Smoking clouds your financial judgment, researchers find

Smoking was once a major part of my life even though I never lit up.

My parents did, however, and often. So often that I remember clearly how long, brown nicotine streaks stretched down our bathroom walls after each steamy shower; how the burn marks on our furniture multiplied until my mother figured how to hide them with throws and pillows – until those were burned through, too; how the school dean once told me to change clothes because they smelled strong of second-hand smoke.

You’d think all that exposure would carve a similar habit into my behavior; after all, we tend to pick up many of the same habits our parents do. Instead, the constant exposure to cigarettes and their noxious or ashy effluent did just the opposite; I grew up repelled by cigarette smoke and tended to steer clear of its sources.

Over time, however, I wasn’t the one who modified my behavior to meet social demands; the marketplace did. Smoking’s cachet fell away, driven largely by repeated health warnings, to be replaced with a stigma that attached to it like barnacles and pushed persistent smokers outside and away from workplace centers of decision-making.

Now, add a new discouragement to smoking: Research led by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee says habitual smokers tend to make worse decisions regarding their personal finances than people who smoke infrequently or not at all.

The research, buttressed by other economic analysis of smokers and led by Scott Adams, a professor of economics at UWM, surveyed more than 1,000 smokers over a two-year period and found that people who retreat into a cigarette break seeking instant gratification are likely to bridle when their attempts at fiscal gratification do not similarly yield immediate benefits.

The outcomes are reflected in credit scores, Adams says. Among the economic analyses, 41 percent of smokers were denied credit, 30 percent routinely missed credit card payments, and 27 percent had filed at least once for bankruptcy. Across the board, these percentages were twice as high as those for non-smokers. (These experiences were common among the survey group.)

In general, smokers accept the risk of poor health to pursue their habit, Adams stipulated. That risk-taking can be considered reflective of an overall willingness to take chances – an appealing quality in business.

But risking a smoke is met with the immediate gratification nicotine provides. Rewards gleaned from taking financial risks are neither readily apparent nor readily available, and hurrying toward those perceived rewards tends toward recklessness, Adams said.

“(A) smoking habit has an important and independent ability to predict behavior even after we control for variables that might be considered the true source of the poor performance in personal finances,” he wrote. “… We find that there is residual information in smoking status that can help predict credit score, and the size of this residual information is substantial.”

Adams acknowledges that other factors not measured by this study may clarify the relationship between smoking and personal finance but gave no indication that his research group would investigate them.

John Oliver: Journalist of the year

John Oliver (Photo courtesy HBO)

John Oliver (Photo courtesy HBO)

The best journalist in America in 2014 isn’t American and isn’t a journalist.

He intends to change only one of those things.

“I would like to get into a situation where I’m not suffering taxation without representation, which I’m suffering right now,” British comedian John Oliver told ABC’s “This Week.”

As for the journalist part, Oliver insisted on PBS’s “News Hour” that the title is misapplied.

“I have no moral authority. I’m a comedian.”

Given his latest performances on television though, one is left to wonder otherwise.

The British expatriate and Cambridge University graduate settled in this country upon joining the staff of Comedy Central’s popular “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” in 2006. Between assignments, Oliver continued to do stand-up routines and podcasts on both sides of the Atlantic, each refining a style of wit reminiscent of Monty Python. He obtained a Green Card in 2009 and considers himself a permanent U.S. resident.

Then in the summer of 2013, Oliver sat in the “Daily Show” host’s chair for eight weeks while Stewart was off directing the movie “Rosewater” and in that time Oliver displayed a formidable enough stage command to establish himself as Stewart’s likely successor. But before the notion could percolate longer, HBO plucked him out of Stewart’s stable to host the premium channel’s brand new Daily Show-esque enterprise.

What followed was a masterful mix of humor and social commentary that major news media should watch carefully — and learn from.

“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” does indeed borrow from the “Daily Show” style of squeezing satire out of social and political events and blowing them up to absurd, sometimes mocku-mental proportions. But where the 30-minute “Last Week Tonight” truly distinguishes itself is in the show’s feature pieces, which can last half the program. Among the notable long-form bits in the show’s first 25-episode season were an analysis of Miss America scholarship claims, a look at chronic corruption by World Cup organizer FIFA, and a breakdown of the hypocrisy endemic in the American lottery system.

Oliver does not just parse words. His staff includes former magazine researchers as well as comedy writers who sift for truth as much for laughs. Oliver and his crew understand that a little bit of bizarre behavior floats on the surface of authority and that by shining a light on it we can peer down into, and be less intimidated by, the darkness beneath.

“Last Week Tonight” even displays key information over Oliver’s right shoulder on the screen, noting also the source and publication date. Not even network newscasts do that.

“It is reporting in no sense. But there is a lot of research,” Oliver says. “If a joke is built on sand, it just doesn’t work. … It’s very, very important to us that we are solid.”

This commitment has enabled Oliver to navigate stridently dense, solemn topics such as America’s wealth gap, civil forfeiture, and student debt — topics journalists have reported on many times but with a predilection for the somber seriousness of suffering by which most events are judged newsworthy.

“There is something about playing with toys that are that difficult which become more satisfying to break by the end of our week’s process,” Oliver says.

Not just break — shatter, really. “Last Week Tonight” garnered 1.1 million viewers on Sunday nights. Across all platforms including DVR and on-demand showings, overall weekly viewership topped 4 million. But on YouTube, where “Last Week Tonight” continues to show its vigor months after signing off until February, a feature broadcast in July on the wealth gap has been viewed since then nearly 6 million times. The piece on civil forfeiture has more than 4 million views. The piece on student debt has 3.6 million.

A feature on the typically arcane subject of national elections in India has garnered 2.5 million YouTube views. (HBO releases each segment separately onto YouTube after their initial broadcast).

“It didn’t make any sense to me that the largest exercise in democracy in the history of humanity was not interesting enough for (the major news media) to cover,” Oliver says of the India feature. India has 1.2 billion people; the United States, 320 million.

Even Oliver’s exposition on events in Ferguson, Mo., in a piece mixed with equal parts humor and outrage just one week after Michael Brown’s shooting now has more than 5.5 million views. That number has grown by about 10,000 weekly. Meanwhile, Oliver’s most talked-about feature, the one about net neutrality that was blamed for crashing the Federal Communications Commission’s website, is cruising toward 9 million viewers.

All these numbers constitute a larger audience share per feature than the major news networks can muster per night.

What Oliver and “Last Week Tonight” have managed to do is find a way to engage viewers and keep them engaged on complex, contemporary issues long after the initial broadcast while managing to be informative, a puzzle that network news and newspapers still struggle to accomplish two decades into the digital era.

Journalism in its most basic form is the gathering, processing, and dissemination of information related to a particular audience. By that simplistic definition, Oliver qualifies as a journalist.

“I think that becomes more of a sad commentary on news than it does on us” as comedians, Oliver says. “The only responsibility as a comedian is that I have to make people laugh. If I don’t do that — and I am sure that I often don’t — I have failed.”

But in making people laugh, Oliver goes to journalistically admirable lengths to do it. In the feature on Miss America scholarship funding, which the nonprofit Miss America Foundation claimed was $45 million annually, the “Last Week Tonight” staff spent days sifting through 990 tax forms on nonprofit spending from 33 states right up until broadcast to try verifying that number. The amount turned out to be unjustifiable, but “Last Week Tonight” nevertheless discovered that the Miss America Foundation is indeed the largest provider of scholarships that are just for women — which news media then reported.

“I just want it to be funny,” Oliver says, describing the course he and “Last Week Tonight” have charted. “That is the key responsibility that you have to hold yourself to as a comedian. If you’re not making people laugh, what exactly are you doing?”

This is not to say America’s daily news needs a thick layer of humor to help it glide along, or that professional journalists are less capable of engaging audiences than Oliver & Co. But if an expat Brit can reach more people on tough topics than the major news media and incorporate impressive feats of news gathering and accountability while doing it, then the “journalist” label will stick to Oliver no matter how hard he tries to shake it off, and major news media will be compelled to watch him try.

So, Oliver’s success and that of “Last Week Tonight” raises the question: If the major news media have a responsibility of informing and enlightening the public and still struggle at it, what exactly are they doing?

My mother, my grandparents, and Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor lapel pinOn a bright Sunday morning 73 years ago, my mother looked out her parents’ kitchen window and saw black smoke rising in the distance.

Then she saw planes soar out of the smoke, and the whole world forever changed.

That morning, my mother watched the attack on Pearl Harbor from her home. She was a child, living across the harbor from the U.S. Navy yard. My grandparents’ house sat on a hill slope, their back yard overlooking the battleships moored in port a few miles away, and on this Sunday morning in December my mother and grandparents, awaiting friends who were coming to take them on a picnic, saw the smoke, heard loud bangs coming from the direction of the harbor, left their breakfast sitting unfinished on the kitchen table, and went outside for a better look.

They heard the planes before seeing them. A whining roar, as if from a million angry mosquitoes, echoed across the hillside, gaining in volume, until the planes appeared as black darts flung across the bright sky. My grandmother remarked how unusual it was to see military maneuvers on a Sunday. My grandfather noticed these planes were unlike any he had seen parked on the airfields.

The planes came closer at incredible speed, and there were more of them each passing moment. It occurred to my grandparents that they should move back closer to the house when one plane, so close now the Rising Sun emblem on its fuselage was clearly visible, wagged its wings on approach to the slope, rolled starboard and with the tip of one wing carried off my grandmother’s clothes line.

My mother recalled seeing the pilot’s face. She said through the decades that given enough artistic talent, she could have drawn it from memory.

Everybody ran back into the house to watch the black smoke and noise intensify across the harbor, and it was at about this point when they saw a bright flash followed by the swelling bubble of an intense shock wave envelop the harbor and race up the hillside to rattle the kitchen windows. The USS Arizona, already critically wounded, burst nearly in two as the ammunition magazine ignited.

USS Arizona explodes during attack on Pearl Harbor

The battleship USS Arizona explodes while berthed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, during the Japanese attack on Dec. 7, 1941. (Photo courtesy U.S. Navy)

At that, the event became profoundly personal: What should we do? Where should we go? Neighbors were walking out into the streets crying, shouting, comforting each other, even as the planes continued to zip overhead. My grandfather, who had joined an all-volunteer civilian defense corps a year earlier as tensions heightened between Japan and the United States, expected he would be called to do … something. But no word came; the few phone lines around the island were jammed.

Hours later, a Jeep sped down the street. The military police officer behind the wheel was going around asking every able-bodied male, particularly those who had guns, to meet in the town center for further instructions. My grandfather expressed concern about leaving my grandmother and mother alone. The Jeep driver responded, “Look, we’re expecting an invasion by the Japanese. If you don’t get down to the beach now to try stopping them, we’re all screwed anyway.”

So, my grandfather packed his only gun, a small-caliber pistol, and boarded a truck en route to a long shallow beach a few miles past Honolulu where Japanese landing craft loaded with troops were expected to appear overnight. Dozens of civilians in several trucks made the trip with him, including one man who brought the only weapon at his disposal: a pitchfork.

Upon arrival, the men busied themselves initially by digging shallow trenches and building defensive positions behind rocks and trees. Then they waited, the only sounds coming from the surf, the only light from the moon. And waited.

And waited.

By daybreak, the threat of invasion had subsided, though the intensity wrought from the previous morning never did. My grandparents’ friends who were driving to meet them were found in their car a few blocks away. They had been strafed and killed en route.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Dec. 7, 1941

Front page of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 3rd Extra, Dec. 7, 1941. (Photo courtesy University of Hawaii at Manoa Library)

From that day until almost the war’s end, the Hawaiian islands, not yet among the United States, were under U.S. martial law. The rationing and blackouts common on the mainland during this period were many times more constraining in Hawaii because of difficulty protecting the islands’ supply line. And the happiest times of my mother’s childhood ended as the freedom she had to play with friends and roam was curtailed by stringent rules on civilian movement except for essential needs such as school, work and hospital visits.

The onset of war ended my grandfather’s job, servicing the pineapple harvesting equipment owned by Dole foods, as many industries on the islands shuttered during wartime. About a year later, my grandparents and mother left for California, riding a cargo ship under destroyer escort.

There was one humorous moment out of it all. When my grandfather returned from his beach patrol early on the morning after the attack, he went to put his gun away and noticed a box of bullets sitting open on the bedroom dresser. That’s when he remembered …

He had forgotten to load the gun.

(Editor’s note: This post initially appeared on the Posterous blogging platform, which shut down in 2013.)

Ted Cruz is wrong about Net neutrality

Net neutrality logoThe last thing any of us need is someone in a position of influence explaining Net neutrality but who doesn’t understand or doesn’t care to understand Net neutrality.

Yet, Ted Cruz has decided to do it anyway.

The junior Republican senator from Texas trumpeted his mischaracterization of the issue last week in the Washington Post opinion piece, “Regulating the Internet threatens entrepreneurial freedom,” in which he champions the idea that online innovation suffers unless the Internet is devoid of federal oversight.

The term “devoid” is not overstatement. Cruz prefers that Washington leave the Internet entirely in the hands of the legislative process, where service providers, market forces and special interests hold sway. To this end, he urges nullification of all Internet regulation, now framed within Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.

In Cruz’s mind, Net neutrality “would put the government in charge of Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.”

In fact, Net neutrality refers to the Internet as it is now: a place where service providers and government agencies treat all online data equally and access is unlimited; a place where the powerless have as much influence as the powerful; a place where startup businesses can grow into corporations without monopolistic interference.

The issue became a big deal in April when the Federal Communications Commission agreed to consider a two-tiered system where Internet providers can set arbitrary rules on access. Then in May, the FCC also agreed to consider reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service, which would prevent providers from threatening to reduce access in exchange for fees.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Photo by Getty Images)

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Photo by Getty Images)

President Obama supports reclassification. Cruz however believes the providers should be in control because reclassification is just a nice way of saying the government will levy an Internet use tax. He has even gone as far as calling Net neutrality “Obamacare for the Internet,” a catchy little phrase that possesses a certain rubbery, pejorative quality certain to help it bounce around the Web for a while.

Never mind that it misrepresents both Net neutrality and Obamacare; Cruz is a Princeton and Harvard grad, a champion debater and a loyal partisan toady. Conservative straw polls rank him high among likely GOP presidential nominees in 2016.

It would tarnish Cruz’s carefully honed image for him to appear on the same side of an issue as the president. So, it makes more sense for him to mangle Net neutrality’s definition than risk political capital.

To be fair, the term “Net neutrality” is sufficiently vague enough that anyone with a flair for drama and self-promotion can abuse it with ease. One could easily argue that the term also means you’re indifferent about what happens to Internet.

If only it had a better name. Comedian John Oliver suggests that maybe Net neutrality’s working title should be more honest: “Preventing Cable Company F**kery.”

But that might be too honest for Ted Cruz.

7 essential security tips for using free Wi-Fi networks

Image courtesy of iStockphoto

Fear is an excellent deterrent. It saps our confidence, curtails our energy and tempers our judgment. It forces us to change our direction and our thinking.

Rarely though do we let it change our behavior. The consequences of fear must be palpable, looming, for that to happen.

A recent article by Maurtis Martijn for the Dutch crowdfunded site De Correspondent reminds us however that even when a threat is real, our response to it can be irrational.

Martijn wrote at length this month about the danger we face when joining unsecured public wi-fi networks — those that do not require a password to join. To demonstrate that danger, he strolled through central Amsterdam with self-described “ethical hacker” Wouter Slotboom — not the snooper’s real name — looking for cafés that provide free wi-fi.

At each location, Martijn and Slotboom sat at any table. Then Slotboom pulled from his backpack a small black device that he placed on the table and obscured with a menu. He then linked to the device with his laptop and in moments discovered the identities of every other laptop, smartphone and tablet used by every customer in the café.

Moments later, Slotboom obtained the network identity of those customers and with that was able to discover personal information about each.

“All you need is 70 euros (for the device), an average IQ, and a little patience,” Slotboom told Martijn.

The marketplace affords Slotboom and shady sorts of his ilk plenty of potential. More than half the U.S. population of 316 million owns a smartphone or laptop, and the number of tablet owners is catching up to both. All of those devices have connected to an open wi-fi network at least once, often without a device owner’s knowledge (the default on mobile devices is set to discover available networks).

And as the mobile market grows, more doors open for hackers. The threat intelligence firm Risk Based Security, Inc. estimates nearly 1 billion records — credit card information, medical records, passwords, social security numbers, etc. — were breached in 2013, with 65 percent of the activity occurring in the United States.

Risk Based Security says we’re on a pace to suffer well over 1 billion breaches this year.

The numbers are new but the rationale for them is not; stories about wi-fi security predate the advent of public hotspots. Yet many of us disregard the threat or expect strangers to respect our personal security. We choose convenience over caution. We invest trust where none was earned.

Such behavior today borders on irresponsible; lax personal security compromises the security of others if their information is on our devices. And the threat is not looming or imminent — it’s here, happening now, via unsecured wi-fi networks across the country.

It may even be happening to you now while you sip your latte.

So, curtail the risk and subdue your paranoia by taking these small, simple steps:

Choose the correct network — During Slotboom’s staged “man-in-the-middle” attacks, he created fictitious wi-fi networks on his computer for café customers to join, and dozens did. This simplified the task of discovering passwords and account numbers; people typed them directly into his network thinking it was legitimate. Slotboom often named the networks after real businesses to make them appear authentic. He urges users of free wi-fi to verify the network, either by asking the proprietor or checking the address on signs that promote the service, to avoid joining rogue networks by mistake.

If the option exists to pay for access to a secure network, take it. A little fee trumps a big headache.

Choose ‘htpps’ — That “s” extension after the “http” at the beginning of a Web address indicates the connection is secure and the connection to the Web server is authentic. Not all websites have this; still others provide both. Even so, only certain amounts of traffic are encrypted, not all of it. Regular users of unsecured networks help themselves by doing homework on whether the sites they visit have this layer of security before surfing in public, and they should never, ever, shop or do anything online involving a credit card while using unsecured wi-fi.

On some sites, you can add the “s” yourself. The Electronic Frontier Foundation distributes a browser extension called HTTPS Everywhere that encrypts communications between major websites and is available for Windows, Mac and Linux.

Use ‘two-step’ authentication — Many email providers and commercial websites have the option of a second login, where users receive a texted code they must type after their initial login to gain access. Two-step or two-factor authentication reduces the chance a hacker can gain access to an account with just the password.

Use a password manager — Sometimes we feel as though there is only enough RAM in our heads to get us through the day. This leads us to concoct simple or repeated passwords for the many websites we use that require a login. A password manager program generates unique and complex passwords for each site and keeps them locked up with one master password. Password managers also guard against keylogging — the surreptitious recording of keystrokes by hackers — by automatically filling in a site’s password field.

Turn off sharing; turn on firewalls — The sharing feature allows mobile devices to connect with other devices and networks. Free wi-fi users should disable this feature when not in need of sharing. (The instructions are different for Windows and Mac.) At the same time, make sure the device’s firewall (Windows/Mac) is active and working.

Invest in a VPN — A virtual private network, or VPN, encrypts traffic between devices and designated VPN servers, thus creating a private network across a public network. VPNs run shared data through a point-to-point connection that shields the data from unwanted interference much like an umbrella shields you from the rain. Many businesses employ VPNs to let employees access company networks remotely.

The best VPNs cost a small fee for full protection. VPNs also slow down page-load speeds somewhat. Still, they add an element of confidence in an uncertain environment.

Update all software — Finally, make sure your antivirus and anti-malware programs are up to date, and install all the latest operating system upgrades. These upgrades not only enhance overall performance, they also contain patches and fixes that help hold back the most recent security threats lurking across the Web — or across the room.

(Editor’s note: This post first appeared on Net Worked, the technology blog for the Society of Professional Journalists.)

The party is over for Twitter

Twitter logoIf someone asks you to explain Twitter, say this: Twitter is a cocktail party.

Or it was until Friday.

At these parties, people mingle and move from one conversation to another, from one group to another. Discussions are mixed with fact, fallacy, innuendo and rumor, but they engage us, entice us. We soon perceive the party to be a community bound by the threads of its distinct blend of interactions.

Now, imagine someone bursts into the party and into your conversation while blurting comments unrelated to the discussion.

That sort of rude, boorish behavior is considered an apt description of Twitter’s new policy to inject tweets into users’ feeds while simultaneously abandoning chronological display of tweets, arguably one of the platform’s best and most logical qualities. Twitter made the change formal in a recent blog announcement but has been toying with the platform’s dynamics all summer.

Call it the triumph of algorithms over logic.

“Choosing who to follow is a great first step — in many cases, the best tweets come from people you already know, or know of,” Twitter product team member Trevor O’Brien wrote in the blog. “But there are times you might miss out on tweets we think you’d enjoy.” (Emphasis added.)

Twitter measures interactions much as Facebook does and depends on users’ broad interactions to maintain viability. The more followers a user has, the greater the user’s audience engagement.

But Twitterers need time and constant tweeting to develop a large following. Twitter has figured that by altering the dynamic it can save users time and effort, which likely increases overall audience engagement. This in turn would make the platform look more appealing to investors.

Twitter obviously sees a trend that must be followed to maintain the platform’s viability. That or maybe Twitter had tired of seeing us talk to the same people over and over.

By pushing people uninvited into conversations, Twitter risks alienating its constituency, reminding users of the times they engaged in conversations and somebody who was inebriated or arrogant or uninformed, or singularly cursed with all three qualities, butted in.

Pleas abound urging Twitter to not be that kind of platform.

Social media is, above all else, a conversation. The tools can be fancy and fun, but subtract those and what remains is mere dialog — the communication of thoughts, hopes and experiences to create a bond, however briefly, between individuals.

In creating that bond, we enter into an informal social contract, roughly defined as an agreement between participants to keep the conversation relevant and pertinent to one another’s interests. When other people interrupt, the tolerant among us weigh for an instant whether the intrusion adds value. The intolerant among us give more weight to the intrusion than its rationale.

Occasionally, interruptions are acceptable. But when the interruptions are constant they become annoying and we resist them, ignoring any potential value added to the conversation.

Twitter’s greatest strength was its ability to maintain order and logic to digital discussions. Lacking that strength, Twitter becomes a party nobody wants to attend.

Journalism conference avoids Opryland controversy

Wi-Fi logo

(This post originally appeared on Net Worked, the technology blog for the Society of Professional Journalists.)

The Internet service controversy that warranted a federal fine against owners of the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tenn., did not affect Excellence in Journalism 2014 last month.

Joe Skeel, SPJ’s executive director, says wi-fi access was generally good for the 950 or so members of the Society of Professional Journalists and of the Radio Television Digital News Association who attended the three-day conference, Sept. 4-6.

So, too, was the price SPJ paid for a dedicated network.

“We didn’t hear complaints directly,” Skeel said in an email to Net Worked about attendees accessing the Internet in the conference meeting space and the hotel rooms. “There was some early chatter on social media, but that seemed to subside once we increased our bandwidth.”

On Friday, the resort’s owner, Marriott International Inc., announced it had agreed pay a $600,000 civil penalty ordered by the Federal Communications Commission for its practice of blocking access to personal wireless hotspots created by Gaylord Opryland guests, thus forcing them to pay for access to the resort’s dedicated networks. The complaint that spawned the penalty dates back to March 2013.

The resort also was accused of charging individuals, small businesses and exhibitors up to $1,000 per device for access to those networks.

“It is unacceptable for any hotel to intentionally disable personal hotspots while also charging consumers and small businesses high fees to use the hotel’s own wi-fi network,” the FCC said in a statement.

Marriott International responded by saying it defended Gaylord Opryland’s actions as a means of protecting the resort and its customers “from rogue wireless hotspots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyber-attacks and identity theft” and asked the FCC to clarify its policy.

Besides the civil penalty, Marriott International must cease all wi-fi blocking at Gaylord Opryland and come up with a better way to monitor network security at all of its 4,000-plus properties.

EIJ15 is scheduled for the World Center Marriott in Orlando, Fla.

Skeel said SPJ contracted for free dedicated wi-fi for EIJ14 and the overall cost for that amount of service at Gaylord Opryland was significantly less than at previous EIJ venues. He declined to disclose the contract’s terms.

“Given that SPJ negotiated free wi-fi in guest rooms and meeting space for attendees and exhibitors, I don’t see how this issue came into play for EIJ14,” Skeel said. “If an attendee was blocked from using a personal hotspot, she would have had access to our network — free of charge. I’m not excusing Opryland from the practice. But I don’t think it was an issue for us.”