The wireless access point must be for commercial use: in this specific ruling it was for the commercial operation of airline services. Another example would be equipment for the reception of service from a wireless internet provider. A wireless home network is not commercial use of a wireless signal.
If the ISP for the user of the WAP specifically included the wireless equipment as approved and supported equipment and treated it as an extensive of their internet service, then it might be considered equipment for the reception or transmission of commercial non-broadcast service, but it is unlikely that an ISP would take this stance.
Hence, OTARD rules do not apply to this situation and such a ban would be legal in a contract. Note: HAM radios are provided specific protections, hence why HAM radio equipment use is still protected even when not for commercial use. No such specific protection exists for wireless networking equipment despite the airport ruling as the airport ruling relied on the fact that the airlines were commercial tenants.
That ruling applies only to commercial non-broadcast wireless signals.
In this specific case, the airlines are commercial business tenants of the airport and the wireless network is employed in commercial operations carried out by the airlines. This ruling would not apply to a home network.
A home network could fit into the OTARD rules if it is used to receive a commercial service (i.e. from a wireless internet provider) or is composed of approved equipment as an extensive of an internet service (i.e. the DSL or cable internet provider supports wireless home networking). Otherwise, the equipment is not used to transmit of receive a commercial non-broadcast wireless signal and hence would not fit under OTARD rules.
The only except to this is the use of HAM radio and wireless networking does not have the same hobbyist protections as HAM radio at this time.
That federal override only applies for commercial non-broadcast services though. It does not apply to home networking.
The WiFi ruling in question pertained to a business tenant (airline in an airport) using a wireless networking for commercial operations. It would not apply to a home user unless the wireless equipment were used to receive a commercial wireless internet or considered by the ISP to be an extension of their commercial service (which is most likely not the case in this situation).
The later would be indicated by including the wireless equipment on the approved and supported equipment lists for those companies.
So, if the university can regulate tenants of the apartment (for example, the hotplate rule analogy that has been tossed about), then the university can impose a regulation on the use of wireless equipment and not be in violation of OTARD rules.
The rules you reference, the OTARD rules, apply only to transmitters and receivers for commercial non-broadcast wireless signals.
Hence, they apply to antennas for satellite television (commercial television) and wireless phones (commercial phone service) but not wireless networking (non-commercial home network) unless you are a business tenant (such as airlines in an airport).
If the internet service provider for these tenants supported the use of home networking equipment and considered such home networks to be an extensive of their commercial service and included the wireless equipment in their approved equipment list for receiving internet service, then the tenants may have an argument that the home wireless networks are an extension of their commercial internet service.
Most likely though, that is not the case and hence OTARD rules would not apply to this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You only have half the ruling there.
The wireless access point must be for commercial use: in this specific ruling it was for the commercial operation of airline services. Another example would be equipment for the reception of service from a wireless internet provider. A wireless home network is not commercial use of a wireless signal.
If the ISP for the user of the WAP specifically included the wireless equipment as approved and supported equipment and treated it as an extensive of their internet service, then it might be considered equipment for the reception or transmission of commercial non-broadcast service, but it is unlikely that an ISP would take this stance.
Hence, OTARD rules do not apply to this situation and such a ban would be legal in a contract.
Note: HAM radios are provided specific protections, hence why HAM radio equipment use is still protected even when not for commercial use. No such specific protection exists for wireless networking equipment despite the airport ruling as the airport ruling relied on the fact that the airlines were commercial tenants.
That ruling applies only to commercial non-broadcast wireless signals. In this specific case, the airlines are commercial business tenants of the airport and the wireless network is employed in commercial operations carried out by the airlines. This ruling would not apply to a home network. A home network could fit into the OTARD rules if it is used to receive a commercial service (i.e. from a wireless internet provider) or is composed of approved equipment as an extensive of an internet service (i.e. the DSL or cable internet provider supports wireless home networking). Otherwise, the equipment is not used to transmit of receive a commercial non-broadcast wireless signal and hence would not fit under OTARD rules. The only except to this is the use of HAM radio and wireless networking does not have the same hobbyist protections as HAM radio at this time.
That federal override only applies for commercial non-broadcast services though. It does not apply to home networking. The WiFi ruling in question pertained to a business tenant (airline in an airport) using a wireless networking for commercial operations. It would not apply to a home user unless the wireless equipment were used to receive a commercial wireless internet or considered by the ISP to be an extension of their commercial service (which is most likely not the case in this situation). The later would be indicated by including the wireless equipment on the approved and supported equipment lists for those companies. So, if the university can regulate tenants of the apartment (for example, the hotplate rule analogy that has been tossed about), then the university can impose a regulation on the use of wireless equipment and not be in violation of OTARD rules.
The rules you reference, the OTARD rules, apply only to transmitters and receivers for commercial non-broadcast wireless signals. Hence, they apply to antennas for satellite television (commercial television) and wireless phones (commercial phone service) but not wireless networking (non-commercial home network) unless you are a business tenant (such as airlines in an airport). If the internet service provider for these tenants supported the use of home networking equipment and considered such home networks to be an extensive of their commercial service and included the wireless equipment in their approved equipment list for receiving internet service, then the tenants may have an argument that the home wireless networks are an extension of their commercial internet service. Most likely though, that is not the case and hence OTARD rules would not apply to this situation.