FCC Nixes Airport's Ban On Private Net Access

FCC did what? by Amouth · 2006-11-02 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't believe it.. the FCC did the right thing for once.. I... I am out of words.. lets hope this moment of competency continues.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'

Re:FCC did what? by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-11-02 06:07 · Score: 1

We haven't had the elections yet and already the veil of darkness is leaving the American government. Woo hoo!
Re:FCC did what? by Pinkfud · 2006-11-02 06:22 · Score: 1

Bravo! This is a good ruling. I doubt it's an omen of things to come, but at least they did well for once.

--
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
Re:FCC did what? by davidsyes · 2006-11-02 07:52 · Score: 1

Well, if they get on a roll, the FCC will stand for "Frakin' Cool Choices"

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Re:FCC did what? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:17 · Score: 1

Now if we can just get the federal government to overrule Detroit Metro airport, whose built-in, government-owned-and-run parking lot is, in spite of being right on site, so grotesquely overpriced and incompetent, that many private parking lots for miles around, which had to shuttle you in via bus, were so overwhelmingly popular the government one was losing business.

So they slapped a 30% tax on them.

But wait! So grotesquely expensive and incompetent were they, people were going to stay in local hotels and motels, which would then let them park their cars for a week while they went on a plane trip.

Ohh, gotta make that illegal, too!

Isn't the Left, to say nothing of the Right, supposed to hate monopolies? Expecially coercive ones that use not efficiencies of business activities, but rather the power of government to force the competition out of business, literally, not figuratively, under threats of violence?

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:FCC did what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 16:26 · Score: 0

I can't believe it.. the FCC did the right thing for once.. I... I am out of words.. lets hope this moment of competency continues.
FCC does the right thing and MS "embraces" Linux? Both on the same day? Better get good with God -- the end is nigh.

Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by Salvance · 2006-11-02 05:55 · Score: 1

Way to go FCC, actually doing something that benefits the little guy!

From a legal standpoint though, doesn't the airline own the cables in the airport, and hence could restrict access to high speed connections? Or were the airlines using wireless?

--
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs

Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by kfg · 2006-11-02 05:56 · Score: 1

RTFB?

KFG
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by James_Aguilar · 2006-11-02 06:13 · Score: 1

I agree wholeheartedly.
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by Salvance · 2006-11-02 06:56 · Score: 1

Haha ... I realize they were offering WiFi, but it isn't clear how the lounges were connected to the carrier. My guess is that they had a standard land lines.

My question was around the airport's (or even broader, a landlord's) legal ability to control what telecommunications systems a tenant can use. For instance, if you rent a commercial condo, can a landlord say "sorry, you aren't allowed to run broadband connections into your office"? I don't know the answer here. Logically it would seem that a landlord could make similar restrictions if there was ample reason ... anyone know?

--
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by drinkypoo · 2006-11-02 06:59 · Score: 1

Logically it would seem that a landlord could make similar restrictions if there was ample reason ... anyone know?

The only way a landlord could stop you is if your modifications would decrease the value of the property, like maybe if you had to drill holes to install it and it was a historical site. However, installing cabling actually increases the value of the property if done properly.

On the other hand, the only thing the place has to have when you move in is copper for one phone line ending in a terminated jack in one room of the house, and for each separate lease there must be one phone line. The phone lines can terminate in a public area, but if you have multiple bedrooms with separate leases, both lines can't be in one bedroom or something.

this is all IIRC and probably applies specifically to California but I think that most states are similar.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by kfg · 2006-11-02 07:14 · Score: 1

if you rent a commercial condo, can a landlord say "sorry, you aren't allowed to run broadband connections into your office"?

No. He can only restrict installation procedures that damage the property. If you go ahead and damage the property anyway his only recourse is to hold you liable for the cost of fixing the damage - and most likely not until you leave the premises.

It's a nail hole issue; and if he allowed the cable in for any reason he can't restrict what you do with it; just as he can't restrict what pictures you hang on a nail.

KFG
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by dfm3 · 2006-11-02 07:20 · Score: 1

Way to go FCC, actually doing something that benefits the little guy!

From a legal standpoint though, doesn't the airline own the cables in the airport, and hence could restrict access to high speed connections? Or were the airlines using wireless?

Actually, the airlines rent space in an airport just like any retailer who rents space in a shopping center, or an individual who rents an apartment. This goes for offices, ticket counters, and even individual gates. Most larger airports are overseen by an airport authority which acts as a landlord by letting airlines rent/lease space, but the airlines are probably paying an ISP for the internet connection (just like in an apartment, where you pay the cable bill to the local cable company, not your landlord). From my understanding of the article, the airlines have an agreement with their ISP which allows them to offer their internet connection to the public (through wifi), but the airport authority (Massport) is trying to put a stop to it. In this case, the FCC ruled that Massport has no authority to dictate how the airlines use their internet connection.

Many airlines have exclusive clubs or lounges which offer travelers free internet access, among other perks (well, you could argue that it isn't exactly free, because of membership dues...). Other alternatives are private companies which set up wireless routers throughout terminals to provide exorbitantly priced internet access for passengers (T-Mobile is another example mentioned in the article). Similarly, my father works in flight operations for a major airline at an international airport, and their offices have a lounge where pilots can go between flights to get free wifi using the airline's internet connection (and, if you know exactly where to stand upstairs in the terminal, you could probably hop online for free, too). This is the type of thing the airport is trying to shut down, in an attempt to gain a monopoly on expensive internet access for travelers.
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by ewieling · 2006-11-02 07:21 · Score: 1

About 3 years ago I had a client that signed a lease for office space. The lease included a section that specifically prohibited them from installing their own communications lines. I don't know if that could be enforced, but it was in there.

--
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by kfg · 2006-11-02 08:17 · Score: 1

I don't know if that could be enforced, but it was in there.

One of a tenant's rights is that their tenant's rights cannot be abrogated by lease terms. One of the landlord's bag of tricks is to throw all sorts of bullshit into a lease; relying on the fact that the tenant believes they are enforcable.

When an owner leases out a property he transfers all rights of occupancy to the tenant. He, of course, retains all rights of property; and can only enforce such property rights agains the tenant.

i.e., the tenant must putty up the nail holes or reimburse reasonable expenses to the landlord for doing so. Any holes that preexist the tenant's occupancy are free for his use without incuring liability (always inspect a property before taking occupancy and document its condition. Have the landlord sign off on the document).

If wires owned by the landlord occupy the holes their removal incurs a liability for replacing them.

So long as we are not actually discussing crimes (arson is a liability to the owner and a crime) tenant's rights are about issues of living in the space; owners rights are almost entirely limited to issues of money.

KFG
Re:Finally, the FCC did the right thing! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:22 · Score: 1

> RTFB?

Rub the F'in' Boner?

Although I suppose that, technically, it wouldn't be f'in'.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

List of US airports with free wifi by krakelohm · 2006-11-02 05:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is a nice lil list I found a while ago of US airports with free wifi, enjoy.

http://www.wififreespot.com/airport.html

--
You are all a bunch of idots.

Re:List of US airports with free wifi by tcg2k5 · 2006-11-02 06:47 · Score: 1

It would figure that the state that I live in WI is not listed on your list. WHy should it, when it taxes the internet access through your phone and so on. WAIT...., I thought that was against the US Congress law that they recently passed either last year or the year before that Govr. Doyle has chosen to ignore. Hmm.... dont figure.

--
thank you, Brian M. http://www.masonfamilytree.com http://www.thefederation.us http://www.patriciaannmason.com http

Good Start by frosty_tsm · 2006-11-02 05:57 · Score: 1

blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments.

OK, this just needs to be done another few hundred times now...

Re:Good Start by Ana10g · 2006-11-02 06:34 · Score: 1

And to more than just airport officials. Included in this list should be the RIAA, MPAA, large multinational corporations, governments, courts, and just about anyone else attempting to incorrectly influence politics and life in general.

--
just an analog boy living in a digital age.

I'm glad.... I think.... by StewedSquirrel · 2006-11-02 05:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Well, on the surface this sounds like a great thing. After all, competition is good, right?

Sure!

But then again, isn't this just another case of the FCC being in way too deep with its sticky little tenticles all over things it has no place touching? What right would the FCC have in the first place to shut down publically accessable wireless traffic using approved media? If it's not an FAA issue with ATC communications, and they're using publically available hardware on publically available frequencies, what say AT ALL does the FCC have in who operates networks where and who can decide what is done with their own private property.

Yes, the airport is public property, but not really. It is owned, in the same way a Starbucs is property, and if Starbucs told you do get lost, you would damn well have to do it. If they said "you can't bring that in here", you have to comply or you have to leave.

So again, why is the FCC even remotely involved with this? Again, I'm glad they're NO LONGER involved with this, but... seriously, someone needs to go in and give the smackdown and tell them to GET YOUR STINKING FINGERS OUT OF EVERYTHING!!! haha

Right.

Pfft.

Stew

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 06:01 · Score: 0

Umm.. its an issue of who has authority to regulate the airwaves. Boston Logan does not. Only the FCC does.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mspohr · 2006-11-02 06:02 · Score: 3, Informative

The FCC was involved because Massport had complained to the FCC that the WiFi service would interfere with other radios... the FCC rightly said this was shenanigans.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by kfg · 2006-11-02 06:02 · Score: 1

What right would the FCC have in the first place to shut down publically accessable wireless traffic using approved media?

Ummmmmmmmmm, none?

KFG
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by StewedSquirrel · 2006-11-02 06:03 · Score: 1

Fair enough, and they (for once) made the right decision, saying they don't have any business twiddling with who operates on unlicensed frequencies in public places.

Everytime I see "FCC" I have this gut reaction that makes me squirm. They should dole out frequencies to proper carriers and then back off and have little more to do with it in my opinion.

Even having them look at appeals regarding frivolous cases like this seems silly.

Stew

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by gb506 · 2006-11-02 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

The airlines lease physical space, in all probability their leases make no mention of wireless conditionals, the FCC controls the spectrum and is the arbitor when spectrum usage is in question.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 06:28 · Score: 0

Starbucks = private property, owned by either the corporation or individual franchisees
Airport = public property, managed by local port authority on behalf of taxpayers

Any questions?
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Brickwall · 2006-11-02 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative

Did you RTFA? Massport appealed to the FCC to shut down Continental, saying that the competing WiFi could compromise both ATC and other 'public safety' communication systems (note: the FAA has nothing to do with these other systems). It wasn't a case of the FCC sticking their nose in; Massport was trying to use the FCC to achieve their monopoly aim.
And the issue of whether a property owner can dictate that you must use their WiFi system is not the slam-dunk you think it is. If you rent an apartment, your landlord has certain rights on how you can use it (e.g. you can't run a restaurant in it) but can't tell you you have to buy mobile phones from him. To use your Starbucks example, you can't go into Starbucks and order a pizza from Dominos, but Starbucks also cannot tell you you can only read magazines purchased from them.

--
What was once true, is no longer so
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Goody · 2006-11-02 06:35 · Score: 1

There's plenty of times to bitch about the FCC's involvement, but this isn't one of them. The OTARD (over the air reception device) rules were passed years ago, and that was the basis for the airline's claim they could have access points. These rules allow anyone to install an antenna within certain guidelines in order to receive commercial non-broadcast data communications and they supersede HOAs, CC&Rs, nasty leases, etc. It had *zero* to do with the FCC's "sticky fingers", media, private property, censorship, terrorists, liberity, freedom....etc...

--
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by spun · 2006-11-02 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

A landlord could include almost any provision they want in the lease, as long as it wasn't, for instance, something illegal like selling yourself into slavery. But from my limited understanding of the law, it seems that if the landlord put "No Free Wireless" in the lease, then "No Free Wireless" it would be. But it sounds like they didn't do that, tried some legal shenanigans, and got shot down. They could attempt to negotiate it into any new lease, but then they are just bargaining, and not from a very strong position. Thus the attempt to get the government on their side.

As far as I know, Starbucks, like every other business, retains the right to refuse business for any reason, including bringing unapproved magazines onto their premesis. What they can't do is (for instance) require you to sell your firstborn child into slavery or make you vote for a certain party. There are certain rights you can't actually sign away, but I don't think the right to free wireless or outside magazines is included.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by drinkypoo · 2006-11-02 07:05 · Score: 1

A landlord could include almost any provision they want in the lease, as long as it wasn't, for instance, something illegal like selling yourself into slavery.

They cannot prevent you from running a business from your home (even an apartment) so long as you do not violate zoning or other laws, they cannot prevent you from having any guests you like unless there are legal grounds for a restraining order... I doubt they could prevent you from selling wifi to their other tenants. You're not using their resources (you're leasing the copper coming into your apartment which they are required to provide by law, so it's effectively yours) and you're not interfering with a licensed device, so I don't see just how they could stop you.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by spun · 2006-11-02 07:35 · Score: 1

Well, I'm no lawyer, and neither are you, so this is all speculation. It sounds as if you believe that there is a much larger list of things that landlords can't legally put into a lease than I do. Perhaps you are right, but I personally have signed leases that have stated that I could not run a home business even though the neighborhood was zoned for it. But maybe that wasn't a legal restriction and I could have run a business, maybe it varies from state to state what can and can't be in a lease, I really don't know.

I know of neighborhood associations that prevent homeowners from running businesses out of their home, so I am assuming that a landlord could fairly easily prevent a tennant from doing so through the conditions of a lease. They couldn't stop you if it wasn't part of a contract you signed, but if the contract you signed said, "no home businesses," then you couldn't run a home business.

Commercial real estate leases are quite often month to month, and the landlord can kick you out or raise your rent with only a month's notice. I know several people who started their own businesses, got successful, and had the landlord raise the rent. If a landlord didn't want you running wifi from your commercially leased space, he could simply kick you out when the lease was up. I imagine that airlines leasing space from an airport is different, though, as no business would invest that much money into a leased space if the owners could that easily kick them out. The leases are more than likely very long term, and thus the owners had to cry to the government for protection rather than just make unilateral demands.

It would certainly be nice if things were as fair as you imagine them to be, though. :(

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by crawling_chaos · 2006-11-02 07:49 · Score: 1

Commercial real estate leases are quite often month to month, and the landlord can kick you out or raise your rent with only a month's notice.
Shenanigans. Most office leases are in the seven to ten year timeframe. Retail is a whole 'nother ballgame, but office leases are rarely month-to-month. You want cost certainty and the landlord wants time to depreciate the buildout allowance he gave you. If you want a short-term office lease, you often have to look to the sublease market, as primary landlords aren't at all interested in month to month tennants.

--
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:38 · Score: 0

Every Right In The World... airports are not in the same "public area" status as many other public places. In the interests of public safety, the FCC has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of air and ground based communications and so anything having to do with RF in the entire facility falls under their supervision. If the FCC decides that any radio frequency device in an airport is causing or has the potential to cause harm to reserved frequencies, they can and will shut it down. The courts (and common sense) are with them on that one! Your contention holds no water...
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 08:56 · Score: 1

Yes, they can. So long as the apartment is private property and none of the lease provisions are illegal, they can place any restrictions they'd like onto them. Take university dorms, for example. They often have limitations on the number of guests, the length of stay, the use of wireless routers. An apartment complex may stipulate any terms into its contract--including whether or not you can run ANY kind of business and what limitations, if any, they place on your entertaining guests.

This applies to homeowner's associations, dormitories, and apartment complexes. For example, they're not required to let the cable guy come in and drill holes in your wall. They can ban satellite dishes, dirty balconies, running businesses of any sort, parking your car on the grass, above ground pools, detached storage sheds, putting your car up on blocks. Note that none of these covenant conditions covers anything that is patently illegal--only special conditions placed on your residence at that location. By signing the covenant or the lease agreement, you are contractually obligated to comply with the terms. You've not broken any laws by ignoring the lease, but you are liable civilly and can be enjoined from the behavior and punished financially.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by spun · 2006-11-02 09:24 · Score: 1

I meant retail, not commercial. You're supposed to know what I meant, not what I said... ;-) My friend who had his rent raised because his business was doing well ran a bookstore in Hayes Valley in San Francisco during the dot-com boom. Stupid landlord, the place sat empty for four months, then had a tennant who went bankrupt in six, then the dot-com boom was over and no one would pay the outrageous price he wanted.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by DarkFencer · 2006-11-02 09:33 · Score: 1

Speaking as a university employee...

We cannot tell you not to use a wireless router - we just can tell you you cannot plug it into our network.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

Right. That was the implication--providing comprehensive examples would be far too wordy for anyone on Slashdot to read.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by R2.0 · 2006-11-02 09:45 · Score: 1

"satellite dishes"

Actualy, they can't ban them. There was a ruling by the FCC that basically said that agreements banning satellite dishes are null and void, except to the extent that one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas". Sincce most of the time the roof is a common area, one hasn't seen the muchroom sprouting like wildfire, but planting a pipe in a bucket of concrete and putting it on your balcony is aceptable.

If you want the cite, ask Google - my wife, the communications law expert, isn't here now.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by drinkypoo · 2006-11-02 09:45 · Score: 1

But if you're not buying internet access from the apartment complex, then that example is utterly irrelevant. They are required by law to provide you with a working phone line and jack, and what you do with it is up to you.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by tsunamiiii · 2006-11-02 09:49 · Score: 1

"But from my limited understanding of the law, it seems that if the landlord put "No Free Wireless" in the lease, then "No Free Wireless" it would be.." Yes you do have a limited understanding. Landlords have all sorts of rules and regs so this is a poor example. For example; A condo can not prohibit you from having a Satellite dish. The FCC prohibits interference with signals and stopping someone with legal jargon, even in a lease, is just that prohibiting signals. It falls outside of the scope of authority for landlords and associations alike. Just wait until you see that as a landlord you cant hold the security deposit for rent, then you will be in a real tizzy (in MA anyway). Keep in mind this is MA we are talking about. On top of that you are talking about Massport. For anyone in the NE area that's all you need to hear for you to know a scam is afoot.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 09:59 · Score: 1

It is pertinent to universities, apartment complexes supplying free wired broadband, and to leased spaces where tenants hope to install a non-DSL form of broadband (which may not be permitted if it involves modification of the structure).
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 10:08 · Score: 1

The FCC doesn't get to decide what private property owners are allowed to do with that physical property. They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building or detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community. For example, antennae above certain sizes may be prohibited, as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home. Covenants are a bitch, but that's life--it's amazing the sorts of things that are sometimes prohibited in certain communities. The FCC can step in when your landlord tells you that you must use Comcast if you want TV, or that you have to use AT&T for phone service, but short of that, it's not within their authority.

If you can install that dish so that it has a clear south line of sight to the satellite and you can do it in a way that doesn't involved modifying the building or violating community standards (if they exist--most apartment complexes don't have aesthetic standards like housing covenants), have at it.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by drinkypoo · 2006-11-02 10:09 · Score: 1

It is pertinent to universities, apartment complexes supplying free wired broadband, and to leased spaces where tenants hope to install a non-DSL form of broadband (which may not be permitted if it involves modification of the structure).

First of all, it has nothing to do with anyone unless you are plugging into their network which is not an explicit feature of the situation we are actually discussing here. Please confine yourself to the conversation at hand - you are offtopic.

Second of all, no one said anything about modification of the structure. That's a red herring.

Third, pretty much every apartment complex has cable; that's non-DSL broadband. If you're going to try to pick nits, then be specific or else you are just talking nonsense.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by R2.0 · 2006-11-02 10:14 · Score: 1

Wrong

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 10:20 · Score: 1

No, it's not off topic. I'm not picking nits, I'm responding to inaccurate nitpicking. I never said that routers were banned in universities. I said there were LIMITATIONS on their use, and that doing so was within the rights of the owner. I then responded to your (speaking of off topic) comment denying pertinence to the parent of my original comment.

Perhaps if you'd been paying closer attention, you would see the thread as it evolved. I choose to give a more comprehensive response to the original "as a university employee" response to prevent any further miscommunication--a response which includes the need for modification of structure.

As one last hurrah against your substance-free tirade, DSL broadband is the only form of broadband that does not normally require any modification, as all apartments have a telephone jack. As such, non-DSL broadband may involve structural modification, which may be expressly forbidden by lease terms. Have a nice day.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 10:24 · Score: 1

Read more carefully:

Modification of structure: "The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area. Such common areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit. Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."

Aesthetic standards: "The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose."
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:33 · Score: 1

Aesthetic standards: "The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose."

Neither preservation nor safety are an aesthetic standard, though in the long run they may be just as arbitrary.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 11:36 · Score: 1

Preservation of historic sites is completely aesthetic. There's no functional reason for it.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by R2.0 · 2006-11-02 12:49 · Score: 1

OK, from the top.

You said:
"This applies to homeowner's associations, dormitories, and apartment complexes. For example, they're not required to let the cable guy come in and drill holes in your wall. They can ban satellite dishes, ...Note that none of these covenant conditions covers anything that is patently illegal--only special conditions placed on your residence at that location. By signing the covenant or the lease agreement, you are contractually obligated to comply with the terms. You've not broken any laws by ignoring the lease, but you are liable civilly and can be enjoined from the behavior and punished financially.

I said:
"There was a ruling by the FCC that basically said that agreements banning satellite dishes are null and void, except to the extent that one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas". Sincce most of the time the roof is a common area, one hasn't seen the muchroom sprouting like wildfire, but planting a pipe in a bucket of concrete and putting it on your balcony is aceptable."

You responded with:
"They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building or detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community. For example, ..., as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home. Covenants are a bitch, but that's life--... The FCC can step in when your landlord tells you that you must use Comcast if you want TV, or that you have to use AT&T for phone service, but short of that, it's not within their authority."

The bit about "modifying the physical structure" is a straw man - I specifically said that "one can be prohibited from placing them on "common areas"". The FCC link I used amplifies this. So no, the FCC "doesn't get to decide what private property owners are allowed to do with that physical property. They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants to modify the structure of the building" - but then, no one was arguing that but you.

For your second point, about how "They cannot tell building owners that they must allow tenants ... detract from the "aesthetic standards" of the community.", , you are hanging your defense on exceptions for "legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties". Let's see what the FCC says later in the document (which you either skipped or are artfully neglecting to mention).

"Q: Are all restrictions prohibited?

A: No. Clearly-defined, legitimate safety restrictions are permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use provided they are necessary to protect public safety and are no more burdensome than necessary to ensure safety. Examples of valid safety restrictions include fire codes preventing people from installing antennas on fire escapes; restrictions requiring that a person not place an antenna within a certain distance from a power line; and installation requirements that describe the proper method to secure an antenna. ...

Restrictions necessary for historic preservation also may be permitted even if they impair installation, maintenance or use of the antenna. To qualify for this exemption, the property may be any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, restrictions necessary for historic preservation must be no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the historic preservation goal. ... "

Not exactly a wide open exception, eh? I don't see a lot of "historic" condos.

So having defeated your assertion about "aesthetic restrictions" in the specific, lets go to the general. In your first response, you state "For example, antennae above certain sizes may be prohibited, as may the installation of "unsightly" dishes on street-facing sides of a home."

But the

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 13:18 · Score: 1

The examples included are not all going to match up one to one. In some communities, banning dishes on the street-side is perfectly valid, if the street does not place houses in obstruction of a line of sight to the satellite dish. Obviously, that ban is not always legally valid, as you've pointed out. I never meant to imply that each example was universally applicable to each permutation of combinations--and as I mentioned, aesthetic standards in apartment complexes are rare. There are a number of historic condos in this country, however, where such restrictions may apply (and may not interfere with the use of dishes.

The overall point, which you've obviously decided to ignore in favor of a narrow reading, is that private property owners may control their property as they see fit and that contracts entered into are valid until they create illegal terms. Moreover, it is important to note that what is considered an illegal condition in some circumstances is not so in others. If you willingly agree to restrict your own rights by signing a covenant, that's the way it goes. Satellite dishes may not be the best example of that case, but it's the one you've gravitated toward.
Re:I'm glad.... I think.... by Alrescha · 2006-11-02 17:04 · Score: 1

"Yes, they can. So long as the apartment is private property and none of the lease provisions are illegal, they can place any restrictions they'd like onto them."

This is simply not true.

"They can ban satellite dishes"

Umn.. no, they can't.

Specifically:

"The rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal.

Effective January 22, 1999, the Commission amended the rule so that it also applies to rental property where the renter has an exclusive use area, such as a balcony or patio.

On October 25, 2000, the Commission further amended the rule so that it applies to customer-end antennas that receive and transmit fixed wireless signals. This amendment became effective on May 25, 2001.

The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes."

ie: a landlord *cannot* simply ban satellite dishes outright. Period.

A.

--
...bringing you cynical quips since 1998

Clearly. by Irvu · 2006-11-02 05:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Clearly the Airport officials were not paying the right people enough lobbying money. I mean the FCC is perfectly willing to accept bogous legal and technical arguments for deregulation of the airwaves. And it has been happy to digest bogous arguments against community wireless. Ditto the bogous arguments for the Broadcast flag. One can only assume that Logan Airport's lobbying budget is too small or has been misspent.

Re:Clearly. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 06:10 · Score: 0

I don't know why I'm even attempting to reason with stupid faux-cynicism, but 1) Massport doesn't have a "lobbying budget" and 2) the airlines are hardly some little guy.
Honestly, what's the point in the FCC trying to do the right thing if some dope who can't spell "bogus" is going to make up conspiracy theories about *that*?
Re:Clearly. by pilgrim23 · 2006-11-02 06:13 · Score: 1

Ever since the airports were forced to take out the pay toilets, they just have not had as much loot in their lobby fund.

--
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Re:Clearly. by Brickwall · 2006-11-02 06:16 · Score: 1

I believe "bogous" is the Canadian spelling. :}

--
What was once true, is no longer so
Re:Clearly. by Irvu · 2006-11-02 06:18 · Score: 1

Why are you attempting to reason with my sarcasm? It was intended as just that, sarcasm. I am well aware that the airlines aren't "little guys" and that the airport's lobbying budget (if it even eists) is bound to be quite small.

Perhaps you should stop obsessing about the spelling and realize that it wasn't a conspiracy theory. It was a pointed joke.
Re:Clearly. by Shotgun · 2006-11-02 06:24 · Score: 1

Ever since the airports were forced to take out the pay toilets, they just have not had as much loot in their lobby fund.

So use some of the cafeteria fund, then. There's bound to be plenty there. Have you seen the prices they charge for that crap-in-a-box they serve there?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Clearly. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 06:26 · Score: 0

Come on....lobbying money is the best you got for a conspiracy?

Here are a couple:

1. FCC appointed by Bush. Kerry ran against Bush. Kerry senator from Mass. Boston in Mass. Bush wants to punish the "idiots" who elected Kerry. Bush tells FCC to punish Logan airport.

2. FCC appointed by Bush. Kennedy dared question Bush's selections for Supreme Court. Kennedy seantor for Mass. Boston in Mass. Bush wants to punish the "idiots" who elected Kennedy. Bush tells FCC to punish Logan airport.

3. Best one yet. Logan airport was where many of the 9/11 terrorists took off. Bush is mad because 9/11 and the years after have made his presidency a mess. Bush appoints FCC. Bush tells FCC to stick it to Logan because he sees the mess of the last 6 years as their fault.

Cheers!
Re:Clearly. by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-11-02 06:29 · Score: 1

Have you seen the prices they charge for that crap-in-a-box they serve there?

I thought he said they took out the pay-toilets...

--
This guy's the limit!
Re:Clearly. by Irvu · 2006-11-02 06:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, back when each flush cost a quarter they were absolutely swimming in it :)
Re:Clearly. by winnabago · 2006-11-02 06:40 · Score: 1

Clearly the Airport officials were not paying the right people enough lobbying money.

I wonder where state money is being funneled instead.

--
Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
Re:Clearly. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · 2006-11-02 07:11 · Score: 1

I mean the FCC is perfectly willing to accept bogous legal and technical arguments for deregulation of the airwaves.

Except when it comes to b008i35!!!

--
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Clearly. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:32 · Score: 0

The FCC only protects the monopolies of those who pay for FCC licenses.
Re:Clearly. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:56 · Score: 0

the airport's lobbying budget (if it even eists) is bound to be quite small.
Like hell it's small. Years ago, residents on the SF Bay peninsula started taking SFO to small claims court for exceeding noise limits. They were successful, at the rate of a few hundred bucks a pop. SFO's lobbying money got directed to Willie Brown, then the speaker of the CA house. To avoid being nailed for one-party-benefit legislation, he came up with a common feature of SFO and a hinky-ass little airport in Siskyou county, up against the Oregon border. He then pushed through a bill to stop small claims actions against airports which had that feature in common.

What will they do? by LaughingCoder · 2006-11-02 06:02 · Score: 1

FTA:

"We are disappointed in the ruling," Massport spokeswoman Danny Levy said, "but [are] reviewing it carefully and weighing our options moving forward." Levy had no further comment.

As someone who has lived in "the cradle of liberty" for quite some time, it wouldn't surprise me if they started jamming.

--
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.

Re:What will they do? by Crasty · 2006-11-02 06:12 · Score: 0

Wherever you have the opportunity to make money, you have the likelihood of those that will do anything to be the people to capitalize on it. I doubt they will start jamming transmission, but that being said, I wouldn't put it past them either.
Re:What will they do? by Lehk228 · 2006-11-02 06:17 · Score: 1

that would be fun to watch, IIRC the fine for willfully jamming is $40,000/day

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:What will they do? by DamnStupidElf · 2006-11-02 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

As someone who has lived in "the cradle of liberty" for quite some time, it wouldn't surprise me if they started jamming.

The airlines can jam just as effectively, but my guess is that the airlines generally have much more pull than any individual airport. As far as I know, the airlines are the customers and rent gates at the airports, so conflict between them will probably just go in favor of the airlines.

Unfortunately, the airlines will probably just start charging for wireless internet like they charge for airplane food. They just want to undercut the airports first.

The FCC has tacit jurisdiction here by postbigbang · 2006-11-02 06:07 · Score: 1

Nine different acts give the FCC full authority to do what they did in the Massport decision. They start with The Communications Act of 1933, and go forward. Can they intrude? Yes. Have nexus of authority? Without question.

The 2.4ghz band, when used for unlicensed communications, is fully and internationally acknowledged as free and open for legal communications. That amounts to about anything within power limitations. The FCC can and has ruled effectively in this circumstance, and the Massport arguments ought to result in a serious rethinking about who has the ability to 'authorize' unlicensed wireless activities.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Re:The FCC has tacit jurisdiction here by walt-sjc · 2006-11-02 06:34 · Score: 1

The 2.4ghz band, when used for unlicensed communications, is fully and internationally acknowledged as free and open for legal communications.

Subject to Part 15:

(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.

The airport was basically saying that the free wifi was interfearing with an "authorized radio station." The FCC said No, and they are the final authority on the subject. That is what this is all about.
Re:The FCC has tacit jurisdiction here by Ken+D · 2006-11-02 09:57 · Score: 1

An unlicensed station is an unlicensed station. The airport's intentional radiator must accept interference from other unlicensed stations. The airport's station is no more, or less authorized than the airlines' stations.
Re:The FCC has tacit jurisdiction here by walt-sjc · 2006-11-03 01:32 · Score: 1

My read on this was that the airport was claiming that the free wifi was interfearing with LICENSED frequencies (non-wifi communications,) yet with no evidence. Of course they ALSO claimed that it was interfearing with their own paid wifi service - a claim without merit.

But whatever. The point is moot.

How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restrooms? by Slugster · 2006-11-02 06:16 · Score: 2, Informative

A few years back there was a newspaper article about (my) local airport: St Louis International--and how the pay phones were vanishing. With the arrival of cheap cellphones, the once-numerous pay phones were going mostly unused. Over a period of two years, they had removed almost 95% of the phones, and had plans to keep removing phones, because the revenues they were seeing were not covering the lease costs.

The airport management said that this wouldn't be a problem except that it was the revenue from the pay phones that used to pay for internal maintenance--that is, the phones paid the janitors. Most (US) airports were managed this way, and they didn't have anything else to shift funding from to allow for this loss. All the other fee structures they charged were to other companies, that were only for use related to what those companies did. The terms of these charges are set in contracts that cannot usually be easily, or immediately, changed.

Charging for 802.x was assumed to be the next internal maintenance income stream--but now, we see that it is not so.

....So then,,, (looking around),,, what else can they charge travelers for?....
~

DUDE! by ajlitt · 2006-11-02 06:22 · Score: 1

Don't jinx it! You know what happened last time...

Re:DUDE! by deKernel · 2006-11-02 07:07 · Score: 0

Yeah, the better people won!

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Snowtide · 2006-11-02 06:26 · Score: 1

Biometric identification and premium traveller status. If you pay the premium and submit enough information you can skip some of the airport security theater, or at least go through a shorter line and keep you shoes on. If you can't find a market to sell to, make one! :)
The companies behind the TSA are making enough money they probably wont mind sharing some. :)

You terrorist! by www.sorehands.com · 2006-11-02 06:27 · Score: 1

How dare you criticize our jamming of Wifi signals. Terrorists may use them to hack into the security systems and share information with Al Queda.

This has nothing to do with our profits.

--
Fight Spammers!

technological arguments by Legatic · 2006-11-02 06:29 · Score: 1

... blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments ...

apparently the FCC found out that so long as you know a good plumber you can have more than one series of tubes in one location

Forgot the magic bullet by yali · 2006-11-02 06:30 · Score: 3, Funny

...blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments.

Haven't these guys learned anything since 9/11? If they'd only raised bogus security arguments, they would've sailed through. Heck, the feds probably would've authorized them to shoot anybody with a BlackBerry.

Re:Forgot the magic bullet by hey · 2006-11-02 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sadly, using bogus security arguments everywhere is the only thing we have "learned" from 9/11.
Re:Forgot the magic bullet by kalidasa · 2006-11-02 10:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

They did use bogus security arguments, and yet, amazingly, the FCC saw through them. I don't know about you folks, but I'm expecting the apocalypse any moment now ...
Re:Forgot the magic bullet by chumpboy · 2006-11-02 12:26 · Score: 1

...Heck, the feds probably would've authorized them to shoot anybody with a BlackBerry.

True -

But is that a bad thing?

--
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Airwaves are overregulated already. by krell · 2006-11-02 06:30 · Score: 1

"I mean the FCC is perfectly willing to accept bogous legal and technical arguments for deregulation of the airwaves"

It's the arguments for regulation of the airwaves that are entirely bogus. By relaxing them, the FCC took one little stemp toward doing the right thing.

--
Where were you when the voynix came?

Re:Airwaves are overregulated already. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:08 · Score: 0

It's the arguments for regulation of the airwaves that are entirely bogus. By relaxing them, the FCC took one little stemp toward doing the right thing.

I suppose you could see it that way, if you're a complete moron. Regulation ensures that your cellphone, bluetooth PDA, wireless laptop and microwave wont be interferring with eachother.
Re:Airwaves are overregulated already. by Irvu · 2006-11-02 10:41 · Score: 1

To my knowledge the FCC has not deregulated what you can do with the airwaves only how much of the airwaves any particular person can "own" by which they reduced the competition for airwaves and futher permitted the already powerful companies to own more. I cannot consider that to be a step in the right direction.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Taimoor · 2006-11-02 06:31 · Score: 1

air? tanstaafl...

Free WiFi?? by Van+Cutter+Romney · 2006-11-02 06:35 · Score: 1

Free WiFi in Logan? WTF??? Why have I been paying $8 every time I through that airport?

--
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.

Re:Free WiFi?? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 08:23 · Score: 0

Free WiFi in Logan? WTF??? Why have I been paying $8 every time I through that airport?

My guess is: because you're a moron? I don't know, you don't seem to bright to me. The fact that you even have to ask this question kinda proves my point.
Re:Free WiFi?? by Van+Cutter+Romney · 2006-11-02 08:31 · Score: 1

Its never advertised. Everywhere you go ... you only see signs for LoganWiFi

--
Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
Re:Free WiFi?? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-03 03:44 · Score: 0

No offense man, but I'm a little chagrinned to hear you gave them money.

There are countless airports out there with terminal-wide free wifi that isn't even ad-supported.

Instead of paying for wifi there, I just take the time to post feedback to get with the times and offer free or ad-supported.

Free net access has saved my ass a number of times while traveling.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by twistedsymphony · 2006-11-02 06:36 · Score: 1

....So then,,, (looking around),,, what else can they charge travelers for?....

I don't know... maybe, traveling? I know a lot of people complain about airline fares but if it seriously costs them that much to run an airport then thats how much they should charge. distribute the costs among the airlines, and other businesses that reside in the airport.

Logan is particularly poorly run, I'm sure they could find lots of ways to reduce their costs without lowering the level of their service. On a whole though I can't stand that airport and I try to avoid flying out of there whenever possible, typically I'll try to fly out of Manchester NH whenever I can.

--
Collector's Edition

List doesn't include... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 06:39 · Score: 0

...all the little podunk airports that also offer free WiFi. These days, many little general aviation airports also offer free WiFi in case the private pilots want to check weather, email, etc on their own laptops. Even two of the little cropduster airports outside my town have free WiFi, and it's set up that way, to be open.... not accidently open too!

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by GoCal92 · 2006-11-02 06:40 · Score: 1

The airport is not being prohibited from offering this service. They're just not allowed to prevent individual airlines from offering competitive services. In general, individual airlines are only going to offer their own internet service from within their own lounges. These lounges are usually reserved for their elite passengers and passengers that have paid for access. They tend to charge for internet access in these lounges. Granted, the passengers most likely to pay for internet access in an airport are going to be the same guys in the lounge, so this group does represent most of the market. However, the airport is still in control of most of the airport in terms of offering wireless internet access, so they do have an opportunity to make money. If they really wanted to stick it to business travelers, the airports would charge for access to power outlets. I often see passengers with their laptops clustered around the few available outlets near the gates.

Encouraging news about our gummint by mollog · 2006-11-02 06:50 · Score: 1

I, too, am surprised these days when I hear about an government agency doing something that in the public's interest. For the last six years I had become accustomed to learning that another administration agency was overturning years of defending the public's interest in things like roadless areas, endangered species, air quality, consumer protection, and so much more. My faith in our governmental/political system is at an all time low, but it's so good to hear news like this.

Kudos to the FCC.

--
Best regards.

Re:Encouraging news about our gummint by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2006-11-02 07:51 · Score: 1

Don't be silly. It's only incidental that it benefits the public. Primarily, it benefits the airlines.

Oh, the irony... by MiniMike · 2006-11-02 06:52 · Score: 0

My favorite thought on this- I'm sure that there is going to be at least one person at Logan Airport who sat down five minutes ago, paid their $8 for wifi access, loaded up Slashdot (why else pay for wifi?), and this is the first story they saw.

Have a nice flight!

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Intron · 2006-11-02 06:52 · Score: 1

But look at what they saved over that period by getting rid of indoor ashtrays, elevator and washroom attendants, and any semblence of customer service.

Anyway, Continental provides Wi-Fi to their Presidents Club lounge, not the cattle-car tourists sitting in the regular terminal. This is not going to affect Logan's bottom line that much.

--
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by morgan_greywolf · 2006-11-02 06:54 · Score: 1

Charging for 802.x was assumed to be the next internal maintenance income stream--but now, we see that it is not so.

Maybe not. But airlines probably won't keep offering free wireless forever, either.

As for your suggestion of charging $5 for the restroom -- pay toilets went out with 80s. Laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and sometimes even local ordinances often prevent a public venue like an airport from charging to use the restroom.

There's no easy solution to the problem. Some airports charge (sometimes exorbitant) rates for parking. Some airports get a cut of all the restaurant and gift shop revenues. Maybe there's some revenue to be had in these areas. Thing is that our local airport, DTW, is owned and operated by Wayne County and is therefore supported -- in part-- by property and other taxes.

--
My blog

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by asv108 · 2006-11-02 07:06 · Score: 1

Hey, don't give them any ideas. Charging for restrooms is pretty common in Europe, especially in Bus stations, even in bars and clubs.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Ana10g · 2006-11-02 07:07 · Score: 1

Coffee? I for one welcome overpriced Starbucks, with an extra "Airport Maintenance Fee"!

--
just an analog boy living in a digital age.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you... by Anonymous+Freak · 2006-11-02 07:12 · Score: 1

... to hear that businesses are espousing "bogus legal and technological arguments" in an effort to stifle competition, and increase profits!

What is the world coming to?!

--
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.

comical situation in Geneva airport by call+-151 · 2006-11-02 07:14 · Score: 1

I don't know the full story but this reminds me of looking for WiFi in the Geneva airport. There were a couple of premium pay-to-connect WiFi networks as well as an open wireless network named "hidden." I assume that just like in Boston, the pay WiFi folks were none too pleased with a free alternative, so they asked the owner of the open one to make it hidden, and thus there is an open wireless broadcasting its ID -- "hidden." Not only did it work fine, it gave me a nice smile!

--
It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.

Re:comical situation in Geneva airport by monkeydo · 2006-11-02 10:12 · Score: 1

And hopefully it wasn't the guy sitting next to you running fakeap on his laptop and stealing all of your passwords!

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:comical situation in Geneva airport by kchrist · 2006-11-02 12:18 · Score: 1

Anyone (especially /. readers) sending their passwords in clear text over an open wireless network deserves what they get.

--
Web consulting +

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by f8l_0e · 2006-11-02 07:14 · Score: 0

They could make the place airtight and remove all the air, then charge to use portable oxygen tanks.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by SydShamino · 2006-11-02 07:21 · Score: 1

Another poster touched on it, but what they need to do is put a few banks of power outlets in the waiting area of every terminal, then charge $0.25 to activate an outlet for two hours.

I do appreciate free power outlets (when I can find them), but guaranteed access to an outlet (i.e. there will be one at all, and there will be enough of them so that the only one isn't next to a seat with a bunch of wild kids) is worth paying for.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.

If they had a brain. by LWATCDR · 2006-11-02 07:23 · Score: 1

They should offer it free themselves. Add a captive web page for login and offer quick links to reserve a car, get a taxi, maybe order food at a restaurant for pick up. Charge for the quick links and make your money that way.

What I don't get is when do people have time to use WiFi at an airport?
Most of the time when I have been in airports I was running from plane to plane, grabbing something to eat, and maybe calling my office quickly.
It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay over on a flight. But then I didn't do a lot of international travel.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:If they had a brain. by PatMouser · 2006-11-02 07:40 · Score: 1

Some of us fly enough that we don't like running from gate to gate so we schedule enough time between flights that we can actually sit down and surf.
Re:If they had a brain. by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2006-11-02 07:50 · Score: 1

What I don't get is when do people have time to use WiFi at an airport?
Most of the time when I have been in airports I was running from plane to plane, grabbing something to eat, and maybe calling my office quickly.
It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay over on a flight.

The official statistics are that airlines have about a 75% on-time arrival record. Even if not all of those flights departed late, my experience has been that 20% of flights don't even start boarding until a half-hour or more after the scheduled time.

It also depends on the airport. Your connecting flight in O'Hare is a lot more likely to be delayed!

Point being, I travel a lot, and I often find myself with an extra hour or two to kill at an airport - sometimes more.
Re:If they had a brain. by ncc74656 · 2006-11-02 07:51 · Score: 1

What I don't get is when do people have time to use WiFi at an airport?

If you're flying Southwest, you want to get there early enough that you're first in line to board the plane. If you do that, you're practically guaranteed an exit-row seat (extra legroom is good). That'll give you maybe an hour to kill, once you're past the security checkpoint and waiting to board.
That said, if I'm just reading mail, it's easier to bring it up on my phone (with its wireless data connection) than to break out the computer and see if Linux's Broadcom WiFi driver will behave itself today.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:If they had a brain. by LWATCDR · 2006-11-02 07:54 · Score: 1

I used to fly a good amount. I guess I would rather have those few extra hours at my destination where I had a rental car or a bed than trapped in an airport. Of course at the time my company was a poor start-up so I was flying in the cheap seats and didn't have access to the clubs.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:If they had a brain. by LWATCDR · 2006-11-02 07:56 · Score: 1

One of the longest layovers I ever had was at O'Hare. It was like 6 hours in the middle of the night! Nothing was open and it was kind of creepy. I really don't miss those days.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:If they had a brain. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:45 · Score: 0

You must not go to Boston much. I'va had 4-hour flight delays there due to light drizzle.

Logan's not as craptastically delayed as O'Hare, but it's remarkably bad.
Re:If they had a brain. by mttlg · 2006-11-03 02:52 · Score: 1

What I don't get is when do people have time to use WiFi at an airport?

When they fly from Logan.
Re:If they had a brain. by treeves · 2006-11-03 05:47 · Score: 1

As people refer to PDX below I will add, when I get home (to PDX) I will stay in the airport for awhile, have something to eat, use the free Wi-Fi.
I like PDX better than any other airport I've been to, and I'm glad it's always my final destination.
PHX (similar abbreviation, hmmm, a coincidence/) also has free Wi-Fi.
I saw a website that summarizes Wi-Fi availability in airports throughout the US. I don't feel like googling it now, that's OK, you can.

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re:If they had a brain. by LWATCDR · 2006-11-03 07:16 · Score: 1

My favorite airport for stuff has got to be Gatwick but didn't go to the UK that much in my job.
PBI is my favorite US Airport because it is so small. I can get in and out with very little trouble. It is also my home airport. I can be home in an hour after I land if I don't have checked luggage.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

It's happening in my apartment building by figgypower · 2006-11-02 07:28 · Score: 1

Someone is selling wifi access for $10/month to anyone that wants it in my apartment building and it's openly advertised throughout the building. There is a clear notice that this has nothing to do with the management company nor the ownership and it's a private enterprise. It's gone through without a hitch -- the notices have not been taken down and niether management nor ownership has said anything.

--
Boycott Sony

Fear of Wifi'ing by krell · 2006-11-02 07:32 · Score: 1

"It is pretty rare when I have had more than a hour lay"

Joined the mile high club, eh?

--
Where were you when the voynix came?

No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by kbob88 · 2006-11-02 07:39 · Score: 1

No. The landlord cannot regulate Wifi.

Actually (if you RTFFCC'sD) the FCC asserts that only the FCC has the authority regulate unlicensed spectrum (such as 802.11). The landlord cannot put any terms in their lease that will 'regulate' the use of those airwaves. That's why Massport can't require Continental to give up free access. (Actual decision here)

BTW, I think that your landlord cannot prevent you from using a satellite dish. They may however be able to restrict you from mounting the dish on their physical property.

Re:No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by spun · 2006-11-02 09:19 · Score: 1

Well I feel like a real OTARD now ;) This is a good thing, if you feel as I do that government should be there to protect the little guy. If you're a Libertarian, this is just another case of the big bad government sticking its nose in other people's business.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by Dun+Malg · 2006-11-02 09:40 · Score: 1

If you're a Libertarian, this is just another case of the big bad government sticking its nose in other people's business.
Actually, it's a case of government (i.e. the FCC) refusing to stick its nose in other people's business. Massport wanted the FCC to nail the airline and they essentially said "nopem they're free to do whatever they want; that's what the unlicensed spectrum is FOR".

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by spun · 2006-11-02 10:32 · Score: 1

Not from my reading. Massport put language in the lease saying, "No wireless." The FCC says they can't do that. They actively prohibit a landlord from putting any sort of clause in a lease that they see as infringing on their regulatory domain. The FCC is basically saying landlords can't restrict broadcast or reception via the public airwaves, only the FC can do that. In a Libertarian society, landlords would be free to put any kind of restriction they like into a lease. I think the FCC did the right thing here, but this is definitely a case of nose-poking.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:35 · Score: 1

...except that in a Libertarian society, you wouldn't have a government-owned, government-run airport, with it's coercive monopoly on air travel. At best, you might have overflight rules of privately owned land with respect to safety issues to protect those on the ground who didn't ask to be flown over.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:No, landlords cannot restrict Wifi by spun · 2006-11-02 12:01 · Score: 1

Um, yeah, whatever. But you would have airports that were owned by private individuals who could set whatever restrictions they damn well pleased on their tenants. Those tenants would be free to not fly into that airport is they didn't like the terms. But eventually, all the land would be owned by someone and there would be no more room to put in airports and people wanting to fly would have to do what the air travel oligarchy told them to do. Anyone wanting to enter the air travel market would be screwed, as the best airport spots would be taken, and the air travel oligarchy would undercut any new player until they went bankrupt in order to keep out competition. And everyone would be happy, at least as far as anyone could tell because everyone would only have the freedom of speech on their own property and none of the owning class fat cats would let anyone say anything critical on any of their property.

Welcome to Libertopia.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Pinback · 2006-11-02 07:40 · Score: 1

With all the security in place these days, only paying customers are going to be at the gates. If the fucking airports can't figure out how to pay their staff out of the 300-600$ per person per flight, that is not my problem.

After putting out that kind of money, I'm not going to pay 8$ to use wireless either.

In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airport by rump_carrot · 2006-11-02 07:41 · Score: 1

Yup, free. For everyone.

Seems the City has this crazy notion that it is good for its citizens.

Some of you are no-doubt thinking - what crazy socialist liberal drivel is this?

All I know is that it lets me be more productive as I wait for a plane.

Anyway, you corporate free-market guys go ahead and flame me on why it is better to live in an everything-for-profit part of the country.

I'll be happy here where Government still tries to help its people be more productive - you know, that American dream thing.

Cheerios,

Mr. Smug

--
I think, therefore I thought.

Terminal D by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 07:44 · Score: 0

Last time I was there, there was a third alternative. Unsecured Linksys (yes, ssid of Linksys) AP down at the far end of terminal D. Default username/password on the AP also. As ever, take precautions if you're going to use something like this.
If I remember correctly, was going out over a Comcast line - totally open

*That* FCC? by Kadin2048 · 2006-11-02 07:46 · Score: 1

Wait ... you mean the FCC? The Federal Communications Commission? And not the "Farm Credit Corporation," the "Florida Christian College," or "Families with Children from China"?

Or perhaps this was some sort of rogue action by the "Foreign Correspondents Club" ... that would be more believable.

Someone call the President, quickly. It's obvious that some form of extraterrestrial brain parasite has taken over portions of our government. If we don't launch a nuclear strike soon, this outbreak of rationality could spread beyond the ability of the lobbyists to contain it. It would be the end of the world as we know it.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."

Re:*That* FCC? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 1

Nah, it's all due to the phenomenal Fans of Charisma Carpenter. Even chubby she's a smokin' POA.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by EugeneK · 2006-11-02 07:50 · Score: 0

Hey, I like your thinking! Or they could open all the windows (Boston's cold in the winter); turn off the heat, and rent personal space heaters and parkas for the low, low price of, say, $100/hour.

Columbus OH International Wireless is Free by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 07:53 · Score: 0

F*ck you Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson and your $7/day connect fee.

Hilarious argument when you think about it. by Hamster+Lover · 2006-11-02 08:07 · Score: 1

Massport's argument that free wireless internet could impede emergency communications and the like, if true, would also preclude their pay wireless Internet, or did they have some bullshit argument on that one too? If the FCC wanted to be a real bunch of assholes they should have come back and said, "Oh, you're right. WIFI services could interfere with airport communications. Better shut all those services down, including your $8 a day wireless. Better safe than sorry, right?"

Massport's blatant cash grab is so pathetic and transparent as to be comical.

Re:Hilarious argument when you think about it. by AK+Marc · 2006-11-02 11:20 · Score: 1

Massport's argument that free wireless internet could impede emergency communications and the like, if true, would also preclude their pay wireless Internet, or did they have some bullshit argument on that one too?

Nope, it would affect theirs. However, there is a master switch to disable the entire network. Well, at least there was in the one airport I worked on the wireless for. Less than 10 seconds to disable all wireless devices, if need be. But thanks for guessing wrong, that's what makes the Internet so much fun.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Okay FCC, Now For The Big Test by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-11-02 08:29 · Score: 1

Okay, FCC. You got this one right. Now how about municipal broadband networks to compete with the telecoms and cablecos, especially in underserved areas?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

You're totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 09:03 · Score: 0

And I've seen it happen locally where dumbass tightwad landlords learn the hard way that they have 0 say over things like wireless of any kind. Also your rights with sat dishes are a lot more than you think.

Just because its in writing and you signed it doesn't mean it automatically holds water.

Re:You're totally wrong by mr_matticus · 2006-11-02 09:29 · Score: 1

If it's in writing, you signed it, and it's not illegal, then yes, it does hold water. That is the nature of contracts. Wireless routers can be prohibited where broadband is provided as a central service--that is, if your landlord provides a free T1 connection to the building, he has every right to prohibit sharing of that connection over wireless. On the other hand, if you're paying for the broadband, you are generally free to do as you wish. A contract is valid unless signed under fraud, duress, or incapacity and is upheld unless provisions are illegal.
Re:You're totally wrong by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2006-11-02 11:30 · Score: 1

Perhaps not. If the FTC says this frequency is accessible by all, it might very well be, in that other people cannot add legal restrictions on access to it as a condition for something.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by Aadain2001 · 2006-11-02 09:07 · Score: 1

Ya, I love PDX (I'm live in the Beaver state too!), but I have one complaint. After 9/11, no one without a boarding pass could go past the security check points (just like every other airport). While I don't enjoy not being able to see my loved ones off when they fly, that isn't my complaint. The true annoyance is that the only Starbucks in the airport is on the other side of a checkpoint! I'm a total Starbucks whore, so only being able to see them and not get some coffee is just cruel!

--
Space for rent, inquire within

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by codegen · 2006-11-02 09:28 · Score: 1

no one without a boarding pass could go past the security check points (just like every other airport).

You mean like every other airport in the US. Every commercial airport in the world (other than the US) requires a boarding pass or an escort pass to make it into the security area. Only the US has allowed anyone into the secure zone. Imagine my shock the first time I flew into a US airport and saw a crowd of people waiting at the gate!!. Some airports will provide an escort pass. You have to ask the ticket agent when your loved ones get thier boarding passes. My mother requires wheel chair access, and I get an escort pass so that I can take her right to the gate when she flies. You also have to have photo id to use the escort pass at security.

--
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by XorNand · 2006-11-02 09:37 · Score: 1

How do they prevent people from just pissing on the floors?

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Bob-taro · 2006-11-02 10:03 · Score: 1

....So then,,, (looking around),,, what else can they charge travelers for?....

How about ... you know ... "thingy"?

--
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.

Not sure I agree by Bob-taro · 2006-11-02 10:14 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I agree that this is good. I'd like to know more details of the case. For example, if the airline signed a contract prohibiting free wifi in the terminal, I don't think the FCC should overrule that. Not that I'm against free wifi in general. Personally, I'd like it if everything I wanted was free :-)

--
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.

Re:Not sure I agree by Amouth · 2006-11-02 10:34 · Score: 1

the fact that it when to the FCC and not just small claims court means more than likly the airline didn't sign something like that .. but with this ruling i am sure that it will be in the next contract when the airline's lease agreement is up.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Not sure I agree by squiggleslash · 2006-11-03 06:39 · Score: 1

Given providing Wifi access has little to do with running an airline or an airport, that would strike me as exactly the kind of stipulation that gives contracts a bad name to begin with. Assuming the airline did sign such a contract, do you think the airline was given a straight choice, or was it more likely "Yeah, you can not sign if you want. Shame though, because we're the only airport you could possibly hope to use to provide service to Boston on any reasonable scale, and you do want to provide airline service here, right?"
I know the pseudo-libertarian mob thinks contracts are some holy concept that must never be undermined, but I personally think the entire concept should be thrown out and rethought. Until it is, allowing agencies to overrule contracts where one group is imposing ludicrous conditions on another (and banning 802.11 points certainly counts as that) strikes me as a right thing to do.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Hadlock · 2006-11-02 10:15 · Score: 1

Nice troll! I'll bite. I'm glad ashtrays are long gone from the social consiousness. Screw you, smokers, the rest of us don't want to watch you guys take a hit of niccotine just to keep from going crazy. Suck it up and deal with the fact that society is finally cracking down on unproductive drug addicts.

--
moox. for a new generation.

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 10:54 · Score: 0

You shouldn't be so smug. Since you're apparently too dense to grasp it, try this on: WIFI IS NOT FREE. IT MUST BE PAID FOR. Your socialist Pacific Coaster governments just force other people to pay for your productivity. Even though they may or may not care that much about your productivity.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 11:04 · Score: 0

So, basically make it just like a bus station.

Contract schmontract! by The+Creator · 2006-11-02 11:21 · Score: 1

The law says that the only ones allowed to regulate radio traffic are the FCC.. it makes no difference who has a contract with whom..

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Re:Contract schmontract! by Amouth · 2006-11-02 13:47 · Score: 1

but it is a question of what is in the lease agreement. if the lease agreement says "that by letting you use this terminal and it's areas that you do not run a open wifi connection that is in avaliable to the public" - then there isn't really anything that the airline could do except either shut it down or move out.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Contract schmontract! by Detritus · 2006-11-02 14:14 · Score: 1

The FCC has the power to preempt private contracts, and state/local law, with their regulations.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Contract schmontract! by The+Creator · 2006-11-03 06:39 · Score: 1

Trying to shut it down constitutes a crime, such a term in a contract is usually null and void.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by Aadain2001 · 2006-11-02 12:30 · Score: 1

Well, up until 9/11 the people in the USA were not as paranoid as we are now. I really wish we could go back to those days. What we have put into place really doesn't stop anyone who really wants to cause some problems, only the really really really stupid ones.

--
Space for rent, inquire within

You are not making sense by Hamster+Lover · 2006-11-02 13:08 · Score: 1

How can Massport claim that Wifi networks interfere with communications if they themselves operate a Wifi network? That's the baseline argument. I don't care if they can turn it off in a second, it either interferes with communication or it doesn't. If it does then why install it in the first place? It's a bullshit argument and the FCC called them on it. End of story and no guessing involved.

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 13:12 · Score: 0

Oh, it's paid for, and not by taxes. The company that is providing it has a login page with banner ads at the top. I'm afraid that those evil capitalist pigs have, once again, prevented the people blah, blah, blah.

So, both of you are wrong: he, for viewing this as some sort of miraculous socialist wonder, and you, for viewing it as some sort of terrible socialist disaster.

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by Dynastar454 · 2006-11-02 13:44 · Score: 1

I love PDX too. I've never seen a used book store in any other airport in the US.

--

Laugh at stupidity: mod idiots +1 Funny.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by Detritus · 2006-11-02 14:00 · Score: 1

When the zombies rise from the dead, and start looking for delicious brains, I'll be sure to let them know where you're hiding.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Don't try this at DIA by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-02 14:59 · Score: 0

As far as I know, Starbucks, like every other business, retains the right to refuse business for any reason.

In Colorado, any place of public accomodation (Starbucks, ski areas, airports, etc.) posting a sign such as "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" is begging to be sued. If the sign could be construed to be a veiled statement of an intent to discriminate against or intimidate unlawfully, that is enough (even if that wasn't the owner's intent). "No shirt, no shoes, no service!" or "Restrooms are for customer use only" are specific enough to avoid trouble, but a vague prohibition against whatever the management decides to not like this week is just begging for trouble.

Re:In Portland, Oregon - WiFi is free at the airpo by jonwil · 2006-11-02 15:04 · Score: 1

Here in australia you can go past the security points and up to the gate at domestic airports (at least last time I was at Perth airport) without even ID.

Re:How About Airports Charge $5 to Use the Restroo by krell · 2006-11-03 01:43 · Score: 1

"But look at what they saved over that period by getting rid of indoor ashtrays"

Why on earth would anyone need to set fires inside the airport???

--
Where were you when the voynix came?

Free WiFi Already Available by Anonymous Coward · 2006-11-16 05:28 · Score: 0

Ironically, every time I go to Logan, I get about 5 to 6 different networks in addition to the paid one while sitting in the departure lounge with my laptop. A few of them are even open (intentionally or by oversight), so it was already possible to get free WiFi. Surprised they didn't try to crack down on those.

Slashdot Mirror

FCC Nixes Airport's Ban On Private Net Access

165 comments