Earlier this month, Marriott International was fined $600,000 after the company was found blocking people's Wi-Fi networks from their mobile service providers in an event held in the brand's Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee. During the same period, the hotel was charging as much as $1,000 per device for anyone who wanted to access the Internet through the hotel's wireless network.

According to the investigation by Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the hotel was blocking other people's hot spots with its own Wi-Fi system. The hotel's employees were found using "containment features of a Wi-Fi monitoring system" to prevent guests from accessing their own mobile networks. As a result, consumers would have to pay the hotel twice as much for the Internet connection.

The FCC's ruling applied to more than just one Marriott property in Nashville. All Marriott hotels — regardless of whether they are owned or managed by the company — must not block consumers' access to Wi-Fi. In addition, Marriott is required to file compliance plans with the FCC every quarter for the next three years.

Shortly after the incident, Marriott made a defensive statement:

"Marriott has a strong interest in ensuring that when our guests use our Wi-Fi service, they will be protected from rogue wireless hot spots that can cause degraded service, insidious cyberattacks and identity theft. Like many other institutions and companies in a wide variety of industries, including hospitals and universities, the Gaylord Opryland protected its Wi-Fi network by using FCC-authorized equipment provided by well-known, reputable manufacturers.

"We believe that the Opryland's actions were lawful. We will continue to encourage the FCC to pursue a rulemaking in order to eliminate the ongoing confusion resulting from today's action and to assess the merits of its underlying policy."

Referring to our earlier discussion about hotel Wi-Fi, it may seem that a luxury resort like Gaylord Opryland has good reasons to charge a fee for the hotel's Internet service. However, I am not sure if the company was just giving an excuse for the add-on fee.

Really? Does a hotel have the right to block consumers' access to their own mobile networks? If so, should other businesses, such as restaurants and airports, also have the right to block consumers' Internet access to their own mobile networks, leaving consumers with two options — forgoing the internet or paying a fee for the service?

It is no doubt we are working in a highly competitive world. To many of us, that means we have to meet quotas and budgets. We also need to watch the bottom line and report to the stockholders or owners. However, we cannot lose sight of business ethics, which is essential for long-term success.

One day, my students asked me what to do if they wanted to make an ethical decision for their company, but their supervisor advised them otherwise. My suggestion was to bring their concern to the manager (or their supervisor's supervisor) first. If nothing had changed, probably they should start looking for a new job, where business ethics were appreciated.

If the students stayed in a company that shared different values, they would feel miserable working there anyway. Would you agree?