Slashdot Mirror
Wi-Fi Hotspot Blocking Persists Despite FCC Crackdown (networkworld.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An examination of consumer complaints to the FCC over the past year and a half shows that the practice of Wi-Fi hotspot device blocking continues even though the agency has slapped organizations such as Marriott and Hilton more than $2 million in total for doing this. Venues argue they need to block hotspots for security reasons, but the FCC and consumers say the organizations are doing this to force people to pay for pricey Internet access.
"Consumers who purchase cellular data plans should be able to use them without fear that their personal Internet connection will be blocked by their hotel or conference center," FCC Enforcement Bureau chief Travis LeBlanc said in a statement. "It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel's own Wi-Fi network. This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether." Consumers have filed many complaints about Wi-Fi hotspot blocking to the FCC.
"Consumers who purchase cellular data plans should be able to use them without fear that their personal Internet connection will be blocked by their hotel or conference center," FCC Enforcement Bureau chief Travis LeBlanc said in a statement. "It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel's own Wi-Fi network. This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether." Consumers have filed many complaints about Wi-Fi hotspot blocking to the FCC.
In recent years, I have rarely stayed at a first class hotel that did not have free guest w-fi. People expect it and will bail for the local coffee shop if it's not free in the hotel.
My guess is a lot of the offenders are in tourist traps where everything costs a lot.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
First offense, $5 million. Second, $50 million and jailtime for those responsible for the policy. Third offense, $500 million, and so on.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Ha!
Make offending organizations pay $25+ million. Make them hurt. Better yet, jail some of the executive staff. Organizations are people and the board and C level suite are the head. Works for me!
So If they block all wifi any force you to use a ethernet connection in you room for an extra $25 that's ok then?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Link is broken ... here is PROBABLY the original article
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3042454/mobile-wireless/wi-fi-hotspot-blocking-persists-despite-fcc-crackdown.html
But wi-fi "blocking" gets a free pass? Have the FCC throw the book at them.
Venues argue they need to block hotspots for security reasons
Due to security reasons we are preventing people from running their own closed network between their devices and their telecom companies and instead forcing them all into our own network joined up with hundreds of other strangers ....
How are they blocking hot spots? The only way I can think of is to jam the frequency, but that would kill the venue's APs as well, no?
Experiments have found that unsecured hotspots in airports will be connected to by hundreds of strangers, running Firesheep etc. they can be easily MITMed. I'm sure the same is true in hotels, people don't bother to find out what the hotel's Wifi ID is. Blocking other hotspots prevents people from connecting to any attempts to MITM them.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
How about Walmart and Meijer stores? I find it odd that they don't block actual calls since that would be noticed quickly, yet mobile internet just doesn't seem to work hardly at all in there.
It's as if they block only internet and leave voice alone *on purpose* to keep you from price checking things in store. Amusing I can have an HD voice call in the depths of the store yet as soon as I cross the front door threshold I can no longer lookup prices on the internet.
Lets investigate this first as it's anti-competitive.
I am a startup that sets up electronic visual attractions at large venues at facilities like these. For configuration purposes, the units contain APs which are supposed to be connected to via the organizer's phone in order to allow them to control the attractions.
Twice I ran into cases where I was simply unable to connect to any of the units and I had no idea why. Eventually to debug this pulled up wireshark and found someone was performing a de-authentication attack! This was at two different events, but at large hotel chains. Had I not had a wired backup, I could have easily been out some several thousand dollar paychecks.
Doctor evil doesn't care about 'Two Million'. Seriously, why not try to fine them a amount that will make it unprofitable.
If you have a smartphone + laptop (or smartphone + desktop) you don't even need a wifi network between them.
I was surprised that the internet connection sharing feature works seamlessly, with Firefox OS 1.3 on the phone and Linux Mint on the desktop (it's possibly no different with mainstream OS).
Hit one checkbox/toggle on the phone, plug into the PC's USB, then the PC configures itself in one second (NetworkManager). I have used it to piggyback on the phone's wifi access actually (so the phone is a basic wifi router, with torrenting etc. working). You may probably use that to get hotel wifi on both the smartphone and laptop if needed.
So.. If you want to access 3G/4G from your laptop, a wifi hot spot is not strictly needed. You avoid to waste spectrum.
If the FCC isn't doing their job of shutting down wifi blockers, what's to stop the attendees from blocking the hotel's wifi? It would only take a couple vengeful actors willing to skirt the spottily enforced law and shut down the hotel's pay-to-play thing.
Gets more attention than 2.
you are correct that there is little or no security value in blocking hotspots.
But you are mistaken when you think that running your own hotspot has no impact on the venue network.
Part of properly setting up a wifi network in a venue (and I readily admit very few are properly setup) involves paying very careful attention to the RF environment, what channels are used where at what signal strengths. Setting up your own wifi access point can significantly hurt other people trying to use the venue network.
I run the wireless network for the Scale conference, and I've had people setup their own APs in a booth at the show that knocked out wireless access for not only people nearby on the show floor, but also people in conference rooms on the floor above. In my case, they had signed agreements that they would not be doing this, so I was able to shut them down. I've also had people running hotspots who were willing to shut them down after I pointed out how they were interfering with other people trying to use the network.
But even with this said, I agree with the FCC that blocking this is illegal. There are no licenses issued for running wifi networks. They operate under the part 15 rules which state that they are not allowed to interfere with anyone else and must accept any interference that happens. As a result, trying to block hostspots violates both sides of that policy.
David Lang
But wi-fi "blocking" gets a free pass?
How is getting a $2 million fine a "free pass"? That guy who got arrested for using a phone jammer had already been caught once before doing the same thing and yet continued the illegal activity, just the same as the hotels. There is no double standard going on (yet).
Up the ante a bit, and have someone with a ham radio license file a complaint, not about WiFi blocking but about an unlicensed operator's (the hotel) interference with a licensed operator's transmissions. The rules about that, IIRC, apply even on the unlicensed bands and give the FCC well-established grounds to shut down the hotel's WiFi completely until it modifies the equipment to eliminate the interference.
I was going to post the same thing. With the added comment that IIRCC most private hotspots are actually just cell phones with a "data only" type 3g connection and an standard 802.11x AP.
The only way I can see those getting jammed is either something is jamming every other wi-fi channel or they jam the 3G connection.
In both cases they are willfully interfering with a commercial radio device. I seem to recall there are laws about jamming ANY commercial radio signal.
Could someone with more knowledge about this please clarify?
1 to certify your location as requiring CELL PHONE JAMMERS you need to file with the FCC/FTC actual valid proof of this requirement (in detail and each floor /1000 foot area must have a separate listed reason). there will be a $20K per area fee and this must be filed yearly (twiddle the form each year to prevent simple copy/paste).
or
2 provide free uncapped wifi to all clients/guests (give them the credentials when they check in)
oh and if you get "caught" then your CXO rack has to pay out of pocket to refund all fees collected and they are personally liable for any lawsuits. (oh and then you get fined as a business)