Slashdot Mirror
FCC Fines Smart City $750K For Blocking Wi-Fi
schwit1 writes: FCC's Enforcement Bureau today announced a $750,000 settlement with Smart City Holdings, LLC for blocking consumers' Wi-Fi at various convention centers around the United States. Smart City, an Internet and telecommunications provider for conventions, meeting centers, and hotels, had been blocking personal mobile 'hotspots' that were being used by convention visitors and exhibitors who used their own data plans rather than paying Smart City substantial fees to use the company's Wi-Fi service.
If the fine isn't substantially more than the profit they made from blocking wifi, there is no incentive to stop the practice. The fine will be just another cost of doing business.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Seems the fine doesn't fit the crime.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Then they would get hit with the fine again and again until they quit it. It is just like speeding. You get a ticket today for speeding, you are not covered, if you speed again you can get a ticket again right away.
And people are going to be watching this company very closely now.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
More to the point, if you keep getting fined for the same offenses, those fines are going to increase, and stronger measures may eventually be used to, if not assure compliance, then so damage the company that compliance ceases to be an issue.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Smart City not so smart. And proving once again that acting like a dick is not a best practice.
RTFA:
"As part of the settlement, Smart City will cease its Wi-Fi blocking activities"
They signed a court order, if they keep doing it, it's contempt of court this time.
How much of that $750,000 fine goes to the people who had to pay $80/day for Internet service because they couldn't use their WiFi hotspot?
I'm going to guess the answer is $0
They can have all of the $80 back after they file a $100 fee
None of it, it'll all go into the general fund and within nanoseconds it'll disappear to pay for F-35 parts.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The day I see a corporation behind bars is the day they'll start to listen. Now, if you were to "jail" them by requiring a halt of all stock trades, impound all assets, suspend all business operations, and revoke the corporate status and protection for all holdings and subsidiaries for the length of the jail term. That would get people's attention.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Every single person that attended their events should join a class action law suit.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The argument can be raised that it is their hotel, and their rules.
If I went to a pub and brought my own booze, I'd be tossed out. Same rule can be argued to apply with Wi-Fi.
Only if you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. Wireless transmissions take place on publicly owned airwaves. Jamming these airwaves is theft of publicly owned bandwidth.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Jamming is wilful obstruction of communications. It's criminal rather than civil.
Bruce Perens.
Remember, the primary purpose of justice in the USA is revenge (a.k.a. "retribution"), not restoration.
yes, in other countries they bring back murder victims from the dead
If you read the ARS article on this, you would see that:
"In responses to FCC investigators, Smart City later revealed it "automatically transmitted deauthentication frames to prevent Wi-Fi users whose devices produced a received signal strength above a present power level at Smart City access points from establishing or maintaining a Wi-Fi network independent of Smart City's network," according to a consent decree filed in the case."
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Interesting, so a savvy user could circumvent this nonsense by tethering their hotspot (or smartphone) via USB or Bluetooth.
grep -iw skynet
Interesting, so a savvy user could circumvent this nonsense by tethering their hotspot (or smartphone) via USB or Bluetooth.
Only if you just needed a WAN connection on a single machine. If you wanted to create a WLAN as a presenter, you were SOL.
The better scenario here would be if you EM insulated ( Faraday cage) your establishment. But then went on to offer your own wifi...
They don't jam the signals (in the sense of broadcasting noise). They turn the building into a big faraday cage. I stayed at one of these hotels and my phone's reception went from 4 bars outside to 0-1 bar inside. I tried standing next to a window and still was barely getting a signal. Later I found out they make conductive film you can put on the windows - optically transparent but makes for a seamless faraday cage.
It is my understanding that that would be legal (though still sleezy). As long as the building materials do not emmit radio waves, the FCC has no authority. But, you're right, they are not broadcasting noise. They are spoofing packets from the 'rogue' wireless access points. These packets tell the clients that they are being kicked off and the clients disconnect. It is a highly efficient and effective form of jamming.
The hotels fined for doing this complain that they should be allowed to do it because they are using FCC approved equipment. But that is missing the point. That is like saying that you should not have gotten a traffic ticket for speeding because your car is roadworthy. It is not enough for the radio transmitter to be legal. You must also use it in a legal way. Programming the WIFI controller to send jamming packets using the FCC approved transmitter is illegal.