Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UTD Lifts Ban On WiFi Equipment

Posted by timothy on from the magnanimous dept.

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.'"

42 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Wifi cards choosing wrong access points by Zarhan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points by Slayk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points by krs-one · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      -Vic

    3. Re:Wifi cards choosing wrong access points by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At my brother's school, someone (they think it was a student) set up a wireless access point designed to act and look like an official University AP. Unfortunately, it was NOT official - which meant that it did a great job of pulling down all the data that had gone through it. Like passwords, emails, and credit card numbers.

      I understand their move, even if I don't agree with it. I just think maybe they went about it the wrong way.

  2. This seems backwards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny



    So let me get this straight...an FCC ruling has resulted in having a BAN on 802.11 LIFTED? Surely this must be some kind of twisted parallel dimension this news comes from...

    Next thing you know Microsoft will start asking Windows pirates to come forward on their own volition.

    1. Re:This seems backwards... by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 3, Funny

      Next thing you know Microsoft will start asking Windows pirates to come forward on their own volition.

      Never gonna happen.

      (Sheesh, this is like the time I discovered that there were 13 months in the year, according to Java, or bytes didn't necessarily have 8 bits)

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
  3. Kind of Nice.. by Rosyna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. 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...

    1. Re:Kind of Nice.. by Zorilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, I believe the main critisism of said actions by the FCC is that they're good ideas, just poor execution. The Do-Not-Call list has workarounds for compainies that have "business partners", and the spam bounties only really work if spamming was actually easily defined as illegal in the first place.

      I should probably stay away from the boob incident. It didn't bother me one bit.

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    2. Re:Kind of Nice.. by surprise_audit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he was referring to the various "business partners" that really have no business being connected together. So, for example, 1-800-contacts could be affiliated with an insurance company, who in turn could be affiliated with a phone company, which could also be an ISP, and suddenly you'd be getting telemarketers calling to offer long-distance+DSL with Web services on the side. All perfectly legit, as long as you allow the nebulous "business partners" relationship to span friends-of-friends-of-friends, out into completely unrelated industries. And, you have to tell each one individually to quit calling...

  4. FCC regs. by fimbulvetr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:FCC regs. by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "must accept interference" and "may not cause interference" phrases are the FCC's way of saying that Part 15 devices are at the bottom of hierarchy of spectrum usage. For any given chunk of spectrum, there may be primary, secondary and tertiary users. Think of it as a class system, with nobles, freemen and slaves. Licensed primary users are nobles, licensed secondary users are freemen, and unlicensed users are slaves. Your betters have the right of way and you have no legal cause if they run you off the road.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  5. This was predicted time and time again by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:This was predicted time and time again by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:This was predicted time and time again by Detritus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It bothered me. Not because I have an aversion to looking at unclothed women. My immediate reaction was that this was a stupid and deliberate attempt to be shocking or "extreme", dreamt up by some moron in the marketing department at MTV. People, including families, who tune in the Superbowl, shouldn't be subjected to that sort of crap.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:This was predicted time and time again by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      People, including families, who tune in the Superbowl, shouldn't be subjected to that sort of crap.

      Yeah, I guess Superbowl fans weren't breast-fed as children and were thoroughly shocked and psychologically damaged by this unexpected view of a heretofore unknown and alien part of her anatomy.

  6. Told ya so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were several postings on the original story that pointed out the FCC rules. Does anyone know if they were instrumental in getting the ban lifted? ie. Did a student see a posting and then point out the rules to the university?

  7. Re:The university has taken a novell aproach inste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    The university has taken a novell approach

    And what does novell (www.novell.com) has to do with this?

  8. An apology was issued. by Slayk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know you must really suck at your job if a federal body steps in to tell you you're doing it wrong...

  10. No. No they aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  11. Back in my day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I lived at Waterview... me and my friends didn't have all this fancy shmancy wireless stuff, so we buried hundreds of feet of coax cable underground between multiple apartments.

    Sure it wasn't too efficient, but it was fun.

    1. Re:Back in my day... by mikael · · Score: 2, Funny

      so we buried hundreds of feet of coax cable underground between multiple apartments.

      For a moment, I though that read

      "so we buried coax cable hundreds of feet underground between multiple apartments."

      I know some people like to make sure their slashdot access is available at all times, but that seemed rather extreme.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  12. Rights by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    So is it like: The law says you have the right to use the unlicenced spectrum? Or is it that ONLY the FCC can regulate the spectrum? How does this compare to Non-disclosure agreements restricting your first amendment rights? Or any other contract that allows one to voluntarily restrict your rights? I bet the school can disallow guns on campus as a condition of attending. You mean the FCC has more power than the constitution? I'm confused - not taking sides, just confused.


    Any lawyers in the house?

    1. Re:Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Rights by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Rights by sangreal66 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  13. My University by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  14. Other Colleges and Universities by AnimusF6 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

    1. Re:Other Colleges and Universities by frdmfghtr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?
    2. Re:Other Colleges and Universities by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  15. Re:No. No they aren't by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    This is actually one of the few areas where the FCC should be regulating things - their job was (and still should be limited to) regulating the use of the airwaves and preventing interference. 2.4GHz is declared as free to all comers with some power restrictions, so declaring that all bans on equipment use (outside of FCC rules) makes perfect sense.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  16. Don't you mean by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Funny

    bizarro lifted?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  17. What should I tell my school about this? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Interesting
    My school has a new spiffy wireless network too, but they still have an old wired one. Nevertheless I believe I have seen a regulation stating that no access points are to be allowed on campus, and that certain varieties of cordless phones were going to be, if not banned, Strongly Strongly discouraged. I'm "in" with the technology program here (evaluating the occasional gadget, like the new printer/scanner/copier devices) so I know how to inform these people of stuff like this.

    It seems that they are more interested in banning the devices which use this part of the spectrum rather than the actual use. Would this make any difference? I mean, they're already banning toasters and the like (though it's not that people who like toast can't find it anyway . . .)

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:What should I tell my school about this? by BenFranske · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  18. Re:No. No they aren't by Tassach · · Score: 4, Funny
    Jimmy Carter has a graduate degree in nuclear physics. George W. Bush can't even pronounce "nuclear".

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  19. Make a policy by Foxxz · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    -Foxxz

  20. Personal experience at UTD by A+non+moose+cow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had an apartment at UTD and thought it was cool that I could get free Internet access through the schools wireless. I previously had a setup of three machines that were connected to a wired router and from there to a DSL line. When I moved into the UTD Waterview apartments, I just bought a wireless bridge to plug into the wan side of my router.

    The lan side of my router was serving DHCP. I had to plug the bridge into the lan side in order to configure it. Once it was configured, there was an immediate tug of war between the campus dhcp serving 10.x.x.x and my router serving 192.168.x.x.

    If I got a 10.x.x.x address, I could use the campus network with my bridge on the inside of my network. My anttenna was apparenlty stronger than the campus antennas at that point, because when I looked at my router's arp table, I saw that I had actually served 200+ campus machines a 192.168.x.x ip address. Since my router had nowhere to route that traffic, I had effectively broken the campus network for a signifigant number of machines.

    The reason this happened is that the campus antenna network is pretty weak. So weak in fact that once I had everything set up to play nicely, I realized that My machine was often starving for an IP address or more bandwidth. I ended up ordering Comcast Cable. I actually considered plugging my bridge back into the lan side of my router so people could use my Comcast connection when I wasn't using it.

    BTW, the UTD campus Wifi can be a pain to use, because when connecting, you must always use a web browser first. The UTD system intercepts your first web traffic and throws you back a campus wifi login page instead. Once you log in, all types of traffic are allowed. The problem with this is that if the first thing you do is open usenet, or check pop email, etc. It just appears that the connection is down because you have not logged in yet.

    I didn't get around to it, but I was going to have a similar scheme where people who connected to my router would be served a page that said, "this is not UTD internet access, it is a private Comcast connection. click Ok to verify that you understand this, or click quit to attempt to get to the UTD network again" I also wanted the page to have a check boxes for "remember me and always accept this alternate connection when available", and another for "remember me, and always reject this alternate connection because I'm not sure I trust it". A record of mac addresses would allow me to do that.

    another thing this experience made me realize, is that with my Comcast connection and the campus ssid, I could offer wireless access silently to anyone who was in range, which would allow me to eyeball all of their traffic at leisure.

  21. Re:doesn't make sense. by Slayk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  22. Wouldn't matter if university owned the buildings by rfc1394 · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.
    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  23. Re: They almost own the apartments by loraksus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God fucking dammit.
    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? /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.

    --
    1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  24. You spelling... by khrtt · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is wrong. it spells "nukelar"

  25. Don't hold back... how do you REALLY feel? by poptones · · Score: 2, Insightful
    So, "Mr. Private property," which is it? Censor speech on the radio? You do understand that's a public space... right? As is the spectrum (as it has been viewed for ages). It's not something someone owns, it's something we long ago agreed to hold in trust and license to individuals provided they agree to live by the rules. You want to talk about censorship? What if the guy next door could simply fire up a transmitter more powerful than yours and step all over you because he didn't like what you had to say about the world? It used to be just like that - that's why we have an FCC.

    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.