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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Oh damn, so any time a story is posted on Fark it should be held off of slashdot? Like when September 11th happened slashdot should have been all like, "whoa, Fark beat us to it, I guess our users won't get a chance to discuss this major event." If it is an interesting story, Slashdot should be able to post it without assuming everyone here reads fark simultaneously.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Of course not, I would never violate the lease by bolting a satellite dish to the roof and hiding it with a fiberglass boulder. This meteorite just came crashing down the other day and I forgot to mention it."