FCC: Wi-Fi Blocking Is Illegal

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
In case you didn't know it already, the Federal Communications Commission put out a press release today saying it is illegal to block wi-fi hot spots.

Personal Wi-Fi networks, or “hot spots,” are an important way that consumers connect to the Internet. Willful or malicious interference with Wi-Fi hot spots is illegal. Wi-Fi blocking violates Section 333 of the Communications Act, as amended. The Enforcement Bureau has seen a disturbing trend in which hotels and other commercial establishments block wireless consumers from using their own personal Wi-Fi hot spots on the commercial establishment’s premises. As a result, the Bureau is protecting consumers by aggressively investigating and acting against such unlawful intentional interference.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, that is slimy. Didn't know places would even do this.
 
I am simply amazed that anyone needed to be told that this is the case. Intentionally interfering with other people's wireless signals is usually a no-no, even on accident.
 
It should be legal on your own property. It should also be legal in your own personal space, say a 15 ft radius around yourself.
 
tikiman2012 said:
It should be legal on your own property. It should also be legal in your own personal space, say a 15 ft radius around yourself.
Click to expand...

I would say decriminalize, but yes, this. Property rights don't exist in this world. Bring on the fascistic democracy, woohoo!
 
When you rent someone your property for $140/night you forfeit your right to tell them what to do with it.
 
tikiman2012 said:
It should be legal on your own property. It should also be legal in your own personal space, say a 15 ft radius around yourself.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure what the jamming of communications has to do with property rights. In the Marriot case here, the signals were jammed to force customers to pay for the hotels WiFi service IIRC.
 
McFry said:
When you rent someone your property for $140/night you forfeit your right to tell them what to do with it.
Click to expand...

no you don't. Too big examples I can think off right off the top of my head. No pets, No smoking
 
heatlesssun said:
Not exactly sure what the jamming of communications has to do with property rights. In the Marriot case here, the signals were jammed to force customers to pay for the hotels WiFi service IIRC.
Click to expand...

I would think they would want users to use their own bandwidth and provide their own tech support when it doesn't work.
 
redrage said:
no you don't. Too big examples I can think off right off the top of my head. No pets, No smoking
Click to expand...

But these really have nothing to do with property rights. They are more about the considerations of other guests.
 
jpm100 said:
You mean you have no property rights beyond what the government dispenses to you?
Click to expand...

There are multiple property rights. Marriot does not own the wifi spectrum; would you similarly be OK with them blocking cell signals so you needed to use your hotel phone?

And I'm tired of the everything government does is bad schtick. Consolidated power is bad, whether it's corporations blocking your wifi hotspot, or government doing something stupid.
 
heatlesssun said:
But these really have nothing to do with property rights. They are more about the considerations of other guests.
Click to expand...

The comfort of other guests may be a motivating factor, but in many areas, the government has limited the rights of establishments to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property. In the past, a bar, hotel, motel or restaurant could decide whether or not smoking was permitted on the premises. In many states the law now bans smoking entirely in these places.

With respect to WiFi blocking, it seems like a dick move on the part of the hotels that engaged in it with the intention of charging their customers for access to the hotel's network, especially since free WiFi (prior to that Ethernet jacks in the room) used to be a selling point for hotels to attract guests.

Within your home or on your personal, private property, there may be a case to be made that you could get away with jamming local WiFi signals, but I don't know that it is one that you could argue successfully. For example, it is illegal to interfere with broadcast signals that cross your property. Depending on how clearly-worded the argument is in relation to the legal precedents that have been established...well, now we're going down the lawyer-speak rabbit-hole...
 
TwistedAegis said:
There are multiple property rights. Marriot does not own the wifi spectrum; would you similarly be OK with them blocking cell signals so you needed to use your hotel phone?

And I'm tired of the everything government does is bad schtick. Consolidated power is bad, whether it's corporations blocking your wifi hotspot, or government doing something stupid.
Click to expand...
The hotel doesn't do things that force you to use their hotel, government does. That's the difference, and why you misunderstand consolidated power vs. just power. The consumer is free to react and take their dollars elsewhere. Try that with the government.

The only complaint consumers should have a leg to stand on, is if the Marriott didn't give decent notice to customers. Otherwise the FCC should concern itself in this only if, Marriot's efforts affected surrounding public areas or neighboring properties.
 
jpm100 said:
You mean you have no property rights beyond what the government dispenses to you?
Click to expand...

Government and law do exist in order to lay the ground rules necessary for a functioning civilization. And a constant conflict in this is where does one party's rights end and another's begin? Thus no rights are absolute. Generally one cannot burn down their house, store toxic waste on their land or manufacture meth on it.

Just speaking in layman's terms, if someone subscribes to and pays for broadband service I think that person generally has the right to receive the service he is paying for where ever he is within the technical constraints of the service. Intentional jamming of a communication signals that someone is paying to use is certainly a conflict. So who has the superior claim. How does the property owner demonstrate that he as the right to deprive someone of a service that's supposed to work most anywhere? How is the property owner damaged if isn't able to jam signals?
 
TwistedAegis said:
There are multiple property rights. Marriot does not own the wifi spectrum; would you similarly be OK with them blocking cell signals so you needed to use your hotel phone?

And I'm tired of the everything government does is bad schtick. Consolidated power is bad, whether it's corporations blocking your wifi hotspot, or government doing something stupid.
Click to expand...

I would be perfectly fine with any restrictions, wi-fi, cell phone use of toilets, etc... as long as it is known up front before I pay. It is their property I am using. Yes they don't own cell wifi signals but they should have the right to block their use on their property.

It shouldn't be illegal as long as emergency services are available.

Now if they where blocking wifi or cell use, i wouldn't stay there if i had an option cause i still think it's dumb.. just not something that should be illegal.
 
Property rights don't extend to the electromagnetic spectrum. Internal broadcasting of interference even accidental has been long illegal.
 
Have to disagree there. You mistakenly believe the power of the market will fix all things; instead, this will become standard practice as we live in an oligopoly, and your illusion of choice will vanish. Even Adam Smith, who coined the phrase the "invisible hand" knew and admitted this, stating that whenever businessmen congregate, they seek to collude.
 
heatlesssun said:
But these really have nothing to do with property rights. They are more about the considerations of other guests.
Click to expand...

They have everything to do with property rights. The owner of the property has the right to allow pets or not and even to allow smoking in many areas.
 
jpm100 said:
The only complaint consumers should have a leg to stand on, is if the Marriott didn't give decent notice to customers. Otherwise the FCC should concern itself in this only if, Marriot's efforts affected surrounding public areas or neighboring properties.
Click to expand...

But there in lies a huge problem. What if signal jamming were legal and anyone could do it because of property rights? If it were widespread it could effectively render electronic communications nearly useless in many places. And what would be the point of that?
 
redrage said:
They have everything to do with property rights. The owner of the property has the right to allow pets or not and even to allow smoking in many areas.
Click to expand...

But that's because there's a reasonable claim that the property owner can make. Smoking is considered a huge health hazard that effects others in the environment and pets can be problematic as well. What claim can the property owner make that justifies jamming broadband? Just because isn't a claim.
 
heatlesssun said:
But that's because there's a reasonable claim that the property owner can make. Smoking is considered a huge health hazard that effects others in the environment and pets can be problematic as well. What claim can the property owner make that justifies jamming broadband? Just because isn't a claim.
Click to expand...

they don't need to justify it.
 
A property owner could allow or disallow draping cat5 cables around.

A property owner cannot operate a device intended to interfere with signals in spectrums licensed for use. Such interference cannot be controlled or contained to affect only that owner's property without encroaching on other's spectrum. See: LightSquared

Now, a property owner could employ passive monitoring and then kick guests out for violating the terms of their agreement if they so chose. That just seems like a huge waste of money and time.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Smoking and pets can cause excessive damage to your property. Using Wifi doesn't.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Otherwise the claim of property rights becomes absolute dealing with issues that have nothing to actually do with ownership of property. Like any right, it can't be absolute because it becomes impossible for the rights of others to exist.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Smoking and pets can cause excessive damage to your property. Using Wifi doesn't.
Click to expand...

you are missing the point. the damage to my property is my business not anyone else.

I own a hotel.

I allow smoking. people know it they can choose to stay or not they are not forced to stay at my business. that is my product and they can choose it or not.

I block wifi, people know it they can choose to stay or not they are not forced to stay at my business. that is my product and they can choose it or not.
 
redrage said:
they don't need to justify it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you do. In the case of Marriott I think it all started when people having a conference their all realized their broadband was working and people started asking questions. And Marriott couldn't justify it so that's why they caved.
 
flashoverride said:
Now, a property owner could employ passive monitoring and then kick guests out for violating the terms of their agreement if they so chose. That just seems like a huge waste of money and time.
Click to expand...

^

That probably best describes what I want to get at but cannot say myself for some reason.
 
If a private home or business owner is able to broadcast ANY radio signal within their property without it affecting those signals immediately outside their property I don't see how that is the jurisdiction of the government. Of course the ability to do that is near impossible, but if it were it shouldn't be illegal.
 
McFry said:
When you rent someone your property for $140/night you forfeit your right to tell them what to do with it.
Click to expand...

This right here! Pets and smoking I can understand and is agreed beforehand but anything else Id love someone to try that shit on me! If I already payed, yeah go ahead and see what happens if you tell me what I can or cant do!
 
ZenDragon said:
Holy crap the FCC actually doing something helpful for a change! :eek:
Click to expand...

Until Congress - primarily the Republicans - try to shut it down with bills authored by the businesses that donate to the Congressmen. And Congress won't even read the bill before they vote in favor of it.
 
jnmunsey said:
If a private home or business owner is able to broadcast ANY radio signal within their property without it affecting those signals immediately outside their property I don't see how that is the jurisdiction of the government. Of course the ability to do that is near impossible, but if it were it shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

That's BS. People have a reasonable expectation that if someone needs them via cell for some reason (emergency or otherwise), that it's going to actually ring and not get blocked by some business owner trying to make a buck. You can't go disrupting radio communication systems in the name of property rights. That makes no sense.
 
jnmunsey said:
If a private home or business owner is able to broadcast ANY radio signal within their property without it affecting those signals immediately outside their property I don't see how that is the jurisdiction of the government. Of course the ability to do that is near impossible, but if it were it shouldn't be illegal.
Click to expand...

Build a Faraday cage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

You can attenuate signals all you want. You cannot broadcast jamming or interference. Besides, with direction finding equipment your jammer *will* be found. You are literally driving around broadcasting your position.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-florida-resident-drove-around-with-a-cellphone-jammer-84369099229.html
 
brentsg said:
That's BS. People have a reasonable expectation that if someone needs them via cell for some reason (emergency or otherwise), that it's going to actually ring and not get blocked by some business owner trying to make a buck. You can't go disrupting radio communication systems in the name of property rights. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

So whenever one is on someone else's private property, the property owner by virtue of being a property owner has the right to jam transmissions. The huge disruption that this would cause to communications if it were widely practiced would cause such an uproar that it would quickly be made illegal. With virtually unanimous support even from property owners.
 
heatlesssun said:
So whenever one is on someone else's private property, the property owner by virtue of being a property owner has the right to jam transmissions. The huge disruption that this would cause to communications if it were widely practiced would cause such an uproar that it would quickly be made illegal. With virtually unanimous support even from property owners.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you misquoted, but I think we're arguing the same point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top