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."
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.
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
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.
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>
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