Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Marriot Back-Pedals On Wireless Blocking

Posted by timothy on from the customer-is-right-if-we-get-caught dept.

gurps_npc writes "Marriot Hotels had been illegally blocking Wifi hotspots in Nashville. They thought they owned the airwaves inside their hotel and wanted to charge guests for using them. They claimed to be 'surprised' they were breaking the law. Other hotels have complained to the FCC, asking for permission to do it legally. The FCC had fined Marriot $600,000 for their actions, among other things. They have stopped their illegal blockage, in part because of public backlash and in part because the government told them they were criminals.

9 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. How could they? by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They thought they owned the airwaves inside their hotel and wanted to charge guests for using them

    How uneducated do you have to be on the topic to believe this? Me? I'm betting some corporate lawyer said they could probably get away with it.

    If they sincerely believed they owned those airwaves and could do this, they utterly failed to ask anybody who knew anything about it. That level of ignorance is either epic, or willful.

    I think this is more likely a case of them knowing damned well they weren't supposed to, hoping they'd get away with it, and now pretending like it was all an honest mistake. At some point, someone said "ummm, guys, we can't legally do that" and was told to STFU.

    I'm glad this got smacked down. And I wonder if movie theaters and other venues won't get caught doing the same thing.

    It's about time corporations got reminded they aren't the ones defining what's legal and what isn't.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:How could they? by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The new "anything is legal if no one notices" plan in corporate America.

    2. Re:How could they? by mrbene · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How uneducated do you have to be on the topic to believe this? Me? I'm betting some corporate lawyer said they could probably get away with it.

      I don't think that running a hotel requires any knowledge about spectrum licensing. The move to block was probably motivated on two fronts:

      1. Potential for additional profit
      2. Support requests from guests having problems with their personal hotspots

      Also, when it comes down to it, once they'd made the initial plans to roll out blocking, the best possible path forward (legally, at least) would be to operate as if you fully thought it was legal, and to not document any dissent.

      "Innocent mistake" is a much more defensible position than "informed infringement."

    3. Re:How could they? by gameboyhippo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this could be a legitimate mistake. Who owns the radio waves inside one's property is a bit more abstract than it may seem. For example, if I blocked all radio waves from inside my residence without affecting people outside my residence, am I breaking the law? My gut would tell me no. So it would make sense that one could expand that belief to their privately owned hotel.

      And this isn't the only example of a non-intuitive confusing law. For example, let's say you want to collect rainwater to water your garden and implement a greywater system in your home, you may be breaking the law. Doesn't seem intuitive at first unless you work for the city which could be negatively affected by rainwater collection.

      So I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Bad customer service? Yes. Intuitively illegal? Not so much.

    4. Re:How could they? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this could be a legitimate mistake.

      So, imagine you're a multi-billion dollar corporation with business interests in many countries. Failure to investigate the legality of this is a risk to shareholders.

      If the board of a company with a market cap of over $20 billion dollars is too stupid to find out if this plan is legal ... they're idiots.

      Because those people don't do much without checking with the lawyers to make sure their asses are covered.

      So, no, I'm not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to them. I believe someone knew this to be illegal, and decided to do it anyway -- possibly with the hope that someone would side with them.

      I'm not prepared to cut them any slack. It's their damned job to understand this stuff if they're going to implement it as policy.

      If ignorance of the law is no defense for me, then I sure as fuck expect a multi-national company to be held to the same, if not higher, standard.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:How could they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oddly enough, there are laws that prohibit such clubs. They're called anti-prostitution clubs, and such locations are referred to as brothels.

      Just like there are laws that prohibit actively jamming devices, which is what Marriott was doing. The only way to passively jam a wireless signal is to build a Faraday cage around the place, which is totally fucking stupid. Also questionably legal, since you'd be cutting off cell service and emergency response GPS locators, which would inevitably lead to lawsuits if someone slipped in the shower or some shit and couldn't call 911 from their cell phone.

  2. Re:seemed predictable. by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even assuming that they were right, if they "Own" the air space in the hotel, they sublet that same airspace to me in my room so interfearing with my cell phone hotspot is still wrong.

  3. Re:the 'costanza defense' by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dunno if we "pray" to them - it's just that most folks are tech-ignorant and are preyed upon because of that. I noticed crap like TFA first-hand.

    I was at a Marriott in ATL (okay, Alpharetta) in late 2013, discovered crap like this (yet they were more than happy to charge $14.99/day for access to their SSID), and promptly decided to change hotels after the 2nd day (I was too busy to swing it on day one). I spent the rest of the week (and my employer's money) elsewhere. I specifically mentioned the wifi shenanigans as a reason why I changed rooms (especially since the La Quinta down the street was far less expensive, the hotspot worked perfectly, and atop that, their wifi was free of charge.) Reimbursement was not a problem after I explained why, and the company I worked for at the time decided to take their future business elsewhere (as a tech company, network access ranks as pretty damned important...)

    Vote with your dollars, and even if traveling on business, be damned certain that your employer is aware of why you're doing so, which translates into less money for the offenders. It won't be fast, it won't be easy, and inertia allows asshat corporations to continue their asshattery for awhile, but if the issue is important and broadcast widely enough, withholding patronage does indeed work.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  4. Re:Actually I was quite happy about them doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " Why should I not like this."

    Typical American. It's all about what you like, and that's how society should mold itself... based on your likes and dislikes and your need for "peace of mind".

    "Lan pary people too cheap to pay for the connection can probably figure a workaround anyhow."

    Why should I have to figure out a workaround (which, unlike you, I don't blissfully pretend exists) to be allowed to use the airwaves as the FCC has mandated I be allowed to? Why does your need for "peace of mind" trump my legal right? What an asshole.