The Federal Communications Commission yesterday issued proposed fines against two companies in its latest actions against Wi-Fi blocking at hotels and convention centers.

The FCC said it 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 FCC also plans a $718,000 fine against M.C. Dean, a Wi-Fi access provider that is accused of "blocking consumers’ Wi-Fi connections at the Baltimore Convention Center" on dozens of occasions.

Each company has been accused of blocking personal Wi-Fi hotspots that let consumers share mobile data access with other devices such as laptops and tablets. Hilton and M.C. Dean must pay the fines within 30 days or file written statements seeking reduction or cancellation of the penalties.

The FCC last year received a complaint against a Hilton hotel in Anaheim, California that the company "blocked Wi-Fi access for visitors at the venue unless they paid a $500 fee." More complaints against other Hilton properties followed, and in November 2014, the FCC issued Hilton a letter of inquiry seeking information about its Wi-Fi management practices at various Hilton-owned hotel chains.

"After nearly one year, Hilton has failed to provide the requested information for the vast majority of its properties. Hilton operates several brands, including Hilton, Conrad, DoubleTree, Embassy Suites, and Waldorf Astoria properties," the FCC said. Hilton's response "contained corporate policy documents pertaining only generally to wireless management practices (which did not discuss Wi-Fi blocking) and provided Wi-Fi management records pertaining only to the single Hilton-brand property named in the complaint," the FCC said in a Notice of Apparent Liability.

Hilton: Request is “oppressive and unduly burdensome”

Hilton did not provide information or documents regarding its other properties. The company "stated that providing the omitted material 'would be oppressive and unduly burdensome,' and questioned the Bureau’s authority to investigate potential Wi-Fi blocking at other Hilton-brand properties," according to the FCC.

In addition to the fine, the FCC ordered Hilton to file full responses to all of its previous requests for information.

(UPDATE: Hilton replied to our request for a response after this story published, telling Ars, "We strongly disagree with the decision by the FCC Enforcement Bureau. Hilton supports open access to private Wi-Fi networks for our customers through their personal devices, while at the same time protecting their personal information. We have a policy in place that states our commitment to secure open access and prohibits hotels from blocking Wi-Fi, and it is repeatedly communicated to all properties. Throughout this inquiry, we have cooperated with the FCC, providing extensive background and details in a timely and efficient manner. We believe that the FCC has no basis for vastly expanding the initial inquiry based on a single complaint at a single Hilton hotel.”)

M.C. Dean is the exclusive Wi-Fi provider at the Baltimore Convention Center and "charges exhibitors and visitors as much as $1,095 per event for Wi-Fi access," the FCC said.

The FCC last year received a complaint that M.C. Dean was blocking personal hotspots, and it sent Enforcement Bureau field agents to the venue "on multiple occasions and confirmed that Wi-Fi blocking activity was taking place," the commission said.

"During the investigation, M.C. Dean revealed that it used the 'Auto Block Mode' on its Wi-Fi system to block consumer-created Wi-Fi hotspots at the venue. The Wi-Fi system’s manual describes this mode as 'shoot first, and ask questions later.' M.C. Dean’s Wi-Fi blocking activity also appears to have blocked Wi-Fi hotspots located outside of the venue, including passing vehicles," the FCC said.

M.C. Dean blocked Wi-Fi hotspots for more than two years by using a Xirrus platform with an auto-deauthentication function applied to any unknown access point, according to a Notice of Apparent Liability issued by the FCC.

(UPDATE: M.C. Dean issued a statement saying it will challenge the FCC's decision, saying that it operated Wi-Fi network management equipment "consistent with the FCC's rules." M.C. Dean also said the FCC failed to provide "notice of what is required" before issuing a punishment.

"While the FCC tells Congress that there is a 'legitimate use' of the type of network management equipment employed by M.C. Dean, the agency refuses to provide any guidance about when and under what circumstances the use of such equipment will be deemed to violate the law," the company said. "This regulatory approach leaves regulated parties to guess about the lawful use of FCC-authorized equipment, only to be subject to an enforcement action if they guess wrong.")

This is the third time in the past year that the FCC has penalized companies accused of Wi-Fi blocking. In October 2014, Marriott agreed to pay $600,000 to settle allegations that the hotel chain blocked Wi-Fi hotspots established by consumers. In August 2015, a Wi-Fi service provider called Smart City Holdings agreed to pay a $750,000 fine.

Yesterday's proposed fine against M.C. Dean was not issued unanimously. Republican commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly dissented, claiming that the FCC doesn't have rules that would allow the penalty. Pai said he favors rules that would "limit Wi-Fi blocking" but that the FCC has failed to enact such rules.

O'Rielly's dissent said that instead of fining M.C. Dean, the FCC should seek congressional clarification about the FCC's authority or start a new rulemaking process.

The commission's Democratic majority argued that M.C. Dean violated Section 333 of the Communications Act, which bans willful or malicious interference with radio communications.

In January of this year, the FCC issued an enforcement advisory saying that Wi-Fi blocking violates Section 333.

"No hotel, convention center, or other commercial establishment or the network operator providing services at such establishments may intentionally block or disrupt personal Wi-Fi hot spots on such premises, including as part of an effort to force consumers to purchase access to the property owner’s Wi-Fi network," the FCC said at the time.