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

Wifi cards choosing wrong access points

[Zarhan]

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.

Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points

[Slayk]

Hey, it's just like the origional article where nobody can read.

This has zero to do with the integrity of security on the school network, because the issue was between the students personal APs competing with that of the school network. The peronal APs were NOT attached to the school network in any way, shape, or form, and were placed on privately paid for connections via SBC/Yahoo and Comcast.

If you would kindly read the article, you would realize that thinking that the idea of students placing what effectively would be a unsecured repeater of the school's wireless signal being the issue is somewhat silly, for two reasons.
1. That's a clear violation of the agreement between the student and the university concerning security and their unix id.
2. Why would students need to do so, since the network is fully (and only) wireless to begin with?

Kind of Nice..

[Rosyna]

.. 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...

This was predicted time and time again

[Motherfucking Shit]

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.

No. No they aren't

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Other Colleges and Universities

[frdmfghtr]

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?

Make a policy

[Foxxz]

You may not be able to ban the devices, but you can make a policy prohibiting them from being hooked to your network.

-Foxxz