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

[werepossum]

sorry i disagree.

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

Agreed, but he's just doing his normal anti-conservative screed, i.e. if you don't believe government should do everything for you then you must believe government should do nothing for you. This should not be confused with actual thought.

 

[OutHouse]

More info here:

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

hummm, i gotta side on the hotel.

 

[dmcowen674]

hummm, i gotta side on the hotel.

How can you justify the Hotel blocking a service you are paying for and have to pay for theirs?

Please elaborate.

 

[OutHouse]

How can you justify the Hotel blocking a service you are paying for and have to pay for theirs?

Please elaborate.

what service are you paying for????? free wifi?

 

[dmcowen674]

what service are you paying for????? free wifi?

No, I pay per month for tethering for my own personal wi-fi.

It is a fast internet connection that I am paying for.

I should not be forced to pay for the Hotel's service.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

fuck having yet another thing to consider when booking a hotel. people can't consider more than about 5 factors, that's biological fact. the ideal 'consumer' in an economics model isn't a real person and should never be confused for one.

 

[Ns1]

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

asked and answered, thanks.

 

[dainthomas]

I'm surprised a large hotel chain wouldn't be aware of the laws regarding signal jamming. I'd be equally surprised if this was the only one.

Oregon convention center charges for their wifi, but you can barely get any cell signal in there. The place is built like a fallout shelter.

 

[Exterous]

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

Given that this isn't a widespread Marriott policy I would be willing to bet this was a locally driven initiative.

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...

:thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

I'm surprised a large hotel chain wouldn't be aware of the laws regarding signal jamming. I'd be equally surprised if this was the only one.

Oregon convention center charges for their wifi, but you can barely get any cell signal in there. The place is built like a fallout shelter.

I think they were arguing that it was not signal jamming. The court disagreed.

If they rebuilt the Gaylord Convention Center and offered wifi for a fee due to poor signal I'd be fine with that. They don't owe you a building suitable for your wifi service. They do however owe you the common courtesy of not actively interfering with the wifi service for which you are paying. I suspect that wood panels inlaid with signal-disrupting wires would also meet the definition of interference, as its purpose would be to render your wifi non-functional rather than something intrinsic to the building's function.

 

[The Merg]

No, I pay per month for tethering for my own personal wi-fi.

It is a fast internet connection that I am paying for.

I should not be forced to pay for the Hotel's service.

I'm not saying that I support the hotel, but rather just a devil's advocate point of view here.

The hotel is a private enterprise where they are letting you stay (albeit for a fee). They offer wifi to their guests for a few. However, with people being on their own wifi hotspots, it degrades the hotspot that some customers are opting to pay to use. Isn't the hotel allowed to protect the service that their customers are paying for?

Could this be similar to smoking rooms (or a lack thereof)? What gives the hotel the right to keep me from smoking in my room? I paid for the cigarettes.

As an aside... The Gaylord at National Harbor (DC) charges a Daily Resort Fee of $18 that includes free in-room Internet, water, and access to the fitness room, however, they advertise that they have free Wifi. The free wifi works when you are not up in your room. It only works when you are in the plaza or lobby. Oh, and you have to pay the Resort Fee.

- Merg

 

[Brovane]

No, I pay per month for tethering for my own personal wi-fi.

It is a fast internet connection that I am paying for.

I should not be forced to pay for the Hotel's service.

Technically you could have just tethered by using a USB cable.

 

[Brovane]

I'm not saying that I support the hotel, but rather just a devil's advocate point of view here.

The hotel is a private enterprise where they are letting you stay (albeit for a fee). They offer wifi to their guests for a few. However, with people being on their own wifi hotspots, it degrades the hotspot that some customers are opting to pay to use. Isn't the hotel allowed to protect the service that their customers are paying for?

- Merg

If I am using a wifi hot spot on my phone the signal is fairly low power I don't realistically see how this would interfer with the Hotel's wifi.

This is a problem that I think is more on the FCC side and how companies secure their networks.

The tools they use are provided by manufacturers like Cisco so companies can secure their networks against rogue access points and companies do this all the time. On one side with the issues of cyber security we expect companies to secure their networks. However we also ask that people can use their own devices when they want. These conflict with one another sometime.

 

[unokitty]

I'm not saying that I support the hotel, but rather just a devil's advocate point of view here.

The hotel is a private enterprise where they are letting you stay (albeit for a fee). They offer wifi to their guests for a few. However, with people being on their own wifi hotspots, it degrades the hotspot that some customers are opting to pay to use. Isn't the hotel allowed to protect the service that their customers are paying for?

...
- Merg

Federal law forbids jamming of 802.11 wireless communications.

Though, you are free to advocate otherwise...

Uno

 

[inachu]

Using your own WIFI also prevents infections from the hotel which often times those hotel computers are infected BIG TIME

 

[Brovane]

Federal law forbids jamming of 802.11 wireless communications.

Though, you are free to advocate otherwise...

Uno

If that is the case how is a company to secure against rogue AP's?

 

[Linux23]

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

light reading huh?

 

[Brovane]

light reading huh?

A little something to peruse while sitting on the porcelain throne.

 

[Svnla]

I almost always stay with Courtyard (part of Marriott) whenver I am out of town and never had any problem with Wi Fi/internet. Courtyard gave everyone free wireless wi fi signal, not the fastest but fast enough for email and YouTube.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Could this be similar to smoking rooms (or a lack thereof)? What gives the hotel the right to keep me from smoking in my room? I paid for the cigarettes.

Not quite right.

I think it's more like this.

The law states that smoking is permitted in rooms so marked.
Further, let's say that a person may smoke his own cigarettes where the laws allow smoking at all.

So Joe Camel rents a smoking permitted room. Note the law allows this. The law also says his smokes is his right.

So Joe lights one up and this tiny little robot from Hitchikers Guide flies through a little panel, squirts Joes cigarette out, takes it then zips out the room. Well business needs take precedence right? Not if they violate the law.

BTW I want that robot

 

[The Merg]

Not quite right.

I think it's more like this.

The law states that smoking is permitted in rooms so marked.
Further, let's say that a person may smoke his own cigarettes where the laws allow smoking at all.

So Joe Camel rents a smoking permitted room. Note the law allows this. The law also says his smokes is his right.

So Joe lights one up and this tiny little robot from Hitchikers Guide flies through a little panel, squirts Joes cigarette out, takes it then zips out the room. Well business needs take precedence right? Not if they violate the law.

BTW I want that robot

Gotcha. Wasn't thinking about the law that allows/restricts smoking.

And love the H2G2 reference...

- Merg

 

[Newell Steamer]

,.. and the official "the rest of you better fuck off".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in-hotels-is-prohibited/

"The Enforcement Bureau has seen a disturbing trend in which hotels and other commercial establishments block wireless consumers from using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots on the commercial establishment’s premises,” the FCC wrote. "As a result, the Bureau is protecting consumers by aggressively investigating and acting against such unlawful intentional interference.”

 

[werepossum]

,.. and the official "the rest of you better fuck off".

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/fcc-blocking-wi-fi-in-hotels-is-prohibited/

Cool. Government certainly should be in the business of preventing people from interfering with something for which you've paid in order to sell you something else.

 

[Blanky]

Cool. Government certainly should be in the business of preventing people from interfering with something for which you've paid in order to sell you something else.

What about bringing food into a movie theater?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What about bringing food into a movie theater?

Ask the FCC.