The hotel WiFi certification is probably one of the most dynamic areas in the Internet access industry. In a few years, from text message authentication to sweep attention, from PMS room number to face recognition, there are different ways to go. But in actual projects, I find that most hotels do not really think about it when they choose to be certified."Why is this?"Often, competitors follow whatever they use or equipment dealers push what they want.
Status and limitations of SMS authentication codes
SMS is the most dominant way to authenticate WiFi in a domestic hotel.
But the SMS code is a fundamental problem: it confirms a cell phone number, not an identity. The same mobile number can be shared by multiple individuals, or prepaid numbers, virtual numbers, or even bulk numbers that can be bought to bypass certification.
Another practical problem is the rate of text messages arriving. In areas with poor signaling (such as underground parking lots, mountain inn), text messages may be delayed by a few minutes or even uncollectable, and the experience of guests at front desk etc.
The advantages of PMS connection authentication and deployment conditions
PMS connection authentication means direct access to the Internet with in-house information (usually room number plus name or room number+ cell number), and a real-time PMS interface for checking entry status. The advantage of this approach is obvious: both using existing physical login data and avoiding customers from refilling information are used to make it more fluid.
But PMS connections are more demanding than basic conditions. First, the hotel PMS system must have an open API interface or support standard interfaces (e.g. HTNG, FAS). Many small and medium hotels use old PMSs, but no API is available, so it's impossible to connect. Second, PMS data quality has to pass through.——If the number of a cell phone entered at the front desk is wrong, the client will fail to authenticate it with the correct number and create problems.
I have approached a fine hotel, the PMS was an old system 10 years ago, and the upgrades were delayed and not replaced. Eventually, only one compromise solution is used: to synchronize data exports/imports on time between PMS and authentication systems, rather than calling in real-time interfaces. Data in this way are delayed, but in the hotel setting (which has been occupied for no more than 30 hours per day), it is within acceptable limits.
The traffic trap for the sweep.
The coding of the public accreditation was a very popular way to chain hotels over time. On the surface, it is a lot: customers authenticate online and also focus on brand names, adding fans and connecting members. Many equipment and solution providers use this as a sell-out point.
But what is the actual effect? According to several cases I have learned, the rate of complaints from successful customers is generally higher than that from SMS. The reasons are: some clients are reluctant to pay attention to public numbers and forced to focus on what feels like forced marketing; the scavenger jump process is a few steps more than a filled cell phone number and older guests are having difficulty operating; in some hotel environments, the PIN page is loaded slowly and the guest has been waiting for half a day to react.
More importantly, the compliance of sweep certification is controversial. The identity of a monitor for the micro-public does not amount to an authentic authentication.——The micro-mail account may be a non-real name, and the concern that records do not satisfy the full requirements of the logs.
The appropriate scene for the facial recognition.
Face recognition is already applied to high-end hotels and some special scenes (e.g. government guesthouses, focus sites). It is the most compliant: it directly matches the public security identity bank, the certification results are the most credible, and the log contains bio-image information and has the greatest traceability capability.
The deployment costs and the complexity of human face recognition are also highest. Camera equipment needs to be installed at every WiFi entry point, the network environment needs to support the network, and additional requirements for data security or third-party face recognition services, involving data security and privacy compliance.
In practical terms, face recognition is now more common in special places where compliance requirements are enforced and rarely used by ordinary commercial hotels. Its costs and experience costs are not cost-effective in most settings.
Actual deployment in multiple ways
Real hotel WiFi certification systems are often not a single authentication but multiple. For example, guests use PMS connections (room number plus cell number), visitors use SMS authenticating codes, meeting scenes use temporary passwords or two-dimensional numbers. Users of different regions and identities follow different authentication paths.
This multi-modal design requires a higher demand for backend systems. The certification system needs to be able to distinguish between different types of authentication, log records need to identify the source of authentication, and administrators need to be able to screen and query logs by type of authentication. If the backend system is simply to mix all accreditation logs, it will be difficult to manage and verify.
At the programme design stage, it is proposed that"Which people will authenticate in what way?"The logic is clear, and a authentication matrix is formed to match the system configuration."One way to authenticate it, the other one's a mess."Situation.
The correspondence of certification to compliance requirements
Finally, a summary of the correspondence between different authentication methods and compliance requirements: SMS Authentication Code——Basic physical name requirements met, but limited physical strength; PMS connection——High-profile, dependent on PMS data quality; sweep concern——Compliance issues, not recommended as primary authentication; face recognition——Compliance is the strongest, most costly and special locations are applied.
The authentication method should not be selected by looking at the demonstration of the equipment provider alone, but by assessing in a comprehensive manner three dimensions: compliance satisfaction (whether it can be verified), client experience (to what extent complaints are contained), and transportation costs (who is handling the problem and how long the processing cycle is). All three dimensions have been thought out, then choose one.