Just out of curiosity, the fine is paid to the government, right -- not the people mariott interfered with?
Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
151–160 of 160 posts
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Just need to repaint the walls. http://www.lessemf.com/paint.html or appropriately tuned wallpaper http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/05/anti-w...
Surely that would fall under "interfere" of the law and still earn them the fine?
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you call "idiocy" I call "the government is getting it right for once". Just because you own a piece of land or a building doesn't mean you get to set your own rules that supersede the FCC's rules. By your logic one could commit theft or assault, and as long as they are in their own home while they do it, it's okay. Sorry, the law doesn't work that way. Basically, the hotel owners wanted to make a chunk of money…
Never mind the FCC; your local fire marshall might be interested in that giant strawman you're building there. How did we go from jamming to assault?
How did we go from radio regulation to property laws? I was just following the same path.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#154What'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…
I don't believe the FCC has jurisdiction over physical movie theatres and their comestible policies. The FCC, their rules, and their basis legislation are what is operable in this case.
The FDA also doesn't have jurisdiction over that kind of activity, I don't believe.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#155What'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…
There's not a specific reg for hotels and convention centers, there's a document about how a general rule against jamming applies in the context of those venues, because the FCC has been getting numerous complaints which seem to indicate a potentially widespread problem I'm that area with violations of the generally applicable no jamming rules.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#156This stuff has teeth. If you get identified by the FCC, they send you a cease and desist order. If you ignore that, they follow it up with a fine, $10,000 being common in some radio services. Marriott had to pay $600,000.
The teeth it actually has is up to $16,000 a day per violation when you fail to comply with a warning. That is at least one violation per property, perhaps several. When you don't comply they can remove your equipment with force if necessary. And boy, do they do a lot. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html
I picked three items at random. None of them had anything to do with wifi interference.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
The teeth it actually has is up to $16,000 a day per violation when you fail to comply with a warning. That is at least one violation per property, perhaps several. When you don't comply they can remove your equipment with force if necessary. And boy, do they do a lot. http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/rfo/ActAct.html
It seems like all the forfeitures listed there are monetary forfeitures, not actually taking away radio equipment. I'm also unclear as to what differentiates a fine from a monetary forfeiture.
"monetary forfeiture" is a fancy phrase for "fine"
When I said they did a lot, I didn't necessarily mean they often seize radio equipment. A 5-digit fine is usually enough to dissuade anyone, and most interference violations aren't with equipment used entirely for jamming, but legitimate equipment used on the wrong frequency, with excess power, or otherwise in a prohibited way.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. I disagreed. I was then told I was "missing the point" and that Marriott does not have evil plans and that they don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interf…
> Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered.
No, that's not what happened. Someone claimed that Marriott's net income was irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making process in this particular case. No one said it was irrelevant to their moral or criminal status, or to whether and how much they should be punished. You're arguing a point that no one was making.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. I disagreed. I was then told I was "missing the point" and that Marriott does not have evil plans and that they don't/didn't attempt to influence rulemakers to permit their interf…
> Did you read the thread? Someone claimed that net income of an entity causing willful radio interference is irrelevant and that only marginal gains (as opposed to its "core business") made from its willful interference should be considered. No, that's not what happened. Someone claimed that Marriott's net income was irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making process in this particular case. No one said it wa…
>Someone claimed that Marriott's net income was irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making process in this particular case.
Can you point out who claimed that and where? I don't think the person I originally responded to made that specific claim, only the more general claim that net income was not relevant (and they made that claim indirectly).
It's likely an absurd notion that net income is irrelevant to Marriott's internal decision-making processes. Of course, none of us were there when decisions were made, but if you claim that marginal gains are what drive Marriott's decisions then you must accept that net income is relevant. Margins are (and can only be) built on top of net.
Examining margins to the exclusion of net is madness, although based on some comments I read on HN it wouldn't be surprising to find some (or many) on here that have already gone deep down that hole.
Re: Warning: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Prohibited
#160Earlier 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. 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?
I don't know, or have much opinion on, what is a fair fine (if any).