Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Businesses Hardware

The Wifi Slugfest Over Portland's PGE Park 310

Posted by timothy from the how-bout-them-buggywhips dept.
tomwhore writes "Portland's community wireless networking group, Personal Telco Project (PTP), recently knocked one into the ball park with a new WiFi node. The new node covers the area around and inside of Portland's PGE Ballpark. While free internet access would be welcome by most, PGE Park managers are not happy. They recently cut a deal giving Comcast exclusive rights to do up their networking. 'This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it,' said Chris Metz, a PGE Park spokesman. To find out more about the impact of the PTPs latest home run check out this article in the Oregonian and over at the PTP's website." Let's hope the park also puts a Faraday cage around the whole park to ensure radio silence.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Wifi Slugfest Over Portland's PGE Park More

The Wifi Slugfest Over Portland's PGE Park

Comments Filter:

  • SprintPCS (Score:3, Funny)

    by morcheeba ( 260908 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:19PM (#6513313) Journal
    Let's hope I can't use sprint PCS's phone in the park!

  • Overrated... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:19PM (#6513317) Homepage Journal
    1. Volunteers enable wireless access at ballpark
    2. They put out a news released titled, "PGE Park gets free Wi-Fi thanks to Personal Telco and Moonlight Staffing"
    3. PGE Park management (understandably) is concerned that the news release implies their participation in this effort, and this might offend a major park sponsor, Comcast.
    4. Comcast replies that they don't care. Life goes on.

    They call this a "slugfest?" Yeesh...

    • Re:Overrated... (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by realdpk ( 116490 )
      It'd be nice if we could vote to have articles recalled for review.

      • Re:Overrated... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 )
        It'd be nice if we could vote to have articles recalled for review.
        I've often thought we should be allowed to moderate the actual articles. -1 for repost, -3 bad spelling, etc.

        Then I could get my front page to contain all articles above 5 and below -4 (Article moderations should be wider than normal post moderations). Of course then we can see which slashdot editors have the best success at posting highly moderated articles

    • Re:Overrated... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Fishstick ( 150821 )
      slow news day

      really, this is about some PHB getting his undies in a knot without really understanding the problem. Comcast apparently didn't complain and really doesn't even give a shit.

      "I just don't want to step on anyone's toes," Metz said.

      Oohh! Stop the presses!!

    • Oh for heavens sake .... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:32PM (#6513460) Homepage Journal
      it's an article about a baseball park - "slugfest" is a totally appropriate term - there about 100 years of newspaper subeditors writing headlines with these sorts of punish content - why should electronic media be any different?
      • except the article didn't even say that

        "Wireless Net at PGE Park creates sparks "

        but I agree, peppering sports section stories with tired puns and cliche is a tried and true newspaper editor tactic.

        This time though it is the story submitter

        Portland's community wireless networking group, Personal Telco Project (PTP), recently knocked one into the ball park with a new WiFi node...

        To find out more about the impact of the PTPs latest home run check out this article in the Oregonian and over at the PTP's
      • Slugfest isn't appropriate in this contest because of what it implies. When you have a slugfest in baseball both teams are having a lot of hits and scoring a lot of runs. When applied to this case you would expect that the three parties involved were throwing legal action or insults or something back and forth. What is really happening is that one party did something, the second party didn't like the presentation, and the third party didn't give a rats ass. Hardly a slugfest.

  • Relax, it's Comcast. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Trespass ( 225077 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:19PM (#6513319) Homepage
    Their service will be down most of the time, anyhow.
    • Huh?


      Comcast, however, is not in this ballgame.
      Comcast prohibits its customers from distributing the company's Internet services to the public, said Sarah Eder, a Comcast spokeswoman.
      But Moonlight Staffing broadcasts a high-speed service from Beaverton-based EasyStreet Online Services, not Comcast.

    • It might be down...but consider the implications.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mistlefoot ( 636417 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:26PM (#6513396)
      "'This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it,' said Chris Metz, a PGE Park... "

      What about cell phone communications?

      Or palm pilots and the like?

      What about communicating to the opposing team that you prefer them (ie, those cheering for the opposition must sit in section 9)?

      Now the last example is quite silly, but what is the difference between wireless internet access and cellphone access? Do they have the legal rights to control such?
      • I believe they do. It's their site, they can make the rules. Movie theatres throw people out that use cell phones, and they don't allow people with video cameras in. Their site, their rules. Hell, most ballparks won't even let you bring food or drink into them.

        • Re:It might be down...but consider the implication (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Trelane, the Squire ( 608266 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:36PM (#6513509)
          They own the site, but do they own the airwaves? the block of space above their portion of the planet? the slice of universe extending out from the earth? (that last one was a stretch, nonetheless...)

          If someone opens a node and it extends over the park, the only thing they can do is do an intensive search of everyone coming into the park to make sure they aren't carrying anything that could access the node. I don't think that would go over very well.

          • If someone opens a node and it extends over the park, the only thing they can do is do an intensive search of everyone coming into the park to make sure they aren't carrying anything that could access the node. I don't think that would go over very well.

            Actually it is easier than that. Find out what channel the node is on, then turn an encrypted node that doesn't connect to anything on that channel (it wouldn't hurt to bump the power up as well). This way your consumers are connected to your WAP that wi

          • If they ever make it so that people can sue others for putting radiowaves through through their property then I'm going to be suing all the cell phone companies, satilite compnaies, etc. I'll let them put their radio waves through my property but only if they give me free access to them. I think I should get some right of way fee. :)
        • Um, no.

          You can't *declaratively* limit a legal broadcast originating from off your private property from entering it.

          You can, of course, devise technical means of preventing it within your property -- for example, jamming cell phone signals at a movie theater, or the hyperbole-laden Faraday's Cage suggestion.

          I'm not sure this has been 100% verified legally -- I could see someone *arguing* that they should be entitled to receive cellular calls anywhere they would normally be able to receive them, but not

          • Re:It might be down...but consider the implication (Score:5, Insightful)

            by gclef ( 96311 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:54PM (#6514217)
            In some ways, you can't even limit a signal's access to your property. The Farraday cage idea is actually illegal.

            The FCC takes a very dim view of people cutting out certain frequencies from the public spectrum, and for good reason. If you cut a broadcast off in your property, you've just blackholed everyone that sits downstream (down-cast?) from you. That makes it interference with the public airwaves, and therefore a crime.

            Imagine this scenario: two radio stations compete for listeners...one of them buys a house very near the competitors broadcast towers and then black-holes their broadcast to huge sections of the city. Under your argument this would be legal, as the person owning the house doesn't want this signal in their property.
      • when you spend money to make a service available, only to be undercut by technology, you are going to be upset (as will be the person providing the service)... it's human nature.

        This is another example of a new service that is not yet regulated, and the companies that are regulated are getting hot around the collar over it.

        The workers laid off by the cotton loom didn't like it either, but see where they are today.

      • Do they have the legal rights to control such?

        I very much hope they DO have the right to ban an RF signal that just happens to go through their property.

        Because...

        By the legal implications of such a decision, I would very much like to sue DTV to stop irradiating my home. And Sprint. And Verizon. And any other company with which I do not have a service contract that finds it simply "convenient" to not need to target their signal only to their users..


        And no, I do not wear a tin-foil beanie. I just

  • Oooh! I've been waiting for this. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil AT evilempire DOT ath DOT cx> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:19PM (#6513322)
    Let's see what the courts say on this one. I would love the courts to say that it was illegal for an outside provider to broadcast network signals onto your property.

    Can anyone else see the ramifications of this?

  • Block it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 )
    If they can and do block off the free access on their property only, more power to 'em. Otherwise, they can take a hike.

  • Why there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:21PM (#6513346)
    I know I always take my laptop with me to the ballpark!

  • Dear Portland, Oregon (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Letter ( 634816 )
    Dear Portland, Oregon,

    Sometimes we just need to do without technology [pointlesswasteoftime.com] altogether. Pick up a hotdog and enjoy the game, don't worry about your wireless networking. I sure don't.

    Sincerely,
    Letter

  • Here we go (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Str8Dog ( 240982 )
    The first step to the FCC stepping in and regulating Wi-Fi has just been taken. Coperate Amerika must ensure it controls the comunication networks.
    • See the question becomes whether corporations benefit more from unregulated wi-fi or from regulated wi-fi. Think about how much money all the telecom carriers sunk into 3G cellular network spectrum. That's what you get from regulated airwaves. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that all that money blown on the spectrum was beneficial to corporations.

      I suspect that all of these things will get resolved by people coordinating their networks with eachother in an effort to avoid mutually assured destruc
    • RTFA, Noam Chomsky. Nobody is regulating anything. Nobody is suing anyone. There is no story here.

    • Re:Here we go (Score:2, Funny)

      by FroMan ( 111520 )
      Coperate Amerika

      Wow, you are clever, that little jab at the US, makes you feel powerful huh? That's nice.

      I bet you love to bash M$ (oh, see the dollar sign, I'm cool now too!).

      Well, seeing how coperate [reference.com] isn't a word, you might want to call it Corporate
      Amerika (oh, see the 'k', now I'm cool again).

      Anyways, tell your mom and dad when they call you up for dinner I said, "Hi!" and that they ought to invest in a dictionary for you on your next birthday. They might even want to get some of their money back

  • Darwin award candidates (Score:5, Funny)

    by DogIsMyCoprocessor ( 642655 ) <dogismycoprocessor.yahoo@com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:24PM (#6513373) Homepage
    At any given time, as many as about 60 people with laptops equipped for WiFi can surf the Web.

    If 60 people at a ballgame are surfing on laptops, one of them will almost certainly take a foul ball right in the face. Here's a tip - pay attention to the game.

  • ...people who use WiFi on their laptops to access the internet and those who attend baseball games is probably pretty small, no? I mean most of us here couldn't care less about (baseball|football|) games.
    • I've got a pocketpc with 802.11 I would consider bringing to a game. I remember when I was young getting to the park an hour or more before the game started with nothing to do.
    • Yes, but it only takes one of them with a high-speed webcam to start opening up legal issues. This may not be a major-league park, but I believe many sports organizations still reserve the exclusive right to broadcast the games. A single PowerBook with a FireWire iSight camera could be enough to raise issues with the owner, and by association, the Wi-Fi ISP he's using.

  • A portland resident speaks... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cuchullain ( 25146 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:25PM (#6513383) Homepage
    This is great!

    I imagine that this is not actually related to comcast, as the article implies, but rather to the fact that portland is currently trying to get a major league team into the stadium.

    The reason I think this might be a problem, is that major league teams have been shying away from portland because of its reputation as a place with high taxes and ultra-left wing views. Major league baseball is just another huge corporate entity, and these kinds of tweaks are exactly what they are afraid of. The portland city government, and pge park don't want the perception that they are out of control, as it will negatively impact MLB's view of Portland.

    So I say- GO For it free wireless guys! I don't want to see my taxes raised again for a useless baseball team. Especially when unemployment is almost 10% and our taxes are increasing already!

    Cuchullain

    • Right on! (Score:2, Funny)

      by sulli ( 195030 ) *
      I agree - don't waste Portland taxpayer $ on a useless baseball team! Go Senators!
    • Taxes will not be raised to pay for the pro stadium under any of the current proposals - unless you are a player of the pro teams that play there... The taxes to pay for the proposed ballparks is to come from the players/owners/managers/coaches salaries.

      That is the theory anyway

      I for one hate baseball AND hate taxes. But I can see good from having a pro team here - I just think they should use PGE park for a while to guage interest and attendence BEFORE they put up an expensive new park...

      Oregon Stadiu [oregonstad...mpaign.com]

    • Fully agree. Actually, I'd describe myself as fairly right-wing, but I suspect that many conservatives would agree that there's nothing to leech $$$ out of a city like a Major-League team of anything. Not to mention the antics of such people, who in any other walk of life would be spending their time in Salem Correctional instead of the Rose Garden (see "Portland Trailblazers" for more details).

      There's no good reason to have a major-league baseball team in Portland, other than the self-aggrandizement o

  • Umm, not according to the FCC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:25PM (#6513385)
    'This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it,'

    Tell it to the FCC. They control the airwaves in your little stadium, not you.

    • I agree. Also, aren't sports stadiums public and private at the same time? Because of the enormity of stadium projects, cities must sell bonds and sometimes fund the stadiums. They do this for the economic benefit and prestige of the city, as well as intangibles such as the enjoyment of city residents. This would make them somewhat like a public utility, right?
    • This is our stadium and we run the communcations for it.

      Tell it to the FCC. They control the airwaves in your little stadium, not you.

      And on top of that, the people own that stadium since it was built with tax dollars. This guy at the stadium is a typical arogant clueless idoit who is employed to benefit the people not themselves.

    • 'This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it,'

      Tell it to the FCC. They control the airwaves in your little stadium, not you.

      It seems by the term 'communications', the spokesman was referring to the press release (the point of contention) and not the WiFi itself.

  • The submitter did not read the article. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Minstrel78 ( 28344 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:25PM (#6513387)
    The poster writes, "They recently cut a deal giving Comcast exclusive rights to do up their networking," when the article clearly states multiple times that Comcast isn't an issue. Comcast is merely a sponsor of the park. The ballpark manager is being too sensitive to the wording of the PTP's press release which could be read to suggest that PGE park management worked with the PTP to set up the wireless access when in fact it is being provided from a location across the street. The park manager is inventing some sort of conflict where none exists. Be sure to read the article before engaging in knee-jerk bashing of Comcast.

  • Publicity Stunt, nothing More (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:26PM (#6513398)
    This really sounds like a publicity stunt to me. Why? Well, think about it. How cost effective is it to provide WiFi access to a site that is used, at best, a few hours a week? Contrast this to airports, bus stations, Starbucks etc. that are occupied a majority of the hours every day. Yup, sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

  • This is About Politics and PR, not Tech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) * on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:27PM (#6513400)
    Boy, what a mis-leading article summary!! The Getz guy was even taken out of context! I advise everyone to RTFA before commenting on this one...

    Sure sounded good, though, no?

    "Fuzzy-Seattle-Populist-WiFi-Free-Node in slugfest! versus Big-Greedy-Sports-Cable-Corporate-Luddites."

    Wow! I was getting all set for a Thousand-Post-Pile-On before I read the article.

    Damn shame, this reality. Always getting in the way of a good story...

    • Really.

      All this ammounts to is some PHB whining about the wording in a press release. He says it gives the impression they had something to do with marketing the free service and he is worried about "stepping on toes" of one of his large sponsors. The article says _nothing_ about Comcast having exclusive rights to provide any kind of communication service.

      PGE Park gets free Wi-Fi thanks to Personal Telco and Moonlight Staffing

      It kind of does, but so what? Probably the whole thing would amount to zer
  • When wireless networking is just used at home or at a single company, then there isn't a problem, but when you start getting multiple groups competing for the same areas, then the government needs to step in. The radio waves are public property, even over PGE ballpark.

  • Walkie Talkies (Score:2, Interesting)

    by eskimoboy ( 690127 )
    This is kinda like saying "You can only operate our walkie talkies inside our ballpark." Owning the land does not, and should not, give you the exclusive right to say other people can't broadcast their own radio signals from outside the area. WiFi base stations are FCC certified devices and are not specifically limited by where they can (or can't) operate as long as they dont interfere with other devices.

    Would the ballpark try to claim that these "rogue" signals are interfering with their own signal?

  • In something we trust. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:28PM (#6513420) Homepage
    And such is the state of our society that a free service, dropped into one's lap, is cause for consternation.

    We have become such slaves to the dollar that the very specter of affront to a sponsor or corporate backer is reason enough to go after a free, community-driven service.

    This isn't about Comcast; this isn't about PGE Park's management. Rather, they're just placeholders for the larger problem. This is about the slow, gentle, comfortable erosion of American values--not the God, family, and apple pie values of tradition, but independence, community, and the common good values of the human spirit.

    This is not liberty. This is not happiness. This is voluntary bondage to the almighty dollar. I'm not one to get all uppity about this kind of thing--I'm generally pretty laissez-faire--but it's sad to see this kind of thing. Why, oh why, does my country care more about a dollar than anything else?

    • WTF are you talking about? Did you read any of the article at all? Or did you just have that nonsensical lament sitting ready for the first opportunity to thow it out (or up, as in vomit)?

      There's no consternation about the free service, rather there is mild annoyance about the wording of the press release. That's all. No one, PGE mgmt and Comcast included, cares that the free wifi is being provided. PGE was just concerned that the press release sent out by the nice folks providing the free wifi impl
  • Wrigley Field is surrounded by a relatively affluent, high density neighborhood. I am willing to bet you could find an open Wi-Fi node from most spots in the park. Perhaps some of the rooftop bleachers could add a direction antenna and give a little back to the ballpark.

    -josh

  • PGE Management Assholes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:33PM (#6513481)
    I'm sorry but the morons that run PGE Park are idiots.

    And besides, the city of Portland owns the Park and the group that runs the stadium for the city owes them back rent.

    In my mind, since they don't own the stadium, they shouldn't be bitching. It's not like this is going to damage thier hold on the lease. They are doing that without any Wi-Fi signals coming across the fence without Comcast's permission.

  • Lesson Learned (Score:2, Insightful)

    by doinky ( 633328 )
    Don't sell stuff you can't reasonably claim to own; i.e.; the airwaves.

    Better yet; don't sell anything but baseball and snacks; you wankers.

  • Cheating? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4/3PI*R^3 ( 102276 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:35PM (#6513497)
    There's the story of George Stallings [sportsjones.com] of the NY Yankees. Stallings, rented an apartment across from Yankee Stadium that had a clear view of the catcher. A person sitting in this apartment could see the signals the catcher was giving, call the dugout of the Yankee's and tell the manager what the signal was. The manager could then signal the batter as to what pitch to expect. He then converted this whole process behind a whiskey advertisement that was not as susceptible to cloudy days. These guys were really imaginative and resourcefull with the technology (or lack there of) of the day.

    Now fast forward to 2003 with WiFi in ball parks. Imagine not one spotter but 10, or 20, or 30 spotters scattered around the stands all with a laptop and all simultaneously keying in the catcher's signs.

    As opposed to what happened to Stallings, I don't think this is cheating. I think anybody who can hit a 90+MPH fast ball deserves to use any means necessary to accomplish this. At least with a WiFi network the visiting team could also place some spotters in the stand.

    • The catcher will now need to cryptographically hash the signal with a 64-bit salt.

      (I couldn't decide whether to post the above or the below, so you get a two-liner post for the price of one!)

      Or you could just have someone in the outfield hand signal the signs back to the dugout.

    • Re:Cheating? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by stomv ( 80392 )
      Now fast forward to 2003 with WiFi in ball parks. Imagine not one spotter but 10, or 20, or 30 spotters scattered around the stands all with a laptop and all simultaneously keying in the catcher's signs. ... I don't think this is cheating.

      Actually, it is cheating. I couldn't find the rule using google in 180 seconds, so I leave it to you. The rules state that it is perfectly legal to use the unaided eye to steal signs. However, you may not use any electronic means to capture or convey them, nor can y

  • PGE Park has bigger problems... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beek Dog ( 610072 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:37PM (#6513515)
    First off, PGE is owned by Enron. Portland wants to buy it, but Enron wants to dissect it and sell the assets to pay off debts, and have rate-payers help with the debt. OK, not exactly, but something like that. Second, nobody wants to own PGE Park. It's not profitable. Our weeklies usually have a least one article a month about some poor, old, rich bastard who can't pay the City of Portland for rent. Third, PGE Park lost power not too long ago. This is the park with Portland General Electric in the name! They can't even keep their own power on! Blocking Wi-Fi? It's probably science fiction to them. I agree with a previous poster, this is no slugfest. This is a bloated 600-pound gorilla complaining about someone else's scent covering their foul odor... BTW, Portland itself kicks major yahoo.

  • Not So Subtle Issues Here (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:50PM (#6513626) Homepage Journal

    This could actually become a very messy issue.

    Assuming very low contention, you can videocast over an 802.11b link. Some guy brings in his shiny new Sony VAIO PCG-TR1A with built-in camera and 802.11b, and starts broadcasting the game from his seat in the stadium. (Yeah, it'll suck, but that won't matter, as we shall shortly see.)

    This will piss off a number of people:

    • Major League Baseball (TM)(R)(C)(BFD), who claim copyright to the "performance" embodied by the baseball game, and assert exclusive rights to control all access to those "performances",
    • The local and national television network, who have cut an "exclusive" broadcasting contract with MLB and the stadium,
    • The stadium owner whose television blackout radius of 10 miles (negotiated "exclusively" with the television network) is being violated by the smartass in Section 12, seat 13-E, thereby undercutting attendance revenues.

    They've built for themselves a cozy little relationship that doesn't involve competition or, indeed, people thinking for themselves at all (sit down, shut up, buy the $6.50 hot dogs, oh, and enjoy the game). Expect shrill whining from Entrenched Interests the moment they even suspect anything like this might happen.

    Schwab

    • >They've built for themselves a cozy little relationship that doesn't involve competition

      Its Congress that gave them this. MLB is a legal monopoly.

  • Cell phones too? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Monoman ( 8745 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:51PM (#6513634) Homepage
    Does that mean if I am not allowed to use my cell phone if they have a deal with a different cell provider?

  • That's hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by asscroft ( 610290 )
    Imagine if they gave PacBell or whoever it was exclusive rights to the phone network including pay phones and tried to ban cell phones within their park.

    On the other hand, we better start on the offensive or we'll lose all these fights. By we, I mean the scientific community. We need the NSF to take on wifi the way they did the original internet, or else it will all be pay as you go and free nodes will be made illegal.

  • Read the article.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by brandon ( 16150 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @01:59PM (#6513713)
    PGE Park doesn't mind having it, and states how they don't mind it as they have no possition on wifi as Comcast isn't in the market. What PGE Park didn't like how PTP stated, "PGE Park gets Wireless Access thanks to PTP". To anyone who isn't in the free wifi 'know', this sounds like a business deal, and I completly side with PTP on this. The wording/catchphrase/marketing chosen for the announcement is not fair, and I can see why PGE Park has said what they did.

    PTP kinda put words in PGE Parks mouth, and makes it sound like PGE Park was fully involved. Future problems could be people complaining about wifi access to PGE Park, or any other 'internet' issues. Worst case could be someone can't make a stock sell, loses money, sues PGE Park because of the announcement he knew of "PGE Park gets wifi acces thanks to PTP", judge see's it, yells at PTP, case dropped, and PGE Park gets some bad press. It's not fair to PGE Park. .. If anything the title of this slashdot article should be, "Wifi group PTP puts PGE Park in a bad situation with recent announcement."

    I personally provide free wifi for my neighborhood and joining the local wifi club soon. Since airspace is shared and not easily seperated there's some things you have to be careful of to make sure bad relations arn't formed in this process, and this is one case to be aware of for the future.. I hope PTP is more careful in the future.

    my $.02

  • Need to look at FCC rules (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:03PM (#6513746)
    from here [lns.com], you're allowed 30dBm of transmit power with a 6 dBi antennae (isotropic) for 802.11b. If they're broadcasting more power than that into the stadium, they're breaking the rules. Given the normal range of 802.11, I doubt they can broadcast into the stadium legally, even if they use a directional antennae to improve efficiency.

    • Re:Need to look at FCC rules (Score:5, Informative)

      by valkraider ( 611225 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:27PM (#6513936) Journal
      PGE park would be easy to cover the entire park with *regular* WAPs - let alone WAPs with good antennas. How much do you know about PGE Park? It is a small park with a couple open sides, and lots of businesses and apartments around - and on a hill. So it would be very easy to put a good directional antenna in a building up the hill next to the park and cover most of the stadium. Check out PortlandMaps Aerial Photo [portlandmaps.com] for a better context.

  • PTP vs Starbuck ...2002 (Score:5, Informative)

    by tomwhore ( 10233 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:04PM (#6513749) Homepage Journal
    This is not the first time the PTP has run into a snag trying to offer free net access. Back a while ago there was a slight problem with the then new Starbucks hotposts at the "heart" of the city.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.s sf ?/xml/story.ssf/html_stand
    ard.xsl?/base/front_pa ge/102975810817580.xml

    08/19/02
    JEFFREY KOSSEFF and ERIC HAND

    The world's biggest barista and a grass-roots group are squaring off in a wireless game of chicken at Pioneer Courthouse Square.

    On one end stands Starbucks, which this week likely will begin marketing a paid service that lets its customers in Portland's living room connect their laptops wirelessly to the Internet. On the other is Personal Telco, a local group of computer hobbyists, which has provided the same service for free in the square since February.

    Sure, there's room on the wireless spectrum for peaceful coexistence. But Starbucks, using wireless carrier T-Mobile, is transmitting its signal on the same channel Personal Telco has used for the past six months. Neither has budged.

    The result? Both Starbucks customers and Personal Telco members may face slower speeds on the suddenly crowded channel.

    The battle illustrates a growing problem with the increasingly popular technology known as wireless fidelity, or "Wi-Fi." Unlike cell phones, it operates on an unlicensed spectrum, so experts expect such disputes will become more common as demand grows.

    Like cordless phones and walkie-talkies, nobody can own Wi-Fi's spectrum, and federal regulators have little authority over it, said Dale Hatfield, former chief of the Federal Communications Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology.

    "There's no prior claims; there's no squatter's rights; there's nothing like that," said Hatfield, now a telecommunications professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "You both have to try to live with each other. I can't imagine why one wouldn't voluntarily move to one of the other channels that has less interference."

    Adam Shand can imagine. The founder of Personal Telco says his group was there first and that in similar disputes nationwide, incumbents have successfully retained their wireless channels.

    "If we take the stance that we're the little guy and start hopping around, what happens when there are no channels left?" Shand said.

    Representatives of Starbucks and T-Mobile owner VoiceStream said they were unaware of any other wireless Internet presence in the square and had no comment on Personal Telco's objection.

    Since late 2000, Personal Telco has persuaded individuals and businesses to donate high-speed Internet connections to its cause -- creating a "cloud" of free wireless access over the Portland area. Using specially designed "wireless ethernet" cards, Web surfers within a block or two of the donors' homes or businesses can tap into the signal.

    The group has about 70 Internet access points throughout the Portland area. One was donated by WebCriteria, a Web consultancy whose eighth-floor offices overlook Pioneer Courthouse Square.

    As many as six people have surfed the Web at the same time in the square using the WebCriteria link, often receiving connections faster than wired broadband connections, said Nigel Ballard, a
    Personal Telco member and owner of wireless consultancy joejava.com.

    To connect through Personal Telco, users can type a donor's identification number, available on the group's Web site, www.personaltelco.net. Their computers also can search for the Internet connection. And until recently, they've latched onto Personal Telco's signal in Pioneer Courthouse Square.

    Now, they can inadvertently connect to the Starbucks paid service.

    Although Starbucks and T-Mobile will likely begin marketing the service this week in the square, Shand said the paid service has been operating for a few weeks. Personal Telco users have reported problems.

    "The performance of o

  • WiFi means more than just laptops (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dspyder ( 563303 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:15PM (#6513831)
    You people saying "why would you want to bring your laptop to a game" aren't getting the point.

    What about WiFi PDAs? Great for sending that quick email or text message. What about WiFi cellphones? In order to replace the evil telecommunications giants, we need an IP connection _everywhere_. That's more important than being able to surf porn on your laptop.

    Think future technologies, people!

    --D
  • Tell 'em you'll drop the wi-fi access at the stadium when they drop the computerized umpires!

  • 'This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it,'

    By 'communications' perhaps the spokesman does not mean WiFi at all. At first blush to a geek it sounds like he is objecting to the WiFi, but within the context of the whole article, the term seems consistent with disliking the publication of an unauthorized press release. Re-reading the article, it actually makes more sense that way.

  • This really isn't a problem... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Javaman97 ( 668377 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @02:51PM (#6514193)
    Cause nobody goes to PGE park anyway....

  • No, the FCC regulates radio communications (Score:4, Informative)

    by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:02PM (#6514288)
    "This is our stadium, and we run the communications for it"

    No, the FCC regulates radio communications. They have no right under existing law to control the radio transmissions on their property.

  • But are the managers really against it? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chambers81 ( 613839 ) on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @03:13PM (#6514383)
    It seems to me from the article that they aren't up in arms against wireless interenet access. More that they're covering their asses against a major sponsor. The press release makes it sound like the park had something to do with arranging the WAP that is run through a competitor to Comcast. So before we start calling names towards their management, remember that the ballpark is just trying to keep out of any lawsuits.

  • It's the Hall Monitors Again (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug AT geekazon DOT com> on Wednesday July 23, 2003 @08:03PM (#6517500) Homepage
    Sounds like the Portland Beavers' stadium is run by the same hall-monitor personalities that tend to populate HR departments. People whose mission in life is to imagine reasons why things shouldn't be allowed to happen, and to go running to the proper authorities to give them ample opportunity to object.

    In this case the imagined authority entity that might be offended, Comcast, doesn't care. Even after assurances that they don't care and that everything is fine, hall monitor Metz isn't letting that dampen his spirits.

    "I just don't want to step on anyone's toes," Metz said.

    Yes Metz, we know you just want to do the right thing. Comcast knows, everybody knows. If WiFi at the stadium turns out to be a problem, we all know that it's Not Your Fault. So please do everybody a favor and shut the fuck up.

Slashdot Top Deals

IOT trap -- core dumped

Close