Cisco, Google at Odds on Marriott Petition Seeking More Control of Wi-Fi Networks

In October, Marriott International and subsidiary Marriott Hotel Services agreed to pay $600,000 to resolve an FCC investigation into whether Marriott intentionally interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks at its Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville (see 1410060039). Marriott had charged consumers, small businesses and exhibitors as much as $1,000 per device to access its Wi-Fi network, the FCC found. In August, before agreeing to pay the penalty, Marriott, joined by the American Hospitality and Lodging Association and Ryman Hospitality Properties, asked the FCC to clarify the extent to which companies can manage networks on their properties without violating FCC rules. The FCC sought comment on the petition and comments were posted by the FCC in RM-11737 Friday and Monday.

Google said it agrees that while operators need “flexibility to manage their own networks, this does not include intentionally blocking access to other Commission-authorized networks, particularly where the purpose or effect of that interference is to drive traffic to the interfering operator’s own network.” Commission precedent is clear, Google said. “The Commission has often stated that willful interference to unlicensed services is not allowed,” the company said. “‘It is a violation of federal law,’ the Commission has repeatedly and emphatically declared, ‘to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as ... Wi-Fi.’”

Cisco disagreed. In public places, “users have every reason to expect that they can make use of personal hot spot technology, unless the user’s device is presenting a security threat of some type to the co-located enterprise or service provider Wi-Fi network,” Cisco said. The “balance shifts” in locations like hotels, it said. “Enterprises must be able to assert policies on the use of wireless technologies for employees and guests in order to safeguard the network, data and devices,” Cisco said. “This is not a problem limited to critical infrastructure firms or sensitive government installations, but can extend to any enterprise.” Cisco agreed with hotel industry arguments that the use of network security devices “does not constitute interference under Section 333, and therefore does not constitute ‘jamming’ of another device.”

Aruba Networks and Ruckus Wireless said the hotel petition offers the FCC a chance to provide clarity on tension between Section 333 of the act and the Part 15 rules. Aruba offers Wi-Fi networking equipment and Ruckus Wireless offers Wi-Fi products and technologies. Section 333 protects stations, not devices, and devices “have no expectation of protections from interference in most cases,” the companies said.

CTIA said it understands why Wi-Fi operators want to manage their own networks. “However, Wi-Fi operators may not ‘deputize’ themselves to police the Part 15 radiofrequency environment,” CTIA said. “To the extent Wi-Fi operators have a legitimate need to protect their networks, they have a variety of other tools available to them that do not involve unlawfully disabling third-party access points.”

The Communications Act “means what it says: unlicensed stations are authorized, and authorized stations are protected,” NCTA said. The Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation and Public Knowledge also said the FCC should reject the petition. The FCC should not view the matter as an “unresolved” question, the public interest groups said: “Both the Communications Act and the Commission’s enforcement advisories are clear that it is unlawful to willfully impair or disable any authorized communications by radio, regardless whether the device is operating on ‘licensed’ or ‘unlicensed’ spectrum.”