Marriott Hotel Services has come to a $600,000 agreement with the Federal Communications Commission to settle allegations that the hotel chain "interfered with and disabled Wi-Fi networks established by consumers in the conference facilities" at a Nashville hotel in March 2013.

According to the nine-page order issued on Friday, a guest at the Gaylord Opryland hotel in Nashville, Tennessee complained that the hotel was "jamming mobile hotspots so you can’t use them in the convention space."

The hotel admitted to the FCC that "one or more of its employees used containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system at the Gaylord Opryland to prevent consumers from connecting to the Internet via their own personal Wi-Fi networks."

That hotel sells dedicated wireless services and custom networks for convention purposes at prices ranging from $250 to $1,000 per access point. But on that same setup is a "monitoring system" that allows the company to effectively shut down any other Wi-Fi networks that are not their own, such as one produced by a MiFi or similar personal portable Wi-Fi device. Normally, such systems are used in corporate or government environments to prevent data leakage. Blocking such a monitoring system would be difficult, but not impossible.

The FCC found that this feature was in violation of one of its own advisories that forbids blocking, jamming, or interference with authorized radio communications, including Wi-Fi.

Jeff Flaherty, a Marriott spokesman, told Ars that the company defends its practice.

"Marriott 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," he wrote in a statement without responding to Ars’ direct questions.

"Like many other institutions and companies in a wide variety of industries, including hospitals and universities, the GaylordOpryland protected its Wi-Fi network by using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers," Flaherty said. "We believe that the 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."