Marriott International has defended blocking the Wi-Fi of conference delegates, arguing that it did it to protect guests from ‘rogue wireless hotspots’.
This week Marriott agreed to pay a $600,000 civil penalty to resolve an investigation brought by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
The FCC heard that Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities of the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Centre in Nashville, Tennessee.
Interfering with private cell phones, Wi-Fi or similar equipment violates federal law.
The FCC Enforcement Bureau's investigation revealed that Marriott employees had used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent individuals from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks, while at the same time charging consumers, small businesses, and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access Marriott's Wi-Fi network.
Enforcement Bureau chief Travis LeBlanc said: "It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel's own Wi-Fi network.
“This practice puts consumers in the untenable position of either paying twice for the same service or forgoing Internet access altogether."
Marriott said in a statement that it has a strong interest in ensuring “that when our guests use our Wi-Fi service, they will be protected from rogue wireless hotspots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft”.
Marriott added: “Like many other institutions and companies in a wide variety of industries, including hospitals and universities, the Gaylord Opryland protected its Wi-Fi network by using FCC-authorised equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers."
“We believe that the Gaylord Opryland's actions were lawful. We will continue to encourage the FCC to pursue a rulemaking in order to eliminate the ongoing confusion resulting from today's action and to assess the merits of its underlying policy.”