[This is a short series I'm doing about this act. This is my opinion, and in no way represents the opinion or stance of WWU as a whole or in part, nor does it imply anything about our lobbying efforts. This is editorial.]
Part 1: Hotels
In my first piece yesterday, I brought up Hotels as one area that would be affected by this act. The details of that can be obscure to a first glance, but they are there. The Hospitality Industry as a whole would be affected by the need to authenticate end-users to IP addresses.
I recently stayed at a hotel in another part of the US that would have to change how they handle their internet connection in the rooms. As with so may hotels, they used wifi for their connection rather than a wire in the room. As with so many hotels, you had to click through an Acceptable Use Policy screen to get access to the internet from their wireless segment. Some hotels have a username and password to get past this screen, and this uid/pw combo has never been individualized to the room and has always been either generic to the hotel or rotating on a daily basis for all guests.
Were the Internet SAFETY Act to become law, this would have to change. Hotels that use Wifi connections, and they are very much preferred by travelers as it means one less cable to carry around, would have to find some way to associate IP to the credit card used for the hotel room. The obvious way would be to provision a unique userID and PW when the room-keys are generated on check-in. This technology exists, but is not in use because it is inconvenient to the user; something the hospitality industry tries to avoid if at all possible. It would also require hotels to redesign how they offer internet service.
Yet even this has some problems. Take the case of a college football team bussing to another state for a Bowl game. That'll be a room block of anywhere from 15-30 rooms all on the same purchasing instrument, and yet there could be as many as 60 unique IP addresses requested by various devices on the team members and associated staff and adults. Is it good enough that there are 60 addresses associated to one name? Would the hotel have to issue a uid/pw for each person staying in the room block? The courts will have to decide what constitutes 'good enough' identity-glue in cases like these.
It is also possible that Hotels will start 'partnering' with the big Wifi providers out there like T-Mobile, and just use that authentication method. Internet will no longer be complimentary, but at least the Hotels would be out of the ISP business. The audit requirement would be outsourced to the same companies that can provide WiFi at every Starbucks in the land.
The big caveat here is wired access. Port 34A-423 (SW08/02/32) is in room 322, and IP address 192.168.202.33 was last seen on that port. This kind of data is pretty simply gathered, and can be associated with a specific room. Hotels with a significant wired internet installation wouldn't have to go with an extensive uid/pw setup, as they can already isolate network access to physical (paid for) location. Hotels like these would be able to migrate to SAFTEY Act compliant complimentary internet more cheaply than their wireless brethren. But who uses wired internet anymore?
This bill would change the nature of business travel. In my opinion it would make it more expensive, as internet access would be encumbered with an audit requirement that is significantly more expensive than the base network infrastructure. Complimentary access would more and more be a benefit only at the most expensive hotels.
Part 1: Hotels
In my first piece yesterday, I brought up Hotels as one area that would be affected by this act. The details of that can be obscure to a first glance, but they are there. The Hospitality Industry as a whole would be affected by the need to authenticate end-users to IP addresses.
I recently stayed at a hotel in another part of the US that would have to change how they handle their internet connection in the rooms. As with so may hotels, they used wifi for their connection rather than a wire in the room. As with so many hotels, you had to click through an Acceptable Use Policy screen to get access to the internet from their wireless segment. Some hotels have a username and password to get past this screen, and this uid/pw combo has never been individualized to the room and has always been either generic to the hotel or rotating on a daily basis for all guests.
Were the Internet SAFETY Act to become law, this would have to change. Hotels that use Wifi connections, and they are very much preferred by travelers as it means one less cable to carry around, would have to find some way to associate IP to the credit card used for the hotel room. The obvious way would be to provision a unique userID and PW when the room-keys are generated on check-in. This technology exists, but is not in use because it is inconvenient to the user; something the hospitality industry tries to avoid if at all possible. It would also require hotels to redesign how they offer internet service.
Yet even this has some problems. Take the case of a college football team bussing to another state for a Bowl game. That'll be a room block of anywhere from 15-30 rooms all on the same purchasing instrument, and yet there could be as many as 60 unique IP addresses requested by various devices on the team members and associated staff and adults. Is it good enough that there are 60 addresses associated to one name? Would the hotel have to issue a uid/pw for each person staying in the room block? The courts will have to decide what constitutes 'good enough' identity-glue in cases like these.
It is also possible that Hotels will start 'partnering' with the big Wifi providers out there like T-Mobile, and just use that authentication method. Internet will no longer be complimentary, but at least the Hotels would be out of the ISP business. The audit requirement would be outsourced to the same companies that can provide WiFi at every Starbucks in the land.
The big caveat here is wired access. Port 34A-423 (SW08/02/32) is in room 322, and IP address 192.168.202.33 was last seen on that port. This kind of data is pretty simply gathered, and can be associated with a specific room. Hotels with a significant wired internet installation wouldn't have to go with an extensive uid/pw setup, as they can already isolate network access to physical (paid for) location. Hotels like these would be able to migrate to SAFTEY Act compliant complimentary internet more cheaply than their wireless brethren. But who uses wired internet anymore?
This bill would change the nature of business travel. In my opinion it would make it more expensive, as internet access would be encumbered with an audit requirement that is significantly more expensive than the base network infrastructure. Complimentary access would more and more be a benefit only at the most expensive hotels.
Who uses wired access anymore? I certainly do!Wireless access at hotels can be iffy at best. Unless you are directly next to a hot spot, you will face connections that drop, poor data rates, etc.This has happened to me more than once. Give me an RJ45 connection any day. More reliable and faster, IMO.
Me to! I prefer a hardline whenever possible. They're just pretty rare on the ground these days.