Marriott International has to pay $600,000 following an investigation into whether it intentionally blocked personal Wi-Fi hotspots in order to force customers to use its own pricey service.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission looked into allegations that employees of Marriott's Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville used signal-blocking features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system to prevent customers from connecting to the Internet through their personal Wi-Fi hotspots, the regulator said in its consent decree ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1444A1.pdf ). The hotel charged customers and exhibitors $250 to $1,000 per device to access Marriott's Wi-Fi network.
The hotel's Wi-Fi blocking violated the U.S. Communications Act, the FCC said.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2690885/marriott-ordered-to-pay-600k-for-blocking-personal-wi-fi-hotspots.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 04 2014, @08:03AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday October 04 2014, @09:35AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 04 2014, @02:57PM
$250 to a grand per device? What do they use, solid gold monster cable wifi signals?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AndyTheAbsurd on Saturday October 04 2014, @05:15PM
"Marriott 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," the company said in a statement. "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."
So, Marriott is going to protect us from "degraded service" (hah! Ever tried to USE hotel wifi? It's constantly overloaded), "insidious cyber-attacks" (ummm....by having a clearly named hotspot called "Marriott Hotel Wifi" like that couldn't be guessed by insidious cyberattackers?), and "identity theft" (by....umm....somehow preventing people from being dumbasses?) by making us pay them extra money?
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 1) by mashdar on Saturday October 04 2014, @09:12PM
Seems like they claiming to be worried about Man-in-the-Middle attacks, which I think has some validity.
The real issue is that anyone thinks hotel wifi is secure at all.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday October 04 2014, @11:20PM
Except they were de anything any hotspot, not just those called "marriet".
set up "bills-hotspot" and see how you can't join.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Entropy on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:09AM
Against every wifi hotspot they could be in business competition with them...Sounds criminal, to me.
What if I DOS'd their wifi?
What if they DOS'd my cellphone so I could use it and then insisted I use their secure in-room telephone for $1/minute instead?
What if they sabotaged my rental car, but offered a smart car rental for $300/day I could use instead while in town?
To me..These are all very similar, and serious acts...And all obviously criminal.