6 ms·

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 thei

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.

mattkirman 12y ago
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.
- jasonlfunk 12y ago
  Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?
  - mattkirman 12y ago
    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.
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    Right. A subtle point came up elsewhere in these comments noting that there's an exception for security. The fine point appears to be securing the wired LAN - if you plug in a rogue access point, you can rightly disable it. If someone's wi-fi access point is merely shouting on the airwaves, well, that's what the airwaves are there for and you've no right to block it. Think of it as the positive side of the Tragedy of the Commons. Normally we complain about someone peeing in the swimming pool, but the FCC holds that such an analogy doesn't make sense for our airwaves. I actually have no idea where the FCC stands on things like EM anechoic chambers (like Faraday cages). It may or may not be ok to set those up around buildings; likely it requires certification and - if not a lab - some way for 911 and police/fire/rescue to do their jobs unimpeded. EDIT: Specifically about the newness of the law: turns out a lot of this references The Communications Act of 1934. It could be interesting to see how the philosophy of the radio communication acts are different from our modern interpretation of how to use the higher frequency radio spectrum.
mabbo 12y ago
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".
- fpgaminer 12y ago
  > Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter with food/drink. Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food, they don't ban that person forever. Rather, as soon as the person as thrown away the food, they are allowed to enter. So clearly the ban is on the food, and not the person. To ban a specific person would require banning an attribute of the person. Carrying food is not an attribute. The argument is quite nonsensical, to be honest. It's like saying a rule against knives is really about banning people who carry knives. That's of course not the case, and the rule really is specifically about knives and not about people.
  - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
    This rule doesn't stop them from kicking anyone operating a wifi hotspot out of their hotel, or stop them from requiring anyone who enters the hotel to submit to being searched for wifi equipment. The only thing it stops them from doing is jamming the public airwaves. They are allowed to prevent people from operating wifi hotspots in their hotels, but they aren't allowed to use illegal means to do so. Analogously, movie theaters are allowed to stop people from bringing in outside food, but they aren't allowed to assault someone to take away food that they brought in.
  - 12y ago
forgottenpass 12y ago
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?
fpgaminer 12y ago
Practically speaking, there's a big difference between not being able to eat the food you want for two hours, and not having internet access for 1+ days. Particularly on extended business trips, the hotel wifi is often unacceptable and a hotspot becomes necessary. That is in stark in contrast to just not eating a movie theater's food for two hours. But to be honest, theaters are wholly screwy, scummy, and vile anyway. I'd rather we put our regulatory efforts elsewhere, and just let the animal die in peace.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
This isn't a new regulation. It's just a public advisory that blocking wifi is illegal under existing regulations. The justification for the regulation is to protect the public's ability to use the public airwaves. That's why this the advisory was issued by the FCC, rather than an agency concerned with consumer protection.
mcguire 12y ago
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.
dragonwriter 12y ago
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.

mattkirman 12y ago

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.

jasonlfunk 12y ago
Ah, so it's not new regulation - but clarification on existing?
- mattkirman 12y ago
  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.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  Right. A subtle point came up elsewhere in these comments noting that there's an exception for security. The fine point appears to be securing the wired LAN - if you plug in a rogue access point, you can rightly disable it. If someone's wi-fi access point is merely shouting on the airwaves, well, that's what the airwaves are there for and you've no right to block it. Think of it as the positive side of the Tragedy of the Commons. Normally we complain about someone peeing in the swimming pool, but the FCC holds that such an analogy doesn't make sense for our airwaves. I actually have no idea where the FCC stands on things like EM anechoic chambers (like Faraday cages). It may or may not be ok to set those up around buildings; likely it requires certification and - if not a lab - some way for 911 and police/fire/rescue to do their jobs unimpeded. EDIT: Specifically about the newness of the law: turns out a lot of this references The Communications Act of 1934. It could be interesting to see how the philosophy of the radio communication acts are different from our modern interpretation of how to use the higher frequency radio spectrum.

mabbo 12y ago

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".

fpgaminer 12y ago
> Movie theatres don't ban outside food and drink, so much as banning anyone trying to bring in outside food and drink. I fail to see the distinction. If it was really banning people who bring in outside food, they wouldn't sell you a ticket in the first place. But they do sell you a ticket, and then prevent you from using the ticket if you enter with food/drink. Put another way, if a person tries to enter with food, they don't ban that person forever. Rather, as soon as the person as thrown away the food, they are allowed to enter. So clearly the ban is on the food, and not the person. To ban a specific person would require banning an attribute of the person. Carrying food is not an attribute. The argument is quite nonsensical, to be honest. It's like saying a rule against knives is really about banning people who carry knives. That's of course not the case, and the rule really is specifically about knives and not about people.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  This rule doesn't stop them from kicking anyone operating a wifi hotspot out of their hotel, or stop them from requiring anyone who enters the hotel to submit to being searched for wifi equipment. The only thing it stops them from doing is jamming the public airwaves. They are allowed to prevent people from operating wifi hotspots in their hotels, but they aren't allowed to use illegal means to do so. Analogously, movie theaters are allowed to stop people from bringing in outside food, but they aren't allowed to assault someone to take away food that they brought in.
- 12y ago

forgottenpass 12y ago

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?

fpgaminer 12y ago

Practically speaking, there's a big difference between not being able to eat the food you want for two hours, and not having internet access for 1+ days. Particularly on extended business trips, the hotel wifi is often unacceptable and a hotspot becomes necessary. That is in stark in contrast to just not eating a movie theater's food for two hours. But to be honest, theaters are wholly screwy, scummy, and vile anyway. I'd rather we put our regulatory efforts elsewhere, and just let the animal die in peace.

TheCoelacanth 12y ago

This isn't a new regulation. It's just a public advisory that blocking wifi is illegal under existing regulations. The justification for the regulation is to protect the public's ability to use the public airwaves. That's why this the advisory was issued by the FCC, rather than an agency concerned with consumer protection.

mcguire 12y ago

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.

dragonwriter 12y ago

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.