10 ms·
F.C.C. Sides with Hot Spots, and Hospitality Industry Feels a Chill
- mjevans 11y agoGood. It's too bad that this same stance can't be taken for other aspects of this industry. There just isn't market capacity in even semi-large cities for multiple convention centers so there is literally no competition at that scale and thus nothing to prevent predatory pricing and restrictions of all sorts. Also there is a tendency at the smaller scale for hotels to horizontally integrate so as to form a micro-monopoly on a 'full solution' for their building, meaning that you don't get to pick and choose different providers for different services, you only get to pick at a whole package (and availability) level.
- lutorm 11y agoHow could they possibly think that jamming public frequency bands would not be illegal? https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement clearly states "Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with ... wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)."
- facetube 11y agoI'd fully support criminal charges. If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison.
- mikeash 11y agoThey're getting fined minutes of revenue, that's practically the same as prison!
- bicknergseng 11y agoApproximately 24.67 minutes for what it's worth. Marriott made > $12 billion last year and was fined $600k. I'm curious how much revenue the wifi fees bring in and whether that fine even makes a dent in income from that alone.
- facetube 11y agoThe article says they were charging meetings up to $30,000 for internet access alone. I'd guess it was probably profitable.
- saurik 11y ago... revenue is absolutely meaningless in this conversation. You should be looking at profit. It doesn't matter what Marriott charges, it matters what they make, and saying they "made > $12 billion" is totally false: they made at the high end something like $2 billion (which is still high enough that you could have used those numbers as an honest ratio instead of distorting the discussion by looking at revenue).
- wpietri 11y agoI'd say revenue's probably the better number. Profit varies by quite a number of factors, but revenue is a reasonably reliable yardstick for the size of the business. For example, consider Amazon, who didn't turn a profit for decades: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/25/amazon_earnings_jeff_bezos_is_like_king_midas_in_reverse_chart/1382736441.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/20... Also, maybe you could tone down the drama? Even if you were right, which you aren't, the comment you're replying to was clearly well meant.
- mikeash 11y agoNobody uses profit when determining the appropriate fines for an individual. A court doesn't look at an offender making $100,000/year and say, well, they're only saving $5/month, so we'll only fine them $60. If we're talking about the discrepancy between punishments for individuals and punishments for companies, then we should absolutely be looking at revenues, not profits. Or alternately, punishments for individuals should look at savings, not income.
- hackuser 11y ago> If I jammed public spectrum in order to profit, I'd be in prison. Is this true? Can someone cite examples of this happening?
- mikeash 11y agoHere's a fellow who spent 15 months in prison for jamming ham radio, so not even for profit: http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 http://www.eham.net/articles/3908 This guy got seven years, but he was interfering with public safety radios operated by police and the like, so that's not the same: http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 http://www.eham.net/articles/14858 Looking at other convictions, it seems that the more usual punishment is arrest, probation, and a massive fine. Even compared to that, fining a big hotel $600,000 is a joke.
- newjersey 11y agoI want the board to go to jail, not some low level janitor. Or do we only go as high as the paper trail takes us? This lets companies erect firewalls and appear innocent like the vw CEO...
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoThe alternative is imprisoning people without evidence. I'll take guilty people going free anyday.
- Karunamon 11y agoOr, tweaking the law along the lines that corporate executives are vicariously liable for the job related misdeeds of their underlings, if it can be shown they did or should have known about the goings on and did nothing to stop it. Suddenly, there will be a lot more care about ethical behavior..
- newjersey 11y agoOwners and board members of companies should be liable not just for the action of their employees but also the actions of their subcontractors. Otherwise, we will have situations like the one John Oliver mocked in the North Dakota petroleum industry. http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_exposes_the_dark_side_of_north_dakota_s_oil_boom_on_last_week.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/10/12/john_oliver_e...
- Shivetya 11y agoWell the odd thing is, in prison where you are not permitted a cell phone if you "had" one the authorities are not permitted to jam it.
- noobermin 11y agoThey could take it since you're a prisoner.
- rayiner 11y agoOnly if you jammed US government communications or satellite communications: https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement (scroll down to criminal enforcement section). The FCC doesn't even have authority to prosecute criminally. But you know don't let that get in the way of your narrative.
- CamperBob2 11y agoThe FCC doesn't even have authority to prosecute criminally. Well, there's a novel legal theory. Try running an unlicensed broadcast transmitter, and let us know how that goes for you.
- chris_wot 11y agoThis is novel. You scrolled to the bottom without reading the top. The top of that page is very clear: "ALERT Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi)" Then it references The Communications Act of 1934: "The Communications Act of 1934 Section 301 - requires persons operating or using radio transmitters to be licensed or authorized under the Commissions rules (47 U.S.C. § 301)" But wait, there's more! 47 U.S.C. 302b. reads: "(b) Restrictions No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section" (Emphasis mine). Have a read of the Communications Act before you get into trouble.
- enraged_camel 11y agoExcuse me, aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? Please read item number 8 here and stop spreading misinformation that can get others in serious trouble: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf "What are the penalties for using a jammer? Can I go to prison? Yes. The unlawful use of a jammer is a criminal offense and can result in various sanctions, including a jail sentence."
- wmf 11y agoThere is a debate here about whether syntactically valid 802.11 frames count as "jamming".
- Karunamon 11y agoFrom the horse's mouth: https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/jammerenforcement/jamfaq.pdf Section 333 of the Communications Act : “No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under [the Communications] Act or operated by the United States Government.” 47 U.S.C. § 333. If you're willfully screwing with other people's transmissions, you're breaking the law. It's that simple. The method being used doesn't really enter into it.
- yellowbkpk 11y agoWifi operates in unlicensed spectrum and transmitters and receivers are required to handle interference in this space. Is it still jamming if it's not a licensed station doing the broadcasting? </devilsadvocate> ...I suppose it does say "authorized" there, and 2.4 and 5Ghz transmitters are authorized.
- ryandrake 11y agoUnderstood you're playing devil's advocate, but the response would be: Why don't I stand outside with a WiFi antenna pointed at your house, doing the same thing, causing your WiFi devices to drop connections over and over, and then you tell me that I'm not jamming you.
- facetube 11y agoEven further, denial of service attacks can be performed using totally valid and normal HTTP or HTTPS requests. In that case, it's the volume and the intent that matter.
- extrapickles 11y ago
- pjc50 11y agoThey're a large business. Regulatory compliance is a question of whether they can get away with it, and no individual will be prosecuted.
- thomaskcr 11y agoThe AP needs to know your network exists to send deauth packets - if you lower the power on your device so that your network is only accessible to you, you'll end up fine. So the argument for the other side would basically be that you're not operating a private device if it's broadcasting so their customers may attempt to connect to it. I think many companies' security groups would have a problem with you saying that someone needs to be able to run a publicly accessible access point in their building. I think the complication comes here from the fact that they were charging for internet and then preventing people from using their own. If there were hotspots trying to mimic the network, I don't think there would be any problem with deauthing them since that's a security risk but it seems like in this case it was just a money grab. I guess the question becomes for other companies not doing it for the money grab, if you are offering wifi, do you have a duty to protect your customers from rogue hotspots or is it their problem?
- revelation 11y agoThat is not a distinction the law makes. You are not allowed to operate a GPS jammer for your home safety, either. There are exceptions, prisons can operate cellphone jammers for example. I don't think there are any for private enterprises.
- thomaskcr 11y agoWhy would you need to? I'm not sure I understand the point. You're not indiscriminately preventing wifi from working. If your network is broadcasting with enough power to reach the AP, and therefore customers besides yourself, they would be preventing that. If someone sets up a wifi access point outside your building with the same name as your wifi, you should be able to prevent people from accidentally connecting to that rogue access point. That's why basically every enterprise AP comes with that ability. I can't imagine if this were actually illegal the FCC would allow the sale of systems with the ability to do that. The distinction here is that it was done as a money grab and not for security reasons.
- mikeash 11y ago
- rayiner 11y agoSo that blurb on the FCC site isn't the law. The fines are issued under 47 USC 333, but on its face that only prohibits interfering with any "station licensed or authorized" under that chapter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/333. Is a WiFi hotspot a "station?" It's not licensed either. Though it is "authorized" to operate in the unlicensed band. Using deauth packets, versus actual jamming, sounds like it wouldn't even violate unlicensed band requirements. Last I checked nothing in the FCC regs requires you to respect 802.11 or other protocols while operating in the unlicensed band. You're supposed to abide by power limits and things like that, which the hotels were doing.
- caf 11y agoYes, a WiFi hotspot is a station: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/153. The term “radio station” or “station” means a station equipped to engage in radio communication or radio transmission of energy.
- rayiner 11y agoThat begs the question of whether it is a "station."
- pdabbadabba 11y ago> Is a WiFi hotspot a "station?" It's not licensed either. Though it is "authorized" to operate in the unlicensed band. It's a very interesting question, but there is a very good argument that it is. Have a look at pages 3-6 of this for a taste: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011985 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011985
- LastZactionHero 11y ago"Although Wi-Fi might work fine for checking email or conducting a brief product demonstration, activities that demand more bandwidth or more security, like transmitting a live broadcast or running credit cards, still often require wired Internet access." Why would running a credit card require wired internet?
- wmf 11y agoBecause people don't understand end-to-end encryption.
- explorigin 11y agoThis logic is a few years old, but back when WEP was popular and HTTPS less-so, I was nervous about buying things online over such a connection. WEP was/is easily crackable and without HTTPS, that credit card info is plaintext over the airwaves. Nowadays we have WPA2 and HTTPS is more common. But I still prefer an ethernet cable.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> back when WEP was popular and HTTPS less-so SSL has been used for online card transactions for longer than Windows 95 has been out, it was basically invented for that purpose. Was there really a time when WiFi was in common use and people carried out financial transactions over HTTP?
- cortesoft 11y agoThere was NEVER a time where credit card info was sent over http. When are you talking about?! HTTP over wired is not secure, either.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago> There was NEVER a time where credit card info was sent over http. When are you talking about?! Amazon launched in 1995, and SSL only launched the same year, so they might have taken plaintext credit card info for a short while. That's a technicality, though.
- oldmanjay 11y agoThis story is your regular reminder that the world does not owe anyone a workable business model.
- jegutman 11y agoHey, MPAA, RIAA, Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, and 90% of car dealerships (to name a few), please pay attention.
- mjevans 11y agoPlease, the above outdated concepts, just go out of business.
- vinceguidry 11y agoCapturing rents is the original workable business model.
- ericras 11y agoWhen the lady featured in the article "brings her own hot spot network", what is powering it? Is she plugging it into the network jack in the room? Is it cellular?
- wmf 11y agoThe article is talking about cellular-to-wifi equipment.
- ericras 11y agoI suppose that should have been obvious. I would have liked to see rough prices quoted for this since I imagine it could be pricey as well.
- nateguchi 11y agoThough, not as pricey as the networks at conference centres - and a one off cost too. A box like she has would set you back around £200 (http://www.3grouterstore.co.uk/3G/Proroute-GEM420-M2M-4G-Router.html http://www.3grouterstore.co.uk/3G/Proroute-GEM420-M2M-4G-Rou...)
- thaumasiotes 11y agoRough prices were in fact quoted, since prices for convention wifi were quoted and the hotspot pricing is less.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Johnny555 11y agoNo need to get something that fancy for short-range use in a conference booth. I have a $40 T-Mobile Wifi hotspot that I activate for $10/GB when I need it. It came in handy at a conference where the provider's network went down and we could still process credit card orders over the cheap hotspot. Though I imagine that if everyone used them, the cellular networks would not keep up with the demand.
- tracker1 11y agoI'm with the FCC on this one... though on the flip side, I wouldn't mind if movie theaters were lined with materials that block wireless signals altogether in the theater/screen rooms.
- SEJeff 11y agoThe people who are saved by oncall surgeons who might happen to be in a movie theater might beg to disagree. There are entirely valid reasons why it is illegal to block wifi / cellular signals.
- akurtzhs 11y agoPaint or wallpaper that blocks signals are perfectly legal, so I'm not sure what you mean by "illegal to block wifi/cellular signals". You can't transmit and jam others' signals, but that's different.
- 1ris 11y agoI can't find anything to back this up, but I remember that in the 90ties is was well know (incorrectly or not) that you needed a permission for this.
- ghaff 11y agoI don't have any citations but it seems unlikely given that there's certainly no law that requires building structures to not block cell service. (I've been in enough buildings that seem to pretty much act as Faraday cages.) Intent matters I suppose but seems pretty unenforceable.
- obsurveyor 11y agoThis isn't true. You can't intentionally use paint or wallpaper that blocks signals in public spaces or places where a wireless device is expected to be able to be used(like a movie theatre) in the case of an emergency. In the eyes of the FCC it is no different if it is willful.
- mikeash 11y agoThis is an interesting story, but I have to wonder if the writer did their research. This caption really stuck out at me: > A mobile hot spot can be transported in a carrier the size of a briefcase. I mean, this is technically true, but it's pretty crazily misleading about the size. The picture itself shows some massively bulky thing. It also shows what appears to be an ethernet switch with one cable plugged into it, which is about 25ft long, coiled up, and has the other end just dangling free. And it shows a power brick large enough to use as an actual brick.
- shortformblog 11y agoOne thing I'll add about this is that these wireless hotspots need to cover different types of uses than what you assume with traditional hotspots. The event director of the American Public Human Services Association is not trying to put people on a MiFi or a Karma device—she's trying to ensure an entire room full of people at an education session or a large hall have access to an open wireless network. That's a lot different usage than the average person might expect to run into. Her $30,000 bill is essentially to manage the wireless for the whole event. I think it's actually misleading in the other direction than what you're suggesting–generally it's the vendors who are running into these frustrations with wireless blockers, not the event managers for the associations. The people who usually feel the brunt of the pain here are the vendors on the tradeshow floor, the startups and companies who are running stands that rely on a lot of multimedia gizmos. These are the folks who are reaching out to the FCC, not the event planners.
- awinder 11y agoWait: Conference internet, as in that thing that rarely works without a hitch and is often super-overwhelmed, is being paid for by organizers for up to 6-figures??? Does anyone else find this to be absolutely insane?
- Balgair 11y agoIf you are looking for a start-up idea, dear HN reader, this is opportunity knocking at your door.
- mikeash 11y agoThat's what happens when you effectively have a monopoly: a terrible product with a huge price. Only it turns out they don't have a monopoly! And like most monopolists, rather than try to compete, they want to just shut down the competition.
- venning 11y agoMy organization occasionally sends people as exhibitors to conferences. At the biggest one of the year, renting a wireless hotspot from the hotel costs $900 (for a poor connection). Rumor has it, one year, they rented a hotel room for a few hundred dollars and then sent an intern up to the room every hour to sync up everyone's devices.
- Sephr 11y agoRegardless of whether or not sending deauth packets counts as jamming, the root problem can be solved by simply enabling and requiring protected management frames on your router/hotspot/phone. Once you have protected management frames required, the only way to block your devices from connecting to your hotspot would be the kind of actual jamming that I'm sure we can all agree is illegal. Problem solved. Unfortunately most phones' hotspot apps don't let you configure this setting (and disable it by default), so we need to push OEMs to enable it by default or at least make it configurable. I for one have it required on my home network, and it gives me peace of mind knowing that I can't be deauthed by random strangers.
- shortformblog 11y agoI've covered this issue closely in my role as a journalist in the association space, and this is definitely a clear divide between the hospitality industry and the associations. The thing is, associations and businesses bring in thousands of people to each event, and they drive major economic benefits. Why do those economic benefits have to come from the wireless access? If you want to drive massive revenue from a conference, build a restaurant that profits off the many instead of a wireless business that profits off a small handful of people. Here's a take on this issue that's specifically targeted to those in the association space being targeted by these high charges: http://associationsnow.com/2015/02/learned-fccs-wifi-blocking-saga/ http://associationsnow.com/2015/02/learned-fccs-wifi-blockin...