scandi777

It's for your own protection.

How considerate of Marriott to block my signal. I am all tears.

If I call a local pizza dealer from my Marriot hotel room to order a $8 mix veggie pizza will the Marriott operator possibly interfere and offer me a $240 truffle & caviar dinner in stead from Marriott's on-property restaurant to protect my intestinal flora?

Kremmen

The most amazing part is that statement. If you're a big hotel chain with lots of lawyers, why would you agree to pay a fine if you were doing nothing wrong?

Part of the settlement document reads: "Subsequent to learning of the Bureau's investigation, Marriott instructed the properties under its management or control not to use this containment capability in the manner it had been used at the Gaylord Opryland." Why would you do that, before the investigation was even over, if you were doing nothing wrong?

cova

What Marriott should do is admit wrong doing and announce that it is going to make conference facility Wifi free at all its hotels.

Marriott will likely lose conference business over this.

MSPeconomist

To me the scary thing is that someone could have been depending on using their own WiFi or their own (other) cellular service to receive any important/emergency messages while at that Marriott. I'm not sure how obvious it would have been to an average low-tech customer that incoming messages were being blocked if one did not sign onto Marriott's expensive option.

In a Marriott where I often stay, despite signing up for wifi service for the entire duration of my stay, I'm periodically kicked off of the system and must sign up (and agree to pay, but I'm PP). It isn't obvious that I have no signal if I just try to check email. Everything appears normal and I see no new messages. It's only when I try to load a new webpage that I see that I haven't had a signal for a while and must go through the "agree to pay" process all over again. It would be so easy in this situation not to see new urgent messages despite checking email regularly.

There would seem to be grounds for liability lawsuits in worse case scenarios. Or, more simply, what if someone with the "wrong" cellular service tries to use their own cell phone for an emergency call? Time is lost while the person discovers that only AT&T cell phones can be used in some particular Marriott property and of course this was not disclosed.

9809JD

It almost makes you wonder if Marriott misjudged the FCC's current mood, given the "net-neutrality" nonsense that is being considered by the agency.

Regardless, Marriott is showing itself to be tone-deaf at best. I would have expected a "non-response" but not the defense that corporate offered. To risk backlash in such a lucrative market segment (conferences) seems amateur. It also is surprisingly dumb for a company that is trying to reinvent and position itself for the next generation of more tech dependent/savvy travelers.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out and how quickly they have to backtrack.

goodeats21

In the trade show / conference industry, it is hardly uncommon...though not sure about the "per device" portion.

Internet access has been relied upon for years as a major money maker, but technology is increasing to make their monopoly on access at their locations a thing of the past.

Time for a shift in revenue strategy.

Sevenfeet

Here in Nashville this is a local news story. For those who haven't been here, the Opryland Hotel complex is enormous...it's only about 5 stories tall in most places but it goes on like the Pentagon. It was built by Gaylord Entertainment in the 1970s as a destination hotel for their Opryland amusement park and the Grand Ol' Opry building designed to host that show and other large concerts. Ironically the theme park closed over a decade ago and was replaced by a shopping mall, but the Opryland Hotel lives on and thrives. After major expansions in subsequent decades, it's one of the largest hotel and convention centers in the country.

The hotel was a favorite place just for local families to come out and walk around the massive indoor atriums, two of which can easily fit a football field and the third is bigger than the other two put together. Their huge Sunday brunch was a favorite for the after-church crowd. But like all hotel landlords, Gaylord was always looking for ways to maximize revenues in the property, beginning 20 years ago with parking charges in the hotel grounds which affected said local visitors coming to visit or dine.

Three years ago the hotel closed for 7 months after massive flooding put the entire complex under 12 feet of water (this storm also flooded much of downtown Nashville and other neighborhoods...the adjacent mall took two years to reopen). When it reopened, Gaylord decided to get out of the hotel management business (they had built large similar properties in other parts of the country) and convert to a real estate company (changing their name to Ryman Holdings) and hiring Marriott to manage the hotels.

What we don't know if this practice of WiFi jamming had been done prior to Marriott's involvement or if it's something they came up with. The hotel has a large cell tower visible on Briley Parkway which would be necessary for the sheer density of people in the complex (hotel, arena, mall and highway) and I would think the hotel would have secondary micro-towers in other strategic places.

I'm curious to Marriott's statement that they were using FCC-authorized equipment from reputable vendors. Really? Even if that were true, I'm sure that they weren't using it in the spirit or letter of the law. They may have a better argument had they not been trying to charge exorbitant fees just for wifi access. And since it's really illegal (and dangerous) to block cell phone signals, they thought they could get away with just doing it with Wifi. Whatever device they used had to be sophisticated enough to interfere with all frequencies in the spectrum EXCEPT the one they were using, across 2.4 Ghz and 5 Ghz frequencies. I wonder exactly how they got caught.

Kremmen

The FCC document says how they did it. It's not relevant what frequencies it's on. It says they hit APs "that are not part of Marriott’s Wi-Fi system or authorized by Marriott and that Marriott has classified as 'rogue'". Sending of de-authentication packets to access points, if done rapidly enough, will effectively make them useless. (Like a DDoS attack.)

ohmark

Doesn't sound to me like phone or direct internet access via whatever cell network is involved in this matter. Only wifi.

Kremmen

"Only wifi?" Only wifi from where? From individuals' cellular phone network. If the phone network wasn't being used, people wouldn't have an alternative wifi source in the first place for Marriott to block!

angatol

.....

Kremmen

Obviously. I was just observing that the cellular network is *involved*. It is just not the link that's under attack. If someone is depending on a device connected by wifi to a phone/hotspot/mifi for communication, it doesn't really matter to the user which link of the network is under attack, unless they realise that it's the wifi part and have an alternative way to tether, such as by USB.

IADCAflyer

Signal jamming is a very big issue with the FCC right now - be it in churches, hotels, corrections facilities, etc.

The FCC has taken a very hard line on signal jammers because the Commission does not want to go down the road of vetting "legitimate" jamming from illegitimate jamming. Their viewpoint is that any intentional interference with a protected service or a service that has a vested privilege in transmitting and receiving a signal is strictly verboten.

The Commission has taken numerous actions against companies that offer cell phone jammers for sale in the U.S. or offer to import them into the U.S.

The Marriott situation is one example where the FCC has said "no" to an attempt to interfere with communications and has clearly been designed to be a lesson to other entities.

My bet is that the fine could have been much, much higher.

IADCAflyer

Marriott is not tone-deaf. They know exactly what they are doing: they're attempting to protect themselves against a class action lawsuit - something alluded to above.

By claiming that they were "safeguarding" their guests, they're setting up a defense for why they jammed signals. Its litigation strategy. One that will likely fail, but its clearly what they're trying to use as their defense.

ohmark

Your comment is off base, exclamation point or not. I repeat, the issue here does not involve an attack on any cell network. It has to do with wifi blocking.