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