5 ms·

How is net income irrelevant? Net income represents the organization's ability to 1) absorb fines 2) purchase communication blocking equipment 3) employ and con

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.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
      Blocking WIFI to sell WIFI is an evil plan. It's also highly illegal.
      - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
        What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        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 interference. This story doesn't fit the facts of what happened, so I called it out.
        mc808 12y ago
        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.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        >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 the end of your post you appear to claim that there is a threshold at which income and/or perceived value of the original activity ceases to be a concern. >... regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity. I'm willing to accept that the actual persons that determine Marriott's policies, and therefore physical activities in the real-world (through the policy-makers' and/or their subordinates' actions), are motivated purely by the actions' perceived ability to extract currency from other people. However, that is all the more reason to consider the totality of the organization and its income in any judgement about the organization. As a matter of cost-benefit analysis, the organization may judge that they can absorb a particular fine, but will continue its "evil" behavior, in the sole pursuit of profit, by attempting to hide or disguise the offending behavior. We've seen this pattern play out over and over throughout history and even in very recent history in many industries, including mining, banking, manufacturing, political influencing, etc. Marriott itself even began going down that path by attempting to legitimize its interference through obscure (at least to most of the people affected by the interference) political means.

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.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Blocking WIFI to sell WIFI is an evil plan. It's also highly illegal.
    - PhasmaFelis 12y ago
      What point are you arguing that you think others are disagreeing with?
      - jsprogrammer 12y ago
        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 interference. This story doesn't fit the facts of what happened, so I called it out.
        mc808 12y ago
        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.
        jsprogrammer 12y ago
        >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 the end of your post you appear to claim that there is a threshold at which income and/or perceived value of the original activity ceases to be a concern. >... regardless of your income or how much you valued the original activity. I'm willing to accept that the actual persons that determine Marriott's policies, and therefore physical activities in the real-world (through the policy-makers' and/or their subordinates' actions), are motivated purely by the actions' perceived ability to extract currency from other people. However, that is all the more reason to consider the totality of the organization and its income in any judgement about the organization. As a matter of cost-benefit analysis, the organization may judge that they can absorb a particular fine, but will continue its "evil" behavior, in the sole pursuit of profit, by attempting to hide or disguise the offending behavior. We've seen this pattern play out over and over throughout history and even in very recent history in many industries, including mining, banking, manufacturing, political influencing, etc. Marriott itself even began going down that path by attempting to legitimize its interference through obscure (at least to most of the people affected by the interference) political means.