FCC Says Convention Centers Can't Block Wifi

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Federal Communications Commission is slapping fines on companies that block FCC-approved Wi-Fi connections.

Smart City provides telecom services to convention centers all over the country and charges an insulting $80 fee for a single day of wifi service. To make matters worse, Smart City screwed over people who tried to get around the high fee by using a personal hotspot—the FCC caught the company using a wifi monitoring system to block hotspots that attendees tried to use to provide their own wifi. That’s pretty rude, and it’s also illegal. Now, Smart City will be the one paying.
 
Who's the idiot who thought it'll be a good idea to block wireless signals?

Everyone knows you can't do that.
 
We do a convention in Indianapolis a few times a year and the networking is provided by Smart City. They charge a few THOUSAND dollars to allow you to have WiFi in your booth, they also charge for each IP.

They will throw a fit if you use a router and NAT to get your own private LAN or use your own WiFi.
 
The whole convention hosting industry is a bit eye-opening. A couple hundred bucks per day to provide electrical power to your booth, $80/day for wireless internet, etc. In some places, you can't even set up your own booth--you have to pay their unionized workers to set up the gear you brought yourself.
 
Mohonri said:
The whole convention hosting industry is a bit eye-opening. A couple hundred bucks per day to provide electrical power to your booth, $80/day for wireless internet, etc. In some places, you can't even set up your own booth--you have to pay their unionized workers to set up the gear you brought yourself.
Click to expand...

Most people don't realize how much they screw the companies at these conventions.
Hardware rentals are even worse. If you are missing a monitor, or have one die on you, the cost to rent a simple LCD is usually so much, it's cheaper to just go out and buy one and throw it away when you are done.

Paying some union flunky $150/hour to plug in a power strip is just crazy.
 
Reminds me of that asshole in Florida who had a cell phone jammer in his car cause he didn't want drivers around him talking on their phones. His jammer was way too powerful and was shutting down entire cell sites. The FCC hit him for $48K, the max fine they could levy.
 
Don't like this statement at all
“It is unacceptable for any company to charge consumers exorbitant fees to access the Internet while at the same time blocking them from using their own personal Wi-Fi hotspots to access the Internet,”
Click to expand...

I would think blocking them from using their own personal WiFi hotspots would be the unacceptable thing, regardless how much they charged people for wifi. It really makes it sound like the FCC is against high priced internet, which if that were the case.... yeah you know where I'm going.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Don't like this statement at all


I would think blocking them from using their own personal WiFi hotspots would be the unacceptable thing, regardless how much they charged people for wifi. It really makes it sound like the FCC is against high priced internet, which if that were the case.... yeah you know where I'm going.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's so much about high priced internet as opposed to interfering with operation of radio communication.

In the previous Marriott case, Marriott used the paper thin excuse that they were transmitting wifi disconnect signal to any wifi spot other than their "approved" ones as means to protect their customers from potential dangerous rogue access points.

The FCC ruling on Marriott should have put all these companies that do this on notice, but obviously they still haven't got the message and fines need to be dealt out.
 
guys guys guys, gov't is evil, if you dont like it host your booth at some other convention
 
sfsuphysics said:
Don't like this statement at all


I would think blocking them from using their own personal WiFi hotspots would be the unacceptable thing, regardless how much they charged people for wifi. It really makes it sound like the FCC is against high priced internet, which if that were the case.... yeah you know where I'm going.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think noting the high price is quite reasonable. For example, if this company was providing free high-quality WiFi with an advertisement at login (a la Starbucks), blocking other WiFi signals at the venue could start to approach being reasonable.

Now, I still think it should be out of bounds to block others' WiFi signals (for one thing, controlling how far such blocking extends is problematic, especially if you're covering a large venue) but I could see compromising if there's free WiFi on offer.
 
Babbster said:
Actually, I think noting the high price is quite reasonable. For example, if this company was providing free high-quality WiFi with an advertisement at login (a la Starbucks), blocking other WiFi signals at the venue could start to approach being reasonable.

Now, I still think it should be out of bounds to block others' WiFi signals (for one thing, controlling how far such blocking extends is problematic, especially if you're covering a large venue) but I could see compromising if there's free WiFi on offer.
Click to expand...

you can't legally jam any wireless signal in the United States PERIOD under any circumstance for any reason
 
Romale23 said:
you can't legally jam any wireless signal in the United States PERIOD under any circumstance for any reason
Click to expand...

Actually, your not correct. There are exceptions the FCC authorizes. It's a case by case thing.
 
I setup a trade show booth @ McCormick in Chicago for 8 stations... $2000+ for 2 1/2 days. (and it was still slow)
 
If you want to control cell phone usage, radios, whatever. The legal way is to use signal detection and direction finding equipment to locate the device and legally influence it's usage. Jamming is a poor solution.

Even with things like the problems with drones interfearing with firefighting operations. The correct way to deal with it is to sieze the drone, (overpower it's signal, take control of, and sieze it), and at the same time use direction finding equipment to locate the controller and deal with the foolish individual.
 
Couldn't you implement some sort of passive jamming - ie: turn the site into a big faraday cage with some sort of mesh in the walls or something?
 
DoubleTap said:
Couldn't you implement some sort of passive jamming - ie: turn the site into a big faraday cage with some sort of mesh in the walls or something?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, it's not jamming, not even in a "passive" sort of way. I am always amused that people try to say something like passive Jamming, or passive RADAR, I know what you mean and I get your point, but it's weird to have someone try to describe a concept by expressing an impossible situation. RADAR must emit radio energy to be RADAR, so it can't be passive. The same is true for Jamming as that is also done by radiating energy in the electromagnetic spectrum.

But yes, you could "block" electromatic energy and therefor cellphone signals like you suggest. Of course you are blocking everything including the radio signal that keeps the Principal's $350 watch in sync with the atomic clock.

I think this would be a case where the FCC would say they have no jurisdiction. Someone making a complaint would have to seek redress from another authority.
 
lcpiper said:
If you want to control cell phone usage, radios, whatever. The legal way is to use signal detection and direction finding equipment to locate the device and legally influence it's usage. Jamming is a poor solution.

Even with things like the problems with drones interfearing with firefighting operations. The correct way to deal with it is to sieze the drone, (overpower it's signal, take control of, and sieze it), and at the same time use direction finding equipment to locate the controller and deal with the foolish individual.
Click to expand...

Except a drone is interfering with an emergency situation. Dont have time to play nice when this guy is coming in https://youtu.be/7QJTZXl_5BE?t=10s
 
It doesn't take a lot of time to DF and take control of the drone. In fact, I would expect the Intercept Operators to identify the drone's signals long before anyone spots it in the sky. The Intercept Operators would be able to locting the source of the control signals, if the drone responds with any signals, very likely, they would also be able to roughly DF the drone itself. If the drone is too close all they have to do is crank up the watage and seize control of the drone and force it to land. At the same time they can be relaying the location of the controler to the local Sherriff's Office. And um, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Sherriffs need a warrant if they have reasonable cause to believe a crime is in progress.
 
lcpiper said:
It doesn't take a lot of time to DF and take control of the drone. In fact, I would expect the Intercept Operators to identify the drone's signals long before anyone spots it in the sky. The Intercept Operators would be able to locting the source of the control signals, if the drone responds with any signals, very likely, they would also be able to roughly DF the drone itself. If the drone is too close all they have to do is crank up the watage and seize control of the drone and force it to land. At the same time they can be relaying the location of the controler to the local Sherriff's Office. And um, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Sherriffs need a warrant if they have reasonable cause to believe a crime is in progress.
Click to expand...

Unless it's a smart drone that has anti tampering.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Unless it's a smart drone that has anti tampering.
Click to expand...

Really?

You wana bet?

You go ahead and put your faith in a "feature" that sounds good as a marketing point.

I'll put my faith in 18 years of ELINT experience for the US Army.
 
lcpiper said:
Really?

You wana bet?

You go ahead and put your faith in a "feature" that sounds good as a marketing point.

I'll put my faith in 18 years of ELINT experience for the US Army.
Click to expand...


Look it's simple...encode your control signals. Make going below a hard top impossible outside a certain GPS area. Make GPS jamming military grade recovery. Sudden shifts in GPS will be rejected data. In that case, go to failsafe mode and travel with a heading of XYZ for x minutes based off sun/star position and time of day.

Or do you think a technology dating back to tall ship sailors is too complicated for a drone?
 
nutzo said:
Most people don't realize how much they screw the companies at these conventions.
Hardware rentals are even worse. If you are missing a monitor, or have one die on you, the cost to rent a simple LCD is usually so much, it's cheaper to just go out and buy one and throw it away when you are done.

Paying some union flunky $150/hour to plug in a power strip is just crazy.
Click to expand...

LoL last time I was involved in a booth at McCormick Chicago you had to pay 2 union guys for every job, they couldn't work alone and bordered on mentally handicapped, but try telling the foreman they are doing there job wrong and you will catch hell.
 
thedocta45 said:
LoL last time I was involved in a booth at McCormick Chicago you had to pay 2 union guys for every job, they couldn't work alone and bordered on mentally handicapped, but try telling the foreman they are doing there job wrong and you will catch hell.
Click to expand...

exactly my experience in Chicago. I got into an argument with them a few years ago.. they wouldn't allow me to use a screwdriver to take down our booth. Finally paid after much argument then they sent someone that looked about 115 years old that could barely walk. We paid them to watch us take down our booth basically. Moscone in SF is the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top