{"id":3115,"date":"2014-10-10T04:12:18","date_gmt":"2014-10-10T04:12:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3115"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:41","slug":"fcc-to-marriott-you-cannot-force-customers-to-use-your-hotels-wifi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/fcc-to-marriott-you-cannot-force-customers-to-use-your-hotels-wifi\/","title":{"rendered":"FCC to Marriott: You cannot force customers to use your hotel\u2019s WiFi"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On October 3, the FCC issued a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fcc.gov\/document\/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation\">release<\/a> stating that the Marriott hotel services would be fined $600,000 to resolve the agency\u2019s investigation into \u201cwhether the Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee in violation of Section 333 of the Communications act.\u201d The FCC\u2019s investigation revealed that the Marriott employees prevented patrons at the Gaylord Opryland from connecting to their personal Wi-Fi networks, and charged conference exhibitors and attendees \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.fcc.gov\/document\/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation\">as much as $1000<\/a> per device to access the Marriott\u2019s Wi-Fi network.\u201d<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/47\/333\">42 U.S.C. \u00a7 333<\/a> provides that \u201cno person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fcc.gov\/document\/marriott-pay-600k-resolve-wifi-blocking-investigation\">Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc indicated<\/a> that, \u201cIt is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel\u2019s own Wi-Fi network.\u201d<br \/>\nMarriott issued its own <a href=\"http:\/\/news.marriott.com\/2014\/10\/marriott-internationals-statement-on-fcc-ruling.html\">statement<\/a> in response to the allegations claiming that, \u201cMarriott 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It seems doubtful at best that Marriott\u2019s conference attendees would be committing acts of cybercrime and identity theft simply because they are using a \u201crogue hotspot.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The FCC seemed to agree, stating that the Marriott\u2019s employees prevented users from connecting to their own \u201cpersonal WiFi networks when these users did not pose a threat to the security of the Gaylord Opryland network or its guests.&#8221; The Marriott also <a href=\"http:\/\/news.marriott.com\/2014\/10\/marriott-internationals-statement-on-fcc-ruling.html\">stated<\/a> that they believe the \u201cGaylord Opryland\u2019s actions were lawful.\u201d However, their employees\u2019 actions seem to be directly in contradiction to \u00a7333.<br \/>\nBecause the Marriott is complying with the FCC\u2019s order, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.networkcomputing.com\/wireless-infrastructure\/fcc-marriott-wifi-blocking-fine-opens-pandoras-box\/a\/d-id\/1316449\">at least commenter<\/a> argues that the FCC\u2019s actions against Marriott, \u201cleads to a lot of uncertainty for WLAN administrators and their ability to protect their networks.\u201d For example, Badman <a href=\"http:\/\/www.networkcomputing.com\/wireless-infrastructure\/fcc-marriott-wifi-blocking-fine-opens-pandoras-box\/a\/d-id\/1316449\">worries<\/a> that the lack of guidance from the FCC, an individual could bring a mobile hotspot into a hospital and disrupt wireless medical equipment, or \u201cdozens of media reporters could show up with MiFis,\u201d and disrupt a multimillion-dollar stadium\u2019s WiFi. These scenarios would leave a WLAN administrator with no recourse. These situations are certainly plausible under the current guidance from the FCC, which seems only to indicate that consumers who purchase cellular data plans should be able to use it without fear of being blocked by a conference center or hotel.<br \/>\nAs a consumer, I am happy that my rights to use my cellular data plan are upheld, but I would also worry that the FCC did not limit its language in any way. The FCC should address some situations where a facility might need to have its WiFi under complete control- like in a hospital, or on an airplane. In those cases, an individual\u2019s rights to their personal WiFi might be outweighed by the risks to others- like patients in a hospital counting on wireless equipment, or an airplane\u2019s GPS systems and communication with air traffic control.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On October 3, the FCC issued a release stating that the Marriott hotel services would be fined $600,000 to resolve the agency\u2019s investigation into \u201cwhether the Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee in violation of <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/fcc-to-marriott-you-cannot-force-customers-to-use-your-hotels-wifi\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3116,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3115"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7424,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3115\/revisions\/7424"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3116"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}