Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited • Hacker News Board

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#101

Post by cube00 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 12:03 PM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #67

dragonwriter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Surely Corporate would pay for it, unless it was the franchise's idea.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#102

Post by Sami_Lehtinen » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 12:15 PM UTC

kps wrote: post #76

dedward wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal if the building is constructed such that the radio signals required cannot get in or out due to the materials used, like a giant farraday cage. The FCC does not have the authority to stop you from doing that. Their authority is in the area of regulating who can USE the airwaves.... they regulate who can broadcast, and how. And in this case, they are saying that building a device that actively transmits with the…

> the airwaves are public. Specifically, the ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands, that common WiFi operates on, are open to use by anyone, and you can't interfere with anyone else's use of them. Alternatively, you can license (effectively, lease) your own little slice of spectrum from the FCC, and then it's ‘yours’, and then you don't have to use forged packets to stop other people using it — the FCC will sla…

I thought exactly the same. Why they're using ISM band which is free to use, if they want reliable networks they should use such band in the very first place.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#103

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #92

mc808 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop. It doesn't matter if you're Bill Gates. Also, the penalty should be as small as possible to get the desired outcome. If the penalty is $100,000, you're more likely to put up a fight than if it's $10, regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity.

>The point you're still missing is that if an activity is only worth $5 to you, then a $10 penalty will make you stop. Only if you accept that immediate relative dollar values are a person's (in this case a non-physical, corporate entity's) only motivation. This view is cynical and likely not true in all cases. I think your point is contradictory, First you claim that income vs. penalty is the only concern, but at th…

Just to be clear, are you arguing the fine should be a percentage of net income or some other method that varies based on the revenue of the parent entity?

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#104

Post by jasonlfunk » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:15 PM UTC

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises.

If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well.

If the principle for this regulation is "don't screw with the public airwaves", then I don't see why we need an additional regulation to specifically target hotels and convention centers, the existing regulation should be sufficient.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#105

Post by mattkirman » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#106

Post by AstroJetson » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:25 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #84

astrojetsonjr wrote: post #54

What is interesting is that they have a request in for a rule change http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 So even with the fine, etc. they are still moving forward on trying to get the rule changed. As the say "It's not over until the fat lady gets paid off to sing a different song" Here is their petition http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000986872

Read the link that we're commenting on. It is over. They issued a response to that request for a rule change, denying it.

No they didn't. If you read the document, at the bottom of the page is a footnote that talks about the request. it says until the commissioners decide, the enforcement bureau will continue to act in this manner.

So its up to the Comi$$ioner$ to decide. And as we've seen, in lots of cases money talks at the FCC.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#107

Post by jasonlfunk » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

mattkirman wrote: post #105

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.

Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#108

Post by mabbo » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:28 PM UTC

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. It's private property, and they have the right to do that. Is it moral? Maybe, maybe not.

But airwaves leave the property. I live beside a hotel, pretty closely. They certainly don't have a right to interfere with my wifi usage.

As for why specific regulations to target hotels and convention centers: because they're the ones who are violating the laws, claiming they aren't. The FCC could go around and try to enforce a law that is being debated, or they could lay down a new one that explicitly says "Hotels and convention centers can't screw with wifi".

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#109

Post by mattkirman » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:29 PM UTC

jasonlfunk wrote: post #107

mattkirman wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation of this was that it was more of a reminder to hotels and convention centres that they're not exempt from the existing regulation. If they're found to be in breach of existing regulations then they will be fined.

Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?

I think so. Mariott made a request last year asking for permission to block "rogue" access points from inside their hotels. This is the response.

Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited

#110

Post by forgottenpass » Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

jasonlfunk wrote: post #104

What's the fundamental difference between a hotel blocking people's hotspots and a movie theatre banning outside food and drink? They are both done to make their product offering exclusive while a consumer is on their premises. If the principle for this regulation is "consumer protection", then I don't see why the FDA shouldn't ban movie theatres prohibitions as well. If the principle for this regulation is "don't sc…

A movie theater is private property. The radio spectrum is a public resource, even if it does radiate through private property.

This link is about a Consent Decree, where is the talk of additional regulation?