University Bans Wireless Access Points

Slayk writes "The University of Texas at Dallas has adopted a policy of disallowing the use of 802.11b/g access points outside of those used for the campus-wide wireless network. While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC. Students have until the 15th of September to comply with the policy, disable their wireless equipment, and string cat5 over the floor, or be subject to 'disciplinary action.'"

Where's the problem here?

If those apartments belong to the University, and the presence of your access point harms/disrupts the operation of their own network then to me it looks like it is well within the rights of the university to demand this - and as they can't single out a specific access point to cause the problem it seems just that they require ALL to be shut down.

On the other if those apartments do not belong to the university, then I wouldn't see how they should even try and enforce this.

In either case, it's not much of an issue - and it's not a freedom of speech / censorship issue, since they DO allow private access to the internet by wired means...

Re:Where's the problem here?

The trouble is that the 2.4GHz spectrum is unregulated. The college has no right to tell you that you can't use a legally licensed device in the 2.4GHz spectrum in the apartment.

Now, hooking that AP up to the ResNet is certainly against the college's AUP, but that's not what's happening here. Students with private cable modems are setting up a private WiFi network. Since the 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC has sole regulatory authority over them--the college, no matter how prestigious, does not.

Re:Where's the problem here?

No, it's called a lease agreement, with a change clause. Use the spectrum all you want, they are prohibiting a device, just like they can prohibit hotplates. If you don't like it, feel free to move out.

Re:Where's the problem here?

As sort of a double whammy, there's also the: Code of Conduct [utdallas.edu] that has clauses that ALSO specifically allow them to institute arbitrary rules for the good of the campus community, as determined by them.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Doesn't matter, federal law trumps all state and local regulations. The university is very likely (though IANAL) to loose any case that is brought against them in regards to this issue. The courts are very likely to say that the code of conduct cannot be used to ban unregulated wireless because only the federal government has that right.

Re:Where's the problem here?

the status of the university is quite a bit different from that of a landlord. Universities have the rights to do a lot of things landlords can do, including intering your dorm room at any time for any reason. They can also kick you off campus pretty much at any time at their discretion. You're not a tenant of that dorm room, you're more of a paying guest (read: less rights that you would in a hotel room).

Re:Where's the problem here?

The assumption that everybody seems to be making is that the university owns the apartments in question. A quick google got me this page: U.T. Dallas has no University owned and operated housing facilities. However, the Waterview Park Apartments are located on the U.T. Dallas campus within easy walking distance to all campus facilities. U.T. Dallas students have priority for available units. [utdallas.edu]

The university does not own nor operate the apartment building in question. Also, while university students have priority for apartments, it's implied that not all of the residents of this apartment complex are associated with the university. The article mentions that they are sharing Comcast cable. Comcast allows routing over wireless, and will even set it up for you for an additional fee, so they're not in violation of the internet provider's TOS.

In short, the university has banned use of a non-university regulated internet connection on non-university regulated property by people who may or may not even be university students(but probably are). Unless the apartment complex has some clause in the lease that tennants have to obey the whims of the university, I doubt this is legal.

Re:Where's the problem here?

That is a public safety issue though, this is not.

Basically, if there were a federal law that stated "any entity which uses shotguns MUST allow shotguns to interfere with them" THEN your analogy would be appropriate.

Here is the problem: UofT is using 802.11 APs for it's own local network, by using those APs they are explicitly required to allow any interference caused by other devices in that wavelength. They are now asking students to remove their APs because they are interfering with their own network. This is against the law. If UofT wanted complete control over a chunk of spectrum, they could have purchased a license from the FCC to do so, instead they saved a LOT of money by using UNLICENSED spectrum and are now effectively saying they control that spectrum they didn't license. It would be equivalent to them not allowing 2.4GHz processors because they interfere (regardless if that is or is NOT the intention of the device) with the network in some way. They can NOT do that.

If the wireless APs were connected to THEIR network, you have a very different reason to disconnect them...not because of interference, but signal theft. That would be an acceptable removal reason, but is not the reason they have stated.

Re:Here's the problem:

Actually no. The university can not say what can and can't be done in their dorm rooms. Those rooms are rental units and thus regulated by the state and federal laws that pertain to residential rental units. In Kansas this is called the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It gives both parties specific and limited rights and a process by which to settle grievances. The university is a landlord and does not have the right to restrict an unlicensed spectrum in their rental units, nor do they have the right to tell you what device you can and can not have in that rental that is not explicitly granted to them under the law. There is no grey area here folks. Places like UoT do things like this (this **AA) because they have size, prestige, and money behind their whims. That doesn't (or shouldn') give them any more legal standing in a courtroom. They are still a landlord and their actions are controlled by the law.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Obviously you didn't read the article. So allow me the opportunity to say "read the fucking article or shut up." Ah. Much better now.

The university installed APs in another person's commercial property that is adjacent to their campus (and thus commoningly used by students). The university does not own the property nor does it have any contracts with the residents in those residential rental units. That would be irrelevant even if they did since they can not regulate an unregulated airspace. Doing so would be illegal. There's that very special word again. Illegal. Only the FCC can regulate their unregulated airspace.

Allow me to say it one more time, "read the fucking article or shut up."

Re:Where's the problem here?

I think you may have a fundemental misunderstanding of federal law. If I *own* a building, and can set the rules, pretty much regardless. That doesn't mean I take someone to court if they break them, it means they signed a contract and I can legally throw them out for not abiding my my rules.

Actually you can't. The law explicitly states what rights are your's and what rights are the tenants'. Depending on the state in which you live, rights not explicitly granted to the landlord are granted to the tenant. A contract for a residential rental unit can only contain very specific things. Clauses that open holes for arbitrary changes almost always invalidate rental contracts (or they have in every case I've ever researched in my state which would be dozens).

The FCC declaring that 2.4 GHz is unregulated doesn't even come into the picture. This is perfectly legal for the university, assuming that they in fact *own* the residence in which it is occuring.

Again, no it's not legal. It would in fact be illegal. If the law doesn't explicitly state what items the landlords can ban (firearms for example) then the landlord can not ban them.

Further, they are no doubt doing it to tightening security of their network (controlling access), and if it did (for some reason) come down to legal action, the university could play that card.

Irrelevant. Their intention does not trump their action. What they're doing is still illegal, even if it is in the name of security.

"We, as a service provider, are responsible for maintaining the integrity and security of our network. We prohibit wireless access points from being attached to our network to facilitate this endevour."

Ah. Another person who didn't bother to read the article before attempting to talk out their ass like an expert. The university does not own the property. It's owned by a private entity (not the unv). The Unv installed APs to provide 'Net access to its residents (who are mostly Unv students). The APs in question by the residents do not connect to the campus network but instead connect to a commercial ISP's network (such as ComCast which explicitly permits such things). There university's TOS and AUP do not apply to these residents since the residents are not using the campus network.

If it came down to it, the court may very well see the logic there and side with the university. Which *spectrum* something is on doesn't really matter - they can just prohibit the *device*.

Logic and intentions have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of law. The university is trying to tell a neighbor's friends that they can't do something on the neighbor's property. That's not the univerisity's right.

Re:Where's the problem here?

I am afraid to inform you that your level of understanding of contracts and law is abysmal. Yes, thats right, you don't know jack shit about what you believe you do.

Have you ever even rented an apartment?

landlords (like the university) routinely restrict all kinds of legal behavior.

I have seen leases that prohibit the possession of a firearm or prohibit smoking.

There is absolutely no way any court in the country would find anything wrong with this regulation. If the tenant doesn't like it, they can simply find someplace else to live. its that simple.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Repeating it doesn't make it more valid. Students enter into a private contract where they agree to behave in certain ways and obey arbitrary rules in order to live certain places and attended colleges and universities.

Students have every right to access part of the spectrum, but the University still has the right to expell them if they violate the part of the agreement that lists what they may and may not use in their dormroom.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Actually, I think Mr Guy gets it best. The FCC Law is about disputes between 2 parties on different lands. IOW, if You and I have adjacent homes, if my phone interferes with your wifi, well, that goes to the Feds rules. Instead this is a single private property and the FCC states that in that band width, if any legal devices are being used, you must accept the interference.

Personally, I am a bit surprised why they did not upgrade to 802.11A where there is so much more bandwidth or simply require that the students use it

Re:Where's the problem here?

The rule is not restricting use of the spectrum directly. It is prohibiting use of a particular class of device, the actual access point devices, within the scope of a voluntary contractual agreement. The 'hot plate' analogy presented by a previous poster is very accurate. The rules say you are not permitted to operate the following devices inside your dormitory, hot-plates, wireless access points, interplexing beacons, etc...They are not restricing use of the frequencies directly, since they are possibly allowing use of microwave ovens; but only in an indirect manner.

Re:Where's the problem here?

So I'm free to set up a wireless access point in the next plane I fly on? Who cares if the airline prohibits it? Federal law trumps the airline rules, navigational interference be damned!

Re:Where's the problem here?

Personally, I am a bit surprised why they did not upgrade to 802.11A where there is so much more bandwidth or simply require that the students use it

Actually, they are suggesting that the students use 802.11a for their private wireless if they don't want to string up CAT-5 wiring. But my real question is, if the University is already providing wireless internet access, why on earth are the students paying for private access via either cable or DSL? Too much money to burn?

Re:Where's the problem here?

Okay, how about a different example:

My employer keeps confidential data on its network and has prohibited the use of unauthorized WAPs due to the sensitive nature of the data.

Does the FCC's rules trump those of my employer's? Should I be allowed to set up an access point without fear of losing my job to insubordination?

Re:Where's the problem here?

Assuming your universities have similar usage policies to ours, then there are two reasons:

1. Campus firewall. If it blocks what you're after (e.g. incoming SMTP), you're SOL.
2. Usage policy. My alma mater has a usage policy that requires that your use of the network is predominately for academic reasons (we couldn't get private access). If private Internet access was available, I imagine that they'd ban non-academic use entirely.

Re:Where's the problem here?

The property is under private ownership. http://www.utdallas.edu/utdgeneral/utdmaps/watervi ew.html After a little call (local for me), they use a standard Texas Apartment Association Leasing Agreement. So I would think, since its a standard apartment agreement, and the university has no ownership or managerial duties involed. That the students who live at those apartments can do whatever they want as far as wi-fi goes. Seems to me legal presedence is on their side if they are dealing with an outside leasing agent who is a member of the TAA, and dealing with private property issues.

Re:Where's the problem here?

IANAL, and I'm not sure about the specifics with regards to WAPs. However, the fact that the students entered into a legal contract doesn't necessarily make it binding with regards to networking devices. To take an only partially related idea - most people in the area where I live (Northern Virginia) are under Home Owner Association contracts or Apartment contracts that prohibit satellite dishes. The US government ruled those unenforceable in most cases as of a few years back. Hence, a lot of us who get sick of Comcast/Media General/Adelphia have satellite dishes instead, and there's nothing that the landlords can do about it.

Does this apply here? Probably not, at least not right now. The Satellite Dish rules were a very specific case. But, just assuming that the contract is enough to make them lose is going too far.

Federal regulations trump that.

No, it's called a lease agreement, with a change clause. Use the spectrum all you want, they are prohibiting a device, just like they can prohibit hotplates. If you don't like it, feel free to move out.

State law trumps (and voids) any lease agreement terms that the state has prohibited. (Example: lease terms that prohibit having a visitor of a particular race.) Voiding the term does not void the rest of the lease.

Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.

Federal law gives the FCC the exclusive authority to regulate the use of the RF spectrum, and the FCC has used this authority to write regulations that explicitly permit anyone to use the unlicensed spectrum (AND mount antennas no larger than one meter) despite any lower-level law, regulation, or contract to the contrary (such as zoning laws or landowner covenants forbidding external antennas). Students in student housing are EXPLICITLY mentioned in the cited FCC memo clarifying the regulation.

The FCC says the students can use the unlicensed spectrum. The FCC has the power to issue that regulation and override the university's Board of Regents on this issue. The Board of Regents or their agents can not penalize the students in any way for violating the voided regulation and exercising their privileges under the FCC ruling (because doing so would mean the regulation was not voided).

The students win.

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

Right, except in this case, if you RTFA, the access points in question are in use by students using third party ISPs such as Comcast or some DSL provider. Your point is right on but doesn't particularly apply in the specific case that this article is referencing.

Re:You're missing the point

I doubt the FCC would accept that "loophole" - it erodes their authority. The university could simply progressively ban more and more things that use the 2.4GHz spectrum.

not ban having heat in your apartment

There is no federal law allowing everyone to use heat and saying that the Federal Heat Authority is the only organization allowed to regulate the use of the spectrum.

banning Wireless APs does not ban the use of the 2.4 range

It bans the use of the 2.4GHz range for Wireless APs - which is the same as regulating it. They could try banning antennas which broadcast at 2.4GHz as well, saying "we're not banning the use of the spectrum!" but I'd still say they're full of it.

And also!

Remember that you can use certain wireless cards as APs, using the "hostap" driver. The university can't ban wireless cards, obviously, as they need the students to be able to use them! And if it tries to say "You can't use the wireless cards as APs" that is clearly them attempting to regulate the unlicensed portion of the spectrum. They can't do this - they overstepped their authority.

Re:You're missing the point

By banning the devices, the University is effectively banning the use of the frequencies those devices use. Furthermore, the FCC article SPECIFICALLY states:

"We also affirm that the rights that consumers have

under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the
operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of
equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC.

That seems to be pretty specific and clearly delineates that neither the University, nor any other institution that is NOT the FCC may impose regulations upon either the frequencies themselves, NOR the equipment used to access them. The University CAN deny access to their network, but the original article clearly indicates that these students are using their own, private ISP broadband connections (cable and DSL) and this means the University is just as cleary SOL.

-AC

Re:Federal regulations trump that.

Federal laws and regulations trump state law, via the "supremacy clause" of the US constitution.

Normally, yes, but just as a university can ban alcohol on their premises, they can also ban the use of other items, on university property. It's their property, so they set the rules.

Just as a store can disallow the use of cell phones, a university can say that you can't use certain wireless equipment on their property. You're not breaking a law by doing so, but you're breaking the "rules" of the institution and they're within their rights to remedy the situation if someone breaks the rules.

This isn't a legal issue, so don't confuse it. This follows along with other "rules". Perhaps they have a rule that you have to attend a certain number of classes to pass. If you don't, you fail the class. That's rule, not law. There is no law that affects it. Just as there are no laws preventing them from using wireless equipment. Simply rules.

Too Bad they don't OWN the property....

If you havn't read yet. The university is trying to regulate an appartment complex that primarily has students in it, but is not owned or regulated by the university. Since they don't own it, they can't say what you can or can not do there.

Re:Where's the problem here?

They can make it against the rules to smoke in your dorm room, yet that is a legal activity. Face it, you're on their property, it's their building, tough titties. You don't like it, move off campus or go to a different school.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Except in this case, the Federal Government, through the FCC has ruled that your right to use unlicenced radio equipment trumps any lease restriction. There's no similar ruling that says I have a right to a couch on the front porch of my frat house, but there is a federal ruling that I have a right to run a 2.4 GHz access point, and the only person I have to answer to is the FCC. [computerworld.com]

Re:Where's the problem here?

If an RA walks past your door and smells pot, they have two options: 1) Knock on the door and ask to come in to inspect what is going on; or 2) Call the police.

You're forgetting

(3) Knock on the door and say "If you share your pot with me, I wont (2)"

Re:Where's the problem here?

The FCC has ruled repeatedly with regards to HAM Radio antennas, DBS dishes and OTA TV antennas that landlords cannot unduly restrict tenants from installing them. They've also ruled the same [computerworld.com] regarding anything in the 2.4 GHz band.

So:
a) University banning connection of WAP to their network: OK
b) University banning WAP anywhere on their property if it's not connected to their network: Not OK

Re:Where's the problem here?

There seems to be a common misconception that since 2.4GHz bands are unregulated, the FCC is the only entity that can restrict the usage of 2.4GHz devices. This, of course, is false.

If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a police station with the purpose of intentionally interfering with the department's administrative computers, you might get arrested for obstruction of justice.

If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into your office with the purpose of disabling a corporate network, you might get reprimanded, fired, or sued.

If you were to bring a wireless jamming device into a competitor's office with the intent of manipulating the company's stock price by disabling their computer network, you might be charged with securities fraud.

If you sign an agreement with a college stating that your enrollment is contingent upon agreeing with campus policies designed to protect the college's network, then you can't use a wireless jamming device without repercussions. This is regardless of whether the "wireless jamming device" is a "wireless access point" that merely has the potential to jam.

Of course, intention will play a role in any of the above scenarios. But the important thing here, people, is that you're not allowed to walk around wherever you want saying, "Who are you, you're not the FCC!"

The FCC only handles circumstances in which two independent entities are in conflict over the usage of such airwaves when no federal or state law exists to regulate the legal behavior between two independent entities with respect to those airways.

A college and an enrolled student are not considered "independent entities", as there exists an expectation to abide by the rules defined in the relationship between the college and the student. NOTE: this goes both ways - the student can sue the college if the college acts in ways that are contradictory to the expectations of the relationship. The college can't fail a student without reason and then say "Who are you, you're not the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, you can't regulate how I pass or fail you!"

Re:Where's the problem here?

That's not the case. The FCC has exclusive rights to resolve matters such as these under the Communications Act of 1934, including those regarding unlicensed devices such as wifi. FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices [fcc.gov] rules (OTARD) specifically prohibit landlords, state and local governments and third parties from placing restrictions upon users of these unlicensed devices.

Re:Where's the problem here?

The FCC has exclusive rights to resolve matters such as these under the Communications Act of 1934, including those regarding unlicensed devices such as wifi. FCC's Over-the-Air Reception Devices rules (OTARD) specifically prohibit landlords, state and local governments and third parties from placing restrictions upon users of these unlicensed devices.

Read it again. The cited act addresses services provided to the consumer/resident, not services provided by the consumer/resident.

You might be able to parse it to apply to services provided by the resident, until you get to this:

Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?

A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, than the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.

Since the problem is actually interference with that central antenna/service provided by the landlord, this provision would circumvent a tortured interpretation.

Re:Where's the problem here?

Yes, but the University has a right to define its Terms of Service (ToS) for a student to use the University network. Port scanning may be legal, but that's probably against their ToS too. And if they want to require all cat5 cables on their network be purple, well, they can probably do that too.

Well, maybe not purple...

Not a bad time....

Looks like it's not a bad time to consider putting up some of this: Anti Wi-Fi Wallpaper [slashdot.org]

Re:Wah Wah Wah my rights!

When you rent your property out you give up a subset of those rights. The students do not live in a dorm as 'invited guests'. They are paying tenants and as such have rights.

According to the FCC you do have a fundamental right to install WiFi routers wherever you see fit. There was a link to that specific bit of info cleverly hidden in plain view in the article.

In soviet Georgia Tech...

At Georgia Tech, wireless access points are already banned from rooms. You can usually find some though by war.. roaming down resident halls. The rooms aren't really big enough to need wireless anyway, though.

Not the first place to do so

My school did the same thing. Luckily i worked part time in IT, and the network guys knew that I knew how to lock down my wifi router, so they didnt bitch about mine. Now they even have a kid with a PDA go down the halls of the dorms and "war-walk". Luckily, they say they "dont support wifi" and that "you are responsible for everything on your connection" etc, etc, so they are more friendly than the school in the article.

don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead

Big deal...

Go buy an 802.11a access point...and operate at 5Ghz

Sure....it costs more and has less range but it should be adequate.

Re:don't use 802.11b...use 802.11a at 5ghz instead

good idea -- they thought of it too...

No 802.11b or 802.11g wireless access points may be installed within the Waterview Apartments by residents. Only 802.11a wireless access points will be allowed and those must be set only to the specific channels provided for that purpose (see list below). In other words, no access points using the 2.4GHz band may be used and only certain frequencies in the 5GHz spectrum.

In fact...

The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.

The FCC will spank them...

Part 15 devices are REQUIRED to accept all interference from other devices. The FCC will spank them just to protect their turf, and that will be the end of that.

Re:The FCC will spank them...

There are certain things the government has decreed are not legal, even if you put them in a contract.

A contract that says I'll work for you for less than the legal minimum wage is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't install a DBS dish under any circumstances is unenforceable.
A lease that says I can't use a HAM radio on the property is unenforceable.
A property deed that says I can never resell the property to someone with a different skin color than mine is unenforceable.

And in this case,
A lease that says I can't install a wireless access point in unlicensed spectrum is unenforceable. [computerworld.com]

Same policy exists at Georgia Tech

Unofficial access points are prohibited at Georgia Tech too (Wireless Policy [gatech.edu]). From a security standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

Article Text

Some students in Waterview have been experiencing problems when trying to connect to the UTD Wireless Network. The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents. These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites.
The problem this creates is interference or an actual denial of service to other students not wishing to utilize these "unknown" access points, as the wireless network cards attempt to connect to the nearest and strongest signal available - which is often the "unknown" access points. Locking down the access points does not help this problem, but actually makes it even worse.

A letter has been sent to Waterview Apartment residents describing the situation in some detail and advising them that no wireless access points other than university-installed ones will be allowed - with a specific exception.

No 802.11b or 802.11g wireless access points may be installed within the Waterview Apartments by residents. Only 802.11a wireless access points will be allowed and those must be set only to the specific channels provided for that purpose (see list below). In other words, no access points using the 2.4GHz band may be used and only certain frequencies in the 5GHz spectrum.

Another simple option is to use ethernet cabling to connect everyone in an apartment to the commercial broadband connection. This can be done using a cheap router and some ethernet cables, all readily available at the UTD Tech Store, Radio Shack, Microcenter, CompUSA or a multitude of other places.

Connect the commercial modem (cable/DSL) to the router, then plug in the ethernet cables and connect them back to each computer in the apartment.

NOTE: We do not recommend drilling holes in the walls. This will ultimately cost you more money!

The UTD Technology Store (BK1.3 or extension 6500) is working to offer 802.11a wireless access points to use in place of the 802.11b/g. The possibility even exists that they may offer a discount of some sort for newer 802.11b/g access points that are traded in on an 802.11a.

This is an unfortunate situation that has problems no matter what the resolution may be. But the free wireless service provided by the university in Waterview must take precedence over those few users who may choose to do something different.

So if you are using a wireless access point (not a wireless card or adapter for your desktop), then you should immediately start considering your options. Sometime within the next few weeks, someone will be knocking on apartment doors to notify those with "unknown" access points that they will need to shut those devices off.

We ask your patience and cooperation during this period and we are working to be sure that both Comcast, SBC and other providers do not recommend using a wireless access point.

802.11a Available Channels:

There are 12 channels available defined by the 802.11a standard in the 5GHz range. The four (4) lowest channels and the two (2) highest channels are available for students to use with their own access points.
Lower U-NII band (5.15-5.25GHz): 36, 40, 44, 48
Middle U-NII band (5.25-5.35GHz):
Upper U-NII band (5.725-5.825GHz): 157, 161
(52, 56, 60, 64 - NOT AVAILABLE) (149, 153 - NOT AVAILABLE)

You guys don't get it

The university is breaking the law by forbidding WiFi.

The parent article/post points this out with this link:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatc h/ DA-04-1844A1.pdf

In other words, the FCC forbids ANYBODY from telling you that you're not allowed to use your WiFi (Or, as I read it, any other device with an antenna less than one foot in length).

So, if we're not allowed to complain when somebody (UofT) breaks the law and denies us our (Well, Americans') rights, when ARE we allowed to complain?

Where is your address again ???

I would like to put a huge 2.4Ghz blaster outside your residence so you can not use any of your 2.4Ghz equipment...

It is as simple as that - Ever been to a LARGE conference (1000+) that offers wireless ? Every time I have gone - it takes about 2 days for the networking people to shutdown all of the stupid idiots that have open wireless on their laptops so the network can stabalize.

So what you are asking for is for the University to not be allowed to run a stable wireless network.

This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band - anyone can push a signal there, making interference the norm. Of course if it was regulated, none of us could use the spectrum, and it would be useless.

I think a happy medium is for the University to provide a wireless network, and then ask its users to not build a second network inside of it - to reduce interference. After all, how would you like it if I started broadcasting an encrypted wireless network in such a way that you couldn't use your wireless connection - or it always interfered and you could never get a clean signal ?

Re:Where is your address again ???

I would like to put a huge 2.4Ghz blaster outside your residence so you can not use any of your 2.4Ghz equipment...

Jamming is illegal. In fact, using wireless network equipment at higher than stock power output is also illegal if the maker didn't certify it for the higher output. Running a non-stock antenna is illegal if the maker didn't get it certified with the gain for that type of antenna that you are using.

This is one of the worst problems with the use of an unregulated band

Unlicensed != unregulated. The band IS regulated, it is simply set aside to allow unlicenced use, as in you don't have to go in for certification and testing for the right to operate the equipment.

Re:It's their network...

I'm sure the students would be allowed to set up their own Wireless LAN that was not connected to the university network if they so chose.

No. They are specifically banning access points connected to outside providers, on the grounds of interference with the campus WiFi network.

This might be an interesting test case of FCC policy.

Re:It's their network...

nope, RTFA (first paragraph at least) ;-p

In this case, these devices are not being connected to the university network...

These access points are connecting to Comcast Cable Modems or to SBC DSL (or other providers) for their Internet access and then are being shared out to other residents within the same or adjacent suites.

So what? The problem is that it is preventing students from getting access to the campus network.

Some students in Waterview have been experiencing problems when trying to connect to the UTD Wireless Network. The reason has been found to be the result of over 100 wireless access points being set up by residents.

Someone already pointed out there are only so many channels available. If these 100 AP's are dominating the school's network, denying students access to the internal UDT network, I think they are correct to do something about it.

Re:Get over it

[mulls it over]

University regulations vs. Federal law ... Gee, which takes precedence? Sounds like a complicated decision!

Re:Get over it

Private schools do have stricter rules. However no university in the US is allowed to enforce policy that conflicts with federal law. Any student who wants to fight this should have an easy case. And most universities have a student legal service who will represent you for free (a lot of fine print in there though)

Is it open & shut? Or not quite open & shu

Well, clearly the University can't prevent the students from operating the wireless points just because they are the landlords. But can they do it as part of the student agreement? Can they do it in a housing contract? My questions are:

1) Can a landlord restrict use of a technology by explicitly putting it in the contract? The answer may seem obvious, but keep in mind that anyone can put up a DirecTV dish in their apartment no matter what the landlord says. And if they were allowed to, would landlords start restricting the use of WiFi as part of their contract or demand payement for it? I think that's what the FCC is trying to avoid.

2) Can the university bar the access points as a condition of being an enrolled student? If so, can they also ban other legal activities such as gambling, marching in protest or interracial dating? Not sure of the answer, but my guess is they can't.

I'm inclined to believe that the U. is without recourse here, at least one an affected student gets a lawyer. If they wanted to control the spectrum, they should've used a licensed band instead. I expect the policy won't last long.

Re:Is it open & shut? Or not quite open &

Open and shut.

The airwaves are held in the public trust and regulated by the FCC, and ONLY the FCC. No other body, including Universities, landlords or State Governments may tell you what you can and can't do with regard to public spectrum. There are execptions, the biggest being for safety. Note that the military probably is also exempt from this, though it is a tougher call.

If a landlord put "can kill you anytime during this agreement", would it be legal? Hell, no! There are certain rights that can't be given up just because you sign a piece of paper.

Arguments about landscaping, paint, hotplates or anything NOT REGULATED BY A GOVERNING BODY like the FCC are not relevant.

No, the University could not legally bar you from using an AP as a condition of being enrolled. This is still an attempt to indirectly regulate the public use of airwaves, which is the sole purvue of the FCC. They might try, but it should be found illegal if challenged. (IANAL, I just play on one /.)

Yes, the can ban other stuff not covered by reglating bodies.

Um....

While they have an understandable concern with ensuring the accessability of the school network, the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC.

The comment above from the original poster seems to be a bit on the daft side. Sure, it's unlicensed. However, they are providing access to the school network. They aren't infringing on any rights of students by protecting their own network.

If it were me, I'd have said "get rid of them, or you can pay our internal security guy $200/hr, with 2 hours minimum, plus cost of hardware, to come out and install our own wireless AP in your place"

It's stupid, uninformed, biased crap like the original comment above that makes people look more, and more stupid as time goes by.

Oh FFS

the rights of the students to use the unlicensed 2.4GHz spectrum in the privacy of their own apartment are obviously being regulated by a body that is not the FCC.

This whole story should be modded Score:-1, Overrated. A university apartment is *not* the student's property - it's *university* property and the university can impose regulations like this as they see fit. The FCC aren't going to care if a university prohibits the use of a non-University provided AP, there's no law stopping the University from forbidding the use of random APs brought in by students. If the student doesn't like the policy they are free to rent privately or go to another university. It's no different from a rule, say, forbidding students or staff from landing helicopters in the parking lot. That's not pre-empting the FAA which regulates airspace - it's simply the landowner (the university) imposing conditions of using their land.

Many apartment complexes have rules like you can't change your car's oil in their parking lot. This is really no different - if you don't like the rule, rent an apartment where the rules don't forbid 802.11b. It's entirely reasonable for the university to restrict 802.11b access points being plugged into *their* network too from a security point of view (non-secured AP + wardriver = nice big hole through any firewall they have).

oooh a fun thing to do....

go and grab a copy of this [blackalchemy.to]

and get you and a few friends to wander around campus with laptops running it.

it will completely hose the wifi police trying to find accesspoints cince the program broadcast's thousands of fake AP's.

great fun...

Re:And? So do lots of schools...

Actually, it is affecting the rights of the students to use a portion of the public spectrum. The FCC has ruled that only it can regulated access to that spectrum. Thus, the unversities are clealy violating student's rights.

However, I do think that any university has the right to keep its own network from being accessed via a WAP.

So, for example, let's assume a dorm with two students with one computer each. They have the right to set up file sharing between those computers via a WAP. The university has no right to stop that. However, the university has every right to restrict the sharing of its network.

I guess it all depends on how a university is banning WAPs. If its an all-out ban. Than the univeristy is violating the students' rights. However, if a university is only banning WAPs which connect to its own network, such a ban would be legal.

From a university IT guy's point of view

I absolutely agree with the university's decision. There's already a wireless network in place, and since it is overseen by the IT staff, I think it's safe to assume that somebody there has the responsibility of making the network secure and functional for all the students, staff, and faculty to use. Use that, for everybody's sake. Be neighborly.

Setting up a wireless node implies that the node connects to the external network. That means it uses university bandwidth, and that means it falls under the university's computer use guidelines (here: http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/tcs/general/policy.htm [utdallas.edu]) One guideline is that "infrastructure modifications are to be performed only by authorized departments." Adding a wireless node counts as infrastructure. I assume that a student doesn't count as an authorized department. You lose. Sorry.

If the node isn't on the LAN, perhaps that's a different story. But I'd hate to have to discover and figure out which ones were live and which ones were contained. It's a drain on resources, and a pain in the ass.

If you're doing something that requires you to have your own network, go get an account with a service provider or use the facilities provided by the school. Going that far out of your way would seem to indicate that a rogue wireless node probably is not the right solution anyway.

Rabid dogs

This post is probably going to get buried in the deluge of flames and arguments going on here, but I have to say it. I've recently noticed a trend in the Slashdot forums, rabid dog behaviour. Disgruntled people jumping in to attack whatever they feel is too restrictive. And its just not the forums, even the articles that our "esteemed editors" are approving seem to be of the same type - "Little fry vs big unyielding giant". It's not always wrong to enforce unyielding rules.

Could be Worse: NO Extension to the Network at NU

Northwestern University disallows any students, faculty, or staff from using ANY device that will extend the network: no routers, hubs, switches are allowed: wireless or wired. You can have a single CAT-5 cable running from your access port to your choice of wired periperals. They expect you to pony up $150-230 for the installation of each access port, plus additional monthly fees for service. This is significant when ~3 grad students mush share one office with ONE port, not to mention the computer labs.

They have a right and responsibility to maintain security and quality of the network, but I don't think micro-management is the solution for this, especially in academic environments. I could see the need for some corporate or government IT shops to ban the use of any outside machines from accessing their internal network, but Universities generally allow (or require) you to bring your own system(s). If we want to build a small cluser, we are supposed to either choose to have it disconnected from the network (inconvenient), or pony up what amounts to an additional 10% of equipment costs to have more ports provided.

The win-win solution should be that the University chooses not to support people who use routers, etc. If one computer behind the access port is spreading a worm or distributing copyrighted material, the whole access port should go down.

Fortunately, this rule is violated all the time, as I'm sure the UT rule will be violated. I'm glad that some choose to break it--during the peak of worm seasons, it has been the people who have a router with a built-in firewall that weren't infested.

I can understand why they do this ...

But could it be defended in a court of law if it ever got there? No. My university has the same same policy on wireless access points in residences [utulsa.edu]. I don't live in the residences, so I can't provide any personal experience on the matter, but I haven't heard anything about actual enforcement of this policy. The reason they do it (as stated in this article) is that it can interfere with the operation of the university's wireless network. I think they have the "policy" more to scare students out of installing APs than to actually prohibit it.

university backs down

If anyone is still following this stroy- the university backed down after eing told of the FCC rules.

http://www.utdmercury.com/news/2004/09/07/News/Tru ce.Declared.In.Wireless.War-715827.shtml [utdmercury.com]

UTD Information Resources officials said Sept. 10 they are reversing their previous decision to ban private wireless access points in Waterview Park after the discovery of an FCC ruling prohibiting such a move.

In a Sept. 8 letter distributed throughout Waterview Park, UTD threatened disciplinary action against residents running personal wireless access points. The move was intended to solve connectivity issues, said Doug Jackson, director of information resources.

However, a public notice dated June 24, 2004, from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) - which regulates all wireless signals in the United States - affirmed that consumers have the right to install and operate wireless access points.

The access points allow private DSL or cable modem Internet connections to be shared among multiple people within range of the access point.

The FCC notice also states, under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC holds exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio frequency interference issues.

"Based on what they (the FCC) say, I'm going to have to back away from the policy," said Bill Hargrove, executive director of information resources. He suspects the university could make an argument to support the decision, "but it's not worth the brouhaha."

The initial policy sparked a firestorm among affected students on websites including waterviewsux.com, utdmercury.com and slashdot.org, a national online discussion forum of technical issues.

Many students expressed anger over a portion of the distributed letter which speculated that users with private access points may be engaging "in activities ... such as peer-to-peer file sharing of copyrighted materials."

"It infuriated me, to see it insinuating that we were all pirates for choosing to use our own Internet connection. It made my blood boil pretty quick," said senior electrical engineering major Trent Jacobs.

Jacobs installed DSL in his Phase Two apartment several years ago before the wireless network existed and continues to use it so he can access his computer as a file server from off-campus, which cannot be done through the campus network. He also said he cannot access UTD's wireless network in some parts of his apartment.

IR is working on various solutions to improve the connection and the access point policy was seen as one method to combat the troubles the system has had, Jackson said.

"We went out and did some serious investigation and discovered a correlation between locations with multiple access points and the people with connectivity issues," Jackson said.

Once the IR department asked users to turn off their access points, the problems went away, he said.

Previously, only a few existed on campus but, "we went from a handful to hundreds this fall," Jackson said.

The connectivity problem stems from the fact that, if not told to do otherwise, many wireless cards will automatically connect to the strongest signal available. In Waterview's case, a network card might jump onto a neighbor's stronger access point instead of the possibly weaker UTD wireless network. The network swap can cause a "denial of service" conflict and a failure to connect to the Internet, Jackson said.

IR officials said they hoped shutting down personal access points would stop cards from arbitrarily swapping their signal source.

Other universities including George Washington, Georgia Tech and UT Austin presently ban private wireless networks, although only in university-owned residences.

Hargrove also took into account the fact UTD does not own all of the apartments.

"It (Waterview) falls into a gra