Given the nature of wifi signals, how will they make sure that they don’t have any effect on open wifi networks belonging to neighbouring businesses?
2 Likes
I think you are missing the point. A mobile wi-fi router (hot spot) is not the same as a fixed wifi router. The latest phones allow people to create mobile hot spots and if numerous of them are created in the same room, you get internet congestion. This is because there are limited channels. In a conference of 100 people, you can have issues with other wireless equipment including printers, music, and video conferencing disrupted by such mi-fi router. To make matters worse, if some one creates a hot spot on their phone and forgets it, it would be difficult to locate the individual person to shut it off. Anyone with a fixed wi-fi router should be able to block and purge access that is on their own property but the homeowner may not need to do so because the structure of the home will limit interference.
This represents multiple misunderstandings, though in the nature of things, you’ll probably tell me that you’ve been managing Wi-Fi in enterprise situations for decades. I’ve got 13+ years of Wi-Fi under my belt in a variety of writing, research, testing, and deployment, so here goes.
-
There are a reasonable number of channels. Modern phones that create personal hotspots use from 11 to 34 channels. Even with 100 people streaming video, you’re divvying up 50 to 150 Mbps per channel in varying ways. It’s highly doable.
-
100 hotspots. Even if all the hotspots are on, they’re not all talking at once unless people are doing something weird. Many hotspot users, myself included, tether via USB to a phone to avoid Wi-Fi issues in the first place. The Wi-Fi part is only consuming any real bandwidth when a network connection is in use. Most turn themselves off entirely when there’s no connection for a few minutes.
-
100 people. People are highly absorptive of Wi-Fi. Personal hotspots use very little power. The potential for signals causing disruption is thus lower as well.
-
Block and purge. Nope, there’s zero regulatory framework for that for unlicensed spectrum. If you want guaranteed spectrum access, license it. If you use unlicensed bands and devices, you have no special rights under the current regulatory regime.
There’s more, too, but this is sufficient.
4 Likes
Do you not understand the dangers? WiFi eats babies!!!
via: Wellington Grey (the link to his site is dead)
3 Likes
“unless people are doing something weird.”
And there in rests the problem. Between those who are sophisticated enough to understand the technology to those who barely can figure out how to type, there is wide variation of understanding how to use such technology. Some of the software stuff like MMOG can really tie things down. There are also people who drift around looking for unsecure networks to use. In addition, not only do the new smartphones have hot spot ability, but they also have more room to run hacker programs designed to break wi-fi networks.
My gripe is the owner of a stationary wi-fi should have the “right-of-way” when confronted with mi-fi on their own property. If this goes against hotels, you will find them will put structural obstacles and contractual obstacles to block all “unlicensed” bands. As for further technological development, people will stop using technology using unlicensed bands because there is no way to effectively protect the technology from being used incorrectly.
Welcome new poster! We hope you stick around to become a real member in our community, and that your interest in life extends beyond this single topic.
2 Likes
Can we get a direct link to file a comment? I think the filing number is 14-27, but I want to be sure I am submitting my comment to the proper place. Enough of them will go missing without my incompetence getting in the way.
If A: The speed, security, or quality of service from hotel WiFi was any good to begin with, or
B: It was reasonably priced,
I could see them wanting to protect it. They don’t have a right to, but I could see the motivation.
But, as long as they want to gouge customers for crappy, slow, insecure, throttled/shaped connections, I really have no sympathy for them at all.
3 Likes
In other news: Hyatt to offer free wifi in all rooms
Hyatt is following whom? http://news.marriott.com/2014/10/free-wi-fi-offered-for-marriott-rewards-members-worldwide.html
Funny because the Hyatt post I linked to says free for everyone.
I’m sorry, but what you’re saying really makes little sense. Someone playing an MMOG doesn’t magically overwhelm all the bandwidth of the Wi-Fi channel they’re using. Hotel sand other venues using Wi-Fi monitoring software are also using packet-shaping and throttling, which is perfectly legal and prevents someone from swamping the Internet link.
Eh, this has been possible with a laptop and other small equipment for years. There’s zero reason that attackers will be deterred by a technique that they can easily defeat (by ignoring deauth packets).
Do you work for Marriott? They used “mi-fi,” also, which is not a term of art. It’s a brand name.
As I note in the article, they can’t block Wi-Fi, but they can require exhibitors and meeting-room rentals don’t employ Wi-Fi hotspots. (More or less impossible for guests.) That can be in the contract, and it’s enforceable if they can figure out who is doing it. What they can’t do is pollute the Wi-Fi environment through logical intervention.
The tools already exist for what they need, unless what they’re doing is trying to maximize room revenue by circumventing FCC policy.
If I had a nickel for everyone who said that in the last 14 years! Really, the people are say that are uniformly attempting to stop other people’s innovative use of Wi-Fi, which all sorts out, because it only works better today, even in crowded RF environments.
6 Likes
In the article, where it says Submit a Comment — click that, takes you the to docket, there’s a link there to submit.
1 Like
It’s not sympathy. They agreed to pay a fine because they violated FCC policy.
1 Like
How very generous of them to agree to pay the fine they were court-ordered to pay.
1 Like
To the first point, the problem is the technology has come down in price and the many with mobile devices are looking for any free wi-fi they can get because they do not want to pay for a data plan. This is what crowds and congests much of the free wi-fi access. Hotels will eventually offer it but it will be tiered, but people will end up slowly ignoring free wi-fi for the same reasons many businesses have free wi-fi but don’t advertise. It is a conversion process where people don’t want to bother with it except to look up a place to eat.
My use of the word mi-fi is to simply define mobile vs stationary routers.
As for the last point, it is not possible to enforce it by mere contract. The end result, you will get a convention or meeting hall where you can’t get any signal on your cell phone and even radio. It is known as a Faraday cage.
It didn’t seem clear, but it is a direct link to the right place for submission. Thanks!
Edit: I’ve written my comment and attempted to submit a filing, but the page just clears my input. It shouldn’t be this difficult.
Re-edit: I figured it out. The file I submit must have an extension, in this case, .txt works.
1 Like
I’d like the FCC to shut down Marriot’s network while I’m in their hotel… it interferes with my inter webbing. They could ostensibly pay me for the right to access the web in my presence however.
1 Like
Well, yeah, there’s that. Just tell everyone that they operate on the same frequency as a microwave oven. (true, for the 2.4 GHz ISM band)
1 Like
Can you please explain why you think that Marriott’s submission is incorrect about the 2.4GHz range being limited to 3 usable channels for the highest traffic density?
Everything I’ve ever learned says that using channels outside 1,6, or 11 (in the U.S. at least) causes interference that the wireless systems can’t handle, because they only communicate with other transmitters on the same channel.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/technology/channel/deployment/guide/Channel.html
Also, the 5GHz restrictions are nearly correct as they state them… Your arguments are based on 20GHz as you clearly state, where theirs are based on 40GHz as they clearly state. “Nearly” correct, because in a lot of instances there are more than 4 40GHz channels available, but they aren’t usable everywhere in the US.
Since this is an FCC submission, I think it is fair to discuss it in terms of channel availability in the US.
