dslreports logo
 story category
FCC Strongly Warns Hotels Not to Block Wi-Fi

Back in October we noted that Marriott agreed to pay a $600,000 fine to the FCC for blocking user access to their own tethered phones or mobile hotspots, instead forcing convention center attendees to use Marriott's pricey Wi-Fi. At the time we noted how this was a pretty clear example of Marriott simply using technology in an uncompetitive fashion, though in filings since Marriott has attempted to argue they were only looking out for the welfare and security of their customers.

Hotels later petitioned the FCC for clarity on when it is or isn't ok to block Wi-Fi since, they argue, this is common practice for hospitals and at some corporate campuses. After opposition grew (including major carriers, Google and Microsoft), Marriott eventually backed off, though the wording of their statement left things a little open ended.

The FCC this week made a pretty clear statement that they won't tolerate this kind of behavior, just in case Marriott or any other hotels harbored lingering interest in the idea.

"Following the settlement, the Enforcement Bureau has received several complaints that other commercial Wi-Fi network operators may be disrupting the legitimate operation of personal Wi-Fi hot spots," said the FCC statement. "The Bureau is investigating such complaints and will take appropriate action against violators."
view:
topics flat nest 
bigballer
join:2014-09-25

1 edit

bigballer

Member

Huh??

common practice for hospitals and at some corporate campuses.

Which exact hospitals and campuses actually block wifi?

Blocking any radio (cell, wifi, etc.) wave goes back to a law from what? the 30s?

For any business caught doing such, a large fine and some type of criminal charge is in order.

keyboard5684
Sam
join:2001-08-01
Pittsburgh, PA

keyboard5684

Member

Re: Huh??

I know many coorporate campuses where WIPS is deployed.
They feel that it is a security risk to have any access points deployed on their grounds that are not managed by the company. This is for a lot of reasons, but one is so coorporate devices are not connected to hotspots to bypass the in-house security (web filters, firewalls). A PC connected to an unauthorized wireless network and the company-owned ethernet segment is a huge security problem.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi ··· n_system

Flyonthewall
@teksavvy.com

Flyonthewall

Anon

Re: Huh??

Tell me how a phone with it's own wifi that someone connects to that is NOT connected to the local net is a security risk? I would really like to know.
raythompsontn
join:2001-01-11
Oliver Springs, TN

1 recommendation

raythompsontn

Member

Re: Huh??

Because that device could acquire some malware. Then when the device connects to the corporate network the malware can spread.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

2 recommendations

nothing00

Member

Re: Huh??

said by raythompsontn:

Because that device could acquire some malware. Then when the device connects to the corporate network the malware can spread.

SMH
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

2 recommendations

smcallah to raythompsontn

Member

to raythompsontn
that's not really a good reason. The same thing would happen when the employee takes their laptop home. They would be connecting to their home wifi and possibly get malware and cause the same issue.

This is why corporate laptops generally require you to use a VPN or have antivirus and malware protection installed.

Which makes it all the more reason to not block wifi at the office, since either way, it's the same.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to Flyonthewall

Member

to Flyonthewall
said by Flyonthewall :

Tell me how a phone with it's own wifi that someone connects to that is NOT connected to the local net is a security risk? I would really like to know.

Because they may not know if that hotspot they're seeing is on a phone or a router plugged into their network. Yes, they could tell by checking to see what devices are connected to the LAN, but, if they see a signal, they have to at least initially assume it's on their network until proven otherwise.

Also, at least in certain situations, they're worried about interference to their own wireless network from other SSID's. Large universities are operating many AP's, especially in classroom buildings, and usage is often very heavy. The IT department is worried about having enough bandwidth for everyone to get a usable connection, so they take great care to choose the locations and channels for their AP's to allow as many people to connect as possible. The last thing they need are a bunch of rogue AP's causing interference. And they sure as hell don't want rogue AP's plugged into the network. If your wireless network only allows registered devices to gain network access, you don't want someone to plug in a router and then offer a way into the network for people who shouldn't be in there.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

1 recommendation

Skippy25

Member

Re: Huh??

Doesn't matter and it isnt their job to control the airwaves. It is the FCC's and is the reason it is illegal to buy/sell or use jamming equipment by anyone that is not licensed to do so.

If they are concerned with someone using a rogue "router" that may allow many others they can't control to connect then they need to find a way to control that in a way that is lawful to do. My first questions are... how do they control it on a wired port and why can't they do the same with the wireless?

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Huh??

Actually one could aruge that it is NOT the FCC's job to police this as the Wifi is a data service product and is not a communications service. Also the FCC's job is is to protect radio stations. As far as 802.11x unlicensed TOS/frequency states that it must adopt to any and all interference. So since when is the FCC going against their own policy? Oh wait- they believe they are the police of the entire country- cable, phone, TV, Internet and anything else- including being the courts for the states.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Huh??

It could be argued that saying that a transmitter having to accept interference actually levels the field. The way this is defined in broadcasting is that, with a licensed full-power radio or TV station, they have a protected coverage area, where no other station can get a license to operate on that frequency. So, the alternative to saying transmitters must accept interference is to grant them protection, which means licensing them.

Also, just because a band is unlicensed doesn't mean it's completely unregulated. For instance, CB radios aren't licensed, but they do have a maximum output power. Back in the day, people would buy illegal amplifiers, which would blast their transmissions out at a much higher power. If you were caught with one of those, you could be fined for it.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to KennyWest

Member

to KennyWest
You may want to read up on what the FCC is responsible for if you are going to come here and do your shill thing.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk to KennyWest

Premium Member

to KennyWest
The only thing funnier than a troll is a stupid troll.
ohreally
join:2014-11-21

ohreally to ISurfTooMuch

Member

to ISurfTooMuch
Here's a revolutionary idea: Marriott could use the cat5e and RJ45 connectors that they likely already have in rooms, to supply the same service, and leave WiFi for the common areas

No worries about snooping, interference or capacity. And unless their hotels are a Faraday cage, what's to stop them interfering with the wifi networks of neighbouring properties, other devices in the 2.4/5GHz bands, or indeed for a malicious person to interfere with or snoop on their network from outside the building?
said by ISurfTooMuch:

The IT department is worried about having enough bandwidth for everyone to get a usable connection, so they take great care to choose the locations and channels for their AP's to allow as many people to connect as possible.

I wonder how much of that is genuine manual work, and how much of it is ensuring that automatic channel selection or something like Cisco's CleanAir doing the work

Ultimately, this is about Marriott poisoning licence-free spectrum that they have no right to exert absolute control over, so they should find other ways to mitigate those risks, and it is right that the FCC nail them for it.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Re: Huh??

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think Marriott's move was a pure money grab. I was just responding to a post asking what reasons companies would want to regulate wi-fi usage in their corporate offices.

As for places like universities, I know that UA has thousands of AP's across campus, and they go to a lot of trouble to try to make sure that as many people as possible get a good connection. Large classroom buildings are a real problem because you have so many people trying to connect at once. They may have multiple AP's for a single large classroom, each with its antenna aimed in a different direction. They'll then try to regulate power levels to cover the whole room, yet keep those in the front of the room from hanging onto a signal at the back of the room, which is where they entered through the door. People hanging out in the halls and immediately outside must also be considered, since you don't want them to be connected to a classroom AP. In some rooms, there is so much RF noise from all the devices that neither wi-fi nor Bluetooth work reliably. The last I heard from the head of networking, there are around 100,000 wireless devices registered for service on the network, and that registration database is purged every year, so there won't be lots of old devices left hanging around in it. That number is almost certainly out of date, since they've been seeing almost exponential growth lately.
Cobra11M
join:2010-12-23
Mineral Wells, TX

Cobra11M to bigballer

Member

to bigballer
believe it or not, when I went to the local hospital in town they where blocking cellular signal threw out the building.. im kind of wondering if they should be checked?
tpkatl
join:2009-11-16
Dacula, GA

tpkatl

Member

Does this include convention centers, I wonder

Another place where I have seen blocking (or at least coercion) is in large convention centers in NY, Washington, Chicago, etc. When my company contracts for a booth in those centers, we are told "you must buy internet service through the Convention Center" and that we cannot use our own hotspots. Note that these are the free-standing convention centers; not connected or run by hotels.

TO my knowledge, no one from the CC has ever enforced that, but it's in the rules.

I wonder if the new FCC pronouncement covers that case as well.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

Yes, if you read what the FCC said it explicitly includes convention centers. But, what you mentioned is the fun part - this only prevents places from interfering with your equipment. However, I don't believe the FCC can stop a hotel or convention center from putting in the contracts that you can't use hot spots AND/OR pay a fee to use it.

With some more diagnostics they can set up their WiFi network to locate the room of a hot spot and charge the room for using it.
smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home

smcallah

Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

They could in no way reliably bill someone for using a hotspot in a specific room. What if it was a person visiting the convention and using their own phone or hotspot to provide wifi to themselves and their colleagues? They know nothing about the contract the convention they are attending signed with the convention center.

The convention would have no way of controlling what adults who bring their own devices do with them.

nothing00
join:2001-06-10
Centereach, NY

nothing00

Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

The convention center is definitely a problem. The hotel isn't. All of the technology is already present in a modern router. Signal strength, beam forming, networking... Modify the firmware to report these and traffic data to a central location and it'd be no sweat. It doesn't exist today but if someone like Marriott wanted it there's no serious reason it couldn't be whipped up.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q to tpkatl

Premium Member

to tpkatl
I don't see why it wouldn't, I don't see how this whole activity in general isn't illegal as Company A being a 3rd party is blocking access to Company B's network and resources, and also blocking the customer from a service they are already paying for, the way I look at it, is it's like a dealership selling you a car, and then I come in and take both sets of your keys away, or put a lock cap on the gas tank while you get to pay the payments on a vehicle you can't use...
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

HiDesert

Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

said by mmay149q:

I don't see why it wouldn't, I don't see how this whole activity in general isn't illegal

And it is. Marriott caved in. They are paying the 600K. If there is one thing that pisses off the FCC are those that tamper with the airways. Once your caught doing that they won't listen to any other BS reason as to why you thought that was ok. This is one of the few areas that the FCC has authority to enforce. Its not like the Marriott can whine and take them to civil court. This is an agency of the Federal Government. They screwed up huge.

KennyWest
@sbcglobal.net

KennyWest

Anon

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

anything the FCC thinks they have control over pisses them off when they believe they are in the right even when they are wrong- including that your 802.11x router must accept interference from any other device. Pot, meet the kettle.

What Marriott should do is now raise all the room rates to cover the Internet and raise the prices for the meeting rooms. Call it the dealing with the FCC for breaking their own rules fee.
microphone
Premium Member
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD

microphone

Premium Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

said by KennyWest :

anything the FCC thinks they have control over pisses them off when they believe they are in the right even when they are wrong- including that your 802.11x router must accept interference from any other device. Pot, meet the kettle.

What Marriott should do is now raise all the room rates to cover the Internet and raise the prices for the meeting rooms. Call it the dealing with the FCC for breaking their own rules fee.

Then people will choose other hotels to conduct their meetings.
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

1 edit

HiDesert to tpkatl

Member

to tpkatl
said by tpkatl:

TO my knowledge, no one from the CC has ever enforced that, but it's in the rules.

I wonder if the new FCC pronouncement covers that case as well.

Good question. Probably not being the CC is not tampering with radio signals. They can probably stop any activity as long as that is made clear up front. Probably all they could do is tell you to leave if they caught you which is unlikely. Unless they physically check your laptop I don't see how they could enforce that kind of rule at the CC. That's why Marriott jammed the signals. But that is definitely tampering with the airways. Its not legal. The FCC would have to change laws. I can see many doing this to avoid excessive WiFi fees.

My Moto X easily tethers wirelessly (without root) to my notebook. I can't see how they could stop me from doing it short of grabbing my notebook to check which network I was on. T Mobile could care less if I tether. Marriott does not have a leg to stand on. As the link above shows they put a message on their Web site that they will no longer continue the practice. In short, they got busted breaking a very old law against jamming airways. It cost them 600K. Serves them right.

What happened here is the higher ups at Marriott decided to implement this practice before running it by their legal department. You can bet that somebody or somebodies are in hot water for that oversight.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112

Member

Re: Does this include convention centers, I wonder

They are most certainly jamming by the federal definition. You don't simply have to spray noise to jam. Anyone using these commercial products to spam people off wifi are by the federal definition jamming (This letter puts everyone on notice that the FCC is now going to be investigated complaints) and the fines are HUGE for doing it. Just because CISCO sells this as a product feature doesn't make it legal.

The people using these products to stop wifi access points have a very small window at this point to stop. All it's going to take is a single complaint and they may get that same $600K fine Marriott got.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

The thing I dont get about this

If you turned on your WiFi tether, and couldn't see your WiFi signal because of the interference, and troubleshooted the basics so rebooted your phone, pulled your battery, checked to see if you phone could even see any WiFi networks, etc, and still the same thing, why didn't you switch to USB/Bluetooth tethering? I'm in no way defending this kind of anti-competitive behavior, or saying that Marriott shouldn't be punished, in fact I feel that $600,000 wasn't enough to rectify the situation...

But still, personally I wouldn't let any company force me into paying for their service in this fashion, I would find a way around it, and if any employee came up and told me that I wasn't allowed to do that in their establishment I'd tell them when they start paying the bill they can tell me what I can or cannot do with MY equipment and services, inform them that I was in the process of not only filing a FTC, but also a FCC complaint, and that if they wanted to continue the conversation they could provide their manager as well as a entire refund for the duration of my stay...

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: The thing I dont get about this

Mainly you would not switch to bluetooth as you have different devices to connect via Wifi.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: The thing I dont get about this

Well yes I understand this, but you can USB/Bluetooth tether and then use the WiFi on your laptop to create a hotspot, and obviously if they are blocking WiFi, but you can see there's it's channel frequencies they are flooding, so you just need an app on Android called WiFi Analytics to find out what channel they're using and BOOM there ya go, now everyone can utilize your connection

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Woodstock, CT

ptrowski

Premium Member

Re: The thing I dont get about this

Correct, but I may think that most people expect to use the functionality they are paying for. I have actually never used Bluetooth tethering, always wifi. I don't think my laptop I use for work would allow me to take your route.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: The thing I dont get about this

Wow, I've always used WiFi or USB, honestly I've never used Bluetooth either, but I just threw it out there cause it is an option provided by my phone.

Napsterbater
Meh
MVM
join:2002-12-28
Milledgeville, GA

1 edit

Napsterbater to mmay149q

MVM

to mmay149q
You apprently have no idea how these systems work, It not limited to certain channels.

•••

caster
@198.41.85.x

caster to mmay149q

Anon

to mmay149q
they can block all cell and make you user there very high priced phone at say $0.75 min local calls up to 5 miles and $2.75 min for any other call.
mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX

mmay149q

Premium Member

Re: The thing I dont get about this

And I won't be using their establishment and they will be paying me a refund for BS
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

HiDesert to mmay149q

Member

to mmay149q
Most likely many did use wired connections. It does make it more obvious if you do that. I wonder if the Marriott police told people to disconnect USB WiFi connections lol. But it was a stupid practice being it was only a matter of time that somebody like yourself understood the law and the practice was illegal. Someone probably did exactly like you said and put forward a complaint to the FTC, FCC. Or better yet, maybe somebody from the FCC witnessed the behavior first hand :\.

What's funny is Marriott is still pretending the reason for the practice was to provide more security for their customers. I say BS to that. Its about money. We all know it including the FCC.

•••

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

1 recommendation

n2jtx

Member

Bulls__t on Marriott

If Marriott was solely concerned about the security then instead of just blocking outside WiFi they would have offered theirs for free, perhaps with anti-virus thrown in for good measure. Instead it was obvious to even the most dimwitted person that it was simply a money grab to try and enforce a monopoly position. Glad to see the government finally sided with consumers.
ptb42
join:2002-09-30
USA

ptb42

Member

There appears to be some room for "weaseling"

What is Prohibited? No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner's Wi-Fi network. Such action is illegal and violations could lead to the assessment of substantial monetary penalties.

I've highlighted an important qualifier. What if someone is NOT providing services at a location, but is running their own Wi-Fi network? Can they intentionally interfere with someone trying to use a hot-spot on the premises?

••••••

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

The power of the check-out

If a hotel interfered with my entourage's Wi-Fi hotspots, I'd inform the front desk that me and all of my guests are checking out and exactly why we're checking out. And I'd inform management as well that I'm mentioning this on TripAdvisor.com

I wouldn't care if our entourage had to spend the rest of our stay at a Motel 6 where you pay for a non-smoking room and it smells like cigarettes.

•••••••
masterbinky
join:2011-01-06
Carlsbad, NM

masterbinky

Member

Just Redecorating...

It wasn't intentional that when they remodeled their convention floor completely in plaster/stucco and the use of a fine metal stucco mesh as backing happened to severely attenuate almost all wireless signals. I swear it was part of code to ground that mesh too...

The FCC can't do much about passive interference if a business does not out right state that interference is an intentional factor or it's the only benefit in a construction or use of a product. That of course is a long term decision that would impact the desirability of a location for something such as a conference.

••••

TheTechGuru
join:2004-03-25
TEXAS

TheTechGuru

Member

USB...

Just use USB tethering instead of WIFI tethering.

I can't speak for Android but I know my iPhone does it, I always use the USB tethering option anyway because I get better speeds with it than wifi tethering.