Slashdot Mirror


FCC Fines Another Large Firm For Blocking WiFi

AmiMoJo writes: Another company is learning about the fine points of Section 333 of the Communications Act, which prohibits willful interference with any licensed or authorized radio communications. This time, M.C. Dean, who provided the Baltimore Convention Center's in-house WiFi service, were caught by the FCC sending deauthentication frames to prevent hotspot users maintaining a connection. The complainant alleged that M.C. Dean's actions were identical to those that had earned Marriott a $600,000 fine only weeks earlier.

138 comments

  1. "Fines another large fine"? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 0

    Clunky title!

    1. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which company is "Large Fine"? The only one that I could find was Fine Corp in Taiwan for health & beauty products.

    2. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It looks fine to me.

    3. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like click-bait title.

    4. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where did thy fined this article?

    5. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      It took several goes to determine a parsing of the title that might be technically OK - largely that the first "fine" is an action and the "second" is a description of a penalty. ie "FCC enacts another Large Fine" / "FCC Fines Another Large Amount of Money".

      That said, I think the second example may not be a valid sentence either.

      I appreciate Slashdot has standards, and one is "If you didn't preview, nuh nuh, even though we make it easy to submit without previewing and don't do what every other website does", but, really, the editors should change the headline.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Looked fine fine fine fine to me.

    7. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FCC Issues Another Large Fine For Blocking WiFi

      That should have been the title.

    8. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      I appreciate Slashdot has standards

      Good one.

    9. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. I don't see 'you wouldn't believe what happens next!' anywhere in the title.

    10. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      I appreciate Slashdot has standards, and one is "If you didn't preview, nuh nuh, even though we make it easy to submit without previewing and don't do what every other website does", but, really, the editors should change the headline.

      OK, when did we get standards?
      And how come there has not been a single moo on this page yet?
      Did I wake up in an alternate universe?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    11. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everything is click-bait. This is the Internet. You didn't know that?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I never said the standards were good or well advised.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spectacularly low standards are still standards. Slashdot has had those standards since the beginning.

    14. Re:"Fines another large fine"? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Slashdot's journalism standards are kind of like my dating standards: "Well, it seems like she's biologically female., and still breathing... go for it!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Another Fine Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats another fine fine you've fined me in to.

    1. Re:Another Fine Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been brought to you by another Double Fine Productions.

      (Sorry Tim Schafer!)

    2. Re:Another Fine Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering they can't seem to stay working on a single project to completion, I don't think you'd have to feel sorry.

  3. Dumb title is dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yep.

  4. FCC Fines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The fine was fined - by the Department of Redundancy Department.

    1. Re:FCC Fines by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      It's fines all the way down!

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

  5. Fine by SeriousTube · · Score: 1

    Fine

    1. Re:Fine by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 2

      Or as my wife would put it: "*sigh*....FINE! Just FINE!"

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re:Fine by IMightB · · Score: 2

      How are you still married? That is woman speak for "I'll kill you in your sleep!"

  6. Nice headline writing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    FCC Fines Ralph Fiennes, Larry Fine, and Richard Feynman a Mighty Fine Fine for Blocking WiFine

  7. "Editor" headlines another post's headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Commenter comments another comment

  8. What about a Faraday cage by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Would a Faraday Cage also get you fined?

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you were using one to maliciously block a device you didn't own.

    2. Re:What about a Faraday cage by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Not by the FCC. You can still be held accountable for, intentionally preventing 911 calls from inside, if something undue were to happen (assuming this is a public venue).

    3. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fine Faraday Cage would be fine for fining. Are you fine with that?

      Fine.

      --Timmy

    4. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is actually quite true. One of our testing tech employees complained that his cell phone did not work inside our anechoic RF testing chamber (big faraday cage full of RF-absorbing material), and wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC.

      We were found to be in violation of the same act, and were required to install a cellular repeater inside our chamber that must be active any time someone is inside the chamber.

    5. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Sique · · Score: 2

      Would it have helped if you provided a desk phone in said room and a big warning label, that mobile phones don't work?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean one of you ex-employees, right?

    7. Re:What about a Faraday cage by thaylin · · Score: 2

      So you vindictively fire people who report you are breaking the law? I think that is breaking the law even in right to work states.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    8. Re: What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously ? Considering the purpose and nature of the chamber this is a bizzare decision. Was this done at your cost and are there any public records on this ? Interested to see the FCC's reasoning.

    9. Re:What about a Faraday cage by alex67500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Whistleblowers shouldn't necessarily be fired, assuming they notified their employers first who didn't didn't act upon the information. In fact in some instances they should probably be rewarded for pointing out things that may put employees or the public in harm's way. My cousin once pointed out during a food-processing factory visit that non-nut products were crossing the way of nut products but that the allergen information didn't reflect that. She didn't get fired, she got a bonus for it.

    10. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's whistleblowing and there's being unreasonable. Lack of mobile reception in an RF testing chamber is not a reason to complain to the FCC. It's not even a reason to complain to your employer, except maybe if there is no other way a trapped employee could reach the outside and the employer refuses to implement such a method. Do you complain about lack of mobile reception in basements or lifts too? Just because the FCC actually found them in violation of the law doesn't mean the law and its application are just. You can bet your ass that I would make sure that an employee who called the authorities on me for a technicality would find himself out of a job. That is someone who works against me, not for me, and I'm not in the habit of paying people to sabotage me.

    11. Re:What about a Faraday cage by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      So you vindictively fire people who report you are breaking the law?

      Would you really want to keep working for an employer that "breaks the law"?

      I think that is breaking the law even in right to work states.

      Right to work has nothing to do with this. Really, man, educate yourself.

    12. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thats baloney. Why do people post made up crap like this? Does it make them feel important? I don't get it.

    13. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This is really a fuck up by the FCC. Manufacturers need rooms like this to bring into existence these wonderful, radio-using things.

      This is some ignorannt savage at the FCC casually tossing out an insensate ruling costing a hundred companies tens of millions to buy and install thousands of repeaters in these thousands of little boxes.

      And why? Because someone might fall and can't get uppin'? And need to call 911?

      But hey, literally the guiding motto of the current regulators is "We don't have to consider cost impacts, yey!"

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    14. Re:What about a Faraday cage by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Cross contamination issues normally make a manager feel good and want to reward out spoken people.
      the fix most likely cost very little, but from the liability standpoint, it was most likely huge ( see those recalls lately ).

      This might have been a special case, but as a small business owner ( realtor and I have a small staff ), I like when people
      talk to me and explain what is wrong or right, and when I can fix the problem, I can pass a solid reward to my people.

      People in general want to work for others that listen to the good ideas and discuss the bad ideas with common sense

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    15. Re:What about a Faraday cage by PPH · · Score: 1

      Simple solution: ban cell phones from the testing chamber. It wouldn't be that unreasonable a move, as cellular signals could interfere with sensitive instrumentation. In fact, ban all non test related electronics from the chamber.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    16. Re:What about a Faraday cage by budgenator · · Score: 1

      No, you fire him for using his cell phone on the clock; how would he know there was no cell reception if he was using personal electronics on company time? I'm sure there is a clause in the Employee Manual that everyone ignores about it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    17. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't a land line that works to just 911 accomplished the same thing?

    18. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you vindictively fire people who report you are breaking the law? I think that is breaking the law even in right to work states.

      I'd happily fire him for being stupid enough to expect his cell phone to work in a device (RF anechoic chamber, remember?) this is *expressly* designed to prevent his cell phone (and anything else that relies on receiving an external RF signal) from working. Total moron.

    19. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might have been a special case, but as a small business owner ( realtor and I have a small staff ), I like when people
      talk to me and explain what is wrong or right, and when I can fix the problem, I can pass a solid reward to my people.

      You have no idea what you're talking about. This makes about as much sense as an employee demanding to install a space heater into a walk-in refrigerator.

    20. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen a door that says "Warning! Live wireless viruses. Do not open the door! If the door is closed there is virus testing in progress". I guess FCC wants those outside?

    21. Re:What about a Faraday cage by evilviper · · Score: 2

      My cousin once pointed out during a food-processing factory visit that non-nut products were crossing the way of nut products but that the allergen information didn't reflect that. She didn't get fired, she got a bonus for it.

      ...because THAT'S NOT WHISTLEBLOWING! A whistleblower likely would have reported the violation to the FDA, they would have demanded a recall, costing the company millions, and nobody would be getting a raise. But by NOT reporting it & demanding a recall, she's taking the chance that people with allergies might be killed in the interim, in order to save money for the company. That kind of profits-before-safety mentality is exactly the kind of behavior companies typically reward... and so they did.

      Admittedly that's an edge-case, where the risk was very low, as was the cost to fix the problem. Decisions are almost never so nice and easy in the real world.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re: What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Proof or GTFO. This is so unlikely I can't even imagine why people believe it's true.

    23. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of an RF shielded chamber if you have RF blasting inside of it? Doesn't it defeat the purpose?

    24. Re:What about a Faraday cage by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      This is actually quite true. One of our testing tech employees complained that his cell phone did not work inside our anechoic RF testing chamber (big faraday cage full of RF-absorbing material), and wrote a letter of complaint to the FCC.

      We were found to be in violation of the same act, and were required to install a cellular repeater inside our chamber that must be active any time someone is inside the chamber.

      Your immediate follow up should be an FOI request asking the FCC to detail all such provisions of cellular repeaters in their own testing facilities all over America. They'll love that.

    25. Re:What about a Faraday cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      Plus, stop paying the FCC for making these stupid rules.

      They're your employees too.

    26. Re:What about a Faraday cage by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Would it have helped if you provided a desk phone in said room and a big warning label, that mobile phones don't work?

      Or just ban mobile phones inside the chamber. They can't not work if they aren't there.

    27. Re:What about a Faraday cage by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      No just send him to work in the hazardous materials department..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    28. Re:What about a Faraday cage by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      A dangerous health hazard.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    29. Re:What about a Faraday cage by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Have an absolute rule of no phones or electronic gadgets inside the chamber.. Could even give everyone an EMP pulse on the way in - after a warning of course. Depends what kind of work is going on inside the chamber - a phone might be a serious security risk or even damage or interfere with work going on inside..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  9. Fining the Fines by KatchooNJ · · Score: 1

    Fining the fines... News at 11.

    --
    "Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
  10. Lemme FTFY by gaelfx · · Score: 1

    I think the word you're looking for there is "issues". Thanks for playing.

    1. Re:Lemme FTFY by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Bzzt. You've lost the money.

      Turns out it was "firm" instead of "fine."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Larry Fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FCC Employee Larry Fine Fines Another Large Fine.

  12. 2 things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand what motivates people like that to just fuck with people.

    I don't understand why 802.11 has de-auth packets that can be sent from layer2 clients, a simple ap side timeout would work fine.

    1. Re:2 things by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I need to look up some WiFi management software that can force me off APs by MAC address. Useful trick.

      On my network, of course, not those on other networks.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. Y'know what would be beautiful? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    I realize that, in practice, this would probably be a 'watch the world burn' option; but it would be a glorious thing if people who can't obey the rules of operating a Part15 device on the ISM band lost the right to do so, at least for a time sufficient to induce agonized penitence.

    This is shared spectrum, guys, with certain rules to help keep it usable for everyone. If you don't like that; perhaps you'll enjoy only being able to use such dedicated spectrum as you are able to buy or lease for a while. If you want to treat it like you own it; you can. For a price.

    1. Re:Y'know what would be beautiful? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yes it is shared spectrum with a number of services, but LICENSED services have priority over UNLICENSENED services.

      So Part 15 devices MUST accept any interference from Part 95 licensed devices. So, if an amateur radio operators who are licensed for part of the 2.4 GHz band which is shared by most WiFi devices wants to operate at high enough power to obliterate WiFi devices around, the Part 15 device operator can gripe and complain, but the FCC won't lift a finger. Generally though, Hams will be very careful to cause the minimum amount of disruption. I will only run with the minimum power I can, using very directional antennas with horizontal polarization and I won't leave it running when I'm not using it.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Y'know what would be beautiful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that a parabolic antenna of appropriate size, outputting at max amateur PEP couldn't be just... pointed at one of these firms.

      Shame because amateurs are better than that, and generally take the high road.

    3. Re:Y'know what would be beautiful? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      This is, indeed, true. In this case, though, the firm being smacked down wasn't operating a licensed service; just a bunch of part 15 wifi APs that had a handy 'illegally interfere with other part 15 devices' button that they decided to press.

      Had they actually been licensed, local wifi users can go cry about it; but these guys seem to have confused 'owning the building' with 'having some special say in local spectrum allocation', which is nonsense, no matter how hard you refer to other users as 'rogue APs'.

      I'm a trifle surprised that vendors haven't gotten jumpier about making that feature prominently available. Yeah, it's no secret that wifi is vulnerable to deauth attacks; so nobody is going to eliminate software that takes advantage of that; but if I were a large, deeply sue-able company, I'd be a little nervous about openly providing jamming features, rather than just hardware that could conceivably be configured for jamming; but I don't know anything about that and explicitly don't recommend it.

  14. "Levies another large fine" would've been better by Not-a-Neg · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    -==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
  15. Easiest technical solution for this by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    ...is for operating system manufacturers and cellphone makers to start making it easier to use Bluetooth tethering. No idea how bad Apple's implementation is, but I know every Android device I've used has either had non-existent support or barely functional implementations that were obviously set up and then forgotten about.

    USB tethering is great when it works too, but that also seems to be rarely implemented these days.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      On my 3rd nexus device now and BT tethering works just fine.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      I know every Android device I've used has either had non-existent support or barely functional implementations that were obviously set up and then forgotten about.

      Quit using shitty devices that have been bastardized by the carrier and/or a fuckhead OEM that thinks they need to be a special snowflake.

      My phone runs a pretty much pure build of the Android Open Source Project and all three forms of tethering work great. It even supports USB tethering to WiFi, which I've used to get my desktop online when my switch failed.

      If it's broken on the devices you've used its because someone went out of their way to change it from the stock Android solution and either didn't care to test or intentionally wanted to break tethering.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    3. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      This is not a technical problem. Workarounds would also fail if the corporation decided to block Bluetooth.

      The Fine is probably going to solve this. No BT necessary.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Apple's phones do Bluetooth and USB tethering perfectly acceptably.

    5. Re: Easiest technical solution for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you know how Bluetooth works.

    6. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      No idea how bad Apple's implementation is, but I know every Android device I've used has either had non-existent support or barely functional implementations that were obviously set up and then forgotten about.

      Your only experience is with Android devices, which are bad based on your own comment, so you assume that Apple's devices are crap too. You are the perfect definition of a fanboy.

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    7. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're already jamming Wi-Fi, if Bluetooth/USB tethering became a norm you don't think they would try to jam that as well? The best solution is to prevent jamming of any kind (private, corporate, government) with legislation, enforcement & public outrage.

    8. Re: Easiest technical solution for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Apple then allow carriers to lock the phones (not just the sim) to disable any and all tethering.

    9. Re: Easiest technical solution for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you buy that version of the phone and go with that vendor? There are plenty of others where you can use an iPhone that won't block you like that.

    10. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they gonna jam USB tethering? Hire a guy with a pair of scissors to walk around and snip your cable if he sees someone tethering?

    11. Re: Easiest technical solution for this by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the capabilities of corporate America. If you can jam a wrench, you can jam Bluetooth.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re:Easiest technical solution for this by rsborg · · Score: 1

      ...is for operating system manufacturers and cellphone makers to start making it easier to use Bluetooth tethering. No idea how bad Apple's implementation is, but I know every Android device I've used has either had non-existent support or barely functional implementations that were obviously set up and then forgotten about.

      USB tethering is great when it works too, but that also seems to be rarely implemented these days.

      Apple's implementation is great. If you have a Mac, you can even initiate the teetering request from the laptop (you must have it active on your phone). If your carrier doesn't support free tethering, you can easily move to one that does (T-Mobile).

      Ive had great experiences with tethering on iOS with an iPhone5 and later and an honest carrier.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  16. Sooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC dropped the M.C. Hammer on M.C. Dean?

  17. Those responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    for fining the fine finers have been fined.

    1. Re:Those responsible by bobbied · · Score: 1

      for fining the fine finers have been fined.

      But don't worry, the finees are just fine with the fine they have been fined by the fine finers.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  18. Yo dawg... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    We heard you like fines so we fined your fine so you can... oh, never mind.

    1. Re:Yo dawg... by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      Fine!

  19. I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by DanDs22 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They blocked wifi from 2012 to 2014, and the estimated sales of this company were over $700 million in 2013. M.C. Dean charged $795 to $1,095 for access to the Wi-Fi it provided depending on whether the services were ordered in advance or on-site..

    1. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by roninmagus · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that repeat offenses will grow the fine, eventually leading to prosecution. I think 3/4m is a pretty good deterrent to others. It's kind of a warning shot to other venues that would do the same. Even in this example: I read most of the linked PDF, and the offender fined here stopped blocking wifi 2 months after the FCC fined Marriott. They were still caught.

    2. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They blocked wifi from 2012 to 2014, and the estimated sales of this company were over $700 million in 2013. M.C. Dean charged $795 to $1,095 for access to the Wi-Fi it provided depending on whether the services were ordered in advance or on-site..

      Right, the fine is 1/10th of 1% of sales. Make it a $7M fine, at least - with a fine 1% of sales they might have to at least freeze pay raises for non-managers for a year. Looks like the FCC needs to be able to increase the penalties.

    3. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The fine seems to be about 800 times a likely average fee for their service. About 257 or so fees per year. 5 a week.

      Just enough for someone to realize it is not profitable enough to break the law, since the second fine would likely be larger. Time to cut the losses and move on, or price competitively.

      There is a non-zero sweet spot for pricing where users would just pay it. The mistake was in not bundling it into space rentals or a 'facilities charge'. And pricing it so high it could not be hidden.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re: I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They were not only breaking the law, but openly charging huge amounts of money for their service. Seems like they need to lose all revenue generated from this.

    5. Re: I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Because they were charging huge amounts of money For their service?

      Does the amount actually matter?

      Is it the amount you find particularly offensive?

      Please say no. It
      The fine, and the FCC's action, are not about how much they charged, or should not be. It should be about the intentional interference. And if that leaves them unable to charge for their service, well, their business model for that is broken. Find something you actually *can* sell.

      My point about the 'sweet spot' was that they may have been able to sell their service at a competitive, or at least inoffensive, price, or bundle it into other services without causing much alarm or encouraging customers to look elsewhere, maybe not. But a fine is punitive to change the behavior, not to penalize only for profiting. In this instance, even if they did not profit, they should have been fined. More because they made money? I am not at all sure that should be the standard. Enough to compel compliance is the standard for me..

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      So what we really need is a "treble damages" clause for enforcement, i,e, fine them 3 times the revenue they took in from WiFi while blocking mobile hotspots. I'm pretty sure lots of other venues have had this idea... perhaps we should have a "finder's fee" for people to wander around with a WiFi sniffer and suss out new culprits, shouldn't they get 10% of the fine?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re: I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking more along the line that they were so obviously breaking the law for profit (not to excuse other reasons). Regulatory capture probably prevents FCC from issuing fines that big though.

    8. Re: I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by sjames · · Score: 1

      The point is that if the fine is less than the profit they made by committing the offense, they'll likely continue offending and treat it as a business expense. If the fine exceeds the profits, they'll actually stop offending since it's not profitable.

    9. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't like that. That means if I refuse to cave and pay for their Wifi, I've effectively made that $0 damages.

    10. Re:I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by ewibble · · Score: 1

      What we need is an imprisonment clause, If you as a person take somebodies money illegally you can go to jail, companies want the same rights as individual, they should have the same consequences. If it happens send the responsible person(people) (CEO) to jail, see how fast the accounting, and infringing stops.

    11. Re: I'm glad but only $718,000 is peanuts by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      If they repeat the same behavior they will not pay the same fine again. Repeat violations become a very big deal including criminal prosecution if they do it more than a couple times. The end result here is a Judge ordering a bunch of people to jail if they keep violating, in addition to the fines going up significantly with each violation.

      If they are stupid enough to violate again they will be taken to court and forced to sign a consent degree (along with a bigger fine). They violate the consent decree and the judge can basically send them to jail without even a trial and do other things like order a complete halt to all their operation and a suspension of all wifi services.

      Saying they will just do it again is flippant and lacks understanding on how significant these actions are. Though the FCC doesn't have quite the authority the IRS does with their special courts, they still have broad regulatory and police authority and can absolutely ruin your life if they want to and you anger them at severe personal risk.

  20. Why Not? by Thunderf00t · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the timing implied, it sounds like the Baltimore Convention Center heard of Marriott's case, looked at the relatively minimal fine involved for how widespread the practice was, and thought, "huh, not a bad idea, really. We could do that." Hopefully, the FCC's fine has enough of a sting to it to make it seem less worthwhile to anyone else considering the practice.

    --
    We will never be the change to the weather and the sea
    1. Re:Why Not? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      This company like Marriott was already doing it and didn't alter their behavior after the Marriott settlement. The FCC is going through their complaint log and verifying if these companies are still dong it (remember the FCC asked people to report it when the Marriott publicity hit). The company didn't stop doing it so they now get fined just like Marriott.

      You shouldn't ascribe to malice what is likely just business momentum. The company was already doing it. There were dozens of electronics suppliers that marketed the ability to do this very thing, including major ones like Cisco. The ability to do it is baked right into the AP software and has been there for about a decade. All these conventions companies that charge for WiFi do it and likely all of them are going to need to be fined to get them to stop. And that's what the FCC is doing, going down the list and issuing fines to those that are still doing it.

  21. The tpp will not let the FCC fine an foreign owned by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0

    The tpp will not let the FCC fine an foreign owned event center / hotel as they can calm that it hurts there profit from there paid internet.

  22. hmmm by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    I wonder, could this law protect us against the telco 5G that is going to come and squash our wifi?

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:hmmm by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      So much fail.

  23. Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like much of the problem originates from the limited spectrum available to wifi, which makes it hard/expensive to cover large, dense spaces, especially if people are bringing in their own network devices.

    This leads to "rogue ap suppression" which I'd wager is motivated as much by network operators tired of getting screamed at because "the conference room wifi sucks" and thinking that suppressing hotspots will improve it as much as it is by greedy operators who believe that crushing hotspots will improve profits.

    1. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there is really no technical or practical reason for the limited number of channels and the power restrictions on WiFi: there is plenty of unused bandwidth, and with more bandwidth, more power wouldn't be a problem either. The real reason for these limits is probably that if the FCC provided more channels and allowed higher power for WiFi, hotspot services would become viable low-cost competitors to ISPs and cell phone companies, and regulators and politicians don't want that.

    2. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      It doesn't help that the WiFi consortium seems to be trying hard to make the problem worse. You have ancient devices still spewing out long slow 802.11b beacons, and newer 802.11n/ac devices using multiple double width channels. And then many of the members of the consortium allow the TX power to be cranked up to 11 by default, for maximum congestion and exacerbation of the hidden transmitter problem.

      This can be mitigated somewhat at large venues by having all the venue's APs use only 802.11n/ac, narrow channels, low transmission power etc. But then someone with a phone or LTE dongle comes along and starts screaming at max power because the absolutely need to get gigabit speeds between their laptop and the AP, and it all goes to hell.

      Wifi needed a "STFU" addition to the protocol long ago. It's way too late now. I wish they had implemented one on the 5GHz band, but it looks like that will go to pot in a few years too. At least walls block it fairly effectively.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It seems like much of the problem originates from the limited spectrum available to wifi, which makes it hard/expensive to cover large, dense spaces, especially if people are bringing in their own network devices.

      There's a simple solution to that. Make the wi-fi free, or very low cost to remove the incentive to bring in your own.

      Of course, this hurts profits, which is what really drives this.

      You really think these conventions organizers aren't just money grubbers? It's not just Wi-Fi they're trying to squeeze people on. You want some furniture to rent? It's actually war more expensive to rent it from the venue than it is to buy NEW furniture, then throw it all away after the convention. I've got a relative that owns a small business who does trade shows, and he's taken this exact approach at Las Vegas trade shows. The marketing woman where I work has backed up this idea that conventions regularly try to squeeze every last dollar out of exhibitors. It's a very well known phenomenon, and this certainly isn't driven out of concern for the common good network connectivity.

    4. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by swb · · Score: 2

      The people who design standards for 802.11 seem to be designing the standard for the apocryphal home user who wants 3l173 5p33d5 in line with Ethernet, doesn't get interference and is too far away from anyone else to be interfering.

      And then enterprise vendors take this standard and want to sell it as if it was purpose-built to blanket 200,000 square feet of space and be usable by 50,000 people simultaneously.

      And then commercial providers want to deploy it as if it was a cellular technology designed to blanket entire cities.

      And then we wonder why it sucks.

    5. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is the unlicensed bands need to be coordinated worldwide, since people will inevitably carry such devices from one country to another.

    6. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It seems like much of the problem originates from the limited spectrum available to wifi, which makes it hard/expensive to cover large, dense spaces, especially if people are bringing in their own network devices.

      WiFi has tons spectrum available in the 5GHz band. There's a chicken-and-egg problem of WiFi chipset makers not wanting to spend a few cents to support the higher band while most people remain on 2.4GHz, which then prevents people with 5GHz capable routers from switching to the higher band.

      IEEE should have REQUIRED all WiFi chips and devices be able to operate on the 5GHz band, no later than the introduction of 802.11n. They could have done it even a bit earlier than that...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by beltsbear · · Score: 2

      Being a shared band, with NO ONE having legal priority, there is no such thing as a rouge AP. 'Rogue AP detection' is legal, even though Cisco offers it, 'rogue AP suppression' is not legal in most cases. Only if an AP was doing something illegal could you even consider doing something. Someone using the spectrum space you want (even on your own property) is not illegal so long as they are not trespassing.

    8. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by swb · · Score: 1

      What cases is suppression legal?

      I could almost by into it being legitimate if the suppressing entity's radios do not radiate off their private, controlled access property and the property is in no way public access.

      Malls, hotels, or other spaces which are privately owned by freely accessible by the public wouldn't be covered by this.

      Although I'd bet that rogue ap suppression gets used all the time by businesses in multi-tenant buildings to suppress wireless activity within range of their radios.

    9. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by sjames · · Score: 2

      I guess you've never dealt with these people. They are shooting down anything resembling free WiFi because otherwise, nobody would willingly pay $700 dollars for a couple days worth of WiFi access.

    10. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rogue AP suppression isn't just about frequency contention, it's also perhaps desirable to ensure that people in your office are not plugging in their own wireless AP to get data in or out of your network around the firewall. Or hot-spotting their work laptop to get data off the LAN around the firewall, or circumvent internet access controls/malware inspection. Yes its a technical "Fix" to a behavioural problem, but the problem is real.

    11. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Of course there are us hams. Channels 7-12 actually belong to US, and if they start messing with those channels, the local ham can tell THEM to turn off the WiFi...
      That whole part 97 and part 15 deal. Licensed users get priority over unlicensed

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    12. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Wifi needed a "STFU" addition to the protocol long ago. It's way too late now.

      That'll be in the 802.11/q protocol.

      Oblig XKCD : http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/st...

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Will "wifi" ever get expanded spectrum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So federal laws don't apply on private property? Handy to know.

  24. FCC Cost by ajzimm3rman · · Score: 0

    Good thing we paid: $375,380,313 this year for the FCC, so that they could accomplish this.

    1. Re:FCC Cost by tomhath · · Score: 1

      That's kind of like saying putting a lock on your bicycle is useless because nobody stole it the last time you locked it.

    2. Re: FCC Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's trying to make people think that having an FCC is useless and to try to associate even subconsciously their annual budget with relatively inexpensive things like this because this is an example of effectiveness. Typical conservative propaganda tactics. Government is useless to them, and if you find something where it's useful they'll try to disparage it anyway. Also, when you elect then they'll take whatever works about government and break it deliberately just so they can say it's broken.

      Oh, and it's totally ok for people to pull crap like this illegal wifi blocking to them because capitalism.

    3. Re:FCC Cost by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Their regulation of frequencies is what allows things like broadcast TV and cellular networks to exist. Otherwise all frequencies would be as badly congested as Wifi. They aren't expected to cover operating expenses with fines on unlicensed spectrum. That doesn't even make sense.

      This is a "TV Tax" of barely over $1/person. Way cheaper than what the UK does to pay for their TV spectrum - even ignoring the per capita difference.

    4. Re: FCC Cost by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

      No, it's trying to make people think that having an FCC is useless and to try to associate even subconsciously their annual budget with relatively inexpensive things like this because this is an example of effectiveness. Typical conservative propaganda tactics. Government is useless to them, and if you find something where it's useful they'll try to disparage it anyway. Also, when you elect then they'll take whatever works about government and break it deliberately just so they can say it's broken.

      Oh, and it's totally ok for people to pull crap like this illegal wifi blocking to them because capitalism.

  25. should render as MÃÃse by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    A MÃÃse once bit my sister...

    the above is reason enough for slashcode to get their unicode shit together.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:should render as MÃÃse by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What's wrong? Your subject said it should render as "MÃÃse" and then it did!

  26. The fines are a pittance by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Compared to what these companies rake in, these fines are meaningless. Either slap them with something that runs in the area of at the very least 5 times what their prospective revenue is (call the IRS and let them "guess" revenues, they're pretty good at it... at least when it comes to guessing high) or simply leave it be.

    Fines that are a penny for ever dollar illegally gotten are cost of operation, not fine.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The fines are a pittance by dotbot · · Score: 1

      As commented above, see paragraph 39 in the report:

      39. First, to ensure that a proposed forfeiture is not treated as simply a cost of doing business, ...

  27. prohibits willful interference ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When tin-foil hats are prohibited, only .... oh, wait ....

  28. Mc Dean also sued there customer and lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They own Openband. They had a contract with a developer giving them a permanent monopoly on internet and phone service in a neigborhood. Customers didnt like this. The FCC ruled that this contract was null and void. Mc Dean then sued their customers and the county representatives who ruled against them. They lost.
    Alot more articles on this.

    http://www.leesburgtoday.com/public_safety/courts/lansdowne-hoa-awarded-legal-fees-in-openband-lawsuit/article_ba432bca-050e-11e3-beb6-001a4bcf887a.html

  29. Prison for executives is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So it's cost of business.

    This isn't going to stop until until executives start getting Aaron Swartzed and get hit with hundreds of years of prison time for thousands of counts of interfering with others' private network and conspiracy to interfere with others' private network.

  30. Conevention centers by quantizationnoise · · Score: 1

    ...are the scum of the earth. Talk about extortion and greed at its finest. They'll be more than happy to sell you internet for a few hundred dollars a day. This makes me so happy to see them get slapped.

  31. Vendor exclusive by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Why would you buy that version of the phone and go with that vendor?

    Because that service provider managed to land an exclusive deal with the smartphone constructor, and is thus the first vendor to sell the lastest "iShiny version {N} GS", several month ahead of the competitor who are stuck with only selling "iShiny version {N-1}".

    Note: If this is sold bundled with phone plan, it is considered illegal in most European jurisdiction.
    Phone are always available to be purchased with no restriction and no locks.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  32. Don't blame the FCC - fine fine they fined by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Good thing we paid: $375,380,313 this year for the FCC, so that they could accomplish this.

    If you're not happy with what the FCC does, stop letting industry players sit on the FCC and give them real power. The fine fine they fined here may be enough to hit a hotel, but it's a pittance to the big companies.

    1. Re:Don't blame the FCC - fine fine they fined by dotbot · · Score: 1

      As you'll see from paragraph 39 in the report, the FCC adjusted the base forfeiture of $182,000 after considering, amongst other things, the annual sales of M.C.Dean:

      39. First, to ensure that a proposed forfeiture is not treated as simply a cost of doing business, the Commission has determined that large or highly profitable companies should be subject to proposed forfeitures that are substantially above the base forfeiture amount.116 Industry publications state that M.C. Dean had over $700 million in sales in 2013 and list M.C. Dean as one of the largest electrical contractors in the county.117 Thus, to ensure that the forfeiture is an effective deterrent for M.C. Dean as well as to protect the interests of consumers, an upward forfeiture adjustment based on M.C. Dean’s relative ability to pay is justified.

  33. Wondering if I've been hit by this by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    I've been to a few hotels where I had trouble getting my personal hotspot feature to work, and ended up having to switch to USB tethering to use it. I never really gave much thought to whether the hotel might be at fault; I just chalked it up to "tech shit sometimes breaks" and used an alternative method to just get it done because I had to get online and didn't have all day.

    Of course, this would screw people over who just have a personal hotspot device with no USB capability. Luckily, my phone can do WiFi, USB or Bluetooth and the latter two work well (though bluetooth is a bit slow)

  34. If you want it in-house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want your wifi to be used in-house only, then put up a Faraday Cage around your building (grounded sheet steel behind the drywall). You could even just use 1mm tin from siding and ground it well. Users inside get a strong signal, users outside might occasionally get a signal, but extremely weak and spotty. Keeping routers toward the inside walls would help with this too. And its not illegal. 600,000 can buy a lot of tin.

  35. Fines are calculated to force change by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Compared to what these companies rake in, these fines are meaningless. Either slap them with something that runs in the area of at the very least 5 times what their prospective revenue is (call the IRS and let them "guess" revenues, they're pretty good at it... at least when it comes to guessing high) or simply leave it be.

    Fines that are a penny for ever dollar illegally gotten are cost of operation, not fine.

    The goal is not to string up a company to be hanged (i.e., goes bankrupt) because of a ruling enforcement change. The goal is to get them to change behavior and use the news cycle to send a signal to others. Increasing fine amounts or increased enforcement is enough to make it understood to others to follow suit quickly.

    If you push too hard the industry will put their crosshairs on your agency and spend money to simply sink your efforts (lobbyists, "sympathetic" judge, etc).

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Fines are calculated to force change by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The signal this sends is clear: Do it. Do it and don't even bother to try to hide it.

      The formula for whether a law is heeded is simple: Benefit vs. chance of being caught * fine. And if the fine is already smaller than the benefit, the chance of being caught can be 1, i.e. 100% and it's STILL more profitable to break the law than to heed it.

      As long as this is the case, not breaking the law is something your shareholders would probably want a word with you over.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  36. Lots of places where cellphones not permitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like a SCIF, or, in fact, pretty much everywhere classified information is handled. No cellphones, no thumb drives, no storage media of any kind, no cameras, etc.

    Yep, wireline phones to call for help ARE permitted.