Marriott Hotels Fined by FCC for Blocking Guest WiFI
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html
I did not even know that blocking wireless carriers was illegal. Great to know!
-
This is awesome news!
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/travel/marriott-fcc-wi-fi-fine/index.html
I did not even know that blocking wireless carriers was illegal. Great to know!
Yeah, has to do with 911 security etc I believe.
-
According to the article, Marriott wasn't using 'jammers' per se - and they weren't blocking cellular signals, they were only affecting personal wifi hotspots.
I'm guessing the tech works by broadcasting the same SSID as the detected hotspot, then sends out garbage to confuse any clients trying to associate.
-
This is just wrong! Glad they got fined!
-
@Dashrender said:
According to the article, Marriott wasn't using 'jammers' per se - and they weren't blocking cellular signals, they were only affecting personal wifi hotspots.
I'm guessing the tech works by broadcasting the same SSID as the detected hotspot, then sends out garbage to confuse any clients trying to associate.
That's kinda cool...They must charge for WiFi access...haha
-
@Dashrender said:
According to the article, Marriott wasn't using 'jammers' per se - and they weren't blocking cellular signals, they were only affecting personal wifi hotspots.
I'm guessing the tech works by broadcasting the same SSID as the detected hotspot, then sends out garbage to confuse any clients trying to associate.
That would be jamming
-
@Hubtech said:
That's kinda cool...They must charge for WiFi access...haha
Yes they do, as much as $1,000 per device!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Hubtech said:
That's kinda cool...They must charge for WiFi access...haha
Yes they do, as much as $1,000 per device!
baha, that's nuts.
-
Ha ha...Marriott said it was to protect everyone from insidious threats!
-
@technobabble said:
Ha ha...Marriott said it was to protect everyone from insidious threats!
Yeah, I don't see that being a very convincing argument.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble said:
Ha ha...Marriott said it was to protect everyone from insidious threats!
Yeah, I don't see that being a very convincing argument.
Thus my laugh...and I it didn't work for the FCC either! Can you imagine; " your honor, we MUST be able to protect our clients from INSIDIOUS THREATS! bahaha
-
@technobabble said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble said:
Ha ha...Marriott said it was to protect everyone from insidious threats!
Yeah, I don't see that being a very convincing argument.
Thus my laugh...and I it didn't work for the FCC either! Can you imagine; " your honor, we MUST be able to protect our clients from INSIDIOUS THREATS! bahaha
Now you sound like the emperor.
-
@Dashrender lol!
-
-
I was going for this.
