danpeake

Today the Federal Communications Commission's Enforcement Bureau announced they resolved an investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks, fining the company $600,000. More information and the consent decree can be found here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...-14-1444A1.pdf

Below is the press release the FCC put out:

MARRIOTT TO PAY $600,000 TO RESOLVE WIFI-BLOCKING INVESTIGATION
Hotel Operator Admits Employees Improperly Used Wi-Fi Monitoring System to Block Mobile Hotspots;
Agrees to Three-Year Compliance Plan

Washington, D.C. –Marriott International, Inc. and its subsidiary, Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., will pay $600,000 to resolve a Federal Communications Commission investigation into whether 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. The FCC Enforcement Bureau’s investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, 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.

“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,” said Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis LeBlanc. “It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel’s own Wi-Fi network. This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether,” he added.

In March 2013, the Commission received a complaint from an individual who had attended a function at the Gaylord Opryland. The complainant alleged that the Gaylord Opryland was “jamming mobile hotspots so that you can’t use them in the convention space.” After conducting an investigation, the Enforcement Bureau found that employees of Marriott, which has managed the day-to-day operations of the Gaylord Opryland since 2012, had used features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to contain and/or de-authenticate guest-created Wi-Fi hotspot access points in the conference facilities. In some cases, employees sent de-authentication packets to the targeted access points, which would dissociate consumers’ devices from their own Wi-Fi hotspot access points and, thus, disrupt consumers’ current Wi-Fi transmissions and prevent future transmissions. At the same time that these employees engaged in these practices, Marriott charged conference exhibitors and other attendees anywhere from $250 to $1,000 per device to use the Gaylord Wi-Fi service in the conference facilities.

Under the terms of the Consent Decree the FCC announced today, Marriott must cease the unlawful use of Wi-Fi blocking technology and take significant steps to improve how it monitors and uses its Wi-Fi technology at the Gaylord Opryland. Marriott must institute a compliance plan and file compliance and usage reports with the Bureau every three months for three years, including information documenting any use of access point containment features at any U.S. property that Marriott manages or owns. To resolve this matter, Marriott will pay a civil penalty of $600,000.

tys90

Hopefully this fine is greater than the extra revenue they brought in. This is a pretty despicable practice in my opinion. I'm guessing this was a result of hotel management and wasn't a directive from Marriott?

SkiAdcock

That would be my take on it.

Cheers.

nachosdelux

I think it would be appropriate for criminal charges to be brought in this case.

mackenzie77

Out of curiosity, what would the charges be? (ones the hotel could actually be convicted of)

nachosdelux

Im sure there are federal statutes on the books that cover this ( interfering with use of computer or unauthorized transmission/ blocking to deny service.)

I do know that many States have felony criminal statutes covering this.

I would think the charges would be brought against individual(s), not a corporate entity.

astroflyer

There's a lot of scary sounding text on FCC rules associated with things as innocuous as two-way radios. You're even supposed to have a license to operate them, although last time I checked the FCC didn't have too many special agents deployed on my favorite national park hikes

nachosdelux

Most federal agencies, including the FCC, have Special Agents/criminal investigators

robsaw

A civil case to reclaim any ill-gotten gains would probably be easier and more effective deterent.

BearX220

Could be grounds for a class action proceeding, if thousands of conventioneers were affected (and had their device settings screwed up by jamming action). This is a despicable, underhanded story.

TrojanHorse

Wow on two things

1. what a scumbag move by someone affiliated with Marriott and
2. I'm baffled no one here has come to Marriott's defense

SkiAdcock

Re: #2. I quasi did a few posts above when I said it probably had more to do w/ the hotel management than a corporate directive by Marriott.

Cheers.

zerolife

$250 - $1000 per device for wifi access? I can't believe no one reported earlier

libuser

yup I have had my wifi tether in the DC GL and one employee even told me that the management is blocking the signal

Rexkramer

CNN has the following on its website. I hope it is from the hotel rather than Marriott because it only makes a bad situation worse...

Marriott issued the following statement Friday afternoon defending its actions:

"Marriott has a strong interest in ensuring that when our guests use our Wi-Fi service, they will be protected from rogue wireless hot spots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft," the statement said. "Like many other institutions and companies in a wide variety of industries, including hospitals and universities, the Gaylord Opryland protected its Wi-Fi network by using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers.

"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."