back to article Marriott: The TRUTH about personal Wi-Fi hotel jam bid

The Marriott hotel chain – slammed for jamming guests' personal Wi-Fi hotspots – has tried to explain why it's asking for permission to interfere with wireless networks. Marriott, Hilton, and the American Hotel & Lodging Association, had together petitioned US watchdog the Federal Communications Commission for clarification – …

  1. Barry Rueger

    Dear Marriot

    Lord almighty. Just once can't a corporation have the balls to say "Because we're greedy, that's why."

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dear Marriot

      Have you EVER heard a corporation publicly declare they are greedy? They're all working extremely hard for the better future, greener environment, higher wages in the under-developed regions, equal rights for women and such scum, oops.

      1. skeptical i
        Devil

        Re: Dear Marriot

        No, they say "we owe a responsibility to our shareholders", which is more or less the same thing. Veruca Salt with a suit and briefcase (corporations are people too, you know).

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Dear Marriot

        I run a company. It is eGeek Consulting Ltd, a Canadian corporation. We (being the three shareholders whose decisions make up the body public) are greedy. At least when performing our corporate duties. Some would perhaps argue we're not greedy enough (we probably should charge more) others that we are too greedy (they really want us to charge less.) But our goal is to make as much money as reasonably possible. Because we don't want any more student loans. And I want this frakking mortgage gone.

        Greed is evil. I get that. But I'm willing to live with being a little evil in order to make the company go. I do try to restrain it all some, but...It's a business. We do get greedy.

        So, um...what the hell was so hard about that? Admitting to greed is the first step in placing rational and pragmatic limits on said greed. Prevents expensive facepalming. Seems like good corporate policy to me.

    2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      Re: Dear Marriot

      What? Like Google?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dear Marriot

        What? Like Microsoft?

    3. Eric Olson

      Re: Dear Marriot

      While it would be a refreshing change of pace, it might endanger the notion that unfettered capitalism isn't all it's cracked up to be on a personal level.

      1. Cliff

        Re: Dear Marriot

        Greedy doesn't even start to cover it - £15 for 24h crappy access ON TOP OF room rates.

        Best we managed, through extensive haggling (to cover 80 room nights) was £4/room/night

  2. dan1980

    So, as I read it, these chains want to disrupt personal hotspots (not 3G/4G itself) in their convention spaces.

    As that is, ordinary hotel guests will be unaffected - again, from what I can tell.

    It seems that convention organisers have the option to purchase Wi-Fi plans from the hotels so surely if they DON'T, then there is not Wi-Fi (in use) for personal hotspots to disrupt. Right?

    Now, If the convention organisers DO decide to purchase Wi-Fi from the hotel for attendees to use then I can kind of see the point in this as, if I purchased such an expensive service from the hotel then I would damned well expect it to work flawlessly.

    That aside (for the moment), given that the hotels are private property, they are perfectly within their rights to prohibit people from using mobile hotspots, just as it within a pub's rights to prohibit entry to people wearing football shirts or for a store to prohibit use of mobile phones, or for a concert/sporting venue to prohibit any outside food or drinks being brought in.

    So, in terms of what they should be allowed to do, they should be, allowed to ban the use of mobile hotspots in specific parts of their hotel at specific times or for specific events - or indeed in all parts of their hotel at all times.

    Taking a quote from one of the linked stories, Google may be right that such action is against the aims of "promoting competition" but so too is only selling one brand of soft drink at a sporting match and then prohibiting patrons from brining in their own bottles. They're both annoying policies that are trying to get more of your money but there is nothing unique, unusual or legally wrong with banning competing services inside a private venue.

    Now, Marriott have said that the reason for this action is to preserve the integrity of their service. Coming back to the service being (hypothetically) purchased by a convention organiser, that logic only really works if personal hotspots really are demonstrably messing with the provided service AND that there is no other, less intrusive, way to fix that issue.

    Even then, that really only works to justify a ban and does not necessarily extend to the right to take any and all measures to enforce that ban. I believe it would be within their rights to have people walking around with devices to detect mobile hotspots and then, once identified, warn the person that use of a hotspot is prohibited by the conditions of entry and if they do not disable the hotspot, they will be asked to leave.

    Nothing unusual about this either - cinemas are within their rights to ban mobile phones from being switched on in theatres and ushers can walk around looking for people breaking that rule and ask them to turn it off or leave.

    Still a dick move.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      I do believe that there is a genuine issue around the kind of unsecured wifi networks that are preferred by hotels and conferences: they are incredibly easy to spoof as clients only care about the SSID. Wifi is such a shitty (but cheap) protocol that it doesn't come with any kind of strategy to avoid this. If security really is the issue then fixing those issues should have priority. There are now wifi networks that can use the telcos' networks to do SIM-based authorisation, and/or customers could "bonk" their mobile phones to get network keys but notebooks would present more of a problem.

      I do believe that the hotels are slowly thinking of getting out of providing internet for guests: it's a lot of gear to buy and look after and it's increasingly difficult to compete with what people can get from their mobile provider notionally for a fraction of the cost. But then I never fail to be surprised at the extras that American hotel chains routinely charge a fortune for (in much of Europe free wifi is now pretty much ubiquitous in hotels). I suspect the solution will be to cooperate with the mobile networks to setup pico cells in the hotel for improved coverage (and reduced load on the public cells).

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        there is a genuine issue around the kind of unsecured wifi networks that are preferred by hotels and conferences: they are incredibly easy to spoof as clients only care about the SSID.

        True, but that's why any business-related traffic should always use a VPN over the WiFi.

        I do believe that the hotels are slowly thinking of getting out of providing internet for guests: it's a lot of gear to buy and look after and it's increasingly difficult to compete with what people can get from their mobile provider notionally for a fraction of the cost.

        I hope not, at least for those hotels with international customers. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll use my European provider's data plan when I'm in the US, at $DEITY only knows how many €€ per GB.

        1. D@v3

          thumbs up, specifically for

          "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll use my European provider's data plan when I'm in the US, at $DEITY only knows how many €€ per GB"

          As someone who likes to travel in my off time, having wi-fi in the hotel means i can still get internet access to look up local details, places to go things to see, without having to carve out my internal organs as payment for roaming charges to the telcos.

          1. LosD

            Re: thumbs up, specifically for

            SIM locking aside which luckily is less and less frequent here (Denmark), it's usually pretty easy and cheap to buy a local SIM with decent data in most countries. The hardest part of that is language trouble and sometimes really weird local practices and rules.

            1. Samuel Penn

              Re: thumbs up, specifically for

              Data prices in the US are ridiculous, or they were two years ago when I tried doing this. A UK monthly contract which gives me 25GB/month of roaming data in the US is significantly cheaper than a US pay as you go SIM with 2GB of data was.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: thumbs up, specifically for

              Pretty much impossible in the US though. There are ZERO PAYG data providers available in the US. Every other country I go to, I buy a sim for a personal hotspot and load it with PAYG package for data. Not possible in the US - closest provider is Virgin, but even they don't offer a simple $/GB pricing with an expiration date.

              So you choice when traveling in the US is to pay for hotel wifi - which varies enormously in quality and cost, or commit to monthly data packages on personal wifi.

              It's often difficult for European and Asian people to comprehend just how backward and corrupt the US telco industry is.

        2. Magnus Ramage

          "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll use my European provider's data plan when I'm in the US, at $DEITY only knows how many €€ per GB."

          I agree entirely that hotel-based wifi, preferably free, is extremely useful while travelling. However I know of at least one European mobile provider which allows customers to use their mobile data in their standard package while travelling in certain countries, including the US, as if they were on their home network. Worked very well for me last summer in the US, and indeed in Ireland. (I do indeed mean one particular provider but I'm not trying to advertise them; others can and should copy them.)

          1. IsJustabloke
            Joke

            However I know of at least one European mobile provider...

            And Three cheers for them I say....

            Ahem....

          2. Anonymous Coward
        3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          I hope not, at least for those hotels with international customers. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I'll use my European provider's data plan when I'm in the US, at $DEITY only knows how many €€ per GB.

          To be clear: I'm not in any form condoning the rip-off charging for mobile data. But I think it's worth looking at what the hotels are trying (and generally failing) to do and why they probably want to get out of the business.

          When I'm in America I normally pick up a SIM for data (fucking expensive when compared to Europe). I've nearly always had more bandwidth with it than wifi in any of the major chains (a couple of hundred kbit/s if you're very lucky and repeated firewall signups). It really is quite a challenge to set up a reliable wifi environment in a large hotel, which is why is usually isn't available (no matter what they charge). Smaller hotels with one or two access points just don't have the same problems.

          With the US mobile market finally maturing I'm sure data SIMs will start getting cheaper and, who knows, they might even introduce wholesale data which will make it easier for non-US providers to buy bandwidth at reasonable prices. In the meantime I may just pick up a T-Mobile SIM that will give me cheap data in the states.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            "It really is quite a challenge to set up a reliable wifi environment in a large hotel, which is why is usually isn't available"

            No it isn't - I'm rolling out an enterprise scale wifi network which coincidentally is well suited to hotels - but hotels don't want to pay the kind of money required for intelligent access points which cooperate with each other, shut down when not needed and don't have endless (largely insecure) firewall challenges.

            Hotels generally attempt to maximise income at every opportunity whilst minimising costs (aka, "tightass bastards"), even in the upmarket ones.

        4. Samuel Penn

          My UK phone provider gives me 25GB/month when roaming in the US (and a number of other countries) as part of my standard contract. It's not as good as the unlimited data I get in the UK, but it's good enough. It's one of the reasons I switched to Three.

        5. verbaloversupply

          European provider's data plan when I'm in the US?

          That is why you buy a local PAYG plan in any country you arrive in for a few days. If you need your work number or phone isn't unlocked you just buy a personal WiFi device for the SIM... Oh wait.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "...there is nothing unique, unusual or legally wrong with banning competing services inside a private venue.

      Legality aside, there are times when doing so simply feels wrong and is perceived as such by a majority. Your 'drinks in a music/sports venue' is a particular case in point. I doubt many people would be especially bothered about having to drink a specific soft drink brand at a concert, but they do get upset at being charged three times the normal rate AND have the bottle they brought with them taken away, often using the opportunistic catch all 'terror' to defend the tactic. Basically its the gouging that goes hand in hand every single time someone pulls this number that gets most peoples backs up. That same attempt to gouge for a usually trivially priced service is whats getting most people's backs up in this case.

      Perhaps rather than hotels hiding their right to take the piss in whatever way they want in the small print, they should obliged to display the rate at which they will fleece you for services that are charged at rates stratospherically higher than normal. Or perhaps just large signs prominently at the entrance and on the website saying "we reserve the right to be greedy wankers in unspecified but probably irritating ways" would make it clearer to customers what they are signing up for.

      There really is such a things as "the norm", and these days mobile phones and mobile wifi really do qualify.

      1. alain williams Silver badge

        I doubt many people would be especially bothered about having to drink a specific soft drink brand at a concert

        I would. If I have paid for a ticket for an event I do not expect to be further ripped off by having to buy some overly sweet fetid drink like coca cola or pepsi. I know that some people like them, to me they are disgusting.

        1. tony2heads
          Pint

          @alain williams

          'shooters' are just as bad

          stick to a sensible drink.... see icon.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        There really is such a things as "the norm", and these days mobile phones and mobile wifi really do qualify.

        Not really. In all these things there is the principle of caveat emptor. You should always find out how much things will cost before you use them. That said, if that information isn't available, then you should hound the shit out of them.

        I remember my first business trip to the US in 2001 where the staff of the Marriott Courtyard in Redbank couldn't tell me how to get an internet connection (dial-in was all that was available back then), nor how much an international call would cost. So, I ended up using a null-modem cable with my mobile phone and dialling in via Germany (worked surprisingly well). Needless to say I complained strongly to Marriott and, to their credit, they refunded the charges incurred.

      3. dan1980

        @AC

        "Legality aside . . . [it] feels wrong."

        Yep. Thought I made that pretty clear - it's a 'dick move'.

    3. Eric Olson

      They are welcome to ban it. They can even put in the Ts & Cs when you host a conference or rent a room that you will not create a personal hotspot to be used while in the common areas, and failure to follow that rule will result in some charge, fee, or out-right refusal of service.

      However, what they can't do under US law is employ jamming hardware due to safety and security concerns. So their "clever" workaround is to use what amounts to a DoS attack on any "unauthorized" hotspots. But if I have the (unfortunate) luck of having a room near a conference space and use a hotspot in my room, something that Marriott is claiming is allowed, what's to stop the signal from being detected in a restricted area and being spammed by the local admin or software-based jamming solution?

      So this isn't a discussion about what a private business can do, but the way in which they are asking for a special dispensation while at the same time inventing a pretense for it that has little basis in reality and has all the hallmarks of being a solution in search of a problem.

    4. Deadlock Victim

      Not in the US...

      "That aside (for the moment), given that the hotels are private property, they are perfectly within their rights to prohibit people from using mobile hotspots, [..snip..] or for a store to prohibit use of mobile phones"

      No, they're not. The FCC already ruled on this back in November of 2006. (http://news.cnet.com/FCC-Boston-airport-cant-block-airlines-Wi-Fi/2100-7351_3-6131618.html) Sure, a store or movie theater can ask you to leave if you're being a nuisance with your cell phone, but they cannot blanket "No cell phones."

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The question at hand is what measures a network operator can take to detect and contain rogue and imposter Wi-Fi hotspots used in our meeting and conference spaces that pose a security threat to meeting or conference attendees or cause interference to the conference guest wireless network."

    That works both ways, about a foot onto the pavement and their WiFi network is a rogue and imposter WiFi hotspot to everyone else. They should be careful what they wish for.

    That's before you consider the abuse of the WiFi protocol which is only going to cause mayhem to neighboring businesses - which won't only make their network rogue, it'll make it actively malicious to any other networks in range..

  4. Dan Wilkie

    This is just Ciscos Rogue AP Protection feature in Prime/WCS shirley?

  5. Roger Greenwood

    They probably aren't afraid of 1 hotspot

    They may be afraid of 1000 though.

  6. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    El Reg should try running WiFi at a conference for once

    FFS, either run WiFI in a major conference or interview for example the IETF network support team. Trying to run WiFi with device numbers in excess of 100+ per AP and device densities in excess of 1 per m^2 is actually very hard.

    While at it, Mariott, Hilton and especially Hyatt WiFi including conference areas indeed sucks rocks sidewize through a thin straw. Major conference support teams (IETF, IEE, etc) usually spend a week or so fixing it before every event. After that it works like clockwork for some time until some cretinous imbecile decides to "improve" it by jacking all APs to max xmit power and setting them to auto-channel selection.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Many travelling businessmen and IT pros are not allowed to conduct any business using hotel WIFI. So if a company supplied dongle can't be used then people will book elsewhere.

    1. dan1980

      "So if a company supplied dongle can't be used then people will book elsewhere."

      Splitting hairs, but a dongle, as the term is generally understood would be a USB 3G/4G adapter that you plug into your laptop. That, would be fine as it is not creating a wireless network.

      Remember too that most phones that can create mobile hotspots can be setup instead in this fashion - connected via USB to provide internet access for a single device and thus would also not be affected.

      Their problem - as stated - having dozens, if not hundreds of wireless networks that are potentially interfering with their own network. Whether that is the real story or even justified if it is, is another matter altogether and people have good reason to be skeptical of that.

      I think what the are really targeting is not convention attendees but convention exhibitors. Not that that makes this any less greedy!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @dan1980

        My U.S. Virgin Mobile wireless dongle here not only connects 3G and 4G but sets up a personal hotspot and shares out the onboard uSDHC storage as well. And that's not an expensive device and is also PAYG. I keep it for an emergency as I don't have a real mobile phone (nor an interest in having one).

        So I'd be really annoyed with these people.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "So if a company supplied dongle can't be used then people will book elsewhere."

      If they have a choice. In most large penny pinching corporations, IT set a restrictive IT policy based on whatever criteria they see fit, hotel and travel bookings are nailed down by a restrictive travel policy based on lowest cost, often with mandated suppliers or mandated intermediaries (like CWL or Crapita Travel).

  8. SolidSquid

    I'm curious whether the starbuck next door has the right to interfere with the Marriott's wifi network in the same way because the network signal is able to be picked up there.

    I get that the idea of someone faking being the Marriott's network can put other guests at risk (by setting up a man in the middle attack with it), but unless they clearly state that they're going to be blocking any wifi networks other than their own before people book hotel rooms and conferences, this doesn't seem like a reasonable approach

    1. Adam 1

      It would be more convincing if their submission explicitly stated that they only sought permission to jam APs that purported to be associated with the hotel but that were not.

  9. Mark #255

    WiFi operates in a licen{c|s}e free band

    The best, and the worst, thing about WiFi is that it is licence-free - no-one has paid to protect the spectrum from: other WiFi users; domestic microwave ovens; analogue video streamers; etc.

    So no-one has the legal right to an unmolested WiFi band - not Marriott, and not the conference attendees.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: WiFi operates in a licen{c|s}e free band

      Within their walls I think you'll find they have a lot of rights but it is basically whack-a-mole trying to disrupt other wifi networks while trying to protect your own.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: WiFi operates in a licen{c|s}e free band

        "Within their walls I think you'll find they have a lot of rights"

        Not when it comes to RF issues. The FCC can, will, and have dropped a large case of hurt on organizations and individuals who attempt to jam wifi or cellular.

        As have various authorities worldwide when it's come to their attention.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    So...

    ...have they invented a magic form of Wifi that doesn't go through plasterboard walls?

    1. illiad

      Re: So...

      not if they have a good bit of metal 'wifi-proof' mesh...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    (and pretend its not about money)

    1> Go to your local Harvester/Yo Sushi etc or similar eatery, they use WiFi and iPods to take orders.

    1a> Times by X hundred stalls all running their own WiFi services and you could "kinda" envisage a situation where their own network is impacted... Its bad enough at home with all the neighbours hubs constantly trying to hope channels to a "clear" one.

    2> Security - We have all seen the warnings that hotel WiFi is insecure and their a rogue operators ready to ponce on unsuspecting business drones... Marriott are clearly concerned about this and want to protect their conference goers from the risk of thrid party hot spots! How nice of them :-)

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Even when companies are willing to pay the $$$$/day fees for WiFi or copper, what do they get for their money? Not much.

    If everyone shared 4g connections, the greedy hotels would lose out on the profits from their unreasonably overpriced and sub-par internet options.

  13. a_mu

    Uk Hotel, Premier . Jamming

    Ive just come back from a weekend at a premier inn in the UK,

    Seems they are now blocking the software router programs like connectify,

    My laptop hot spot that connects the two phones, external hard drive, and netbook, did not work this time in the hotel, did before and does else where.

    so looks like companies have other ways of blocking these things,

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Uk Hotel, Premier . Jamming

      "My laptop hot spot that connects the two phones, external hard drive, and netbook, did not work this time in the hotel, did before and does else where."

      One has to ask why you need all that equipment just for a weekend away?

      Something to be aware of about Premier Inn is that they don't happen to mention the fact that they do long term storage of MAC addresses of all the machines that log onto the wifi network at their hotels at head office and use it to recognise your machine - and hence know all your details - next time you use their network. I'm pretty sure this is breaking the data protection act but there you go. I just reset the MAC on my laptop each time I stay at one if their hotels to some random value but for other people its probably not funny.

      Still, at least the wifi is free unlike Holiday Inn which still seems to be under the illusion that people will pay 5 quid an hour for internet access. Someone should tell them its 2015, not the 1990s.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Uk Hotel, Premier . Jamming

        The MAC address tracking doesn't surprise me in the least, but I didn't know hotels used it. I think its used (no idea how widely) in retail shops and shopping centres, where it won't usually have a set of details to go with it, but will give a picture of people visiting other stores or shopping centres in different towns. I think there was a piece on El Reg a while back about a similar thing with bluetooth on some fitness trackers.

        About time promiscuously given persistent identifiers were shown the door.

    2. Sir Sham Cad

      Re: Uk Hotel, Premier . Jamming

      They could just be binning any connection they see more than one MAC address on as well (to prevent you running your own private network on theirs). Not very nice if you happen to fire up a VM and then your connection gets canned.

  14. P. Lee

    Let me get this straight

    A hotel wants to annoy tech users by DOSing them?

    How long until "disassociate" packets are targetted at Marriot's network?

    Hello Anon!

    1. cs94njw

      Re: Let me get this straight

      So if someone in the Hotel started sending disassociation packets, that's allowed, right?

      Oh... or is that a DOS attack?

      Marriot - pick one, and live with the consequences ;)

    2. Old Used Programmer

      Re: Let me get this straight

      How long (if it hasn't been done already) will it be before router and device software will be available that has an option to ignore deauth packets?

  15. The_Idiot

    Tic, tick, tick....

    "To be clear, this matter does not involve in any way Wi-Fi access in hotel guestrooms or lobby spaces (at the moment, because we figure we wouldn't get away with that right now. But so long as we can get the _principle_ of blocking approved, then we can both 'accidentally' and 'due to limitations in the technology' extend the block to rooms later. So hah!)."

    There. Fixed.

  16. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

    Ah, America. Land of the free

    And home of the vested interest.

    1. fishman

      Re: Ah, America. Land of the free

      <<Ah, America. Land of the free>>

      It's the land of the fee.

  17. cortland

    All of your

    USB tethers should still work. Until they set up their own fake cellular sites; THERE'S a nice man-in-the-middle.

    Got info? All of your bits are belong to us.

  18. arctic_haze
    Thumb Down

    This matter does not involve in any way Wi-Fi access in hotel guestrooms

    Until you have the bad luck of having a room too close to the conference spaces.

  19. Kubla Cant

    Marriott Gaylord Opryland

    the agency fined the Marriott Gaylord Opryland

    The name alone deserves a massive fine.

  20. Old_timer

    I thought that the problem here was that a venue provides wifi for a conference or exhibition and that's fine until you get a couple of hundred myfi units trying to operate in the same space which brings the venue supplied network to its knees.

    Or have I misunderstood what's at the heart of this problem?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I love the notion ..

    .. of hotels "protecting" customers (cough, cough, sorry, be with you in a minute) by methods which by pure chance also protect their precious, excessive charges for WiFi. Are these by any chance the same hotels who offer Windows PCs to surf? Ever looked at %temp% on those machines?

    This answer has at best comedy value but I'm not buying it (both the argument and the *cough* service). At least I know which hotel to avoid now, we often use ad-hoc setups to ferry files back & forth when working, I'd hate to have that screwed over by those idiots.

  22. Damian Skeeles

    Evil twins

    As another commentator said here, their "NEW" explanation is valid and reasonable - they want to block evil twin APs that might be attacking their guests.

    That's very chivalrous of them. However, blocking real tethered hotspots so guests have to use their wifi "yes sir, the reception can be very spotty in some rooms", would be much more lucrative.

    If they started jamming cellphones, and someone complained to the FCC, they would get huge fines. Better to ask permission first.

    And if they were merely jamming evil twin APs.... Then why not just go ahead and do it? I'm sure every other corporation does. Or maybe they're just really scared that the hackers going to complain to the FCC?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like