Major hotle offers free WI-Fi. Google says NO!

[Geek-9pm]

Really! The Marriott Hotel (USA) will offer free WI-Fri to all guests next year.
But Google asks FCC to stop it. And even  Microsoft!
For the story from your favorite sours ace, search
Marriott Hotel Wireless Google FCC
Or some phrase with the words.
EDIT: Here is one of a few:
http://recode.net/2014/12/22/google-wireless-industry-not-down-with-marriotts-wi-fi-blocking-plan/
WI-Fri is the spelling given by my spell checker.
As you will see, it gets complicated. 

[Allan]

You should be ashamed to post with all of those spelling errors. I know I'm embarrassed for you.

[Geek-9pm]

Thank you. Corrections made.

[patio]

The News Editor position at Computer Hope is still accepting applications...

PM me with your Resume'...

[BC_Programmer]

The article is about the Hotel Chain wishing to block the use of personal WiFi hotspots on their premises.

[Geek-9pm]

The article is about the Hotel Chain wishing to block the use of personal WiFi hotspots on their premises.

Right. And there is more to it.
 Theaters and Public Areas block cell phones to prevent disturbance of a performance. But that is a different issue.

Hotels now want to same right to block WI-FI on their premises. The pretext is that private 'hot spots' could disturb others clients in the hotel.

You don't have to b a lawyer to see that there is no such provision in current FCC rules to allow deliberate blocking of Wi-Fi.  The hotels want FCC to grant an exception to existing rules.

The is no proof that private personal potshots have caused any harm. Is there?
Something like that has taken place in some airports. You can't have a hot spot.

What next? Will we all have to get FCC permission to own a smartphone with a hot spot? The whole idea of Wi-Fi was to have a low power system that would not require heavy regulation.

The FCC had slapped on fine on Marriott for past misconduct. It was  $600,000.
This time they are asking for permission first.

[strollin]

The subject title of this thread doesn't even come close to matching the article.  Did you select the title randomly?

According to the article, Marriott was charging $250-$1000 for wifi service, why does your title say free wifi?

[Geek-9pm]

Strollin, You point is valid. Gad you read the article.

My title was based on what some media had published. It is rather convoluted.
This is  basically a Wild West story.  The range land is open and free, but the Railroad wants to own it. And charge rent.

The Railroad here is the big Hotel chains that want to control what things heir customers enjoy during a stay in the hotel. It is not just Marriott.
(Hotels can and do put reasonable limits on what guest can do and what they can bring with them. No smoking, no pets, no loud parties. But that is not the case here.)

Earlier they, Marriott, had charged courageous prices for Internet service and violated FCC rules by jamming customers personal Hot Spots. The rules are very clear. Jamming is illegal and requires special equipment.

Now they say they shall offer free Wi-Fi next year, but they need to have the authority to again jam private hot spots on the pretext of reducing interference.

Both Microsoft and Google agree that this is a very dumb idea.

Under the current rules and regulations, canceled spacing, bands available, power levels and all the technical stuff,  the probability of private hot spots causing significant interference is very low. Marriott's claim is absurd.

The burden of proof is upon the Hotels  to show how  private hot spots are disturbing  to the other guests of the hotel.

[patio]

Stop posting Topics until you understand the articles you are reading...
It just gets convoluted...

[evilfantasy]

n00b question. How can you jam personal hot spots without jamming your own Wifi and even Wifi of any business or parking lot close to the jammer?

I think I get the reasoning for this, from both sides of the argument, and none of those reasons have the customer in mind.

If Mariott forces everyone onto their network then they can control the bandwidth. People no longer need Wifi for just a cell phone or laptop. They are traveling with Wifi enabled DVD/Blue Ray players, Rokus and Chromecast. It's causing their data bill to skyrocket so they want to keep costs down. If you need more data they can offer you a premium plan.

The FCC. Mariott wants to jam and probably scramble the data too. We already know the feds look at wireless data like a college dorm looks at torrents. It's there so they are entitled to it. Too much security makes it hard to snoop on people.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Microsoft and Google are poking their nose in this.

[BC_Programmer]

I think I get the reasoning for this, from both sides of the argument, and none of those reasons have the customer in mind.

If Mariott forces everyone onto their network then they can control the bandwidth. People no longer need Wifi for just a cell phone or laptop. They are traveling with Wifi enabled DVD/Blue Ray players, Rokus and Chromecast. It's causing their data bill to skyrocket so they want to keep costs down. If you need more data they can offer you a premium plan.

The FCC. Mariott wants to jam and probably scramble the data too. We already know the feds look at wireless data like a college dorm looks at torrents. It's there so they are entitled to it. Too much security makes it hard to snoop on people.

I'm having a hard time figuring out why Microsoft and Google are poking their nose in this.

The spectrum where WiFi exists is unlicensed, which means anybody can use it. Mariott wants to effectively suspend that and "take control" of that spectrum within their premises. This would be done by either using a very powerful transmitter which effectively drowns out any other channels. (The FCC has rules about how strong the signals can be to prevent interference like that). Also personal hotspots would typically also have security so that wouldn't make much of a difference I wouldn't think. Another approach that is likely to be taken is to broadcast repeated deauthentication requests across all other channels so any unauthorized wifi device instantly disconnects.

Google's comment was "Allowing hotels or other property owners deliberately to block third parties’ access to Wi-Fi signals would undermine the public interest benefits of unlicensed use,” in their filing as quoted in the article. Microsoft's comment

[evilfantasy]

Google's comment was "Allowing hotels or other property owners deliberately to block third parties’ access to Wi-Fi signals would undermine the public interest benefits of unlicensed use,”

I could also put people in danger. Especially in a hotel. No Wifi (for some guests) would mean no communication, period.

Marriott - They won't get the law changed on something like this when the basis of the argument (no matter what anyone says) is to profit on selling enhanced data plans to guests. It's a new line of revenue targeted at the huge conferences that are booked nationwide year round at hotels. It would also set a dangerous president that any business could implement.

Google, Microsoft and the FCC - There is actually a wireless industry lobbying group. Money rules politics and the tech industry has much more to give then the hospitality industry.

The older I get the more cynical I get. Greed and politics are involved in everything and very few people are ever a neutral party. /mini rant

[BC_Programmer]

To summarize, "The reasons why they shouldn't be allowed to do this are valid, but despite this greed is still the motivator"

[evilfantasy]

I believe you nailed it perfectly BC.