FCC Proposes Fine Against Company for Wi-Fi Blocking; Pai, O'Rielly Dissent

“The Internet is a vital platform for economic growth, innovation, competition, and free expression," the FCC said in its Monday notice. “Wi-Fi is an essential access ramp to that platform.” The FCC alleged that M.C. Dean blocked Wi-Fi devices on at least 26 days Nov. 2-Dec. 13. “Wi-Fi blocking threatens to stymie wireless innovation and the availability of Wi-Fi as an important Internet access technology,” the agency said. “Our action today advances the Commission’s longstanding goal of ensuring that all authorized communications -- including Wi-Fi transmissions -- occur free of malicious disruptions.”

The FCC said the company conceded it deployed a system with an automatic Wi-Fi blocking capability at the BCC and enabled that automatic blocking feature until Dec. 13. A system manual on the auto-blocking function called it the “‘shoot first and ask questions later’ mode,” the FCC said. “An M.C. Dean employee said the company ‘restricted’ all but two Wi-Fi channels at the BCC for all Wi-Fi networks and required payment to M.C. Dean for access to Wi-Fi."

“Before the FCC can enforce rules, rules must exist,” Pai said in his dissent. “That’s why I believe that the FCC should adopt rules that limit Wi-Fi blocking.” More than a year ago, various parties urged the FCC to develop rules, he said. There was broad agreement that rules made sense. “But instead of doing so, either in response to that petition or otherwise, Commission leadership made it abundantly clear that such guidance would not be forthcoming, and the agency ultimately dismissed the petition,” Pai said. The notice of apparent liability wrongly attempts to apply Section 333 of the Communications Act to interference between Part 15 devices, he said. “By definition, a Part 15 device cannot cause harmful interference to another Part 15 device,” he said. “Section 333 does not apply because the FCC’s Part 15 rules provide that unlicensed devices must accept any and all interference they receive, regardless of the source of that interference.”

O’Rielly agreed the FCC was wrongly relying on Section 333. “As a strong supporter of what Wi-Fi can bring to consumers and the marketplace, I am extremely sympathetic to concerns regarding certain operators needlessly interfering with access points,” he said. “I, however, cannot agree with the expansive reading of the statute contained in this item, especially without the Commission conducting a more thorough review of the issues raised in the earlier proceeding and repeated in the context of this enforcement matter.”

M.C. Dean released a statement saying it will challenge the FCC’s proposed fine. “M.C. Dean believes that today’s action by the Enforcement Bureau is legally and factually flawed,” the company said. “M.C. Dean is being accused of violating federal law by using Wi-Fi network management equipment, even though the FCC expressly authorized this equipment and M.C. Dean operated the equipment consistent with the FCC’s rules. Furthermore, the statute that the Enforcement Bureau contends M.C. Dean has violated -- section 333 of the Communications Act -- does not apply to the circumstances of this case and has never been interpreted by the FCC to cover such activities.”

Also Monday, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against Hilton Worldwide Holdings for allegedly obstructing an investigation into whether Hilton engaged in the blocking of consumers’ Wi-Fi devices. The notice was issued by the Enforcement Bureau. Hilton did not comment by our deadline.