|
|
|
|
|
|
by derobert
3671 days ago
|
|
|
Where did you come up with layer 1 v. layer two mattering at all? If you look at the FCC consent decree[1], e.g., §II "Background", ℙ2—"No person shall willfully or
maliciously interfere with or cause interference…". There isn't anything about the particular method used mattering. Presumably, if you set up a pile of 2.4GHz baby monitors because you wanted to take out your neighbor's WiFi, that'd be illegal. So too would the device in the article. (IANAL, and I certainly haven't tried to read all the code & regulations). That really looks to be essentially "don't be a jerk", codified. If you want to use the spectrum to communicate [within all the limits set by the rules], go ahead. When a bunch of people all want to, it may not work as well. But if you want to use the spectrum to stop others from communicating—stop being a jerk. (You may, of course, substitute stronger words for "jerk"). [1]: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1444A1.p... |
|
|
I think a big part of it is the corporate entity involved and money involved - they were jamming peoples' HSPA+/LTE-to-wifi hotspots because they wanted to sell $600/day internet service for trade shows and conferences...
It's not that the FCC delineated between layer 1 and 2 in their decree, it's the difference that they intentionally messed with wifi at the wifi-protocol level by issuing deauths, not by being noisy... for example if the hotel had a hundred wifi security cameras, baby monitors and other random part 15 devices in use in their facility, effectively preventing anyone from using wifi because the spectrum was too full of shit, that wouldn't be "jamming", even though it would have the same effect.