Re: Marriott wifi blocking

[Jay Hennigan <jay () west net>]

On 10/3/14, 8:45 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> Jay,
>
> Thanks; I think I was stretching this a bit far beyond just the Marriott
> example.  Killing hotspots of completely discrete networks "because $$$"
> is heinous.  I had extended this to e.g.:
>
> 1.  Hotel charges for either wired or wireless access per device and has
> network policies to that effect.

OK.

> 2.  Guest pays for a single device and hooks up an AP or AP/NAT combo to
> the wired port.

Guest has only a single device connected to hotel's network, which he is
paying for. OK.

> 3.  User piggybacks multiple devices on that device's WLAN.

His network, his rules. Hotel has no right to interfere. He only has one
device connected to them. Same scenario as that of a residential ISP
where a user pays for one dynamic IP address, installs a NAT box and
connects several devices to it.

If hotel has an AUP that specifically prohibits this, then they are
within their rights to disconnect the user from their network, but not
to interfere with his network. If they do so he now has his own little
private WLAN going nowhere but it works just fine.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay () impulse net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV