The arguments being made here are absurd.<p>There's a huge difference between "causing interference to other signals" or "managing [a hotel's] network in order to provide a secure and reliable Wi-Fi service," and <i>willfully sending malicious packets designed to disable other wireless networks.</i> The latter is buried in the text, but is what they are asking for permission to do. It's somewhat unclear how such behavior is an FCC interference issue rather than a criminal matter.<p>It's amazing that this is compared to "a homeowner using her cordless telephone that interferes with a neighbor's phone" and "a housewife whose use of a baby monitor device causes interference to a neighbor's garage door opener."<p>It does lead to an interesting question: if seeing a wireless network, which an automated system will <i>not</i> be able to confirm is actually on their property (consider the plight of nearby homes and businesses!), constitutes a threat that can be attacked, is it allowable for an adjoining property owner, or a guest with a wireless network, to see the hotel's network as a threat, and attack it in the same way?<p>The "alternatives" that hotels might be forced to implement if hotels aren't allowed to attack other networks are similarly entertaining:<p>>For example, a hotel could decide to prohibit guests from bringing Part 15 devices on the hotel's property. Alternatively, a hotel could limit the areas where Part 15 devices may be used, for example, by restricting their use to guest rooms or common areas.<p>I would love to see any hotel attempt this, even for one day.