ban the devices, but you can make a policy prohibiting them from being hooked to your network.
-Foxxz
The company would have plenty of recourse to fire him. This does not give a person the right to make networks insecure with an access point. It just ensures that your personal access point in an area where you have controll over (such as an apartment the student has leased, in this case) can't be disallowed because the landlord decided to put up their own.
The naughty businessman theory fails for a few reaons.
1. They could fire him for attaching an unauthorized device to the network.
2. They could fire him for willfully breaching network security
3. They could fire him for enabling a wifi device in a secure area (this is where they DO have control of the situation, since the employee does not have exclusive controll over the area he's in).
It's an entirely different situation unrelated to the university's decision.
God fucking dammit.
/yes, I know schools abuse their students who live in dorms, and get away with it because the students, almost by definition, have no money to sue. /not full of angst.
Look.
If you are a school or landlord, you are not given the right to break the law.
If the FCC says something is illegal, than it is.
How the fuck is this difficult to comprehend?
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The FCC has every right to prohibit "private property owners" from trying to lock down individuals to their own privately provided services - which is what often happened before the ruling prohibiting "private property owners" from barring otherwise legally approved electronic equipment - just like we don't allow "private property owners" to lock people inside buildings, use unsafe building materials where public safety is an issue, or hold individuals to indentured servitude.
Issues like this are why we have a government, you moron.