Slashdot Mirror
WiFi At Logan Airport Leads To Turf War
lucabrasi999 writes "Yahoo News is running an Associated Press story on how Boston's Logan International Airport is the site of a battle between the Massachusettes Port Authority and Continental Airlines. Seems that Massport, which runs a pay wireless service at the airport, doesn't want Continental to provide free wireless service to the members of its frequent flier club. Massport claims Continental's free service interferes with its pay service. This battle is now in the hands of the FCC." From the article: "Last month, a Massport attorney warned the airline that its antenna 'presents an unacceptable potential risk' to Logan's safety and security systems, including its keycard access system and state police communications. Massport told the airline it could route its wireless signals over Logan's Wi-Fi signal, at a 'very reasonable rate structure.' In response, however, Continental said using Logan's Wi-Fi vendor could force the airline to start charging its customers for the service."
Logan can use 802.11a - it does not interfere with the other two, and it is short range - enough for a frequent fliers room
how about using all this time and energy towards getting me from the ticket counter to the air in a reasonable amount of time, so i don't need WiFi access in the terminal
Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
is the turf war between Internet news portals, or airports vs. airlines?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I understand that the FCC is probably the only recourse for the aggrieved party [poor little Logan Airport], however, has the FCC not essentially said that it does not interfere in matters for wifi and other unlicensed bands? I thought that by making it unlicensed, they essentially do not apportion spectrum or rule in matters of its use.
Seems like a matter for nuisance law, rather than the FCC, which would be much more fun and allow for comparisons to pig farms and "noxious vapors".
In Vino Veritas
They seem to know how the exact same wireless signal is going to interfere in the safety of the airport just because it has a different name on it. I can understand asking them to perhaps use a different channel, but they're presumably using the same 802.11 technologies.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I got into a rather heated battle a while back on HardForum about legal rights on wireless security, and somebody posted up a lot of the FCC guidelines for 802.11[insertflavorhere]. Basically what I got out of it was that as long as you are using FCC approved equipment, its really up to everybody else to figure things out for themselves. I might be wrong on this, but I thought that the FCC tried as hard as it could to keep itself out of situations exactly like this.
a Huge-Ass Corporation is filing a lawsuit against the nature for providing the creatures of this planet with drinkable water and breathable air.
Our asian reporter Tricia Takanawa interviewed the CEO of the Huge-Ass Corporation.
-How dare this 'nature' interfere with our business model? Everyone must pay for the clean water and air, there is no free lunch. Everyone who says there is, is either a communist or a terrorist and must be shot on sight.
You can't handle the truth.
When are the slashdot mods going to learn the difference between "its" and "it's"? Strong Bad explains it best.
Massport may be bluffing, in order to have an excuse to shoulder out their competition and have monopoly status.
That said, they may not be bluffing, in which case, any terrorist with a little knowledge regarding computer networks now has access codes to all of the airports secure areas! This is regardless of Continentals role, since their network, in all likelihood, has no interraction with these systems.
Either way, Massport looks like a bunch of jerks.
It's a good thing the use of radio is regulated by the FCC and not by Massport then, huh? Seems like a safe bet that if Massport can't prove interference with a licensed usage of spectrum (I.E. something outside the 2.4Ghz range) and there's nothing in Continental's lease prohibiting it, Massport is going to have to suck it up and live without the ability to rape travelers in exchange for internet access.
Do you run your security system, keycards, and police radios all on unlicensed 2.4Ghz spectrum? I doub't it (and if you do, you have to share it just like everyone else.. Part 15 regs). They're trying to cop out some pitiful sounding reasons to stifle competition..
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
For fuck sakes, it's not that hard, I'm French and I know this
its = possessive
it's = it is
That goes for both the poster and the "editors" (I use the term loosely)
People don't even try anymore
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
When I read this article this morning my gut reaction was to side with Continental on this. Obviously the airports major concern is their revenue stream. Then I thought about and remembered that
A) I don't have a continental platinum flier card
B) I don't ever fly first class
so since I cant meet either of their requirements for getting into the Continental President's Club and thus won't be able to use their wifi....
I don't care who wins.
This makes sense because they are losing money for something that they have provided for a while. One might also suggest that it brings in unfair competition because the airport is underselling the commodity (for free). But the problem is that the internet is probably not free because the people will pay for it somewhere(ticket prices, taxes, etc). Thus they are just hiding a service that people are forced to pay for whether they use or not.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
WiFi is not for critical services.
WiFi IS NOT for critical services.
WIFI IS NOT FOR CRITICAL SERVICES.
It seems to me like the airport made sure to put something important over WiFi so that they could try to exclude everyone else. As far as I understand it, in Wifi interference is not a concern of the FCC, so long as you are below power limits. It is on an open band, and anyone can do anything there. Taking an unlicensed service and putting important infrastructure on it is an attempt to grab control of it for yourself only.
Now, someone please let BPL providers know about this too. I already heard musings about putting critical control systems on BPL, and I imagine in a few years HAM's will be getting nailed for causing interference from a licensed device (amateur radio) to an unlicensed.
It's easily the worst airport in the entire United States of America. It makes SFO look easy. Far, far overcrowded, clueless, jackbooted security, nasty CS reps, tough to get in+out, & way too many delays.
Always try for PVD if at all possible. I guarantee I'll make the 45min drive into the city before you can find your bags at BOS.
Same goes for SFO/OAK. I'm long gone before your 4hr delayed flight comes into SFO.
luca brasi sleeps with the fishes because he doesn't know the difference between "it's" and "its"
Prediction:
Regardless of Massport's assertions of safety or interference and whatnot, the FCC will tell Massport to stuff it. If what is being used is FCC approved wireless, there's not a damn thing that Massport can do about it.
That's _especially_ if they complain about interference, because all Part 15 devices _must_ accept any interference. 802.11 is smack in the Part 15 rules, so Massport can go pound sand.
--
BMO
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r15_04.html
Specifically: Here's a link that explains things better. It's and FAQ for Wireless ISPs when they encounter interferance from HAM operators.http://www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/ham_wisp.html
Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad. You're only recourse is to complain to the FCC and say the the offending party is operating outside of Part 15 (or whatever part may apply). I.E. - they are transmitter too much power. Commercial interest doesn't mean anything since you're an unlicensed user.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Massport is claiming that the reason Continental can't have their antenna is it presents a risk to their security systems. Basically, they are claiming it can cause interference. Well, that's the FCC's domain, when one system interferes with another, the FCC gets to decide who gets to do what. Like cell phones are fully FCC approved, but cannot be used on planes because the FCC has determined they can interfere with the plane's operation (nevermind that they don't work anyhow, you're too high).
What it looks like to me is Massport is angry that Continental is giving it away, but there's probably nothing in Continental's lease that prohibits it. So they are trying to play the "screws with our systems" card. My bet? It doesn't and the FCC will say it's fine.
It is so sad and unfortunate that these days the words "national security" and "terrorist" are almost guarenteed to get you the results and press coverage you want. You can just accuse someone of being a terrorist or undermining national security and you have half the battle won against that person/entity.
www.notesmax.com
As long as safety isn't affected, why not? Is no private business ever allowed to compete with the government for anything? Can the government sue Fedex for depriving the postal service of revenue?
In any case, I don't think that the airline will be too happy letting freeloaders take bandwidth from paying customers, so the revenue loss to Logan will only be limited to those first class fliers who would have been willing to pay for internet access in the first place.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
Continental didn't use the Massport system, they would incur costs of maintaining their own network. So pay Massport some fraction of what it would cost to manage that network and work out a login by which the frequent fliers can have access to the free network and Massport can still manage the firewalls to its liking. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Did anyone bother to ask the customers what they want?
An old English teacher of mine told me once to substitute in the word "his" when unsure of "It's" and "Its".
If "his" sounds almost right, go with "its".
-- My Weblog.
A local newspaper story a year or two back on the USA/St Louis Int'l airport noted that the management was having a tough time budgeting. Their main source of revenue for interior-building maintenance (janitorial and light-repair) was from pay phones--but with the popularity of cell phones, pay phone use had dropped off so much that 95% had already been removed (from the number they had three years earlier) and even the 5% left were not generating very much revenue, and the current plan was to remove even more of them. Because of existing term-contracts for other aspects of airport operations, they couldn't immediately raise fees for any other type of airport use, and they had found nothing new that passengers would pay anywhere near as willingly for to replace the lost revenue of pay phones.
....So if passengers want 802.x on the concourse, I expect it's going to end up costing them money.
Not a complaint as such, just an observation....
Most American Airlines lounges have T-Mobile service in them. I was suprised when I fired up the laptop at Logan to see some strange provider's login screen while attempting to use T-Mobile. Turns out that AA had to install Ethernet jacks everywhere in the loungs just for this same reason. Massport wouldn't let AA put in their own network, even if it was T-Mobile.
Not that I needed another example.
I should hire one to tell people I'm funny.
That might be more than I can swing.
Because anyway you slice it, that is what it is.
When you have a scarce but unregulated resource, in this case, spectrum, you wind up with the tragedy of the commons.
Here's the way I see it:
Either
1) it's a free for all, which, legally speaking, it probably is, and both parties are free to jam each other to death,
OR
2) there is a legitimate threat to security and it goes to court, in which case a judge will either order the security officials to use other frequencies or order EVERYONE else off of them,
OR
3) the two sides will come to some kind of agreement, and agreement NOT binding on anyone else in the airport, which means we'll go back to 1 or 2 anyways.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It seems to me like the airport made sure to put something important over WiFi so that they could try to exclude everyone else.
Yeah, that something called "money". One system is $8.00 per day per user. The other is free. You do the math.
Fatal error encountered, aborting reading!
Line 2: fatal basic grammar error (illegal possessive apostrophe)
doesn't want Continental to provide free wireless service to the members of it's frequent flier club.
Line 3: fatal basic grammar error (illegal possessive apostrophe)
Massport claims Continental's free service interferes with it's pay service.
A solution is available for your errors: go back to school.
For future reference, see this document.
The unofficial
"Now, someone please let BPL providers know about this too. I already heard musings about putting critical control systems on BPL, and I imagine in a few years HAM's will be getting nailed for causing interference from a licensed device (amateur radio) to an unlicensed."
Never happen. Licensed takes precedence over unlicensed EVERY TIME. The FCC has used that rule of thumb ever since it was created as an agency. There is _no way_ that the FCC is going to give up that tool, as it is their lifeline to justification.
Take that away, and the FCC's reason to exist vanishes. POOF!
BPL providers will do well to learn the lessons of the Cable System Providers. The FCC comes down hard on signal leakers. If you've got a shitty cable signal, say that you've detected leakage with your equipment and the cable tech will be there within the hour.
Heh.
--
BMO
It's easily the worst airport in the entire United States of America
Agreed! Trying to find a working electrical outlet in Concourse C (at least) is a true exercise in futility. Apparently MassPort disabled nearly all of them for some pathetic reason (concession to the for-pay internet kiosk maybe?).
GRRR! This thread reminded me that I have to fly there twice this month.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Obviously, if Continental serves coffee or food in their club, that should also be banned, since it might potentially interfere with the retailers that are selling food and beverages. Hell, if we want to follow this line of logic, how can any business justify allowing coffee makers, or even water fountains?
Just because you pick a stupid way to make money, doesn't mean that I can't give away whatever you are selling. It's quickly becoming clear that offering free WiFi is becoming a stragegic decision being made by communities in order to attract and keep businesses. In the next few years, all major cities will have to offer free WiFi in their downtown areas if they want to keep businesses and attract new ones. I expect it will become a common feature of all airports as well, displacing the pay services now in place. Get over it.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Never happen. Licensed takes precedence over unlicensed EVERY TIME. The FCC has used that rule of thumb ever since it was created as an agency. There is _no way_ that the FCC is going to give up that tool, as it is their lifeline to justification.
National security, and "Critical infrastructure" trumps all, no matter what. The FCC better make sure the door is tight. Unfortunately, after the approval of BPL the door is off its hinges.
That's easy: Massport knows that the Logan reps are filthy fucking liars making a financially expedient but logically inconsistent argument in order to take out the competition. Proceed to Step 3.
The type of behavior really disgusts me.
I suggest making things really ugly: Sue the airport for putting its passengers at risk. Performing functions that are critical to security using equipment that can be made to malfunction by interference in an unregulated spectrum is clearly negligent for an airport. Their statement to Continental Airlines regarding their secuirty concerns is proof that they're aware of this risk but have no intention of correcting it. If Continental's wifi system represents a security risk, then so does anyone with a laptop or PDA equipped with a wifi adapter.
really deserve to be smacked like the whining children that they are. Continental's free wireless in their private lounge poses an undue risk to the airport, yet THEIR airport-wide pay system doesn't, eh?
I don't see the coffee shops complaining because you can get free a coffee in these lounges.
Who is willing to help me lobby for the death penalty for people who make frivolous litigation, and their lawyers..?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Don't mock Logan even if it is the airport that let all the 9/11 hijackers board, it is nothing compared to thr T. As a resident of the people's republic, this isn't anything new. I'm surprised there isn't a Wifi tax. If anyone wondered what would happen if one party ran a US state without any opposition this is it. Most parts of MA don't even hold elections becasue there is only one party.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Never, ever, ever, get in the way of a stream of State revenue. One way, or the other, you are going to get burned.
Rule #2
Unless you are willing to provide the State with a larger stream of revenue.
Rule #3
( only applicable to large corporations )
Unless you are willing to remove an even larger stream of revenue from the State to another.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
I love the free wifi service at PDX. Its fast and it is everywhere at the airport. Could the Bostonians please ask the Portland people how they did it?
Maybe technology and security is not the problem, but greed is?
There are too many businesses benefitting from the "terror threat". It would seem to me that they would benefit somewhat from the threat not going away. People can easily be convinced to pay more for everyday stuff in exchange for "security" from terrorists.
Come to think of it, some politicians too have recently used the terrorists to their advantage. They claim to have special talents for fighting terrorism. <sarcasm> Evidenced by recent global decline in terrorism. </sarcasm>
...let Massport pay for shielding around the lounge to keep the free signal from escaping. This should show what their real intentions are.
Zonk didn't pass his A-levels in English. It's a pity its it's are all scrambled.
Wi-Fi runs in the UNLICENSED BAND. People can do WHAT THEY WANT.
I think WiMAX could solve this. But if you think about it this way, if someone is offering a free telephone (with no dirty germs on the handset!) why would anyone use their mobile to make an outgoing call.
If you have to parties selling cold cans of coke-a-cola, are you going to the line that charges $1 or the line that charges .50c ? This is competition.
My .02 cents - I didn't read the article.
Their's is professionally set up. The SSID is "Linksys".
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
As far as I understand it, in Wifi interference is not a concern of the FCC, so long as you are below power limits.
So why can't I use wifi on an airplane?
A while ago I was had a job to do at the local international airport, and had to park at the back of the bus station and walk to the terminal. Now, the bus terminal there is large, single-level, baking-hot concrete open to the tropical sun. The only undercover area was taken up almost entirely with drink machines dispensing Coke - at $3 a can. Inside the terminal, machines sold Coke for $2 a can.
Outside, in the real world, cold cans of Coke sell for ~$1.20. You can buy a hot can from the supermarket for around half that. When I mentioned this to the maintenance supervisor, he pointed out the total lack of places to buy cold drinks in the non-customs area of the terminal.
Largely, the mythical free market works - as long as you remember that the ultimate purpose of each player in a free market is to turn it into a non-free market, with them at the centre. Doesn't matter it it happens through real competition, buying protection from the market regulator (usually government; in my example the airport corporation), or making up bullshit excuses to cripple the opposition...
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
I don't get Massport's claim at all. Continental and Massport are both using WiFi, which is 802.11. Massport claims that their system doesn't interfere with their system but Continental's does? This leaves two possibilities:
1. Massport is using a different frequency or media sharing technology that's different from Continental's WiFi.
2. Massport is full of shit.
But if Massport is using a different system than 802.11, then how can their customer expect to use their WiFi devices with their APs? That leaves only one conclusion. Massport is full of shit.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Last month, a Massport attorney warned the airline that its antenna "presents an unacceptable potential risk" to Logan's safety and security systems, including its keycard access system and state police communications
Stop and think about this statement for a moment. The lives of you and your family depend on a communication system that is suspectable to interference from a wifi card. A device designed specifically to snuggle in the EM noise created by a common kitchen appliance. If their radio system is this poorly (dare I suggest negligently) implemented, I shudder to consider the rest of their security.
Does Masspass's radio vendor know how they are being berated? Can you reheat lunch in the Continental President's Club's microwave oven?
....and looking out of the window. No evidence of planes falling out of the sky or law enforcement officials walking into each other...hang on, let me start a big scp job.... ...there we go, a baggage handler just tripped up. Proves it, free WiFi must be banned.
This article - http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5817482.html has better links, including one to the FCC page where it is explicitly spelled out why Continental is in the right.
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
What Logan really needs is some electrical outlets out laptops. WI-FI doesn't do us any good without a good source of power.
because a different agency, the FAA, says you cant when onboard a part 121 flight.
United has gained approval to provide wifi on its 757s, and lufthansa has been doing it for a while afaik, so i guess "cant" really isnt the appropriate word.
What do they mean make the preferred members pay. They paid for the perferred membership anyway, just consider 2 cents of that twords "paying" for internet.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
If all it takes is a wifi connection to screw up their keycard systems and state police communication networks, I would say they have MUCH bigger problems than what they are letting on to.
I saw a similar thing in the Geneva airport- next to some pay-to-connect WiFi networks, an open wireless network named "hidden." I don't know the story, but the idea that Mssrs. Payperconnect asked the owner of the open one to make his hidden, and so he named it "hidden"- that cracked me up...
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
After September 11th, all of the legacy hub airlines have faced enormous challenges. Unlike all of their competitors Continental still treats their customers right by, at no extra cost, having food on long flights, clean airplanes, pillows, curbside check-in and great crews. Plus unlimited upgrades for elite frequent fliers. ;-)
The other airlines that operate major lounge networks in the US all charge for wi-fi, Continental provides it for free and the MassHoles at BOS are suing them for it. Whenever given the chance, I prefer Continental befause they treat me right.
N.B. for those of you who complain that only frequent fliers like me can use the free wi-fi. Um, open up your laptop near a PClub and connect to the network.
"...What is good for General Motors is good for America." -Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense and fmr President of GM
I wish the summary had included this quote as well:
I find this type of behavior disgusting, too. It's yet another case of one business trying to interfere with another business's services any way they can to make a few more pennies, and the real loser in the battle ends up being the consumer.
If the FCC is stupid enough to side with Logan on this, Continental Airlines should hang big signs all over its lounges and gates saying something to the effect of, "Logan International Airport is keeping us from offering wireless Internet service for free because they would rather make you pay them $7.95 a day. Please write to Craig P. Coy, CEO at One Harborside Drive, Suite 200 S, East Boston, MA 02128-2909, and let them know how you feel about that."
But then, I can be rather mean like that when people are being stupid.
"National security, and "Critical infrastructure" trumps all, no matter what. The FCC better make sure the door is tight. "
If I was the FCC adjudicator, I'd ask Massport why they're using a wide-open 802.11 network in the first place, if they're _so_ concerned about security. If 802.11 is being used for security, why didn't they apply for a license that would put them out of the anarchic spectrum that they're currently in?
Like someone said up there: Do not use Part 15 devices for critical systems! Mein gott, if life and limb depends on this, then someone needs to be fired.
Wasn't there a story not that long ago about South Station's problem with wireless security? The real problem is that Massport is damn incompetent. It won't take much by the airline to show that they're FOS up to their eyeballs.
--
BMO
The proverbial battle cry of the obselete "That man over there is selling the same product cheaper!"
Welcome to capatilism. Suck it up.
This has been discussed in Slashdot before.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
If Massport is so worried about security, they would remove the open Cat-5 jacks "hidden" in terminal C. I've seen people wait in line to plug into their free service. DHCP with access to the outside world. I'd imagine a quick 1-100 port scan of the 20+ machines visable on the network would reveal some services. One would hope these aren't true "mission critical" airport machines.
Last time I was at Logan I tried to use their system. It was horribly expensive, but I needed to e-mail ... so I went ahead. It worked up to the point of charging my credit card and then died on me.
I saw many other people hving the same experience.
I somehow doubt that there really is an internett connection to it, its just a CC charging service.
I was at Logan last Fall and tried to get a wifi signal. They wanted something like $19.95 (I think) to connect for a few hours. At those prices I doubt that mAssport would be losing very much business...
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
if they're offereing it to their frequernt flier club, then it's already being paid for. like when a rental car comes with "unlimited" milage. you already paid for the mileage up front. hell, my degree is econ, and finally i'm teaching it this year. it's a cost, that's all. if i'm not a freq. flier, then i don't get it. what's the confusion? it's a perk, like "free coffee". it's just part of operating costs. if "free wifi" entices me to fly continental, i've already paid for it. duh.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
"For fuck sakes, it's not that hard, I'm French and I know this"
;)
s/b
"For fuck's sake, it's not that hard, I'm French and I know this"
For chrissakes, wouldja gimme a friggin' break, we're only American after all?
is all they should have for weapons against this free provider. They are using a free, UNREGULATED channel. The FCC is the only one that can say who can or can't do something, and the airline simply does not have a say as to who broadcasts on those frequencies within the rules the FCC has set forth. If you can't turn a buck because someone else is undercutting you, TOO BAD. This is no different in any other business. That's like the corner gas station trying to sue the new Quick Trip that just moved in because they're charging less for their gas.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
They seem to be thinking that the access points do all the transmitting. Since laptops also transmit, by their logic they would have to ban those, too, and nobody would get to use WiFi in the airport. That can't be what they want.
IANAL, so check with one if you need to know exactly how the law applies.
The FCC has rules that trump contracts. Your Home Owners Association cannot prevent you from putting up a direct TV type dish. They can put in a contract that you sign that you cannot have a dish, but if you install it there is nothing they can legally do because that part of the contract is illegal.
I suspect the FCC will say the same here: You can put anything into the contract you want, it will have no legal force though. Airline can do whatever they want so long as they stay within part15. Make sure you stay within part 15.
One other point: if this service causes problems, it is a safety risk even if the airline was forced to shutdown their WiFi. Most laptops look for access points, and many will even try to form ad-hock networks. This will cause the same thing, and no amount of FCC effort will shut this class up.
because a different agency, the FAA, says you cant when onboard a part 121 flight.
I thought it was both:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes. html
People who use pseudo code to make jokes need to pull their dad's COCK out of their ASS and getr a life.
Most security badges have to be "renewed" every few years, if only to account for them. What's your beef? It's really no big deal, unless you have WAY too much time to bitch about things that don't matter.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I thought the same thing after reading this too. Perhaps I wasn't as irritated as you, but I totally agree. If Continental Airlines is going to have the screws put to it, for providing a service to it's customers, based on a seemingly silly notion that a wifi transmitter will cause problems with their security, then the same should be done to any carrier using Windows to operate their computers, from terminal all the way down to check in. I recently came back from Las Vegas at the begining of July. It was pretty late at night and some terminals were obviously empty, but upon walking around I noticed some of the terminals were running some version of windows (my guess was 98 or 2000), and had dialog boxes with errors popped up for anyone to see or just plain windows desktops, with no one around or seeming to care that this system was apparently wide open, and open for anyone to see on the monitors. To me, this kind of open access should worry them more than people getting free wifi. I think what should really disgust you, is that the same sort of people searching your bags and scanning you before you get to the terminal, are probably the ones designing and securing the network. :/
Isn't massport a public corp? like TVA? If that's the case, then they're even bigger jerks than everyone figures. The argument gets stickier when government is given the opportunity to uphold its own ability to suck money from 'da rubes.
Just the kind of masshole thing to expect from the commonwealth of massachusetts.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
is one reason NH folks refer to some of these people as Massholes.
--Rob
Do the following to get free Internet access at Logan Internatinal. Use your browser and type in 192.168.1.1:1111 you will be prompted to click enter if you are a new user - select yes. You will be given a message that you are already logged on. From here you have full access to the Internet.
"a cost, that's all. if i'm not a freq. flier, then i don't get it. "
Without special and expensive measures, WiFi signals won't stop abruptly outside Continental's lounge. So you should be able to use it unless there are thugs to keep you away OR they set up a system so that only their frequent flier club people can sign on and get access (which will probably cost Continental much more than just providing free service on a "what you see is what you get" basis).
WiFi should never be regarded as secure and guaranteed.
Massport are doing something terribly wrong if legitimate WiFi actually interferes with their important systems.
The last time I was in Logan's terminal A, my laptop not only informed me of the Massport network, but also one run by the Burger King outlet in that terminal.
Nothing I could connect to, so maybe it's just for BK internal use. In which case, it would seem that Massport's complaint about other's WiFi messing with their systems is indeed a convenient excuse, and what they really want is a monopoly on internet access at Logan.
This is Massachusetts, so cough up your cash to pay for what's supposed to be municipal wireless, then enoy a friendly tunnell toll or a horrendous cab surcharge to get to the city, and do your best to support the Big Dig.
It seems you view flying just as a matter of O&D origin and destination. If that's all your flying need, than you are not the targeted demograph of Airport Wi-Fi or Private Airline lounges.
The U.S. legacy carriers had developed the spoke and hub route system into an art. However to reduce air traffic congestion and improve on-time perforamance, most airlines are "de-peaking," spread out the arrival and departure of flights. That's in comparsion to the old system of clusters flights together into few "flight banks" a day. Results is we usually have to wait longer for our connection flights at hubs. And even before this new development, there are always routes where one have to deal with long connection time due to flight schedule.
Also, it's often nice to have a few hours of layover to break-up long flights. I am United Airline MileagePlus 1K flyer, that means I flew over 100,000 miles last year. For example, when I travel San Francisco to Singapore, I actually like the fact I have to change plane at Tokyo Narita. I can take the 16 hours LAX-SIN flight with Singapore Airline, but that's just sitting too long for me. I like the fact I can fly 10 hours SFO-NRT, walk a little bit to stretch my legs, go to UA Red Carpet Club, take a shower, and yes, use the wireless internet access in RCC. That continue on 7 hours NRT-SIN.
I know I am not alone in this. There are also people who like to tough it out in a single flight (such as 19 hour JFK-BKK flight on Thai Air). But there are enough connecting travelers to make it profitable for airlines and airports to cater to our needs.
Subject says it all.
Americans and their lawyers.
Wanted : A Signature.
Now I fully agree that the airport is in the wrong here... but are they really?
The airport, it's grounds, and the space occupied by the airline are owned by someone. Does the owner of a property have the right to control what services are offered by it's tenants.
I know, for example, that some property holders can require that their tenants charge at least a certain amount for some products, or only offer certain products, or require that the tenants participate in certain programs as part of the lease agreement.
Perhaps there is a clause in the airline's lease that gives the airport the right to restrict the actions of the airline. But I doubt it, I'd guess that the airport is just greedy!
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
The following is just a guess, I've never been to Logan Airport and have no idea of its layout. It seems Continental wants to provide a complementary service to its frequent flyers, (or so says the article) the people who give them a lot of money. If the frequent flyer club is its own room Continental could install a faraday cage around and make it a private network, or the airport can do it if they want to sell a connection to everyone else. Ok, so it's a little overkill.
If Continental has its own area of the terminal then signal strength could be adjusted to prevent overlap or a WEP key could be posted in a n area accessible only to those Continental wants to give the free connection to.
But of course it's all about the MONEY. Free wireless connections are becoming more common, almost to the point of being considered a free resource and Logan is trying to exploit it like any other natural resource, they (may)see those who use their airport as a mindless herd of cash cows. They know many air travelers are probably used to having a connection that they'll be willing to pay for it, esp those traveling on company money and include it in expenses and be compensated for it.
People can say it's an outrage and we should boycot Logan's wireless connection, but there will always be those who will continue to pay.
$7.95 per person per day msy be a threat to their financial "security" but not a threat to airport sceurity, unless they have critical systems on the same network, in which case they need to be audited by the Dept of Homeland Security and someone(s) gets a free one way ticket to Gitmo or that secret government prison under the off shore oil platform in Faceoff, the one without the Krusty Burger, and "Wi-Fi not included"
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
A landlord cannot forbid the use of RF devices that comply with FCC regulations. The FCC has said this numerous times.
That said, my lease forbids sat dishes. It's not the fact that it's a sat dish that's a nono, but screwing it to the side of the house is.
--
BMO
Since I work with some of the people that assist in designing and securing a major airport network, I can say that the majority of the network is fine. We provide inputs for various companies to make the connections they need, and they can do bad things with their parts, but there's usually not much that gets into the internals of the network.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
+1 on that. I would imagine most of the boxes out at the agent stations can telnet into their respective GDS hosts, communicate with the local ATB devices, and not do much else. Check-in kiosks and such are usually locked down pretty tightly too.
I don't suppose you're with SITA?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
What's wrong with this picture (note that I'm assuming we're talking about 802.11 or similar):
1. Couldn't Continental run its WiFi APs on a different frequency/channel? There are several non-overlapping ones to choose from...
2. What gives Massport more of a right than Continental to use WiFi frequencies in an airport? Aren't those frequencies designated by the FCC to be for public, unregulated use (aside from a limit on transmitter power)?
The only entity I can think of that could have reasonable grounds to prevent someone from setting up WiFi in an airport is the owner of the airport property...
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Good to know. I didn't mean to sling mud, only to say that if the airports are concerned with a WAP fudging up security, I was assuming that other areas may not be that secure either. Obviously whoever has a problem with this didn't run it by someone who knows what they are doing, or get their facts straight, which makes me think this is just more of a "cash grab" instead of a legitimate beef.
EOM.
Sohuldn't access in a federal airport be free? Tax dollars funded their construction. Tax dollars help to pay for security and infrastructure. Tax dollars have helped to bail out airlines on more than 2 occasions. Add to that taxes, fees, etc.. and it is just like rubbing salt into the wound that is modern air travel. Considering the poor service, delays, bad food, cramped conditions and anything else one could complain about, the one thing that travelers shouldn't have to pay for in an airport, is internet access. (Tinfoil hat crowd read that :"pay to be spied on and monitored")
The internet started out as a federally funded project, even if you beleive the legend that it was created back in the 70's by educated people, and not Al Gore. Paying for it in a federally subsidized institution (at least as an american) is sick, unless the ISP put in their own infrastructure, but apparently that's not the case. Especially since, charging someone somewhere for access seems to be the point of this whole problem. I mean, the best solution would be for the Airport authority to charge continental directly, and continental in turn could give their users a key of sorts to access the existing network.
That's Taxachusetts for you.
Okay, put an RJ-45 jack and a 110-volt outlet at every table, and at each barstool. Wireless? What wireless?
I know it's not fashionable on slashdot to come out for an airline, but in this case, I'm kind of glad that I fly Continental all the time-- they appear to take care of me. First they offer to refund my ticket because *I* was late getting to a flight, and now free wireless.
I like.
This is charity.
Shouldn't the turnpike be free?
The government built it.
I pay for the government.
So, by extension, I paid for the turnpike. So why do I have to pay fees?
Oh yeah. Upkeep. Same in this situation. It makes sense if you look at it in a different way. I'm not talking about just the wireless infrastructure, either. I know it doesn't cost the Turnpike Comission over a quarter billion a year (YES! The Pennsylvania Turnpike makes THAT MUCH.) to take care of the road. But that also pays for the call boxes every mile, towing service, and another million stupid government projects. Logan probably only makes enough money from Wi-Fi to hire a few janitors.
All the Massport Asswipes want is $.
... MassPortAssWipes get $.
... MassPortAssWipes get $.
... MassPortAssWipes get $.
... MassPortAssWipes get ... a damn good pension!
Delay connections
Increase congestion
Increase FCC regulations
Conceal the little room where Pres. George W. Bush
can have a few moments of unintrupeted sex with
his payed Male Prostitute
Its good to be the emperior.
Toodles!
companys seem to think just because they make people pay for something, someone else isn't allowed to offer the same thing for free - oh the HORROR!! i really hope the airline sticks to it guns on this, and looks after thier customers.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
IANAL, but I frequent their company... This is just posturing on the airport authority's part. It's a starting position in an argument to get both the press and the public in a twitter to prevent Continental from giving away the milk for free. They know there's no risk to security as well as anyone reading slashdot. Poor decision on the Airport's move to open with such an easily disproven argument. Bad form. NO DANGER HERE, WILL ROBINSON, JUST ATTORNEY BS.
What happens is the basic network is set up. High-speed interconnects are run between high-end routers and switches... We all know the drill. VLANs are then carved out for the various users, be they airport staff, airlines, law enforcement, or whatever, and then rigid ACLs are put in place to help prevent damage to one network from taking down others, because that can cause severe havoc and it's not inconceivable that lives could end up on the line. At the very least, it's a royal PITA when something goes bad. In many cases, it's nearly impossible for VLANs to access each other from within, though we can access them from limited addresses outside the VLANs (but within the network) for diagnostic purposes. It takes a serious need to get those ACLs modified.
There are also at least two firewalls that I know of (one guarding the network and then at least one inside), though I am not entirely sure of the internal configuration, as I'm only peripherally involved in it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
No, I'm not. I'm part of a local government in the US that assists in the implementation of the network for various parts of said local government, airport included. :)
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
*IANAA
That's actually informative. As long as you've got a way to point it in the right direction, it really doesn't matter what it's mounted on. It would certainly keep it from being stolen. Before you go to work, wheel it in, and when you come back, wheel it out, possibly on some pins set in the ground or registration marks done with magic marker on the porch.
There are fiberglass boulders that are used to disguise ground or balcony/porch mounted dishes.
It's not like I'm going to do that any time soon, though. I don't even pay for basic cable - no justification for the expense.
--
BMO
"For fuck's sake, it's not that hard, I'm French and I know this"
;~)
Close, but:
"For fuck's sake, it's not that hard; I'm French and I know this."
This is fun!
If a WiFi antenna actually poses a risk to the airport's security systems, then the airport had better fix its security systems before it pays out a billion dollars in a negligence judgment. Thousands of travellers go through that airport every day with WiFi transmitters in their laptop computers, PDAs, etc.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I am a native English speaker, having grown up in the US. I learned GErman (Deutsch) in Junior High and High School, and also lived in Germany for a year.
I have absolutely no clue what the rules of English grammar are, while I am intimately familiar with the rules of German grammar, for the very simple reason that I've learned english by listening to other English speakers (whose grammar is equally bad), while I've learned German by studying the rules of German grammar.
Actually, this is a bit of a simplification - I *DO* know many rules of English grammar, but only because I took German - I was never taught grammar in any of my English (or reading, etc) classes, but I learned a lot of grammar in German, and many of the grammar rules there apply to english.
paintball
Why is it that in the US, which supposedly champions Free Markets, everyone seems to want a monopoly and does not want to have any competition?
I went down to the Free Market the other day but no one would let me have anything unless I PAID them for it. What kind of free market is that? I mean!
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
BTW, this is why we need the FCC. Those of you who think that the FCC should be abolished must have very good lawyers, because in the absence of government management of "property," you end up with squatters, lawyers and vigilanty groups.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
I don't like paying for access (I don't like paying for anything, I guess), but I have to admit that the Logan access is the first airport pay access I've run into that worked easily from Linux. They give you a password good for the day, but there's no client software so it appears to be MAC based. Simple. Dreadfully easy to hack I guess but they haven't left Mac and Linux users in the cold.
Awful security design and someone tell me how United can justify 4 CS reps for THE ENTIRE FUCKING TERMINAL?!?!?
$25 million worth of unused self-check terminals, but no way to check bags or change flights on them. 4 people doing it for ALL COACH FLIGHTS out of O'Hare on 7/21/05. Of course 1st Class had no queue and 5 employees with the fingers in the butts.
And the airlines wonder why people want to lynch them and they're losing money.
Well, public internet access isn't vital to the operation of the airport, such as asphault, repair crews and lights are to the turnpike. This isn't a critical piece of infrastructure here, or at least not in the way it's being used/discussed. It should be free to the public in areas like this, simply for because of how it's used, and the overall benefit it has for the citizenry at large. I appreciate what you're saying, but I think there's probably more money to be had than just hiring a few janitors. Last time I looked at pay internet service it was somewhere in the range of like 20$ for 15 minutes. Multiply that by the number of people who come through an airport with computers every 24 hours, and how little bandwidth they probably use (email, web browsing, weather) and it would seem to me there's quite a few pennies to be had. Where they go, I haven't a clue, but I would guess it's going into someone's pockets, since the idea of free internet access in this place is what's ruffling feathers.
I think they should extend the 802.11 spectrum slightly and add a few licensed channels specifically for this sort of thing. Then a company could buy the license for the area it operated on and forbid equipment on premises that operates in the unlicensed space (and/or jam those channels.)
As of now, I can legally walk into a company or sit on the road outside their office with something that jams 802.11 and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. I can disrupt what is becoming a critical infrastructure just for fun. 802.11 is great stuff and there should be an unlicensed 802.11 band but since it is also useful for infrastructure type environments it's appropriate to have a licensed band as well.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
This is pretty much what I would expect from Massport management. They are the most corrupt and consumer-unfriendly managers of any airport anywhere in the world. Rather than be supportive of their airlines, which they are losing at a good clip, they decide instead to ask for a little 'protection money' by getting the free services to use their pay service. Remember -- this is the same group that gave over $800K worth of bonuses to already highly paid managers, rather than use it to improve the toll gates that they use at their parking garages, or the Tobin Bridge (don't even ask how they got control of the most important bridge in Boston). And then they use the 'safety' story to justify it. As if Logan even cares about safety, given that half the planes on 9/11 took off from there. They're going to use their incompetence to get more money out of paying passengers -- what a joke!
I've tried using Logan's wifi and couldn't find a spot where it was fast enough to even load the page from which you pay for it.
Yeah, you're right, someone's making money off of the wireless access, too. But then again, someone's making money off of the turnpike, too - it doesn't cost $250,000,000 to maintain the road yearly.
Whether or not it's going back to the airport or into some commercial entity's pockets I dunno.
The CEO of MASSPORT, Craig P. Coy, has an 'interesting' history - refer to http://www.paulrich.net/students/readings/whi.html
for fun reading, Chapter 10 for specifics on Coy.
He'll get what he wants, and very little else matters in the way of 'right' and 'wrong' in this situation.