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.

Comments

To FCC

[Herkum01]

How are we supposed to make money without creating artificial scarcity to make people use our product?

Signed,

The Free Market

Re:To FCC

[Half-pint HAL]

Here in the UK, the problem big hotel chains have is that they sold off the wifi as a franchise, thinking it would be a marketing boon to have wifi, but without having to pay the installation costs themselves. But then wifi became heavily commoditised and al the smaller hotels set up their wifi themselves and ran it as a basic cost. By not stumping up for their own internal wifi, the big players backed themselves into a corner -- they weren't able to offer free wifi without buying out the contract and infrastructure (cabling, routers etc) from their partner, and why would a professional public wifi outfit give up one of their few sources of income? Particularly given the number of business travels who don't give two hoots about the price as they're just going to put it on expenses anyway...?

I suspect the situation is the same in the US, and the problem is that those pesky business travellers are now using tethered phones or portable hotspots. They're trying to re-establish an environment where the business travellers will just shrug their shoulders, pay the fee and expense it. Independent travellers and the sell-employed... well, they're just low-value collateral damage.

Re:I don't quite get this...

[spire3661]

Unlicensed doesnt mean without rules. Part of using that unlicensed spectrum is not interfering and accepting all interference.

In other words ...

[gstoddart]

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.

"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.

Re:Fine

[gurps_npc]

Why?

Their desire to make money? So what. I desire to make money to - can I block their services and force them to use mine?

By that desire, the Hotel has the right to block all Cellphone services, after all they put phones in your room (and charge you ridiculous amounts of money to make calls on them).

No.

Providing one service on a premise does not grant you a monopoly on all ancillary services provided on that premise.

Re:Fine

[ravenscar]

First, I'll say that, regardless of whether their activities are or aren't legal, I will not patronize a hotel that takes part in such an activity. I equate it to not allowing me to bring my own toothpaste so that I'm forced to purchase theirs at a dramatically inflated price. I'll vote with my dollars and go to a hotel that offers an environment more suited to my needs.

Second, the legal issues are interesting here. Yes, they do own their property and should have domain there, but (for numerous reasons) broadcast rights are limited - even on one's premises. Additionally, what they are doing is interfering with the operation of your own network. I think of it a little bit like a denial of service attack. You're running your network just fine and the hotel is actively launching an attack to prevent it from functioning. It seems like they could detect your network, locate you, and ask you to turn it off or leave. Actively interfering with its proper operation...I'm not so sure.

I don't really know how the courts would rule on these legal issues. I'll just say that It appears that there is more to consider than "It's their property so they can do what they want."

Re:Interesting

[Jason Levine]

It depends. Can you afford a team of lobbyists to wine and dine government officials? If so, you can do anything you want to do. If not, keep your head down and keep obeying the corporate-written laws.

Re:Interesting

[pla]

Killing your guest's cell phones is not liable to earn you many repeat customers

Why would the FCC grant the hotels permission to block WiFi, but not all RF?

The core "problem" here centers around lost revenue due to people inside the hotel using self-provided free or lower-cost alternatives to the insanely expensive crap internet access the hotels themselves provide. Why stop with internet? Just think how much more money the hotels could make by blocking phone service as well!

Repeat guests? C'mon, really? You shop for hotels the same way the rest of us do - Either your employer tells you "you will stay here", or you use a price search and pick the lowest place that doesn't mention rats in the toilet.

Re:Interesting

[ah.clem]

Repeat guests? C'mon, really? You shop for hotels the same way the rest of us do - Either your employer tells you "you will stay here", or you use a price search and pick the lowest place that doesn't mention rats in the toilet.

I think that's probably a bad assumption. Staying within the same chain (in the US, they all have a broad range of properties at various prices, low to high) is very much the same as renting your car from the same franchise, using the same airline for the miles and a CC like Amex or BofA that gives you double miles and other perks (but be aware of your fees). I suppose that if you only travel once or twice a year then grabbing the lowest price you can get seems like a good idea, but when you are on the road a lot, building air miles, hotel loyalty perks (Executive floor access, free food and drinks, reserved parking, free ramp parking, etc.), access to your chosen airlines lounge with free drinks and snacks rather than sitting in seats picking up everyone's colds, picking up free/reduced/upgraded rental cars when on your *own* vacation are all part of the strategy. On the road, you have to think the "long game"; if you start small, just a few trips a year, you are still building your accounts - just my experience.

they are presently trying to fight this with signs

[flappinbooger]

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.

Re:But customers should be told *at booking time*

[TheCarp]

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.