A couple of weeks ago, the Federal Communications Commission fined the Marriott hotel chain $600,000, charging that they “…intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of Section 333 of the Communications Act.” In plainer English, Marriott was sending signals that disabled the cellular mobile hotspots that people at the conference facility were trying to set up for use by their group, thus getting around paying steep fees charged by Marriott for using their in-house Wi-Fi. (If you’re curious about how steep these fees can be, OPLIN just paid the Greater Columbus Convention Center $10,000 for Wi-Fi access for OLC Convention attendees last week.) While most media reported this story as an example of a hotel getting caught being greedy, the FCC’s action raised ticklish questions for some technicians responsible for maintaining Wi-Fi networks.
- Marriott fined $600,000 by FCC for blocking guests’ Wi-Fi (CNN | Katia Hetter) “Marriott issued the following statement Friday afternoon defending its actions: ‘Marriott has a strong interest in ensuring that when our guests use our Wi-Fi service, they will be protected from rogue wireless hot spots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft,’ the statement said. ‘Like many other institutions and companies in a wide variety of industries, including hospitals and universities, the Gaylord Opryland protected its Wi-Fi network by using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers.’”
- Understanding FCC decision regarding Wi-Fi containment at Marriott (Mojo Wireless | Hemant Chaskar) “In this case, it seems FCC reached the conclusion that rogue containment was used in a manner to disrupt rightful communications of users even though they did not pose security threat to the Marriott network. I think everyone would agree with the FCC position here. Some may bring up the hotel Wi-Fi performance degradation issue due to personal hot spots, but Wi-Fi operates in the public spectrum and does not guarantee performance in the first place.”
- Prudence in the wake of the FCC’s ruling on Marriott jamming WiFi (IT Connection | Mike Fratto) “On the other hand, Marriott – and any organization running a WiFi network – has good reason to monitor its airspace in order to provide good service. If you look at the airspace at any public venue, it is a mess of access points overlapping channels and degrading WiFi access for everyone, and there is no way for a venue owner to provide good service in that environment. However, protecting unwitting guests from ‘insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft’ is a specious argument and not one you should make unless you have tangible proof.”
- FCC-Marriott WiFi blocking fine opens Pandora’s box (Network Computing | Lee Badman) “Many of us have bought into the fact that WLAN can be as good and secure as Ethernet, and the WLAN industry says we shouldn’t hesitate to include WiFi in our critical infrastructures. But we need the FCC to provide some clarity. Even if it’s not OK to ‘jam’ in whatever form that may take, it ought to be OK to have ‘Thou shalt not use’ policies for our own spaces. The FCC didn’t say that’s acceptable, but it really needs to at this point.”
Articles from Ohio Web Library:
- Hotspot: Share your phone’s mobile data with other devices. (Time.com, 2/6/2014, p1 | Jared Newman)
- It that a hot spot in your pocket? (Entrepreneur, April 2011, p42 | Rich Karpinski)
- Managing mobile hotspots. (eWeek, 3/21/2011, p26 | Cameron Sturdevant)
