Slashdot Mirror
Hotel Group Asks FCC For Permission To Block Some Outside Wi-Fi
alphadogg writes The FCC will soon decide whether to lay down rules regarding hotels' ability to block personal Wi-Fi hotspots inside their buildings, a practice that recently earned Marriott International a $600,000 fine. Back in August, Marriott, business partner Ryman Hospitality Properties and trade group the American Hotel and Lodging Association asked the FCC to clarify when hotels can block outside Wi-Fi hotspots in order to protect their internal Wi-Fi services.
From elsewhere in the article: During the comment period, several groups called for the agency to deny the hotel group’s petition.
The FCC made clear in October that blocking outside Wi-Fi hotspots is illegal, Google’s lawyers wrote in a comment. “While Google recognizes the importance of leaving operators flexibility to manage their own networks, this does not include intentionally blocking access to other commission-authorized networks, particularly where the purpose or effect of that interference is to drive traffic to the interfering operator’s own network,” they wrote.
So can I block all wireless signals in my home now, including those bleeding through from Comcast free wifi (via the Neighbors connection)?
I think they should be allowed to do it on their premises.
However they should be required to post signs in conspicuous places that alert the user to the blocking "ACHTUNG! We block personal wifi here, fetch your wallet bitch!" as well as on sales literature.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
How are we supposed to make money without creating artificial scarcity to make people use our product?
Signed,
The Free Market
Unlicensed doesnt mean without rules. Part of using that unlicensed spectrum is not interfering and accepting all interference.
Good-bye
"We need rent seeking and the ability to limit outside competition so we can maximize profits."
Sorry, but this is just corporate assholes asking to be treated as special.
And, of course, government will hand it right over to them, because all politicians worship at the altar of corporate profits being entrenched into law. Even the ones who claim to be in favor of free markets.
The only free market is how much the fucking lobbyists pay to buy laws. Because that avoids public scrutiny.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"in order to protect their internal Wi-Fi services."
I'm soooo sure that's the real reason and it has nothing to do with money.
Aside from the hotels, fuck Cisco on this one:
"The hotel group found support from Cisco Systems. “Unlicensed spectrum generally should be open and available to all who wish to make use of it, but access to unlicensed spectrum resources can and should be balanced against the need to protect networks, data and devices from security threats and potentially other limited network management concerns,” Mary Brown, Cisco’s director of government affairs, wrote.
While personal hotspots should be allowed in public places, the “balance shifts in enterprise locations, where many entities use their Wi-Fi networks to convey company confidential information [and] trade secrets,” she added."
So, because some people might not be competent enough to set up a network where you can't spoof an AP just by using a similar name (because 802.11x is totally exotic and stuff) we should just trash the ISM band in order to protect trade secrets and the children. I wonder if Cisco happens to sell a nifty WLAN management console that would let me identify those 'rogue' APs and knock them out, by any chance?
No, entrenching the right for corporations to act like assholes to maximize their profits means you live in an oligarchy.
Which is far worse than living in a socialist state.
You sure as hell don't live in the free market state most Americans seem to believe in either.
Basically they want an exemption from FCC regulations in order to get customer lock in. They want to be able to block competing services so customers have no choice but to pay them money.
There's a huge difference between wanting to have their own service, and wanting the ability to block someone else's.
But, hey, enjoy your corporate douchebag overlords.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I was at a trade show a week ago at a "high end" hotel in downtown Chicago. They had signs up saying to NOT put up your own access points because the hotel wanted to guarantee that the guests had the best possible internet experience.
Yerp.
Had nothing at ALL to do with their $10 per day up to $35 per 8 hour period wifi access plans.
The captive portal was BROKEN, it gave the user the chance to bill the charge to the room and create a login for their "stay." The logins never worked and every few minutes it would forget the mac address and I'd have to recommit to charge my room. It's one thing to charge people for access, but to have a broken mechanism for charging is just insult to injury. Access for ME was supposedly free because I was an "exhibitor" but still, it was ridiculous.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
That sounds fine to me.
Also I would like to mention.... the reality is they can already require their guests to agree as a condition of their stay that they will not use external networks. They can already buy equipment to detect and find devices using wifi..... seems they can already handle this by hunting down their own guests and charging them fines and or kicking them out.
Thing is, they know that if they start doing that, they are going to piss off customers. What they really want is stuff to just "not work" so it doesn't look like it is their fault. They don't want you to really know that it is them doing it; they want their customer to get frustrated with other options and grudgingly use their service instead..,..because then they are not the bad guy, or at least....not openly.
What this really is, is them wanting the government to sanction their underhanded activity because doing what they want out in the open is going to look bad.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"