A restaurant in Guangdong was given a ticket because WiFi didn't have a password, and the owner questioned its rationality. Many of us are puzzled. Obviously, it is a very common thing, because many people need mobile phones for entertainment now, and it is difficult for people to communicate and communicate without mobile phones to a large extent, so whether there is WiFi is also an important reason why many people choose restaurants. As far as I know, the owner of this restaurant, Mr. Liu, is from Shiqi District, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, and he has been engaged in catering for five or six years. It is reasonable to say that he already knows a lot of things, and this should not happen. However, the police came to Mr. Liu's store and said that it was because the store provided public WIFI to customers in the restaurant, so they asked to charge 811 yuan's network supervision fee to install secure WiFi; And Mr. Wang, who also runs a restaurant in Zhongshan, was also asked to install secure WIFI in 811 yuan last month. However, after Mr. Wang paid the money, no one came to install it, but suddenly he was given a ticket by the police who came to check. So Mr. Liu, the owner of a restaurant in Guangdong, said that he paid this fee two years ago.

here, Mr. Liu said that the police came here with people from a telecom company two years ago. They also said at that time that our public WIFI should not be provided to guests. If we want to provide public WiFi, we have to charge a network supervision fee. The statements of the two staff members made him somewhat ignorant of this, but he knew that the work of the police also needed cooperation.

For what Mr. Liu didn't understand, the police station also indicated that the punishment was justified, and the money was not collected by our police station. Therefore, when the reporter contacted Chen Wei, deputy director of Zimaling police station of Zhongshan Public Security Bureau, he got a satisfactory answer, and the charging problem was mainly the cost of the safety manager, which was not collected by the public security organ, but by a third-party technology company providing equipment to merchants. After the restaurant owners learned this explanation, they expressed the hope that there would be a better solution.