6 ms·

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 http:/

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 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

placebo 12y ago
true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.
- anextio 12y ago
  > the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking. This projection of supply-and-demand is uncalled for, I think. Maybe it would be valid if a) they were blocking wifi in all their hotels, which it seems that they aren't yet, and b) that consumers know it is the hotel that is blocking the wifi, and not just technology fucking up as usual. It's not fair to characterize this as a "do nothing, the market has spoken" situation when it's clear that the scenario is not widely present and consumer information is low. The only people talking about this are tech people.
  - placebo 12y ago
    > The only people talking about this are tech people If that is the case then I stand corrected. One can only hope then that this information will find it's way outside the tech circles.
dsjoerg 12y ago
the relevant number is not their net income, but the gains they think they are making by wi-fi blocking.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  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.
  - Vivtek 12y ago
    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.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      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 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 [2] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 [3] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951
      - schrodinger 12y ago
        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.
jerf 12y ago
It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop. This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, the Feds make a credible threat, Marriot stops making that move, mission accomplished. There's not much more that "punitive" damages could do that the future threat isn't already doing. (And I didn't say there's nothing more, but there isn't much more of true social value. "Glorious, wonder schadenfreude" is not really the sort of "social value" I want to see my government pursuing.)
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!" (Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via paperwork before barging in. Prolly some good pirate radio station stories out there on this...) Edit: here's the link they provide that summarizes the laws affecting jammers. No doubt that rbc is right: this has teeth, and they're sharp. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement
  - akira2501 12y ago
    If you ignore their enforcement letters, then yes, they can come and just confiscate your equipment; not an uncommon end for a "pirate" FM station operator.
  - lmm 12y ago
    I found Death of a Pirate an interesting read; basically a history of British pirate radio.
dragonwriter 12y ago
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.
- electromagnetic 12y ago
  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.
  - cube00 12y ago
    Surely Corporate would pay for it, unless it was the franchise's idea.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      That might assuage the franchisee somewhat, but there is still the effective loss of revenue from that particular hotel as well as indirect costs the franchisee will have to bear, such as lost business and time spent dealing with FCC enforcement actions.

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 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MAR

placebo 12y ago

true, but since the only way of making a dent in their income is for more people to stop using their services, the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking.

anextio 12y ago
> the fact that this doesn't happen seems to imply that people who use their services don't really care about their WiFi blocking. This projection of supply-and-demand is uncalled for, I think. Maybe it would be valid if a) they were blocking wifi in all their hotels, which it seems that they aren't yet, and b) that consumers know it is the hotel that is blocking the wifi, and not just technology fucking up as usual. It's not fair to characterize this as a "do nothing, the market has spoken" situation when it's clear that the scenario is not widely present and consumer information is low. The only people talking about this are tech people.
- placebo 12y ago
  > The only people talking about this are tech people If that is the case then I stand corrected. One can only hope then that this information will find it's way outside the tech circles.

dsjoerg 12y ago

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

jsprogrammer 12y ago
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.
- Vivtek 12y ago
  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.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    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 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/proceeding/view?name=RM-11737 [2] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001011981 [3] http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=60001005951
    - schrodinger 12y ago
      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.

jerf 12y ago

It's also a shot across their bow. If they keep doing it after being made to pony up $600K (plus legal expenses which stand a decent chance of being higher than that themselves), the next time they are found infringing they're going to pay quite a lot more, if they don't stop. This isn't about running around beating people with sticks, no matter how fun that may sound to us. This is chess; they want to make a move, the Feds make a credible threat, Marriot stops making that move, mission accomplished. There's not much more that "punitive" damages could do that the future threat isn't already doing. (And I didn't say there's nothing more, but there isn't much more of true social value. "Glorious, wonder schadenfreude" is not really the sort of "social value" I want to see my government pursuing.)

HCIdivision17 12y ago
I would imagine that the FCC could escalate hard, too. Ignore the fines, and I understand they can disable the device. That is, they actually can enter and physically disable the equipment (like a raid). It's a shocking power that I have never heard abused, but is sort of the nuclear option for "stop that!" (Looking around, it seems the FCC really does try to work things out first via paperwork before barging in. Prolly some good pirate radio station stories out there on this...) Edit: here's the link they provide that summarizes the laws affecting jammers. No doubt that rbc is right: this has teeth, and they're sharp. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement
- akira2501 12y ago
  If you ignore their enforcement letters, then yes, they can come and just confiscate your equipment; not an uncommon end for a "pirate" FM station operator.
- lmm 12y ago
  I found Death of a Pirate an interesting read; basically a history of British pirate radio.

dragonwriter 12y ago

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.

electromagnetic 12y ago
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.
- cube00 12y ago
  Surely Corporate would pay for it, unless it was the franchise's idea.
  - vonmoltke 12y ago
    That might assuage the franchisee somewhat, but there is still the effective loss of revenue from that particular hotel as well as indirect costs the franchisee will have to bear, such as lost business and time spent dealing with FCC enforcement actions.