MARRIOTT can't take a hint. In October, the hotel giant was roundly shamed (including by this blog) after paying America's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) $600,000 to settle a complaint that it had blocked customers' personal wireless modems and hotspots at "at least one" of its hotels. But months after that public relations disaster, the company is still fighting the same battle—and this time, it has picked up some powerful foes. The saga started back in August, when Marriott and the American Hospitality & Lodging Association, a hotel lobby group, asked the FCC to issue rules allowing establishments to block customers' wireless modems and hotspots. Then, in December, tech and telecom giants, including Microsoft and Google, filed comments with the FCC opposing the Wi-Fi-blocking plan—triggering a new round of outrage at the very idea. In response, Marriott released yet another statement on its position:

We understand there have been concerns regarding our position on the FCC petition filing, perhaps due to a lack of clarity about the issue. To set the record straight it has never been nor will it ever be Marriott's policy to limit our guests' ability to access the Internet by all available means, including through the use of personal Mi-Fi and/or Wi-Fi devices. As a matter of fact, we invite and encourage our guests to use these Internet connectivity devices in our hotels. To be clear, this matter does not involve in any way Wi-Fi access in hotel guestrooms or lobby spaces. The question at hand is what measures a network operator can take to detect and contain rogue and imposter Wi-Fi hotspots used in our meeting and conference spaces that pose a security threat to meeting or conference attendees or cause interference to the conference guest wireless network. In light of the increased use of wireless technology to launch cyber-attacks and purposefully disrupt hotel networks, Marriott along with the American Hotel & Lodging Association on behalf of the entire hotel industry is seeking clarity from the FCC regarding what lawful measures a network operator can take to prevent such attacks from occurring. We feel this is extremely important as we are increasingly being asked what measures we take to protect our conference and meeting guests and the conference groups that are using Wi-Fi technology in our hotels.

This is, frankly, hard to believe. Marriott and other hotels make large amounts of money by charging businesses and individuals exorbitant rates to connect to the internet in conference spaces and meeting rooms. There is little evidence that such places are any more vulnerable to "cyber-attacks" and "rogue and imposter Wi-Fi hotspots" than your neighborhood coffee shop or food court. As I wrote last year:

Business travellers are grownups, and are always in places—airports, coffee shops, hotels—full of random unidentified wireless networks. Most people are wise enough not to connect to anything suspicious. They don't need hotels to "protect" them by disabling hotspots and forcing them to use expensive in-house Wi-Fi.

In October, Gulliver suggested that Marriott apologise for its behaviour. Instead, the chain seems to be doubling down—and treating its customers, and the rest of us, like fools. Since the company doesn't seem likely to come to its senses, resolving this dispute will likely be left to the FCC. Thankfully, the agency already has a clear position on Wi-Fi blocking: it's illegal:

***ALERT*** Federal law prohibits the operation, marketing, or sale of any type of jamming equipment, including devices that interfere with cellular and Personal Communication Services (PCS), police radar, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and wireless networking services (Wi-Fi).

In their filing, Mariott and the hotel lobby argue that the devices they want to use to block wireless modems don't count as "jamming equipment" under the law. Microsoft argues that the law is intended to ban a "broad range of devices 'that are designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with authorized radio communications.'" If that is not the law, it should be. Marriott is trying to block lawful competition here. The FCC shouldn't stand for it.