I would think this would not sit very well with the providers. They've likely installed equip nearby to the hotel & conv.ctr in order to adequately handle the concentration of devices at that location. True?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Michael O Holstein < michael.holst...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > legality is questionable insofar as "this device must not cause harmful > interference" of PartB > but how it works is by sending DEAUTH packets with spoofed MAC addresses > "rouge AP" response on Cisco/Aruba works like this. > > Regards, > > Michael Holstein > Cleveland State University > ________________________________________ > From: NANOG <nanog-boun...@nanog.org> on behalf of David Hubbard < > dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 4:06 PM > To: NANOG > Subject: Marriott wifi blocking > > Saw this article: > > http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/ > > The interesting part: > > 'A federal investigation of the Gaylord Opryland Resort and > Convention Center in Nashville found that Marriott employees > had used "containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system" > at the hotel to prevent people from accessing their own > personal Wi-Fi networks.' > > I'm aware of how the illegal wifi blocking devices work, but > any idea what legal hardware they were using to effectively > keep their own wifi available but render everyone else's > inaccessible? > > David > -- Greg Moberg, Director, NerveCenter Engineering LogMatrix, Inc | http://www.logmatrix.com/ | CommunityForum <http://community.logmatrix.com/LogMatrix/> | Blog <http://www.logmatrix.com/Blog> Telephone: +1 (800)892-3646 <http://www.logmatrix.com> <http://www.twitter.com/NerveCenter> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/logmatrix?trk=ppro_cprof> <https://www.facebook.com/Logmatrix?sk=page_insights> <http://www.youtube.com/user/logmatrixchannel>
