Slashdot Mirror
FCC Nixes Airport's Ban On Private Net Access
Several readers wrote to let us know about a ruling by the US Federal Communications Commission forbidding Boston's Logan Airport from shutting down airline-supplied Internet access services that compete with the airport's own, for-pay wireless coverage. From the article: "A two-year effort by Logan International Airport officials to shut down private alternatives to the airport's $8-a-day wireless Internet service was decisively rejected yesterday by federal regulators, who blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments."
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.'
Sadly, using bogus security arguments everywhere is the only thing we have "learned" from 9/11.
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.
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
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 ...