Business Ethics scenario -

In October 2014, the Marriott hotel chain admitted to deliberately jamming guests' 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 Disneyland, where convention attendees were asked to pay a $500 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. While the position from the FCC's enforcement bureau is clear, the position from Wi-fi experts is more complex. Using guest security as grounds to generate additional revenue may be nothing new in the hospitality industry, and for many smaller 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 drain the performance of the network as a whole as multiple access points overwhelm the capacity of the system.WiFi 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 hospitality industry, the ability tojam Wi-Fi signals is needed for safe and effective operation of facilities. What happens in a hospital, for example, if visitors disrupt wireless medical equipment when using their personal Wi-Fi hotspots? What happens ifjournalists overwhelm a multimilliondollar WiFi system at a sports stadium media event? Must the stadium owners pay for the repairs? Since the FCC position clearly prohibitsjamming of any kind. that would appear to be the case. For the hospitality industry, however, WiFi administrators argue that the guest security claim is especially weak. Making an investment in highergrade systems hardware would allow guests to use their personal WiFi hotspots without impacting the capacity of the system as a whole. Of course. for companies seeking to generate extra revenue, asking them to spend more money and forgo WiFi revenue in return seems like a very tough sell. QUESTIONS 1. What is the FCC's position on WiFi jamming? 2. What is the position of hotels and convention centers? 3. Is there room for negotiation? Would less exorbitant fees draw less anger? 4. How should these companies balance their obligation to shareholders to make money against the obligation to provide good customer service? 5. Is the FCC being too extreme in its position? Why or why not? 6. Is there potential for an equitable resolution of this issue? Why or why not