Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > FCC petitioned by hotels to allow disrupting guest-created hotspots

FCC petitioned by hotels to allow disrupting guest-created hotspots
Thread Tools
NewsPoster
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 12:56 AM
 
The FCC has been petitioned by Marriott and an association of hotel owners to allow the jamming of Wi-Fi hotspots, usually set up by guests, on their premises for reasons of "managing Wi-Fi networks and security." The petition is possibly in response to when Marriott International and Marriott Hotel Services was fined $600,000 by the FCC for knocking guests off their own Wi-Fi networks (provided by hot spots and tethering to cell phones), forcing them to pay for the hotel's Wi-Fi access.



The petition was submitted August 25, 2014 by The American Hotel & Lodging Association, Marriott International, and Ryman Hospitality Properties. Specifically, it requests the FCC rule that using "FCC-approved equipment" to interfere with a "Part 15 device" being used by a guest does not violate 47 U.S.C 333.

In this case, the FCC-approved equipment is a device that will spam "de-authorization" commands that cause devices connected to a particular Wi-Fi network to drop off -- this can be done without logging onto the Wi-Fi network in question. A Part 15 device refers to a Wi-Fi hotspot or a cellphone acting as a hotspot, and 333 is the section of the Communications Act cited by the FCC as being violated by Marriott when it was fined by the FCC last October.

Last week, Peter Tannenwald of the law firm Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth submitted comments on behalf of Brown University in response to the initial petition. Brown University had been mentioned in an appendix of Marriott's petition as an example of an operator that manages its Wi-Fi by booting users. However, the comment submitted by Tannenwald points out that Brown doesn't prohibit the use of hotspots on campus.

The document also points out that Brown will only boot users of its own Wi-Fi network for the purposes of security and management, and does not attempt to interfere with individuals utilizing their own hotspots. The sentiment that operators should only manage their own networks is echoed and expanded upon by the comments in opposition submitted by Google and Microsoft. Both companies point out that section 333 indicates, "no 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."

Cellular hotspots -- using a cellular signal and repurposing it to broadcast a short-range Wi-Fi signal so that one or more authorized devices can use it -- employs technology that falls under Part 15 to broadcast the Wi-Fi signal, and so the rules of whether or not it is allowable to interfere with their operation are already set. Such hotspots are routinely used by guests in hotels when the provided Wi-Fi is weak, not functioning properly or non-existant, or when encrypted communications are required. Those interested in reading all of the comments submitted for and against the petition can do so by looking up FCC Proceeding RM-11737.
     
macmediausa
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 01:17 AM
 
no way I would allow any hotel try to disrupt my own cell phone data.... Time to blacklist Marriott and Hilton
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 02:56 AM
 
If the issue is one of importance to you, don't just not stay at such places -- write them and let them know *why* you will not be staying there. Post a copy to tripadvisor or yelp etc where the hotels often respond. Individual hotels may not support the policy, but corporate HQ needs to know that such practices will cost them business.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
prl99
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pacific northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 11:10 AM
 
Just because I walk into a hotel doesn't mean that hotel owns the airwaves within its building. This would be like them saying they own the air, the sun, and the moon when you're staying in their hotels. Cellular transmissions go through the buildings all the time and they don't own these. Old style TV waves go through them as well. The hotels have no right to mess with any of these. If they want to include a shield around the hotel, fine, they can do that, but if they don't have a shield they can't restrict the use of anybody else's transmitted electronic data. The FCC better slap these businesses silly over this activity. It's illegal for people to hack or illegally connect to hotel wireless devices but it should be (and probably is) illegal for hotels to hack people's phones.
     
azrich
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Prescott, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 12:53 PM
 
I can't remember the last time I stayed somewhere that charged for wifi. Weird.

Maybe what they're 'worried' about is someone starting up a hotspot called 'Marriott' or something similar that would lead another guest to think it was the hotel's wifi. I could see that. Or someone selling access for 1/2 the price the hotel charges, but like I said - I don't remember paying for wifi. Then again, I don't get out much.
     
OldMacGeek
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 06:58 PM
 
That's pretty slimy. If I've already paid for a Wi-Fi service through my carrier, why should I have to pay again just because I'm in your building? That is an ugly side of capitalism.
     
emmayche
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2014
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2014, 11:04 PM
 
The same rules in section 333 apply to the hotels who are attempting to interfere with guest wifi hotspots as would apply to any person trying to interfere with the hotel's wifi.

But the other problem is that the rules for part 15 devices - which BOTH the hotel wifi and the guest wifi hotspots are - is that they must accept interference from both licensed users of the same spectrum, and any other unlicensed users of that spectrum; this means that neither has priority, and it really doesn't matter that the hotel has invested a lot in their wifi system, nor that they charge money to use it.

It also doesn't mean that an amateur radio operator - who is actually LICENSED to use the frequencies that wifi uses - has to pay any attention at all to wifi users when using this spectrum. So, if a hotel really got nasty about shutting down guest wifi system, nothing would prevent a ham from firing up a kilowatt transmitter on those frequencies in close proximity to the hotel, effectively shutting down their wifi. Jerks like these hotels tend to attract other jerks, and generally the first jerk pretends to be surprised.
     
Paul Huang
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Arcadia, CA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2014, 03:41 AM
 
The more expensive the property, the more likely you are going to pay for wifi, and that's a fact. Azrich: I suppose the places you stayed weren't more than $100/night.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2014, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by azrich View Post
I can't remember the last time I stayed somewhere that charged for wifi. Weird.

Maybe what they're 'worried' about is someone starting up a hotspot called 'Marriott' or something similar that would lead another guest to think it was the hotel's wifi. I could see that. Or someone selling access for 1/2 the price the hotel charges, but like I said - I don't remember paying for wifi. Then again, I don't get out much.
I thought Personal hotspot and WIFI spot have different icons, or is that just an iPhone thing?
45/47
     
Ham Sandwich
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2014, 03:19 PM
 
Gosh every place I've stayed at recently gives you a password to let you use their wireless. I sometimes get mandatorily knocked off after 24 hours, but then I can re-enter the password for that day and I'm all set.
     
climacs
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in front of my computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2014, 10:16 AM
 
nicer hotels (convention-oriented hotels) in nicer cities (think Chicago, NY, Boston) do tend to charge for hotel wifi access. If you're a member of one of their rewards programs at a sufficient status level, you get comp'd the wifi; regular schmoes have to pay or go down to the lobby to get the free wifi.
     
jslove
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Milford, Massachusetts, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2014, 12:29 PM
 
My read of this is that they want to

1) If they provide wired access, prevent the wired access from being rebroadcast for use by others, especially unencrypted reuse. If they were charging for wired access, that would certainly interfere with their business model. In this case, they would either have to break encryption or only interfere with an unencrypted network.

2) If they want to see every device on their network connect directly, so they can count them and charge for each device, or limit the number of devices per paying account, then rebroadcasting their wireless signal would also interfere with their business model. Rebroadcasting their wireless would also waste bandwidth that might be used by other users, because every packet would be on the air twice. In this case, I can see two enforcement modes:

a) detect that a user is rebroadcasting because the rebroadcast network is unencrypted, and spam it with deauthorization codes, or

b) determine probabilistically that a user is rebroadcasting from the hotel's wireless network and bounce the offending user from the hotel's wireless network. In this case, it wouldn't be necessary to break into the rebroadcast network, only to receive the users' transmissions.

I'm not OK with the hotel spamming a network, but all the cases above are violations of the terms of service of the hotel's network. These cases have nothing to do with cellular hotspots. The action in 2b in particular seems well within what is already permitted. For the other cases I described, violations should be handled other than by jamming or spamming.

There are also terms associated with renting a hotel room or function space. I could see adding to that agreement to specify that no hotel guest is permitted to host an unencrypted wireless network, perhaps without written permission from the hotel.
     
Charles Martin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2014, 08:34 PM
 
Hotels are entirely within their rights to prohibit guests from re-broadcasting their Internet network in an unencrypted way so that other guests can avoid paying for it, but not allowing a guest to set up their own *private* Wi-Fi in the hotel for their own use (for example in a hotel that offers Ethernet only, yes I've been in some of those) is going way too far in my view.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,