For anyone based in the UK who wants to make a submission against this, I suggest you base your argument on the versatility of wifi and its use in closed networks.
For example, there are apps for Android and iOS that let you use your phone as a NAS box (network addressed storage) and this would break it. Or apps that use wifi to use your phone as a remote control for the media player software on your PC.
If you build a list of the non-internet use cases for wifi, focusing particularly on activities business travellers are very likely to use, then it would be extremely hard for the FCC to find that Marriott's move isn't antagonistic to guests....
Perhaps this is "Corporate Assholes" trying to monetize their investment in their hotel property and make money as most businesses are created to do?
No, it's them refusing to accept that they overestimated the value of wifi in the first instance. If the US is anything like the UK, the big chains will have been the first to jump on the "internet" bandwagon, and being the risk-averse cheapskates that they are, will have franchised out the internet to a third party. It's quite possible that Marriott don't even own the networking infrastructure installed in the building, and that they basically act as an agent by selling it to visitors. For a good few years, they got away with it, because they were selling it to business travellers who didn't care seeing as it was going on expenses -- heck, even when many smaller hotels were rolling out free wifi, some of the big hotels still offered paid-for internet only, and even then, it was wired internet ("if you don't have an Ethernet cable, please ask at reception"). Now they find themselves in a position where that business model has been blown apart because the single important class of customer -- the expense-account business traveller -- has an internet connection in his pocket.
IE. their business model was shit, and now rather than writing off the losses, they're trying to artificially shore it up.