FCC Official Asks Agency To Investigate Ban On Journalists' Wi-Fi Personal Hotspots At Debate (arstechnica.com)

Yesterday, it was reported that journalists attending the presidential debate at Hofstra University were banned from using personal hotspots and were told they had to pay $200 to access the event's Wi-Fi. The journalists were reportedly offered the option to either turn off their personal hotspots or leave the debate. Cyrus Farivar via Ars Technica is now reporting that "one of the members of the Federal Communications Commission, Jessica Rosenworcel, has asked the agency to investigate the Monday evening ban." Ars Technica reports: Earlier, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel tweeted, saying that something was "not right" with what Hofstra did. She cited an August 2015 order from the FCC, forcing a company called SmartCity to no longer engage in Wi-Fi blocking and to pay $750,000. Ars has since updated their report with a statement from Karla Schuster, a spokeswoman for Hofstra University: The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the criteria for services and requires that a completely separate network from the University's network be built to support the media and journalists. This is necessary due to the volume of Wi-Fi activity and the need to avoid interference. The Rate Card fee of $200 for Wi-Fi access is to help defray the costs and the charge for the service does not cover the cost of the buildout. For Wi-Fi to perform optimally the system must be tuned with each access point and antenna. When other Wi-Fi access points are placed within the environment the result is poorer service for all. To avoid unauthorized access points that could interfere, anyone who has a device that emits RF frequency must register the device. Whenever a RF-emitting device was located, the technician notified the individual to visit the RF desk located in the Hall. The CPD RF engineer would determine if the device could broadcast without interference.

Comments

Re: LTE-U

[bobbied]

THIS!

You cannot emit RF to jam signals on your property, but finding an RF emitter and ejecting it (along with the owner) from the premises is permitted. You get bonus points for spelling out these terms in a signed contract too...

Re:i.e. I think I can ignore the law if I want to

[MightyMartian]

Um, the French and Indian War was between 1756 and 1763. There was no "Canada", save as a bit of a colloquial expression for the New France, which became British after the defeat of French forces in 1759.

You might note that the American War of Independence didn't begin until 1775, and "Canada" didn't become a formal name until 1791 when the former territories of New France were carved into Upper Canada, where many Empire Loyalists were settling, and Lower Canada, where the Quebecois were dominant, and these two colonies later became Ontario and Quebec.

So what you wrote is factually wrong. The French and Indian Wars was a war between France and Britain, an arena of the larger Seven Years War, and most certainly involved the defense of the British colonies (including but not limited to the Thirteen "American" colonies) in North America.

Re:There's plenty of space

[evilviper]

I think it was a poor choice to raise a bunch of money by starting the sell spectrum to cell providers in the 90s instead of licensing it to them as had been done before

Bandwidth auctions are only selling off a LEASE of that spectrum in the first place.

so now a lot of power is concentrated into a few companies that own spectrum

Auctioning is a good way to allocate limited resources. The significant expense highly discourages carriers from buying anything they won't extensively use (leaving it open for smaller organizations) and have also encouraged the FCC to open up more spectrum to get in on some more of that big cash.

it's not necessarily in their interest to pursue certain RF research or new RF technology

It's money from the cellular carriers that has been paying for developments of 3G and 4G technologies, and is continuing with a surprisingly fast push to work on 5G.

And again, the huge expense of buying new spectrum in an auction is encouraging cellular carriers to "densify" their networks, instead of just expanding their bandwidth.

Imagine if TV stations owned their spectrum, we might never have been able to force a HD digital transition.

There's been no need for the government to force carriers to start shutting off their 2G networks and rolling out 4G. There's competition in the market, and tighter integration between sender and receiver. TV networks could never have hoped to force their audience to upgrade their all their TVs, but cell carriers can and regularly do.

Re:not limitless

[tlhIngan]

If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it was strategic: price it high enough to limit the strain on their wireless network, but then similarly not so high that those who would actually use it and need it to be reliable are screwed over. Then sod off anyone who didn't like it. Not that I'd expect them to actually come out and say something like that.

Except it did go down. It completely collapsed under the load.

I understand the need and that if everyone brought their own hotspot that it would be completely useless. But that's not the way to do it. At $200, it sounds like gouging - especially when you consider they actually did active scans for unauthorized WiFi and escorted people out.

The problem is many - first, the price appeared to be gouging. Second, active WiFi scanning - granted, they didn't jam (which was what got the hotels in trouble) but escorted you off the premises so it was technically legal. Third, they could've offered suggestions that people use hard wire (USB) tethers or built-in WWAN modems to achieve connectivity instead of WiFI Most of the people there would be using tablets, laptops, etc, many models of which have WWAN capability either built-in through USB dongles. Or a USB cable to their phones (practically all smartphones allow USB tethering)

Because right now, it appears to be gouging. Which is why the FCC is irked. I'm sure if they simply suggested other methods, politely asked anyone using WiFi to turn it off and use non-WiFi methods, etc.

Yes, a lot of wifi causes problems - Apple has had problems during their keynotes because everyone had their hotspots on, but there are many ways it can be handled without it seeming like pure greed.