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

a better idea

[WAG24601G]

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

Avenues for appeal

[Kevbo]

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".

I'm clearly missing something that Massport knows

[Martin Blank]

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.

Its up to the FCC?

[hoka]

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.

In the other news

[roman_mir]

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.

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.

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:I'm clearly missing something that Massport kno

[SpecBear]

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.

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.

Please learn from Portland Oregon Airport

[linuxguy]

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>

Huh?

[Comatose51]

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.

Re:In this case? Probably

[Dunbal]

Everyone knows that free wireless is dangerous and is linked to terrorism, whereas pay wireless promotes healthy living and airport security.

Re:I'm clearly missing something that Massport kno

[KingSkippus]

I wish the summary had included this quote as well:

Craig Mathias, founder of the Farpoint Group, a wireless consulting firm in Ashland, Mass., said Wi-Fi signals can interfere with each other, but not with other wireless devices.

"It's hard to imagine how this is a security threat," Mathias said. "They clearly don't want the competition."

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.

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