A curious situation which could eventually have an impact on our part 15 broadcasting...
On November 19th, the Commission issued a Public Notice .. that addresses the rights of Wi-Fi operators to manage and protect their networks...
[this stems from] an investigation in the hotel operator’s use of a Wi-Fi management system that blocked access of unauthorized hotspots on the hotel premises..
Specifically, the AHLA Petition requested that the FCC declare that a Wi-Fi network operator’s use of FCC-authorized equipment to monitor and mitigate threats to the security and reliability of its network does not violate 47 U.S.C. §333, even when the management system may result in interference to unlicensed Part 15 (radio frequency devices) device being operated by others. Section 333 prohibits willful or malicious interference with or the causing of interference to radio communications “of any station licensed or authorized” under the Communications Act or operated by the federal government.
The Petitioners argue that Section 333 only protects licensed operations, not unlicensed devices. They state that interpreting Section 333 to also prohibit interference to Part 15 devices would have absurd results and is inconsistent with the FCC’s Part 15 rules which require unlicensed devices to accept any interference received. The particular focus of the AHLA Petition are devices that can function as mobile hotspots. The AHLA Petition provides the FCC with two options for providing guidance on this issue: 1) issue a declaratory ruling or 2) commence an industry-wide rulemaking proceeding to amend Part 15 to specify what, if any, interference to Part 15 devices that the statute prohibits.
What is at stake, according to the Petitioners is a matter of potential interest to any manner of Wi-Fi operation: in short, may Wi-Fi operators be able to take necessary steps to protect against operation of unlicensed devices, such as mobile hotspots, interfering with secure and reliable Wi-Fi connections. The Commission’s resolution of the petition could have a broad impact since the vast majority of unlicensed Part 15 devices, such as iPads and tablets, can function as separate Wi-Fi access point
This sounds like some sort of signal jamming if I read this right. Another big issue is what gives a private or public enterprise the authority to regulate the legal operation of radio devices on their premises?
But this is often done in hospitals where they prohibit use of cell phones and radio transmitters under the guise that they interfere with "sensitive patient monitoring equipment". (This, by the way, is unproven. The only study I have seen regarding this reported on single monitor failure and that was when the cell phone antenna was literally stuck into a signal jack on the monitor. The 17345 Hz hash from the horizontal flyback in the TV in the waiting room is much more likely to cause a problem as I have witnessed in a hospital.)
Point being that these types of "regulation" and "prohibition" are often based on superstition and/or very infrequent events and then blanket rules are widely applied when no significant problem exists. I smell some other motivation on the part of the petitioners.
Neil
I come to the same understanding as Neil... this appears to give the proprietor of a Wi Fi system security management authority over their use of the spectrum, notably in the GigaHetrz region where wi fi devices operate.
The part 15 devices that might be impacted, therefore, would also be wi fi like devices in the GigaHertz space, probably including cordless phones(?).
I doubt, however, that jamming cell phones would be allowed, but maybe even that... more thoughts?
None of this seems to apply to lower frequency part 15 such as AM or FM.
Though the article does not refer to lower frequencies of am or fm is besides the point. While the petition is specifying wifi uses, Part 15 blankets of all the uses. If they ammend part 15 rules, would it not have an impact on our uses as well?
That's my point
So far the words only amount to talk, it doesn't appear anyone exactly knows what they're proposing or how to go about doing something.
None the less, with appreciation to Rich P. for bringing this information for us to view, it is uncomfortable to be talked about by people who are more apt to take away than they are to give.
To the money/power elite we are only pests, but we're such nice pests. We deserve every milliWatt they can spare.
ALSO, since the proposed fcc ruling might impact tablets and small independent wi fi devices, we should keep in mind that such devices come from a major industry that won't sit quietly while their market is messed with.
The tablet and device makers will come to the plate and fight back against having their territory taken away.
The key element here that is missing above -- is that the hotel operators were not actually blocking/disabling wifi hotspots for "security" as they attempted to claim, but because their hotels and convention centers were offering attendees wifi service at prices of $250-$1000 for the event. That's PER DEVICE. So they hauled in the dough by doing all they could to make sure people toting their own connectivity couldn't connect and had to sign up for the facillities service.
Now, if you're interfereing with a cellular data connection, that's clearly a violation of FCC law -- you're interfering, jamming or blocking a licensed service. The little loop hole is that when using these devices as a wifi hot spot, e.g. a guy with a data cell connection on his iPhone or Android phone etc. can go into hotspot mode and allow others to use his hotspot at no charge to them, or for that matter he could charge them if he wants, and they're connecting to HIS device rather than the overpriced hotel wifi service. But they're connecting via Part 15 to his device. So, they can't interfere, legally with a cell data connection, but perhaps with the wifi extension of this connection. But think about, turnabout is fairplay -- someone, could, if they wanted, in return jam or disable the wifi of the convention center, since that would also be a Part 15 service. The hotel, when called on it, claimed they did so for "security reasons" which we all know was total BS, and so did the FCC, hence the 600,000 dollar forfiture.
This had recently happened at several conventions and hotels. The one mentioned in the story is just one of many. I reported on them on my radio show when they were new stories.
I believe making cell phones inoperable in hospitals or anywhere else is also clearly illegal. Even if the hospital is private property they can't jam or disable a legal licensed system. They can ask you not to use your phone, and they can make you leave their property if you insist on using it, but they cannot legally interfere or jam operation of a licensed legal service.
There's always a nice list of business operators who have been busted using illegal cell phone jammers, too.
Your basic data connection of a phone, tablet, ipad, etc is not a wifi connection, but a cellular data connection which is protected by the law about interference to a licensed service. The issue comes up when Part 15 wifi is used to connect THAT ONE data connected device to other devices.
I think any sort of new regulation down the road is going to have to outlaw maliscious, intentional jamming or interference with ANY device, Part 15 or not.
Tim in Bovey
I don't think so Rich P. Part15 rules have been amended by sub-section for years.