Slashdot Mirror
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.
Of course given that's the basis on which the USA came into existence in the first place, maybe we shouldn't be surprised if people are still offering that sort of justification... ;)
When you have a large group of people sucking data on their cell phones in an area where they don't usually congregate, it's likely NOBODY will get ANY data to start with. Cell phone networks are usually provisioned for "just enough" capacity under normal circumstances and where they sometimes build in extra capacity in places where large crowds tend to gather regularly, they usually dump the bandwidth available to data into carrying voice as the crowd grows.
So... Even if you had turned on your cell data, it's unlikely to have been very useful once the crowd started to show up and post on their facebook and twitter feeds.
So, pay up if you want WiFi that's going to work you fools.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is not a limitless amount of bandwidth to broadcast in a small area. Most of these devices are operating in the same spectrum (since they are WiFi, UHF and SHF). The FCC almost certainly has the exclusive legal right to regulate the radio spectrum, but the organizer of an event should be given some way to coordinate and organize access to the limited resource. That the FCC lacks any way for an event to legally do something that I believe they should be doing. I argue that the FCC needs a form and a fee for this sort of thing before organizers are allowed to restrict WiFi access. And that requests are temporary and limited to santioned events and not for a coffee shop or theme park that wants to gouge customers.
Of course I'm ignoring the issue of free speech. Does your right to free speech include running your own WiFi network to circumvent a potentially malicious organization's WiFi?
$200 per head seems about right on price, if I had to hire some consultants to throw together a network for 3 days, then tear it all down, seems like a bargain.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I think central new agencies are a product of the left. Don't expect one with a Trump presidency.
There is nothing that says you must allow people to use devices within your premises. while the fees sound excessive and were probably just a money grab I can't see why you think PCC Part15 would apply. It is actually farely reasonable in a wifi area to restrict how many wifi access points people can turn on to prevent interference (that you must accept if it is there).
The "blocking" that was illegal uses RF to kill a rouge access point, intentionally interfering with a licensed use of the spectrum the FCC is tasked to regulate..... This is squarely in the wheel house of the FCC, who's job includes protecting the licensed users of spectrum from interference.
What was done here is put a requirement in a contract that required you to turn off your RF emitters carried into the facility unless the facility engineer approved it's use. This is 100% legal and the FCC doesn't have anything authority to regulate this. In fact, this is commonly referred to as "frequency coordination" and given the large number of possible devices showing up, makes perfect sense to me. You don't want some rouge RF device getting turned on and interfering with Lester's Wireless microphone in the middle of a question. So, you make it part of your contract that ALL RF emitting devices are subject to inspection and approval before they are allowed into the venue and turned on.
So the two cases are not the same and the venue operator has broken no laws.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I've seen the commercial offerings that claim you need to tune the antennas. They seem to have gone a step further and have a dedicated tech for "detecting interference". At best it is a hotspot management tool, usually it's expensive snake oil. Especially on a small area like this, a good set of APs should be able to handle the "load" and have enough power to handle other APs, especially the weak phone ones.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
With private property they can ask you to leave for pretty much any reason.
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...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Unfortunately, putting any kind of restriction on a part-15 device is exactly "sub-licensing", which you're not allowed to do.
That it was private property is... going to be an interesting argument :)
I can totally understand banning Wifi hotspot access points at big crowded events like this. Just a few dozen in the same area is enough to completely use all available bandwidth in the form of beacons. Performance will suck for EVERYONE, including the venue WiFi.
Why not just use a cable? Most phones support tethering over USB, and it'll even perform better than WiFi hotspot mode because it's a direct cable connection so the only RF you're doing is cellular. I always try to do USB tethering when possible to avoid polluting the airwaves with my needless access point.
Signed contracts are so 80s. These days you shrink-wrap contracts, or in this case you just put it on the back of the ticket or in the T&C you have to click through to obtain a ticket.
This. The FCC is important, RF regulation is important as spectrum is a shared resource and is not contained by walls, geographic boundaries, etc. Someone needs to be in charge of preventing interference and encouraging research of effective use of a limited resource.
Side rant, 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 and is still done for most frequencies. The FCC has effectively ceded regulatory control of huge chunks of spectrum so now a lot of power is concentrated into a few companies that own spectrum and it's not necessarily in their interest to pursue certain RF research or new RF technology and we have no societal via governmental way to force transitions to new technology. Imagine if TV stations owned their spectrum, we might never have been able to force a HD digital transition.
Bandwidth auctions are only selling off a LEASE of that spectrum in the first place.
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 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.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant