

Cjaiceman

MVM

join:2004-10-12

Castle Rock, WA (Software) pfSense

Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

Cjaiceman MVM Even amature radio operators were against Marriott quote: Please reject this request to jam customers Wi-Fi and Mi-Fi, because it would allow the petitioner to block the public access to legal, essential, secure, and reliable Internet services in order to charge for slower, less reliable, less secure service, thus giving the petitioner a monopoly on providing the lower-quality service.



2.4Ghz and 5Ghz frequencies used for WIFI, fall in the 13cm and 5cm Amateur Radio Service Bands. This request would allow malicious interference by the petitioners and as such violates FCC rules and should not be allowed.

It's not only the users that want their person hot-spots in the conference halls, even the HAMs are worried over it. Here is a direct quote of a comment I found on this story:



KennyWest

@rr.com KennyWest Anon Re: Even amature radio operators were against Marriott since when is WiFi an essential service? Internet itself is not an essential service.

desarollo

join:2011-10-01

Monroe, MI 2 recommendations desarollo Member Re: Even amature radio operators were against Marriott It isn't. But the person replying makes a valid point in that their interference is not limited to Part-15 devices, but potentially wifi access points operating under Part-95.



Ham op

@vnet-inc.com Ham op Anon Re: Even amature radio operators were against Marriott Part 95 isn't Amateur its CB, it's part 97



Suntop

Wolfrider Elf

Premium Member

join:2000-03-23

Fairfield, MT Netgear R6400

Netgear WNR1000

Netgear WNDR3400

Suntop Premium Member Re: Even amature radio operators were against Marriott ISM rules in part 15 apply for wifi but it is illegal to jam any frequency. This is why they was fined $600k many complaints mean multiple violations.

Greed never pays for example they may of got $100,000 but got fined $600,000 I ask Marriott, was it worth it?



battleop

join:2005-09-28

00000 1 recommendation battleop to Cjaiceman

Member to Cjaiceman

I think what Marriott was doing was underhanded and dishonest but throwing the public safety HAM card is a really big stretch.

mmay149q

Premium Member

join:2009-03-05

Dallas, TX 1 recommendation mmay149q Premium Member Ya know I really wish they'd just come out and admit that this move was all about protecting their pocket book, and NOT about protecting the customer... I mean honestly all these companies just think people are stupid..... It's so ridiculous.....



Camelot One

MVM

join:2001-11-21

Greenwood, IN Camelot One MVM Re: Ya know said by mmay149q: I mean honestly all these companies just think people are stupid..... The sad reality is that people ARE just that stupid. It takes an informed group, and a lot of effort, to get the general public to take an interest in things like this. And even when they do, most don't understand it. Companies roll the dice every day, gambling that they can get away with screwing people over a little more. And most of the time, that gamble pays off.

mmay149q

Premium Member

join:2009-03-05

Dallas, TX mmay149q Premium Member Re: Ya know I guess man, but how many people do you think actually realize they are getting screwed and either A don't care, or B are just so used to it they've become complacent with it and just don't say anything? Personally I'd think that more people fall into those 2 categories than they fall into the "I'm completely oblivious and don't know anything about what the company I'm doing business with is doing on my bill" those are the people I find stupid, or some people even just accept it and just go on about their daily lives and think it's an ok practice...



quetwo

That VoIP Guy

Premium Member

join:2004-09-04

East Lansing, MI quetwo Premium Member Hospitals, etc. Last I knew, Hospitals and other places were not actively blocking WiFi. I know in many hospitals they ask that patients and guest not USE their own hotspots (except in the guest lobbies), because they do affect some of the equipment, but I've never seen one block those ranges... I can't speak of DefCon, as I haven't been in many years, but I don't they would block them either -- although you'd be crazy to run a personal hotspot there.



KennyWest

@rr.com KennyWest Anon Re: Hospitals, etc. actually wifi does not affect hospitals and any equipment. Hospitals themselves have even partnered with AT&T/Wayport and many other services to deploy wireless across the industry. Many even have their own IT departments that operate their own with captive portal services.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 901.8 127.8

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt Premium Member Re: Hospitals, etc. said by KennyWest : actually wifi does not affect hospitals and any equipment. Hospitals themselves have even partnered with AT&T/Wayport and many other services to deploy wireless across the industry. Many even have their own IT departments that operate their own with captive portal services. Yes the last couple of hospitals I was in had their own WiFi network for guests that could be accessed throughout the entire hospital.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03 InvalidError to quetwo

Member to quetwo

Most of the really sensitive equipment is located in shielded examination rooms anyway so, unless you bring your wireless devices inside the room, there should be no problem either. Being surrounded by armed concrete, steel beams and metal foil/mesh hidden inside walls will scramble most RF signals without need for actual jamming.



I remember an article years ago where some people did a side by side comparison of how harmful EMI from wireless devices could be to medical equipment. They had a cordless phone, a GSM phone, an analog cell phone and one of the hospital's two-way pagers. None of the devices had any noticeable effect on the EKG machine when merely in the same room. When they put the devices right next to the machine, the phones caused some noise on the waveform but no lasting effect. The hospital pager on the other hand caused the EKG machine to crash and require a reboot. The least likely suspect caused the worst outcome.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: Hospitals, etc. My old company used to build med equipment. Part 15, 15,5 in the ISM bands need to be tolerant of this stuff, and really the only areas I see that still can be picky are in hospitals is radio areas, CT, and MRI.



Most hospitals updating their EMR are moving to mobile solutions and those by their nature are wifi.



Regular out/in patient and even most CC areas are OK these days.



quetwo

That VoIP Guy

Premium Member

join:2004-09-04

East Lansing, MI quetwo to InvalidError

Premium Member to InvalidError

I know when I was installing WiFi equipment at a few hospitals we didn't do much for the wings that had CT, MRI and some of the other RF imaging equipment.



Either way -- I've still never seen or heard of a hospital that blocks or jams WiFi in any capacity. And that is what I was getting at...

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03 InvalidError Member Re: Hospitals, etc. The point I was getting at is that hospital areas that contain really sensitive stuff are already shielded heavily enough as to make jamming unnecessary.



There is also the matter that the jamming equipment could easily be more harmful to hospital equipment than the devices being jammed in the first place.



The Beer

I Love It When A Plan Comes Together

Premium Member

join:2001-07-24

Lincoln, NE The Beer to quetwo

Premium Member to quetwo

As the IT Director of a Hospital I can tell you the last of my concern is someones personal WiFi device. My facility is blanketed in WiFi and we provide guest access from door to door. Anything to make a patient more comfortable is the goal of any modern Hospital and they will mitigate the security/interference risks transparently.



thedragonmas

Premium Member

join:2007-12-28

Albany, GA ·VOIPO

Netgear R6300 v2

ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to quetwo

Premium Member to quetwo

ironically my local hospital is running an unlicensed (from what i can tell) paging system with in 3Mhz of the noaa weather radio station for the area, darn things 3x the power of the noaa signal..... wonder if the FCC will ever do anything about that....



clemson

@sbcglobal.net clemson to quetwo

Anon to quetwo

The same applies to airlines "no wireless devices policy". I'm sure there are tons on people violating that policy during the entire flight with no safety or RF interference issues to report.



JimThePCGuy

Formerly known as schja01.

MVM

join:2000-04-27

Morton Grove, IL ZyXEL USG 50

Asus RT-AC66

ARRIS SB6183

JimThePCGuy MVM Besides lining their pockets I think part of this was to thwart people with their own hotspots from running with the same SSID as Marriot uses for whatever reason.

If I was a Marriot customer I would want some assurance the if I connect to ssid "marrioruser" I really am connecting to a Marriot hotspot and not some hacker in the next room running a rogue hotspot using "marrioruser" and capturing my wireless traffic.



camper

just visiting this planet

Premium Member

join:2010-03-21

Bethel, CT camper Premium Member Re: Besides lining their pockets said by JimThePCGuy: ...If I was a Marriot customer I would want some assurance the if I connect to ssid "marrioruser" I really am connecting to a Marriot hotspot...

SSL/TLS will solve that issue.



The same concern was raised when Comcast started the xfinitywifi SSIDs. SSL/TLS will solve that issue.The same concern was raised when Comcast started the xfinitywifi SSIDs.



RARPSL

join:1999-12-08

Suffern, NY RARPSL Member Re: Besides lining their pockets said by camper: said by JimThePCGuy: ...If I was a Marriot customer I would want some assurance the if I connect to ssid "marrioruser" I really am connecting to a Marriot hotspot...

SSL/TLS will solve that issue.



The same concern was raised when Comcast started the xfinitywifi SSIDs. SSL/TLS will solve that issue.The same concern was raised when Comcast started the xfinitywifi SSIDs. If I attempt a SSL/TLS session to a fake hotspot, I assume that it would not return the needed certificate that the real Marriot hot spot would so this would seem to be a viable solution.



Craig

@comcastbusiness.net Craig to JimThePCGuy

Anon to JimThePCGuy

I don't think this is what's happening. I think the real problem is the spectrum is so limited that the interference is horrible when everyone decides to run their own WiFi. When you go to a technology conference, there are so many people in such a small space that the WiFi provided by the conference center gets rendered unusable due to all of the personal hotspots.



I'm sure most of the people here have run a wireless router or something at home that can manage their 10 devices, but when you get into the enterprise world managing these things can be a nightmare. Sadly, the solution to not being able to use the conference center WiFi is to either have all of the personal hotspots turned off or pull out your own. Then, the people that rented the conference center want a refund because the WiFi didn't work.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: Besides lining their pockets +1. This is the major beef. They are providing a paid service using off the shelf solutions where CoS can't be guaranteed. So rather than using equipment that would actually provide CoS (which would cost more) their response is to provide a MIIM attack to people that rightly can use their equipment.



I have little sympathy for this. Marriott should either hardwire or provide wireless cell access if they want to provide robust service. We have gotten quite lazy in this wifi world in business services.



amarryat

Verizon FiOS

join:2005-05-02

Marshfield, MA amarryat Member I thought this was illegal anyway Isn't tampering with radio signals illegal anyway? Which is why it's not illegal to have a radar detector, but it is illegal to jam police radar?

ptb42

join:2002-09-30

USA ptb42 Member Re: I thought this was illegal anyway said by amarryat: Isn't tampering with radio signals illegal anyway? Intentional interference is illegal. That's why Marriott paid a $600,000 fine.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: I thought this was illegal anyway They were not interfering w/ the signal, this was a MIIM attack.



That would have been much worse.

ptb42

join:2002-09-30

USA 1 recommendation ptb42 Member Re: I thought this was illegal anyway said by elefante72: They were not interfering w/ the signal, this was a MIIM attack.



In this and any other context, that is considered "jamming", or intentional interference. Marriott was transmitting a DEAUTH packet to at least one side of the connection between a user's hotspot and client device, masquerading as the other (by spoofing a MAC address).In this and any other context, that is considered "jamming", or intentional interference.



aaronwt

Premium Member

join:2004-11-07

Woodbridge, VA 901.8 127.8

Asus RT-N56U

Asus RT-ACRH13

aaronwt to amarryat

Premium Member to amarryat

said by amarryat: Isn't tampering with radio signals illegal anyway? Which is why it's not illegal to have a radar detector, but it is illegal to jam police radar? It's illegal here in Virginia to have a Radar Detector.