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.