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

Re:Interesting

[MadCow42]

You can passively block it, yes. There's nothing preventing you from building a Faraday cage around your home. You cannot ACTIVELY block it though (i.e. broadcast signals to intentionally interfere with it).

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

[chipschap]

I always find that interesting. The high-end hotels, charging hundreds of dollars per night, also charge outrageous fees such as $20 for 24 hours of internet access, two dollars for a local phone call, etc. The $50 motels give you all of that for no extra charge. The only explanation I can come up with is that the high rollers just expense it all and don't care about the cost.

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:I don't quite get this...

[beelsebob]

2.4GHz is a band in which all radio communications are authorised by the FCC as long as they stay within certain limits. One of those limits is that they don't interfere with other radio communications.

Re:Interesting

[wonkey_monkey]

It seems like jammers are bad because you can't control the range of their effectiveness.

Unless, of course, you put it in a Faraday cage.

Because TEH ENTERPRISE

[davide marney]

"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."

Why yes, the balance shifts in places like hotel conference centers, where many people use their own, personal hotspots precisely so they can better lock down confidential information. Please. This is a naked money grab. No more charging $thousands just for an Internet connection at a trade show.

Additional background

[twitnutttt]

A few things are worth noting about the original case. Marriott agreed in a plea deal to have improperly used "containment features" of FCC-licensed equipment to block Wi-Fi hotspots, and this was performed in conference facilities, not the hotel. https://www.fcc.gov/document/m...: "Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether Marriott 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. The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network."

Re:Additional background

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, it didn't jam the radio signal at all. The in-house wi-fi system simply issued packets under false pretenses, causing clients of nearby hotspots to lose connection to those hotspots. And every time they'd reconnect, the in-house wi-fi would do it again.

The real answer is get Marriott's in-house wi-fi to DDoS the ever-lovin' shit out of itself. There has to be a tipping point where the amount of disruptive attack packets they're sending basically floods their network. If you just rigged up a box full of AP's and clients that are set to maintain a high-capacity, high-availability connection to each other at all costs, wheeled it in like it was a cart of otherwise normal trade-show gear, then fired it up and let it catch the attention of that disrupt-all-competitors system, it would basically be a massive packet sink and would bring down the disruptive wi-fi system. And the important part is that it wouldn't be because of anything you did, but because of their shitty anti-competitive system. If the system didn't do that, it wouldn't have DDoS'ed itself and your cart of "wanking wi-fi" would do nothing beyond using some electricity.

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

[Shakrai]

There's nothing preventing you from building a Faraday cage around your home.

Not the best idea in the World for a hotel though. Killing your guest's cell phones is not liable to earn you many repeat customers and there's always the issue of First Responders needing working communications if there's ever a disaster or EMS call on your property....

Maybe the best solution is..

[QuietLagoon]

... for the hotel to charge more reasonable prices for the services they offer.

.
(did I say something funny?)

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.

Security and Performance?

[Jason Levine]

Looks like the hotels are claiming this is security and performance related.

Mobile hotspots can be used to “launch an attack against [a hotel] operator’s network or threaten its guests’ privacy” by gaining access to credit card numbers or other personal data, the hotel group said in its petition.

Maybe. If the mobile hotspot is called "Marriot Free Wi-Fi" but is operated by someone collecting information on anyone who connects. Then again, this could happen anywhere. This is why you don't connect to strange wi-fi networks. If you must connect to your hotel's wi-fi network, make sure you're connecting to the right one, not just one with the same name. The solution here is guest education (post signs about which Wi-Fi network to connect to, etc), not running a jammer to block everyone else's Wi-Fi signals.

Multiple outside Wi-Fi hotspots operating in a meeting room or convention center can hurt the performance of a hotel’s Wi-Fi network, the group said.

My off-the-shelf router handles multiple wi-fi networks just fine. I connect to my Wi-Fi and my performance isn't degraded because my neighbors run Wi-Fi networks of their own. A hotel should be able to invest in the infrastructure to provide their own Wi-Fi that will work regardless of whether or not I turn my phone's Wi-Fi hotspot on.

The "security" and "performance" claims are garbage. The real reason is that they want to be able to sell you their Wi-Fi service for a ton of cash and it's hard to do this when you can bring your own Wi-Fi network in with you. As gurps_npc pointed out, if we let them do this, how long until they block all cell phone signals because it interferes with the "security and performance" of their phone system?

Re:Interesting

[hankwang]

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.

Would you book a place that mentions complaints along the lines of "The bathroom is clean, but cell phones of any provider don't work here and the room phone is 2 dollars per minute?"

As for the employer: the travel offices of big companies who regularly have their people work on site at major customer or other offices will consider putting their employees somewhere else if they all complain about a particular hotel. The repeat customer is not the individual person, but the employer.

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.

Re: Fine

[HornWumpus]

Damn guys, typo.

Obviously I meant bring in snakes and bears.

Re:Interesting

[dgatwood]

That search for the lowest place without rats in the toilet is why they do bs like this... they have to compete on "price" and then once you're in make up their money on crap like charging you for internets. Works the same way with airlines, and that's why airlines suck now.

See, that's the opposite of my experience. I've never seen a $50-per-night hotel that didn't offer free Wi-Fi. It's the $300-and-up-per-night hotels that charge $15 a day for Wi-Fi. These same hotels also charge five bucks for a tiny little can of Pringles, four bucks for a soda, etc. Basically, they assume that anybody with enough money to stay in those hotels also can't be bothered to walk downstairs and across the street to the gas station to buy a soda.

And the more expensive the hotel, the more likely they are to use a complex Wi-Fi system that requires you to sign in through a captive portal, breaks in fascinating ways, and is horribly unreliable. The cheaper the hotel, the more likely they are to just toss up a halfway decent trunk line connected to a handful of off-the-shelf Wi-Fi base stations, and be done with it. Guess which one actually works reliably? (Hint: It isn't the complex, expensive systems used at the high-priced hotels.)

As for when hotels should be allowed to block Wi-Fi, the correct answer is "never". It is never acceptable to deliberately cause interference with properly licensed hardware operating in a normal manner. It is illegal, unethical, and any hotel doing so should get buried in fines so high that nobody else ever even thinks of committing such an act in the future. Now if those Wi-Fi hotspots are operating incorrectly and causing interference, it is within their right to use passive mechanisms to track them down and ask the customers to stop using them. However, the burden of proof falls on the hotel chain to prove that those hotspots are, in fact, not operating correctly, and that the problem is not caused by the hotel's Wi-Fi network being set up incorrectly (which it almost certainly always is in any of the sorts of hotels that would attempt such jamming).