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."

Comments

-1, Improper use of the contraction "it's"

[The Hobo]

doesn't want Continental to provide free wireless service to the members of it's frequent flier club. Massport claims Continental's free service interferes with it's pay service.

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

I'm with heinlein on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why Logan anyway

[robogun]

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.

FCC

[bmo]

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

Part 15

[tiny69]

Someone needs to go read Part 15 of the FCC regulations.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r15_04.html

This part sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator may be operated without an individual license.

Specifically:

Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.

(a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to Sec. 90.63(g) of this chapter.
(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

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.

Re:In this case? Probably

[(negative video)]

Well, that's the FCC's domain, when one system interferes with another, the FCC gets to decide who gets to do what.

And the FCC already has: electronics must accept interference from all nonmalicious lawful transmitters, including that which may cause misoperation. If a transmitter interferes with your gadget, you have three choices: shield your gadget, convince the transmitter's operator to help out, or live with it. The FCC truly does not care.

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).

That's in the FAA's bailiwick, not the FCC's.

Re:In this case? Probably

[Reaperducer]

(nevermind that they don't work anyhow, you're too high).

I thought they worked for the passengers on September 11th?

The FCC already ruled on this

[Anon E. Muss]

The FCC ruled on this in June 2004. Here's the link to the FCC's Public Notice. Tennents in "hotels, conference and convention centers, airports, and colleges and universities" have the right to run their own WiFi equipment, and the landlord has no say in the matter.

This has been discussed in Slashdot before.

Re:The FCC already ruled on this

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Not only that, but Massport was one of the parties! Computerworld had background on the FCC ruling about airport WiFi

Not just Continental

[dlleigh]

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.

Re:I'm clearly missing something that Massport kno

[Martin Blank]

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.