[Tfug] OT: Cox cable

[Tyler Kilian]

The problem is, we're not talking about willful interference.  Using 
your neighbor's wifi without permission isn't violating any laws 
regarding interference.  Cordless phones and wifi gear are intentional 
radiators and as long as they stay in-band, within power limits, and 
are transmitted through a legal antenna system, then we can pretty much 
ignore the interference argument.  Someone using a neighbor's wifi is 
using the gear from an, RF perspective, legally.

The legal argument I make, and that Harry and others make, has to do 
with the network aspect.  It's contention for IPs and data bandwidth, 
not radio bandwidth, that is the question.  It is a question about 
permission to use a network, not about federal laws granting you the 
right to broadcast in the ISM band.



On Jan 26, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Harry McGregor wrote:
>
>>> Since you would be gaining access w/o permission?
>>>
>> Who grants the permission and when.  Electronically, the DHCP server 
>> on
>> the router is granting permission (an address and a route) to enter 
>> the
>> network.
>
> To further Harry's point,
>
> The FCC says that any device in compliance with FCC standards can
> communicate in that band as long as it doesn't cause harmful
> interference with other licensed transmissions.
>
> Your cordless phone has permission, why not you?
>
> If you broadcast private data into the ether in a band designated for
> public use, it isn't illegal to snoop on that data. If you should
> transmit into that public bit of bandwidth, can you be held responsible
> of what another users gear might do?
>
> The law hasn't specifically addressed this, but consider the analogy of
> CB radio (which occupies a similarly public band). If you talk on you 
> CB
> and someone else's unit reacts unfavorably (say someone has left their
> radio at full volume shoved deep into their ear canal) could you (the
> wifi stealer / CB jock) be held accountable for (in this case deafening
> a man) using what is yours (a bit of the RF spectrum)? Obviously not...
>
> I worked in television/radio for a while, that gives me a pretty
> condescending attitude about publicly licensed spectrum... but my gut
> feeling is that under no circumstances should a radio operator running
> at legal power, in spectrum they are licensed to use be held legally
> accountable for the misconfiguration of a receiver.
>
> As for the operator of the receiver (really a transceiver...), you've
> got to do some CYA work sometimes to survive in this world... :)
>
> Cheers,
> Shawn
>
>
> - --
> Shawn Nock (OpenPGP: 0xB64200E1)
> Unix Systems Group; CCIT
> University of Arizona
> nock at email.arizona.edu
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFuplfbbRzLz6id34RAv9zAJ43I1USHQBsPTfu0WBw3/6nrnAK6QCggvWi
> owv0AlG6MHBDvu3mGGBPthQ=
> =e/8B
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>