# Naughty Marriott - Caught Messing with WiFi



## sparty (Oct 3, 2014)

Marriott agreed to pay $600K fine.  Wow - I can't believe Marriott Management would let this happen.

http://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 3, 2014)

sparty said:


> Marriott agreed to pay $600K fine.  Wow - I can't believe Marriott Management would let this happen.
> 
> http://www.fcc.gov/document/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation



It sounds like it was a local practice at this one convention hotel in Nashville.  It is likely that top management at Marriott International was not involved in approving or condoning it, or even aware of it prior to the complaint, but it certainly gives the whole corporation a black eye.


----------



## sparty (Oct 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> It sounds like it was a local practice at this one convention hotel in Nashville.  It is likely that top management at Marriott International were not involved in approving or condoning it, but it certainly gives the whole corporation a black eye.



No - it clearly indicates a fault of Management and it goes so far as to say Marriott is now required to submit compliance reports to any property it owns OR even manages..

I imagine MV Worldwide will argue it's seperate.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 3, 2014)

sparty said:


> No - it clearly indicates a fault of Management and it goes so far as to say Marriott is now required to submit compliance reports to any property it owns OR even manages.



There is absolutely nothing in the decree that is inconsistent with top management at Marriott International being unaware of the practices in Nashville.

The decree requires them to correct their practices at the Nashville hotel.  It does not say that any other properties have done what was done in Nashville. But to make sure it is not also occurring elsewhere, it requires compliance and usage reports to document and address "any access point containment features" at any U.S. property that Marriott manages or owns.   It does not identify any such locations where it has occurred.  The decree is against Marriott International as the entity ultimately responsible, which is the standard practice in this type of situation.


----------



## sparty (Oct 3, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> There is absolutely nothing in the decree that is inconsistent with top management at Marriott International being unaware of the practices in Nashville.
> 
> The decree requires them to correct their practices at the Nashville hotel.  It does not say that any other properties have done what was done in Nashville. But to make sure it is not also occurring elsewhere, it requires compliance and usage reports to document and address "any access point containment features" at any U.S. property that Marriott manages or owns.   It does not identify any such locations where it has occurred.  The decree is against Marriott International as the entity ultimately responsible, which is the standard practice in this type of situation.



Ok.  I will say I agree with you it gives Marriott Corp a black eye.  Where does the buck stop? Who has watch? Who is creating the culture of doing what is right - making it black and white?

I think Marriott has some work to do in this area.  I may be in the minority - but having read the current class action lawsuit with MV Vacations Worldwide I am fairly confident the plaintiff's will win if it goes to trial and I expect Marriott knows this too.  Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a rather large settlement from MV Worldwide.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 3, 2014)

sparty said:


> No - it clearly indicates a fault of Management and it goes so far as to say Marriott is now required to submit compliance reports to any property it owns OR even manages..
> 
> I imagine MV Worldwide will argue it's seperate.



Why wouldn't Marriott Vacations Worldwide claim that they're separate?!  They ARE!  It's Marriott, Int'l. that's involved here, not MVW.



sparty said:


> Ok.  I will say I agree with you it gives Marriott Corp a black eye.  Where does the buck stop? Who has watch? Who is creating the culture of doing what is right - making it black and white?
> 
> I think Marriott has some work to do in this area.  I may be in the minority - but having read the current class action lawsuit with MV Vacations Worldwide I am fairly confident the plaintiff's will win if it goes to trial and I expect Marriott knows this too.  Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a rather large settlement from MV Worldwide.



There are a few ongoing lawsuits involving MVW, but none that I've looked at appear to be a slam-dunk winner against MVW.  They might end up on the losing side, sure, or having to make a concession or two in order to make a lawsuit go away quietly ... but that's not the same as a slam-dunk.

Regardless, I can't figure out if you're saying that because MVW is affiliated with MI, they're all guilty as sin no matter which of them is actually named in a lawsuit.  Or, what are you saying?


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 3, 2014)

One thing, very few if any MVCI resorts have convention/event space. So they would be pretty isolated from this situation just for that fact.


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 3, 2014)

This bit of news has made the tech news today in various forms (I think I saw it at least 5x on various emails and sites I visit normally and via my news reader). 

It's definitely an interesting situation as its another obvious connection between technology, service providers and, oh, the law. I've had clients in the past ask me about providing solutions that would "dampen" use of visitors mobile phones...upon which I decided that client just wasn't worth the effort. For instance, many theatres would just love to prevent mobile devices from working within their venue...


Sent from my iPad


----------



## csxjohn (Oct 3, 2014)

It amazes me that only one complaint was filed and it resulted in a $600,000 fine.

For many years now I have told people that I would love to have a device to block cell phone use When I find their use annoying.  Like when I'm in a check out line and the person being waited on is too busy on the phone to conduct their business holding up everyone else in the line.

I always suspected it would be illegal to use such a device but I would still like to have one.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 3, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> There are a few ongoing lawsuits involving MVW, but none that I've looked at appear to be a slam-dunk winner against MVW.


Although I obviously don't have all the facts, I suspect that the lawsuit over taxes and port fees on DC cruises might well be a slam dunk.  The cruise lines lost this one several years ago and the size of the port fees and taxes reported on TUG for a cruise are clearly way larger than what the governments levy, and way more than the cruise lines now charge.  (The cruise lines now charge the actual amount they must transmit to the authorities.)


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 3, 2014)

csxjohn said:


> It amazes me that only one complaint was filed and it resulted in a $600,000 fine.



It was apparently one convention hotel in Nashville, but I don't think it was just a one time violation.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 3, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> It's definitely an interesting situation as its another obvious connection between technology, service providers and, oh, the law. I've had clients in the past ask me about providing solutions that would "dampen" use of visitors mobile phones...upon which I decided that client just wasn't worth the effort. For instance, many theatres would just love to prevent mobile devices from working within their venue.



I don't think this lawsuit was simply about blocking cell phone use.  It might have been legal to prevent the use of cell phones on their property, but the issue was then at the same time charging for the use of the hotel's wifi.


----------



## dioxide45 (Oct 3, 2014)

I wonder if this was occurring even before Marriott took over management of the Gaylord properties?


----------



## davidvel (Oct 4, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> It was apparently one convention hotel in Nashville, but I don't think it was just a one time violation.


If you've ever been subject to the rules of a convention site, then you understand that the local union enforces them. As for radio interference, the FCC takes these situations very seriously, even if only 1x.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 4, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I wonder if this was occurring even before Marriott took over management of the Gaylord properties?



Good point.  Gaylord has only been affiliated with Marriott  for less than two years and the Nashville hotel began its affiliation in early 2013.  Not a lot of time to implement this policy, enforce it, get caught and sued, and enter into a consent decree.  Might be soemthing like Bank of America acquiring Countrywide and then being hit with major liabilities from Countrywide's earlier lending practices.


----------



## Wally3433 (Oct 4, 2014)

Makes you wonder what other companies are blocking internet access.  Certainly something to think about when you all the sudden loose connectivity in an area for no apparent reason.


----------



## SueDonJ (Oct 4, 2014)

dioxide45 said:


> I wonder if this was occurring even before Marriott took over management of the Gaylord properties?





BocaBoy said:


> Good point.  Gaylord has only been affiliated with Marriott  for less than two years and the Nashville hotel began its affiliation in early 2013.  Not a lot of time to implement this policy, enforce it, get caught and sued, and enter into a consent decree.  Might be soemthing like Bank of America acquiring Countrywide and then being hit with major liabilities from Countrywide's earlier lending practices.



I wouldn't doubt that Marriott may have been continuing a practice that the Nashville's Gaylord former management company had instituted.  And, the press releases and Order don't give the exact day that the reported action occurred, only that the single complaint was filed in March, 2013.  But Marriott did agree to the Order in which it's stipulated that Marriott took over management in October, 2012, and that Marriott admitted it was their employee(s) who performed the action.

For whatever that's worth.


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 4, 2014)

SueDonJ said:


> I wouldn't doubt that Marriott may have been continuing a practice that the Nashville's Gaylord former management company had instituted.  And, the press releases and Order don't give the exact day that the reported action occurred, only that the single complaint was filed in March, 2013.  But Marriott did agree to the Order in which it's stipulated that Marriott took over management in October, 2012, and that Marriott admitted it was their employee(s) who performed the action.
> 
> For whatever that's worth.



I have no doubt that Marriott employees performed the action, and I have no doubt that local Marriott management was fully knowledgeable.  What I question is whether Marriott International's top management was aware of it prior to the complaint.  Unless it was a corpratewide practice, I don't think it is the kind of detail that would generally be on the radar screen of a multinational company's senior corporate management.  I held such corporate management positions and I can tell you from experience that surprises like this are not uncommon, especially where you have any semblance of a decentralized management structure (which I believe Marriott does).


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Oct 5, 2014)

Marriott Settles Complaint That It Forced Convention Goers to Use Hotel WiFi - by Jon Fingas/ Engadget.com

"Ever suspected that a hotel was forcing you to use its paid WiFi by making your mobile hotspot unusable? Apparently, your hunch has some grounding in reality. Marriott has paid a $600,000 fine to settle a complaint that it blocked third-party hotspots at a Nashville hotel to make convention attendees and exhibitors pay for the venue's commercial WiFi access -- not exactly cheap at $250 to $1,000 a pop. As the FCC explains, the hotel was effectively asking users to either pay twice for internet access or else risk going offline whenever they approached the convention center.

For its part, Marriott insists to Recode that this WiFi jamming was legal, and that it was simply sheltering guests from "rogue wireless hotspots" that could slow down service and open its network to attack. However, the FCC doesn't buy that claim..."







Richard


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 5, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> I don't think this lawsuit was simply about blocking cell phone use.  It might have been legal to prevent the use of cell phones on their property, but the issue was then at the same time charging for the use of the hotel's wifi.




I would like to see those details, please post them. It's obvious there are two different, yet related, issues here. However, I suspect the larger one is the prevention of access to wireless frequencies.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 5, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> I would like to see those details, please post them. It's obvious there are two different, yet related, issues here. However, I suspect the larger one is the prevention of access to wireless frequencies.



The only details I have are in the articles and the Consent Decree which have links posted in this thread.  Both make a point that the complaint was that the Nashville hotel was blocking the wifi and forcing customers to pay high fees in order to use the hotel's wifi system.

The reason I suspect that the second issue was important is because the hotel would not have to allow the use of any wifi on its premises if it banned all wifi.


----------



## Ron98GT (Oct 6, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> The only details I have are in the articles and the Consent Decree which have links posted in this thread.  Both make a point that the complaint was that the Nashville hotel was blocking the wifi and forcing customers to pay high fees in order to use the hotel's wifi system.
> 
> The reason I suspect that the second issue was important is because the hotel would not have to allow the use of any wifi on its premises if it banned all wifi.


Not according to the FCC, which is stated as such in the article.  You can not prevent someone from using their personal cell-phones and personal WiFi, which that person paid for: it's illegal.


----------



## Fasttr (Oct 6, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> Not according to the FCC, which is stated as such in the article.  You can not prevent someone from using their personal cell-phones and personal WiFi, which that person paid for: it's illegal.



THIS FCC webpage makes that pretty clear.


----------



## camachinist (Oct 6, 2014)

I found this posting by someone whom I've noted and communicated with in the past about lawsuits against travel providers, including hotels and airlines, to get at the salient points efficiently. 

Marriott has, at minimum, a very sticky wicket to deal with in the public relations department. They'll make nice with the FCC and that part will go away but the interest of large corporate clients who may believe they've been impacted by this issue may not go away so easily. No doubt their public statement regarding the issue will receive mixed reviews. Hope it doesn't bite them in the butt because it'll be the customer who ends up paying for it in the end, whether we know it or not. That's how the corporate world works.

This company has come a long way from the 'empowered' employees working for the guy whose book "Spirit to Serve" I first read because I happened to find it in the nightstand of a Marriott I was staying at back in the late 90's. Somewhere along the way IMO that spirit has become sidetracked.


----------



## Ron98GT (Oct 6, 2014)

Fasttr said:


> THIS FCC webpage makes that pretty clear.


I like the in-your-face title:

*Jamming Cell Phones and GPS Equipment is Against the Law 
*


----------



## cbdmvci (Oct 6, 2014)

*Typical Trade Show Fleecing*

Anyone who has ever had responsibility for trade shows as part of their marketing mix knows what an overpriced (almost scam) it all is:

You need to rent a table for your booth? It will cost you more for three days of usage than it would to buy the table.

The cheap folding table that we rented to you has a raw edge?  That's okay, we'll "drape it" for you for more than the cost of a table.

Want to ship your own table in?  "Drayage" fee will cost more than the table.

Want to roll in a box from your car on a small luggage cart to your exhibit space?  Nope.  Union labor must do that for an minimum time and minimum per hour that is exorbitant.  (Or, if you are in a real rush, you can carry it in yourself, but pay the union labor anyway.)

Want to hang a small sign on the drapes at the back of your booth.  As long as you can reach your curtain hooks without standing on anything, you can probably do that.  But if you stand on something, even a small box, that means a union guy must be doing it instead ... again at an exorbitant minimum per hour.

Don't like that the piece of dark blue carpeting that we rented to you at a fortune  is covered with white lint and dirt?  That's okay, we'll have someone vacuum it for you at $1 per square foot (=$100 for a tiny 10 x 10 space).  Want some padding under that carpet?  Oh, that's a lot extra.

Need wi-fi in your booth?  We can rent you access at another exorbitant fee.
*Oh, you are able to connect yourself?  Hmmm....*


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Oct 6, 2014)

The FCC Takes On Illegal Jamming - by Sabri Ben-Achour/ Marketplace:Business/marketplace.org

"Last week, the FCC fined Marriott $600,000 for jamming guests’ wifi signals at one of its hotels. The Marriott Gaylord Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee was operating software designed to protect networks from threats, but instead used it to disrupt and shut down the wifi hotspot that guests had set up in one of its conference rooms. Marriott charges up to $1,000 for setting up wifi hotspots of its own, but doesn’t bar people from using other wifi systems.

Marriott, for its part, says the hotel acted lawfully and that the FCC is vague about what kinds of jamming are allowed. The FCC seems to have been pretty clear for several years now that pretty much no jamming is permissible. Also, if you think you’re being jammed, they have an online tip line. 

Here are some high lights of creative ways people have been using signal jammers to mess with GPS, cellphones, and wifi  (and how they got busted for it).

Richard


----------



## Ken555 (Oct 6, 2014)

Fasttr said:


> THIS FCC webpage makes that pretty clear.




Exactly. I'm a bit surprised some people think it would be acceptable, not to mention legal, to prevent access to mobile communications. The fact that Marriott was then offering internet access at an additional fee just makes it worse.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## BocaBoy (Oct 7, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> Not according to the FCC, which is stated as such in the article.  *You can not prevent someone from using their personal cell-phones and personal WiFi, which that person paid for: it's illegal.*



A business can legally prohibit their use, at least in some circumstances, but apparently I was wrong in thinking you could enforce that prohibition by physically preventing the use of cell phones is in a prohibited area.  However, it is clearly true that a business does not have to allow you to use your phone without restriction.  Examples: every day we see perfectly legal prohibitions on using such devices in theaters, school classrooms, certain areas of hospitals, etc.  The use of devices can be banned and often is, but I was wrong in assuming that such a ban can be enforced by jamming the signal.


----------



## MikeM132 (Oct 9, 2014)

BocaBoy said:


> A business can legally prohibit their use,............., but I was wrong in assuming that such a ban can be enforced by jamming the signal.


FCC rules regarding interference are pretty complex. You've probably read before about those cellular jammers some people install(ed) in theatres and restaurants. They are illegal. I am a real, serious nerd and ham radio operator (yeah, I know). You might be interested to know the FCC has a new (relatively) enforcement head who seems to finally take that job seriously. This kind of thing has been going on all over. We "hams" delight in reading about FCC getting their teeth back and going after flagrant violators. Fines have been big, too, with FCC adding on additional thousands in fines for the flagrant/repeated crowd. It's about time!


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Oct 9, 2014)

Cell phones are radios, and not long ago when they were all analog they were not much different than a CB. Cordless phones are also radios. I used to listen to phone conversations in college using a radio scanner. Obviously Wifi router devices are radios too.


----------



## Ron98GT (Oct 9, 2014)

Saintsfanfl said:


> Cell phones are radios, and not long ago when they were all analog they were not much different than a CB. Cordless phones are also radios. I used to listen to phone conversations in college using a radio scanner. Obviously Wifi router devices are radios too.


Ok, and your point is


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Oct 9, 2014)

Ron98GT said:


> Ok, and your point is



Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear. My point is most people probably do not realize that their cell phones and wifi are radio signals. It is and has always been illegal to intentionally interfere with radio signals, regardless where the interference takes place. It's always been a serious offense. 

When cell phones started becoming main stream to most people it was just a regular phone but wireless, but in reality a land line and a cell phone were completely different animals from an FCC stand point. It was (and still is) illegal to use foul language on an analog cell phone (or any radio). I am not sure if the same applies to digital since anyone cannot just eavesdrop with a scanner.


----------



## Saintsfanfl (Oct 9, 2014)

MikeM132 said:


> FCC rules regarding interference are pretty complex. You've probably read before about those cellular jammers some people install(ed) in theatres and restaurants. They are illegal. I am a real, serious nerd and ham radio operator (yeah, I know). You might be interested to know the FCC has a new (relatively) enforcement head who seems to finally take that job seriously. This kind of thing has been going on all over. We "hams" delight in reading about FCC getting their teeth back and going after flagrant violators. Fines have been big, too, with FCC adding on additional thousands in fines for the flagrant/repeated crowd. It's about time!



I know casinos have and will illegally block cell phones, or they are using legitimate devices that just "happen" to cause cell phone problems. I am not sure if the situation is still the same but I always found it humorous at the Beau Rivage in Biloxi. You couldn't get reception on the casino floor but as soon as you stepped up 3 small steps to the buffett there was no trouble. I tested it walking the perimeter of the entire eating area and had coverage. As soon as I stepped down I lost signal. What was so weird is the buffett is right next to the floor along a wide area, and the coverage area was so precise. It was as if there were short range blocking devices inside the slot machines.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 25, 2014)

It seems Marriott wants to keep that lucrative wifi revenue, even though they announced changes starting in February. 

In response to a petition from Marriott and others to effectively block our ability to use our own wifi hotspots Google, Microsoft and others are doing some good. 

Petition: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872

News update: http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/25/technology/marriott-wifi/index.html



> Google and Microsoft have joined a growing chorus of businesses that oppose Marriott's attempt to block guests' Wi-Fi hotspots in their hotel rooms.




Sent from my iPad


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 25, 2014)

Ken555 said:


> It seems Marriott wants to keep that lucrative wifi revenue, even though they announced changes starting in February.
> 
> In response to a petition from Marriott and others to effectively block our ability to use our own wifi hotspots Google, Microsoft and others are doing some good.
> 
> ...




What does Marriott want to do? Censor our private WiFi technology that we pay for, and force us to pay for their service. 

I don't think so. Sounds like Blackmail!


----------



## artringwald (Dec 25, 2014)

*Hot spot blocking!*

This sounds like a really dangerous precedence. If Marriott wins, I certainly won't be staying at their resorts anymore.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Dec 25, 2014)

Google, Microsoft Throw Weight In Fight Against Marriott WiFi Blocking Request:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/12/google-microsoft-throw-weight-in-fight-against-marriott-wi-fi-blocking-request/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

The FCC is taking comments on a request from hotel chains to kill hotspots.


Richard


----------



## artringwald (Dec 26, 2014)

It's not just because they want income from charging you for the wifi. They want you to book direct through their rewards program.

http://news.marriott.com/2014/10/free-wi-fi-offered-for-marriott-rewards-members-worldwide.html

Enrolling in the rewards program is free, and it does get you free wifi when you book through them, but I'm not sure direct booking will get you the best deal.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 26, 2014)

artringwald said:


> It's not just because they want income from charging you for the wifi. They want you to book direct through their rewards program.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Basic Internet only will be included at no additional charge. But the main issue is that they want to prevent any of us from using our mobile connections for wifi use. Why should those who elect not to book direct with Marriott be forced to pay for internet when they may have their own device and account?


Sent from my iPad


----------



## davidvel (Dec 26, 2014)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Google, Microsoft Throw Weight In Fight Against Marriott WiFi Blocking Request:
> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/12/google-microsoft-throw-weight-in-fight-against-marriott-wi-fi-blocking-request/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
> 
> The FCC is taking comments on a request from hotel chains to kill hotspots.
> ...


I predict that the FCC will not act on this silly request.


----------



## billymach4 (Dec 26, 2014)

davidvel said:


> I predict that the FCC will not act on this silly request.



I agree... But Marriott is really trying to influence the practice here. No surprise.


----------



## dioxide45 (Dec 26, 2014)

artringwald said:


> It's not just because they want income from charging you for the wifi. They want you to book direct through their rewards program.
> 
> http://news.marriott.com/2014/10/free-wi-fi-offered-for-marriott-rewards-members-worldwide.html
> 
> Enrolling in the rewards program is free, and it does get you free wifi when you book through them, but I'm not sure direct booking will get you the best deal.



They are supposed to be the best deal. They offer their "Look No Further Rate Guaranty".


----------



## swaits (Dec 29, 2014)

Just FYI. We are at Grand Château now. The wifi (ssid MVC_GUEST) network here messes with https connections. When on that network, every one of my browsers reported invalid certificates. This is nasty. 

I refused to use their network during our visit. Everything works fine when tethered to my phone. 

Side note, I recommend everyone install the "https everywhere" extension on your browser. I also recommend Privacy Badger and uBlock.


----------



## Ken555 (Dec 29, 2014)

swaits said:


> Just FYI. We are at Grand Château now. The wifi (ssid MVC_GUEST) network here messes with https connections. When on that network, every one of my browsers reported invalid certificates. This is nasty.
> 
> I refused to use their network during our visit. Everything works fine when tethered to my phone.
> 
> Side note, I recommend everyone install the "https everywhere" extension on your browser. I also recommend Privacy Badger and uBlock.




Interesting. I'll be there next week and will try this as well, though I now use a VPN for work while traveling, so not so worried about this. FWIW, I had no issue last time I was at this resort, but it's been a while.


Sent from my iPad


----------



## swaits (Dec 29, 2014)

We were in the newer tower. Not sure if that had anything to do with it.


----------



## curbysplace (Dec 30, 2014)

We are at Grand Chateau this week too.  We are in building two / tower B facing the Strip. Interestingly, our wifi works fine but our friends who are sharing our two bedroom villa are having problems with it.  Makes absolutely no sense at all.  Our AT&T cell phone service on the other hand varies hour by hour.  I'll see four bars one time, one bar or no service another.  Yet I step outside the front door and instantly have all my bars and LTE.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 1, 2015)

Marriott Says It Only Wants to Block Personal Wi-Fi in Conference, Meeting Spaces - by Amy Schatz/ ReCode.net

"Hotel chain Marriott International tried to stem the flow of complaints about its personal Wi-Fi blocking plan Tuesday, saying that it doesn’t want to limit guests’ ability to get online in their rooms but would like to block networks in its conference or meeting spaces.

The company issued a statement Tuesday trying to clarify its request to the Federal Communications Commission for permission to block Wi-Fi devices on its property. In October, the agency fined Marriott $600,000 for using blocking technology to knock out Wi-Fi devices at its Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center space..."





ValeStock/Shutterstock


Richard


----------



## artringwald (Jan 2, 2015)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Marriott Says It Only Wants to Block Personal Wi-Fi in Conference, Meeting Spaces - by Amy Schatz/ ReCode.net
> 
> "Hotel chain Marriott International tried to stem the flow of complaints about its personal Wi-Fi blocking plan Tuesday, saying that it doesn’t want to limit guests’ ability to get online in their rooms but would like to block networks in its conference or meeting spaces.
> 
> ...



I'm still not buying it. I don't think safety has anything to do with it. It's like all the "help us save the environment" claims that really mean "help us make more money". They're trying to see how much they can get away with, but I think this is going to backfire on them due to all the bad press.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 17, 2015)

Marriott Will Let You Use Your Own WiFi, Like It's Doing You a Favor - by Helen A.S.Popkin/ readwrite.com

"The hotel reverses its blocking policy after hefty fines

Marriott hotels will no longer interfere with their guests' personal Wi-Fi hotspots, the hotel chain announced Wednesday. That includes within the confines of the company's lucrative convention and trade-show spaces, where it's charged attendees anywhere between $250 and $1,000 per device for Internet access..."







Richard


----------



## billymach4 (Jan 27, 2015)

*Marriott got a spanking from the FCC*

After Marriott blocked Wi-Fi hotspots in parts of its hotels, the FCC sent a stern warning: don't even think about trying that again.
"The Communications Act prohibits anyone from ... interfering with authorized radio communications, including Wi-Fi," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a statement. "Marriott's request seeking the FCC's blessing to block guests' use of non-Marriott networks is contrary to this basic principle."



http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/27/technology/fcc-wifi-hotel/index.html?iid=HP_River


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Feb 1, 2015)

Marriott is No Longer Fighting for Permission to Block WiFi Hotspots - by Mariella Moon/ Engadget.com

"Marriott wants you to know that it's completely done trying to block guests' personal WiFi connections -- it has even given up convincing the FCC to give it permission to do so, a spokesperson told Engadget. The company already announced that it won't be keeping people from using their own MiFis and hotspots in hotel rooms, but its official statement at that time said it "will continue to look to the FCC to clarify appropriate security measures network operators." See, the hotel chain still wanted the FCC to let it continue blocking personal WiFi in its business and convention centers in order to protect guests from rogue internet connections, or so it claimed.

Unfortunately for Marriott, tech juggernauts Google and Microsoft came forward to lobby against that request, though it was the statement issued by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler himself a few days ago that became the final nail in the coffin..."







Richard


----------



## Elan (Feb 1, 2015)

It's pretty easy to block transmissions without doing anything blatantly illegal.  But to do that and then offer your own service for a fee would still set off the masses.


----------

