In October 2014, the Marriott hatel chain admitted to deliberately jamming quests' mobile Wi-Fi and personal...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
In October 2014, the Marriott hatel chain admitted to deliberately jamming quests' mobile Wi-Fi and personal hotspots and forcing business travelers to pay for the company's own Wi-Fi service. Prices charged ranged from the normal $14.95 per day to fees as high as $1,000 per device per day for exhibitors using hotel conference space. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission led to a $600,000 settlement, but a combative press release restated the company's argument that it was trying to protect customers from "rogue wireless hotspots," and called for a formal ruling on the issue from the FCC. Marriott was by no means the sole transgressor. Despite clear instructions from the FCC on its website that Wi-Fi Jamming is illegal, many other hotel companies and conference centers have fallen foul of the FCC's stance on the issue In August 2015, Smart City Holdings, LLC, a trade show and convention telecom services provider, was fined $750,000 for blocking customer Wi-Fi services at several sites and charging them $80 per day for access - In November 2015, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against Hilton Worldwide Holdings "for its apparent obstruction of an investigation into whether Hilton engaged in the blocking of consumers' Wi-Fi devices. The case referenced an incident at the Hilton Anaheim near Disneylond, where convention attendees were asked to pay a $s00 fee to access the hotel's Wi-Fi system In the same notice, the FCC proposed a $750,000 fine against M.C. Dean, the systems integration company, for allegedly blocking Wi-Fi hotspots at the Baltimore Convention Center. OL Audras/PhotoAlho RP While the position from the FCC's enforcement bureau is clear, the position from Wi-Fi experts is more complex. Using quest security as grounds to generate additional revenue may be nothing new in the hospitality industry, and for many aller properties, that extra revenue can mean the difference between profit and loss on an annual basis, However, hotel IT specialists back that up with an argument that personal Wi-Fi hotspots not only present security risks but also in the performance of the network as a whole as multiple access points overwhelm the capacity of the system. W administrators raise another issue, criticizing the FCC for opening a "Pandora's box" with their Marriott ruling. The eagerness to show strong enforcement against a clear attempt to squeeze extra revenue from guests may be valid. they argue, but outside of the honoitality industry, the ability to jam WI-Fisignals is needed for safe and effective operation taces What happens in a hospital, for example, if visitors disrupt wireless medical equipment when using their cemonal W-hotspots? What happens id journalists overwhelm a multimillion-dollar WI-Fi system at a sports stadium meda event? Munt the stadium owners pay for the repairs? Since the FCC position clearly prohibits jamming of any kind, that would appear to be the case For the hospitalty industry, however, WI-Fi administrators argue that the guest security claim is especially weak Making en investmers in higher grade systems hardware would allow guests to use their personal Wi-Fihotspots without CONTINUED > 6. Is there potential for an equitable resolution of this issue? Why or why not? In October 2014, the Marriott hatel chain admitted to deliberately jamming quests' mobile Wi-Fi and personal hotspots and forcing business travelers to pay for the company's own Wi-Fi service. Prices charged ranged from the normal $14.95 per day to fees as high as $1,000 per device per day for exhibitors using hotel conference space. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission led to a $600,000 settlement, but a combative press release restated the company's argument that it was trying to protect customers from "rogue wireless hotspots," and called for a formal ruling on the issue from the FCC. Marriott was by no means the sole transgressor. Despite clear instructions from the FCC on its website that Wi-Fi Jamming is illegal, many other hotel companies and conference centers have fallen foul of the FCC's stance on the issue In August 2015, Smart City Holdings, LLC, a trade show and convention telecom services provider, was fined $750,000 for blocking customer Wi-Fi services at several sites and charging them $80 per day for access - In November 2015, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against Hilton Worldwide Holdings "for its apparent obstruction of an investigation into whether Hilton engaged in the blocking of consumers' Wi-Fi devices. The case referenced an incident at the Hilton Anaheim near Disneylond, where convention attendees were asked to pay a $s00 fee to access the hotel's Wi-Fi system In the same notice, the FCC proposed a $750,000 fine against M.C. Dean, the systems integration company, for allegedly blocking Wi-Fi hotspots at the Baltimore Convention Center. OL Audras/PhotoAlho RP While the position from the FCC's enforcement bureau is clear, the position from Wi-Fi experts is more complex. Using quest security as grounds to generate additional revenue may be nothing new in the hospitality industry, and for many aller properties, that extra revenue can mean the difference between profit and loss on an annual basis, However, hotel IT specialists back that up with an argument that personal Wi-Fi hotspots not only present security risks but also in the performance of the network as a whole as multiple access points overwhelm the capacity of the system. W administrators raise another issue, criticizing the FCC for opening a "Pandora's box" with their Marriott ruling. The eagerness to show strong enforcement against a clear attempt to squeeze extra revenue from guests may be valid. they argue, but outside of the honoitality industry, the ability to jam WI-Fisignals is needed for safe and effective operation taces What happens in a hospital, for example, if visitors disrupt wireless medical equipment when using their cemonal W-hotspots? What happens id journalists overwhelm a multimillion-dollar WI-Fi system at a sports stadium meda event? Munt the stadium owners pay for the repairs? Since the FCC position clearly prohibits jamming of any kind, that would appear to be the case For the hospitalty industry, however, WI-Fi administrators argue that the guest security claim is especially weak Making en investmers in higher grade systems hardware would allow guests to use their personal Wi-Fihotspots without CONTINUED > 6. Is there potential for an equitable resolution of this issue? Why or why not? In October 2014, the Marriott hatel chain admitted to deliberately jamming quests' mobile Wi-Fi and personal hotspots and forcing business travelers to pay for the company's own Wi-Fi service. Prices charged ranged from the normal $14.95 per day to fees as high as $1,000 per device per day for exhibitors using hotel conference space. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission led to a $600,000 settlement, but a combative press release restated the company's argument that it was trying to protect customers from "rogue wireless hotspots," and called for a formal ruling on the issue from the FCC. Marriott was by no means the sole transgressor. Despite clear instructions from the FCC on its website that Wi-Fi Jamming is illegal, many other hotel companies and conference centers have fallen foul of the FCC's stance on the issue In August 2015, Smart City Holdings, LLC, a trade show and convention telecom services provider, was fined $750,000 for blocking customer Wi-Fi services at several sites and charging them $80 per day for access - In November 2015, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against Hilton Worldwide Holdings "for its apparent obstruction of an investigation into whether Hilton engaged in the blocking of consumers' Wi-Fi devices. The case referenced an incident at the Hilton Anaheim near Disneylond, where convention attendees were asked to pay a $s00 fee to access the hotel's Wi-Fi system In the same notice, the FCC proposed a $750,000 fine against M.C. Dean, the systems integration company, for allegedly blocking Wi-Fi hotspots at the Baltimore Convention Center. OL Audras/PhotoAlho RP While the position from the FCC's enforcement bureau is clear, the position from Wi-Fi experts is more complex. Using quest security as grounds to generate additional revenue may be nothing new in the hospitality industry, and for many aller properties, that extra revenue can mean the difference between profit and loss on an annual basis, However, hotel IT specialists back that up with an argument that personal Wi-Fi hotspots not only present security risks but also in the performance of the network as a whole as multiple access points overwhelm the capacity of the system. W administrators raise another issue, criticizing the FCC for opening a "Pandora's box" with their Marriott ruling. The eagerness to show strong enforcement against a clear attempt to squeeze extra revenue from guests may be valid. they argue, but outside of the honoitality industry, the ability to jam WI-Fisignals is needed for safe and effective operation taces What happens in a hospital, for example, if visitors disrupt wireless medical equipment when using their cemonal W-hotspots? What happens id journalists overwhelm a multimillion-dollar WI-Fi system at a sports stadium meda event? Munt the stadium owners pay for the repairs? Since the FCC position clearly prohibits jamming of any kind, that would appear to be the case For the hospitalty industry, however, WI-Fi administrators argue that the guest security claim is especially weak Making en investmers in higher grade systems hardware would allow guests to use their personal Wi-Fihotspots without CONTINUED > 6. Is there potential for an equitable resolution of this issue? Why or why not? In October 2014, the Marriott hatel chain admitted to deliberately jamming quests' mobile Wi-Fi and personal hotspots and forcing business travelers to pay for the company's own Wi-Fi service. Prices charged ranged from the normal $14.95 per day to fees as high as $1,000 per device per day for exhibitors using hotel conference space. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission led to a $600,000 settlement, but a combative press release restated the company's argument that it was trying to protect customers from "rogue wireless hotspots," and called for a formal ruling on the issue from the FCC. Marriott was by no means the sole transgressor. Despite clear instructions from the FCC on its website that Wi-Fi Jamming is illegal, many other hotel companies and conference centers have fallen foul of the FCC's stance on the issue In August 2015, Smart City Holdings, LLC, a trade show and convention telecom services provider, was fined $750,000 for blocking customer Wi-Fi services at several sites and charging them $80 per day for access - In November 2015, the FCC proposed a $25,000 fine against Hilton Worldwide Holdings "for its apparent obstruction of an investigation into whether Hilton engaged in the blocking of consumers' Wi-Fi devices. The case referenced an incident at the Hilton Anaheim near Disneylond, where convention attendees were asked to pay a $s00 fee to access the hotel's Wi-Fi system In the same notice, the FCC proposed a $750,000 fine against M.C. Dean, the systems integration company, for allegedly blocking Wi-Fi hotspots at the Baltimore Convention Center. OL Audras/PhotoAlho RP While the position from the FCC's enforcement bureau is clear, the position from Wi-Fi experts is more complex. Using quest security as grounds to generate additional revenue may be nothing new in the hospitality industry, and for many aller properties, that extra revenue can mean the difference between profit and loss on an annual basis, However, hotel IT specialists back that up with an argument that personal Wi-Fi hotspots not only present security risks but also in the performance of the network as a whole as multiple access points overwhelm the capacity of the system. W administrators raise another issue, criticizing the FCC for opening a "Pandora's box" with their Marriott ruling. The eagerness to show strong enforcement against a clear attempt to squeeze extra revenue from guests may be valid. they argue, but outside of the honoitality industry, the ability to jam WI-Fisignals is needed for safe and effective operation taces What happens in a hospital, for example, if visitors disrupt wireless medical equipment when using their cemonal W-hotspots? What happens id journalists overwhelm a multimillion-dollar WI-Fi system at a sports stadium meda event? Munt the stadium owners pay for the repairs? Since the FCC position clearly prohibits jamming of any kind, that would appear to be the case For the hospitalty industry, however, WI-Fi administrators argue that the guest security claim is especially weak Making en investmers in higher grade systems hardware would allow guests to use their personal Wi-Fihotspots without CONTINUED > 6. Is there potential for an equitable resolution of this issue? Why or why not?
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
The case under study implies that the people and the process which a institution dose needs to be in ... View the full answer
Related Book For
Fraud Examination
ISBN: 978-1305079144
5th edition
Authors: W. Steve Albrecht, Chad O. Albrecht, Conan C. Albrecht, Mark F. Zimbelman
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these accounting questions
-
Mobile Services Inc. provides wireless communications services to a variety of customers. The following information relates to the companys investments in SAS in 2015 and 2014: Required: 1. Compute...
-
A mobile phone service provider randomly samples customers each year to measure current satisfaction with the service provided. The following table summarizes a portion of the survey, with 100...
-
Many business travelers receive reimbursement from their companies when they travel by air, whereas vacation travelers typically pay for their trips out of their own pockets. How would this affect...
-
In Exercises 3344, use the graph of y = f(x) to graph each function g. g(x) = f(x) - 2 -4,0) -5-4-3 4-33 y = f(x) y (0,0) 2- 3.4 45 -2) (4-2) X
-
Define and give an example of each of the following costs for a manufacturing company: (a) Fixed cost, (b) Variable cost (c) Mixed cost.
-
Malthus ______. a. Predicted that per capita economic growth would eventually become negative b. Predicted that wages would ultimately reach equilibrium at a subsistence level c. Relied heavily on...
-
An airplane flies at a speed of \(400 \mathrm{mph}\) at an altitude of \(10,000 \mathrm{ft}\). If the boundary layers on the wing surfaces behave as those on a flat plate, estimate the extent of...
-
Each auditing term (or organizational name) in Column 1 below bears a close relationship to a term in Column 2. Column 1 1. Quality control 2. Operational audit 3. Internal control 4. Government...
-
Concord Corporation is analyzing its account balances for 2022. As of the end of 2022, a debit balance of $4500 remains in the Manufacturing Overhead account. What impact will this have on the...
-
As the accountant for Runson Moving Company, you are preparing the companys annual return, Form 940 and Schedule A. Use the following information to complete Form 940 and Schedule A on pages 5-40 to...
-
The total capital investment for a chemical plant is $2 000000, and the working capital is $200,000. If the plant can produce an average of 6000 kg of final product per day during a 365-day year,...
-
True Or False Structured settlements are favored by the defense.
-
Ordinary medical malpractice is an example of a(n) _______________ cause whereas a fire or flood is an example of a(n) _______________ cause
-
Under the ____________ ____________ ____________ doctrine the defendant remains liable because of a failure to take advantage of an opportunity to prevent harm to the plaintiff.
-
Structured settlements a. prevent the plaintiff from freely spending their money. b. can have payments that are modified over time. c. require the plaintiff to be involved in the investment process....
-
The ____________ technique assigns a numerical value to suffering on a daily or hourly basis.
-
11 Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of using WACC for project evaluation [LO 9] sources: rainfall and an annual allocation from the Bullamakanka Water Supply Authority. In recent years...
-
The company manufactures three products: wooden chairs, tables and dressers. AFC started off as a 'Mom & Pop' shop but has grown rapidly. AFC uses one assembly line to build all three products,...
-
As mentioned in the chapter, lawyers, creditors, and trustees can often be involved in bankruptcy fraud. Read the letter at www.clr.org/Safford6c04.html. It was written by a debtor to the U.S....
-
How is power used to influence another person to participate in an already existing fraud scheme?
-
What is fraud?
-
Eq. 7.36a is written for the conservation of momentum in y direction. Obtain Eq. 7.36-b wherein the stream function is independent variable. Eq. 7.36(a,b) y - v v +(1-y/R)v- + momentum: u u R-y + R P...
-
Using Maslen method, find the approximate value of pressure and density at the junction of the sphere and the cone of Problem 7.29 at Mach number 8. Problem 7.29 An empirical way to determine shock...
-
Show that the derivative of the boundary layer edge velocity is given by Eq. 7.64 for the figure given below. Eq. 7.64 M>>1 Ue dx R dy/dx = 1/R
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App