Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 160 posts

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#61

Post by Vivtek »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #60
dsjoerg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the relevant number is not their net income, but the gains they think they are making by wi-fi blocking.

How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and contract with persons to deploy blocking equipment 4) lobby (and potentially strongarm) law and rule making bodies to accept their will.

Because Marriott's core business is not blocking wi-fi. It's renting rooms. The decision to block or not block is based on the marginal gain from that decision, not on their entire income. If an officer were to make that his or her quixotic personal vendetta by spending money on strongarming legislative bodies to permit wi-fi blocking on their part, that officer would be replaced very quickly indeed.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#62

Post by a1369209993 »

Kenji wrote: post #43
ianlevesque wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. This kind of legal blindness gets annoying around here.

Hey, don't be angry about my ignorance, it was genuine curiosity. I have little knowledge about law, but I've never seen a law in our country that could criminalize the entire population depending on how you interpret it.

> I've never seen a law in our country that could criminalize the entire population depending on how you interpret it.

Where the hell do you live and how can I get there?

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#63

Post by superuser2 »

matthewmcg wrote: post #22
akurtzhs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.

I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."

It's about profit, not a pathological desire to prevent you from using WiFi. So, only if the cost of installing a Faraday cage outweighs the loss of revenue to people who opt for cellular data.

Also, most of this is done at the behest of an IT contractor, who probably has very little if any influence over construction projects.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#64

Post by NolF »

matthewmcg wrote: post #22
akurtzhs wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's a distinction between jamming and blocking. The FCC controls what you transmit, not what kind of walls you put up.

I wonder if hotels are going to start sporting Faraday cages soon? "We shield you from potentially harmful EM radiation so you can enjoy a safe and comfortable night's sleep."

Surely that would affect mobile phone reception. I can't imagine anyone being happy about that.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#65

Post by jsprogrammer »

Vivtek wrote: post #61
jsprogrammer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and contract with persons to deploy blocking equipment 4) lobby (and potentially strongarm) law and rule making bodies to accept their will.

Because Marriott's core business is not blocking wi-fi. It's renting rooms. The decision to block or not block is based on the marginal gain from that decision, not on their entire income. If an officer were to make that his or her quixotic personal vendetta by spending money on strongarming legislative bodies to permit wi-fi blocking on their part, that officer would be replaced very quickly indeed.

The law is very clear, blocking peoples' communications is intolerable. The reason for the blocking doesn't matter. If you operate a device it must not interfere with others' devices. Whether or not Marriott was blocking or wants to continue blocking communications for marginal gain is irrelevant. Its duty is to operate its devices without disrupting everyone else, not to pursue marginal gains.

Marriott's core business has no bearing on whether it is allowed to cause interference, nor is it anyone's responsibility to determine or consider what the entity's core business is.

Also, Marriott (and subsidiaries, associates, industry partners, and more) did attempt to permit interference[1][2][3].

[1] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 [2] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 [3] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#66

Post by dsl »

ak217 wrote: post #23
matthewmcg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting point. A Cisco page[1] discussing this feature says: "Containment can have legal implications when launched against neighboring networks. Ensure that the rogue device is within your network and poses a security risk before you launch the containment." [1] http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/wireless/4400-seri... Cisco seems to think this is perfectly fine to do to rouge APs connected to an orga…

Aren't jamming devices of that type illegal, as discussed elsewhere in the thread? And isn't what Cisco is doing by even manufacturing a device with that capability illegal, or at least cause for the FCC to ban its sales in the US?

Jamming is very different from exploiting a protocol flaw (which is basically what the rouge AP mitigation does).

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#67

Post by electromagnetic »

dragonwriter wrote: post #47
seanp2k2 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that their net income for the past quarter was 192 million[1], I doubt $600k will dissuade them much. 1. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

It was $600k for doing it at one hotel . Had there been an indication that it was a corporate-wide policy, not a site-specific one, the penalty would probably have been much larger.

That hit likely made that hotel run at a loss that year, which when you're a massive corporation it might not look like much, but Marriott uses a franchise model.

The corporation can't risk a franchisee revolt, and you'll get that if the franchisees think there's a corporate policy out there that could potentially wipe out their profits for a year.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#68

Post by schrodinger »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #65
Vivtek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Marriott's core business is not blocking wi-fi. It's renting rooms. The decision to block or not block is based on the marginal gain from that decision, not on their entire income. If an officer were to make that his or her quixotic personal vendetta by spending money on strongarming legislative bodies to permit wi-fi blocking on their part, that officer would be replaced very quickly indeed.

The law is very clear, blocking peoples' communications is intolerable. The reason for the blocking doesn't matter. If you operate a device it must not interfere with others' devices. Whether or not Marriott was blocking or wants to continue blocking communications for marginal gain is irrelevant. Its duty is to operate its devices without disrupting everyone else, not to pursue marginal gains. Marriott's core busine…

You're missing the point. Marriott doesn't want to block your wifi because of some evil master plan, they want to do it to be able to sell you their wifi. If the fines cost more than the money they make selling you their wifi, they will stop, and the fines were high enough to do their job.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#70

Post by jsprogrammer »

schrodinger wrote: post #68
jsprogrammer wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is very clear, blocking peoples' communications is intolerable. The reason for the blocking doesn't matter. If you operate a device it must not interfere with others' devices. Whether or not Marriott was blocking or wants to continue blocking communications for marginal gain is irrelevant. Its duty is to operate its devices without disrupting everyone else, not to pursue marginal gains. Marriott's core busine…

You're missing the point. Marriott doesn't want to block your wifi because of some evil master plan, they want to do it to be able to sell you their wifi. If the fines cost more than the money they make selling you their wifi, they will stop, and the fines were high enough to do their job.

Blocking WIFI to sell WIFI is an evil plan. It's also highly illegal.
Post reply on HN