Marriott blocks your hot spot so you have to pay them Hundreds for thier Wi-Fi

[dmcowen674]

10-3-2014

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-blocking-its-customers-wi-fi.html?cmpid=yhoo

Marriott Fined $600,000 for Blocking Its Customers’ Wi-Fi



Marriott International Inc. (MAR) was fined $600,000 by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for blocking hotel customers from connecting to the Internet on personal Wi-Fi networks in order to force them to pay for the hotel’s networks.



Marriott employees blocked mobile “hotspots” at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott’s Wi-Fi network, the FCC said in a statement today.



“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 the statement.



In some cases, Marriott employees at the hotel’s conference center used technology to disrupt customer Wi-Fi transmissions and block Internet access. Marriott charged conference exhibitors and other attendees $250 to $1,000 per device to use the Gaylord Wi-Fi service in the conference facilities.



Marriott Response



Marriott says it did nothing wrong and it’s the FCC’s policies that need changing.


“Marriott has a strong interest in ensuring that when our guests use our Wi-Fi service, they will be protected from rogue wireless hotspots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft,” Jeff Flaherty, a company spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.


The Gaylord Opryland protected its Wi-Fi network by “using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers,” he said. “We believe that the Opryland’s actions were lawful. We will continue to encourage the FCC to pursue a rulemaking in order to eliminate the ongoing confusion resulting from today’s action and to assess the merits of its underlying policy.”

 

[dmcowen674]

The arrogance and greed of Corporations has no bounds now.

They are getting bolder and more out of control everyday.

 

[etrigan420]

You had me at "Gaylord Opryland".

 

[PokerGuy]

As long as they publicly state that their practice to block people from using their own wi-fi hotspots etc, let the market sort it out. Customers should be aware of the policies, and then they can decide if they're still willing to stay there or not. I personally would not stay at a hotel that did that crap.

 

[nickbits]

How did they do it (technically)?

 

[MiniDoom]

I figured it would be a matter of time before marriott ruined the gaylord hotels.

 

[brycejones]

How did they do it (technically)?

Yeah, that is what I want to know...how do you block out everything but the hotel wifi?

 

[master_shake_]

maybe they blocked the data signal from antennas and degraded the cell service?

there was a company that made panels to do this instead of using a Faraday cage.

although jamming cellular signals is illegal in the states iirc.

here it is.

http://www.geek.com/mobile/mobile-phones-blocked-by-magnetic-wooden-panels-549037/

 

[Moonbeam]

As long as they publicly state that their practice to block people from using their own wi-fi hotspots etc, let the market sort it out. Customers should be aware of the policies, and then they can decide if they're still willing to stay there or not. I personally would not stay at a hotel that did that crap.

No, this is just libertarian stupidity. People shouldn't have to go around in a constant state of vigilance and a doctorate in legaleese just to walk down the street nor do they need to assume their shit doesn't stink if they do. Poeple like you and that corporation are ruining the lives of modest trusting people. This kind of destruction of the innocence of normal people should command the death penalty. A few public beheadings and you might change your tune.

 

[Engineer]

Stop staying at Mariott. Problem solved.

 

[Homerboy]

It was "just" one of their hotels.

They only blocked wi-fi signals, not 3/4G.
So if you had a laptop and normally used your phone or portal hotspot to connect it to the internet, you'd be forced to use Marriott's service.

 

[MrPickins]

How did they do it (technically)?

More info here:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-hotspot-at-hotel-marriott-to-pay-fcc-600000/

The hotel admitted to the FCC that "one or more of its employees used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent consumers from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks."

That hotel sells dedicated wireless services and custom networks for convention purposes at prices ranging from $250 to $1,000 per access point. But on that same setup is a "monitoring system" that allows the company to effectively shut down any other Wi-Fi networks that are not their own, such as one produced by a MiFi or similar personal portable Wi-Fi device. Normally, such systems are used in corporate or government environments to prevent data leakage. Blocking such a monitoring system would be difficult, but not impossible.

 

[werepossum]

If it was a cinema I'd be fine with this, but in this case they specifically blocked the signal in order to charge for the same service for which you've already paid someone else. For that, I suggest the $600k fine PLUS reimbursing customers. I believe Tennessee still has the three-to-one check kiting law, where if you intentionally write a bad check you must pay the recipient three times the value of the check as restitution. As this is similarly intentional theft, seems to me that reimbursement of three times the fees extorted collected would be reasonable.

Unfortunately, as usual the government says your harm, our restitution.

 

[unokitty]

As long as they publicly state that their practice to block people from using their own wi-fi hotspots etc, let the market sort it out....

fcc.gov

We remind and warn consumers that it is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi

.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Nonetheless, your beliefs don't give you, or the Marriott, the right to break Federal Law.

Uno

 

[BoberFett]

No, this is just libertarian stupidity. People shouldn't have to go around in a constant state of vigilance and a doctorate in legaleese just to walk down the street nor do they need to assume their shit doesn't stink if they do. Poeple like you and that corporation are ruining the lives of modest trusting people. This kind of destruction of the innocence of normal people should command the death penalty. A few public beheadings and you might change your tune.

I can't tell if you're attacking libertarianism or the constant "liberal" march toward bigger, more complex government. Are you calling for the beheading of Obama?

 

[who?]

They're worried about crooks setting up hotspots with names like "hotel wi-fi".

 

[Newell Steamer]

Don't need the government to stop a corporation from preventing you from using your own hotspot,.. and, lets take Uncle Sam's nose out of stopping some other corporations from dumping toxic chemicals on the main high way/roads.

Oh, you want someone to 'help' you? It's simple, stop being a victim - DUH.

Opposition towards the government's involvement in this this has NOTHING to do with fear of big government - certain defective thinking people want big entities controlling things,.. it's just that said big entity need to be private so that it may keep out certain 'undesirables'.

The US government allows for anyone to pretty much stroll in (like,.. oh, I don't know,.. from Kenya let's say,...) and start bossing around the alarmists and fear mongers. The usual defective minded ilk is of course opposed to the punishment that was doled out to Marriott - simply because it 'harms' their vision of a private and exclusive entity ruling everyone.

 

[Brovane]

Yeah, that is what I want to know...how do you block out everything but the hotel wifi?

I know a little bit about this. A Cisco WLAN controller can perform basically DOS attacks against AP's that are not authorized. We used this where I work to target Rogue AP's that a employee or department might set up. It prevent's anybody from signing into the rogue AP. A Cisco WAP usually have more power than a standard AP you might buy on Amazon or a mobile hotspot that a phone would have. So they had their hotel AP's as approved and everything else was attacked with DOS attacks so nobody could logon.

Some light reading for those inclined - http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/wIPS/configuration/guide/msecg_wIPS/msecg_appA_wIPS.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

fcc.gov
.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want.

Nonetheless, your beliefs don't give you, or the Marriott, the right to break Federal Law.

Uno

Yep, it is against the law to jam legal transmissions, and Marriott does not get to define what those are. Anyone who was affected could sue and no doubt win.

 

[Matt1970]

Charging for WiFi at a hotel? What is this, 2001?

 

[werepossum]

I know a little bit about this. A Cisco WLAN controller can perform basically DOS attacks against AP's that are not authorized. We used this where I work to target Rogue AP's that a employee or department might set up. It prevent's anybody from signing into the rogue AP. A Cisco WAP usually have more power than a standard AP you might buy on Amazon or a mobile hotspot that a phone would have. So they had their hotel AP's as approved and everything else was attacked with DOS attacks so nobody could logon.

Some light reading for those inclined - http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/mse/3350/5-2/wIPS/configuration/guide/msecg_wIPS/msecg_appA_wIPS.html

From what I understand, this is exactly what happened. It's simply a lot cheaper to have an employee make competing hot spots unusable than to change the building to make them unusable. Plus, if you change the building to block wifi you also kill the police and EMT networks, and the AHJs will make you add a repeater system which is not cheap. I've seen a school spend $80k for such a system just to get around normal CMU construction.

 

[werepossum]

Charging for WiFi at a hotel? What is this, 2001?

They are charging in the convention center portion only. The exhibitors have a lot of money tied up in the conventions, and they will eat a few hundred or a grand if they have to do so to make the exhibit work properly. However, as the human penises at Marriott are seeing, eating it during the convention does not mean they will not band together and fight it after the fact, especially in a building they have used before and therefore know isn't the culprit.

 

[MustISO]

Around here they charge $50 per device if you're attending a function at the hotel. They need to pad their income somehow and I guess enough people accept this or they would lower the prices.

 

[KMFJD]

Charging for WiFi at a hotel? What is this, 2001?

I don't know about where you are from but around here only the cheap motel/hotel chains offer it for free...places like Sheraton charge extra for wifi...the more expensive the room the moore like you pay for wifi...

 

[waggy]

Don't need the government to stop a corporation from preventing you from using your own hotspot,.. and, lets take Uncle Sam's nose out of stopping some other corporations from dumping toxic chemicals on the main high way/roads.

Oh, you want someone to 'help' you? It's simple, stop being a victim - DUH.

Opposition towards the government's involvement in this this has NOTHING to do with fear of big government - certain defective thinking people want big entities controlling things,.. it's just that said big entity need to be private so that it may keep out certain 'undesirables'.

The US government allows for anyone to pretty much stroll in (like,.. oh, I don't know,.. from Kenya let's say,...) and start bossing around the alarmists and fear mongers. The usual defective minded ilk is of course opposed to the punishment that was doled out to Marriott - simply because it 'harms' their vision of a private and exclusive entity ruling everyone.

sorry i disagree.

Anytime a company is illegally trying to block me from something i have legally already paid for they should be charged.