Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Businesses Hardware

WiFi At Logan Airport Leads To Turf War 314

Posted by Zonk from the can't-make-a-dishonest-buck-anymore dept.
lucabrasi999 writes "Yahoo News is running an Associated Press story on how Boston's Logan International Airport is the site of a battle between the Massachusettes Port Authority and Continental Airlines. Seems that Massport, which runs a pay wireless service at the airport, doesn't want Continental to provide free wireless service to the members of its frequent flier club. Massport claims Continental's free service interferes with its pay service. This battle is now in the hands of the FCC." From the article: "Last month, a Massport attorney warned the airline that its antenna 'presents an unacceptable potential risk' to Logan's safety and security systems, including its keycard access system and state police communications. Massport told the airline it could route its wireless signals over Logan's Wi-Fi signal, at a 'very reasonable rate structure.' In response, however, Continental said using Logan's Wi-Fi vendor could force the airline to start charging its customers for the service."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WiFi At Logan Airport Leads To Turf War More

WiFi At Logan Airport Leads To Turf War

Comments Filter:

  • a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WAG24601G ( 719991 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:35PM (#13255089)
    how about using all this time and energy towards getting me from the ticket counter to the air in a reasonable amount of time, so i don't need WiFi access in the terminal

    • Re:a better idea (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DanielNS84 ( 847393 )
      You sir, have my complete support, regardless of the karma costs. My last flight involved 3 hours of waiting and I didn't break out the laptop till the begining of hour two. If I could get from the airport entrance (Here in Atlanta) to my plane in an hour or so I'd be completely content to be without wireless in the airport, but I've had to wait up to 14 hours before due to delays. Although WIFI costs are probably insignificant compared to the costs involved with speeding things up, I'd still like to see mo
    • how about using all this time and energy towards getting me from the ticket counter to the air in a reasonable amount of time, so i don't need WiFi access in the terminal

      OK dumb fuck mod, who did that flame exactly?

    • Re:a better idea (Score:4, Funny)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:36PM (#13255464)
      Why is this Flamebait? I agree with the poster.

      Flamebait would be saying:

            "You are a stupid mod, and it's quite obvious you've never been able to afford air travel on your part-time income from McDonalds. I am surprised you actually have the IQ to read the stuff that is posted here. Who gave you mod points anyway?"

            See, THAT is flamebait. Now mod me down, my karma is unshakeable.
      • I think that true flamebait should have a broad appeal, like calling all readers of Slashdot morons, and then exploring that it doesn't matter who moderates, because it's all garbage anyway.

    • Security (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pmdata ( 861264 )
      If Massport is so worried about security, they would remove the open Cat-5 jacks "hidden" in terminal C. I've seen people wait in line to plug into their free service. DHCP with access to the outside world. I'd imagine a quick 1-100 port scan of the 20+ machines visable on the network would reveal some services. One would hope these aren't true "mission critical" airport machines.

      • Re:Security (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DanielNS84 ( 847393 )
        I've spotted and used these jacks in the Atlanta and Dallas/Fort Worth Airports...they are also located in the convention center in Fort Worth but it doesn't provide DHCP, luckily it was a standard 255.255.255.0 subnet with 192.168.0.X IP's. I think they're hoping people won't notice them if they put little plastic covers or stickers over the unused ports.

    • Re:a better idea (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bodero ( 136806 )
      That's all well and good, but layovers happen. I fly out of a small, one-hub airport every time I fly, and am usually in Pittsburgh airport for 3 or more hours.

      However, they have FREE WiFi throughout the airport. That's what irks me about the money-grubbing pricks at Massport, and will make sure I will do my best to avoid Logan when traveling.

      Many airports have free WiFi, or at least free ethernet jacks to plug into nowadays. I think Continental is going a great service for their customers in providing wifi

  • Avenues for appeal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kevbo ( 3514 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:37PM (#13255102) Homepage
    I understand that the FCC is probably the only recourse for the aggrieved party [poor little Logan Airport], however, has the FCC not essentially said that it does not interfere in matters for wifi and other unlicensed bands? I thought that by making it unlicensed, they essentially do not apportion spectrum or rule in matters of its use.

    Seems like a matter for nuisance law, rather than the FCC, which would be much more fun and allow for comparisons to pig farms and "noxious vapors".

    • Re:Avenues for appeal (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tcgroat ( 666085 )
      Reading the article carefully, it comes down to a landlord/tenant contract dispute between Logan and Continental. The airport says it's a violation of the lease, Continental says it's not. From the FCC standpoint, both WiFi access points are on an equally poor footing: as Part 15 devices they have the lowest priority at 2.4GHz, behind all other authorized uses of that spectrum, such as microwave ovens. The ovens have priority at 2.4GHz: it's a designated RF wasteland for Part 18 "Industrial, Scientific and

  • I'm clearly missing something that Massport knows (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:38PM (#13255108) Homepage Journal
    They seem to know how the exact same wireless signal is going to interfere in the safety of the airport just because it has a different name on it. I can understand asking them to perhaps use a different channel, but they're presumably using the same 802.11 technologies.

    • Re:I'm clearly missing something that Massport kno (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SpecBear ( 769433 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:10PM (#13255318)
      That's easy: Massport knows that the Logan reps are filthy fucking liars making a financially expedient but logically inconsistent argument in order to take out the competition. Proceed to Step 3.

      The type of behavior really disgusts me.

      I suggest making things really ugly: Sue the airport for putting its passengers at risk. Performing functions that are critical to security using equipment that can be made to malfunction by interference in an unregulated spectrum is clearly negligent for an airport. Their statement to Continental Airlines regarding their secuirty concerns is proof that they're aware of this risk but have no intention of correcting it. If Continental's wifi system represents a security risk, then so does anyone with a laptop or PDA equipped with a wifi adapter.

      • Re:I'm clearly missing something that Massport kno (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:52PM (#13255539) Homepage Journal

        I wish the summary had included this quote as well:

        Craig Mathias, founder of the Farpoint Group, a wireless consulting firm in Ashland, Mass., said Wi-Fi signals can interfere with each other, but not with other wireless devices.
        "It's hard to imagine how this is a security threat," Mathias said. "They clearly don't want the competition."

        I find this type of behavior disgusting, too. It's yet another case of one business trying to interfere with another business's services any way they can to make a few more pennies, and the real loser in the battle ends up being the consumer.

        If the FCC is stupid enough to side with Logan on this, Continental Airlines should hang big signs all over its lounges and gates saying something to the effect of, "Logan International Airport is keeping us from offering wireless Internet service for free because they would rather make you pay them $7.95 a day. Please write to Craig P. Coy, CEO [massport.com] at One Harborside Drive [massport.com], Suite 200 S, East Boston, MA 02128-2909, and let them know how you feel about that."

        But then, I can be rather mean like that when people are being stupid.

  • Its up to the FCC? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hoka ( 880785 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:38PM (#13255111)
    I got into a rather heated battle a while back on HardForum about legal rights on wireless security, and somebody posted up a lot of the FCC guidelines for 802.11[insertflavorhere]. Basically what I got out of it was that as long as you are using FCC approved equipment, its really up to everybody else to figure things out for themselves. I might be wrong on this, but I thought that the FCC tried as hard as it could to keep itself out of situations exactly like this.

    • In this case? Probably (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:48PM (#13255169)
      Massport is claiming that the reason Continental can't have their antenna is it presents a risk to their security systems. Basically, they are claiming it can cause interference. Well, that's the FCC's domain, when one system interferes with another, the FCC gets to decide who gets to do what. Like cell phones are fully FCC approved, but cannot be used on planes because the FCC has determined they can interfere with the plane's operation (nevermind that they don't work anyhow, you're too high).

      What it looks like to me is Massport is angry that Continental is giving it away, but there's probably nothing in Continental's lease that prohibits it. So they are trying to play the "screws with our systems" card. My bet? It doesn't and the FCC will say it's fine.

      • Re:In this case? Probably (Score:5, Informative)

        by (negative video) ( 792072 ) <me@teco-xa[ ]com ['co.' in gap]> on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:13PM (#13255343)
        Well, that's the FCC's domain, when one system interferes with another, the FCC gets to decide who gets to do what.
        And the FCC already has: electronics must accept interference from all nonmalicious lawful transmitters, including that which may cause misoperation. If a transmitter interferes with your gadget, you have three choices: shield your gadget, convince the transmitter's operator to help out, or live with it. The FCC truly does not care.
        Like cell phones are fully FCC approved, but cannot be used on planes because the FCC has determined they can interfere with the plane's operation (nevermind that they don't work anyhow, you're too high).
        That's in the FAA's bailiwick, not the FCC's.
      • because the FCC has determined

              No, that would be the FAA, an entirely different kettle of fish.
        • No, that would be the FAA, an entirely different kettle of fish.

          Nope, the restriction on using cell phones on planes has nothing to do with the FAA, never has. The restriction on using electronic devices is an FAA issue but the cell phone restriction has always been FCC.

          The reason the cell phone restriction was introduced was the early cell systems had not been designed to cope with people moving from one cell to another at 600 mph. So to avoid the cost of fixing their systems the carriers got the FCC

      • (nevermind that they don't work anyhow, you're too high).

        I thought they worked for the passengers on September 11th?

  • In the other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:39PM (#13255113) Homepage Journal
    a Huge-Ass Corporation is filing a lawsuit against the nature for providing the creatures of this planet with drinkable water and breathable air.
    Our asian reporter Tricia Takanawa interviewed the CEO of the Huge-Ass Corporation.

    -How dare this 'nature' interfere with our business model? Everyone must pay for the clean water and air, there is no free lunch. Everyone who says there is, is either a communist or a terrorist and must be shot on sight.
    • -How dare this 'nature' interfere with our business model? Everyone must pay for the clean water and air, there is no free lunch. Everyone who says there is, is either a communist or a terrorist and must be shot on sight.

      You forgot their favorite line:
      "Stealing is stealing."

    • Re:In the other news (Score:3, Interesting)

      by statusbar ( 314703 )
      I know you are being funny, but that specific business model is already being used. [www.cbc.ca]

      --jeff++

    • Unfortunately, Huge-Ass Corporation already has the World Bank and the US government (NAFTA & CAFTA) on its side in this regard. Replacing municipal government services, such as water & sewer and road & facilities maintenence, with for-profit multinational corporate services is already on the agenda of every government beholden to the World Bank for their survival through loans. Forcing open competition for municipal services is the "not quite hidden in fine print" vigorish. The double-whammy

  • This is great for laughs! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:40PM (#13255123)
    Massport may be bluffing, in order to have an excuse to shoulder out their competition and have monopoly status.

    That said, they may not be bluffing, in which case, any terrorist with a little knowledge regarding computer networks now has access codes to all of the airports secure areas! This is regardless of Continentals role, since their network, in all likelihood, has no interraction with these systems.

    Either way, Massport looks like a bunch of jerks.
  • It's a good thing the use of radio is regulated by the FCC and not by Massport then, huh? Seems like a safe bet that if Massport can't prove interference with a licensed usage of spectrum (I.E. something outside the 2.4Ghz range) and there's nothing in Continental's lease prohibiting it, Massport is going to have to suck it up and live without the ability to rape travelers in exchange for internet access.
  • Do you run your security system, keycards, and police radios all on unlicensed 2.4Ghz spectrum? I doub't it (and if you do, you have to share it just like everyone else.. Part 15 regs). They're trying to cop out some pitiful sounding reasons to stifle competition..

  • -1, Improper use of the contraction "it's" (Score:3, Informative)

    by The Hobo ( 783784 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:41PM (#13255132)
    doesn't want Continental to provide free wireless service to the members of it's frequent flier club. Massport claims Continental's free service interferes with it's pay service.


    For fuck sakes, it's not that hard, I'm French and I know this

    its = possessive
    it's = it is

    That goes for both the poster and the "editors" (I use the term loosely)

    People don't even try anymore

  • I'm with heinlein on this one... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:44PM (#13255154)
    There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.

  • Unlicensed devices are not for critical services (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:46PM (#13255161)
    WiFi is not for critical services.
    WiFi IS NOT for critical services.
    WIFI IS NOT FOR CRITICAL SERVICES.

    It seems to me like the airport made sure to put something important over WiFi so that they could try to exclude everyone else. As far as I understand it, in Wifi interference is not a concern of the FCC, so long as you are below power limits. It is on an open band, and anyone can do anything there. Taking an unlicensed service and putting important infrastructure on it is an attempt to grab control of it for yourself only.

    Now, someone please let BPL providers know about this too. I already heard musings about putting critical control systems on BPL, and I imagine in a few years HAM's will be getting nailed for causing interference from a licensed device (amateur radio) to an unlicensed.
    • It seems to me like the airport made sure to put something important over WiFi so that they could try to exclude everyone else.

      Yeah, that something called "money". One system is $8.00 per day per user. The other is free. You do the math.
    • "Now, someone please let BPL providers know about this too. I already heard musings about putting critical control systems on BPL, and I imagine in a few years HAM's will be getting nailed for causing interference from a licensed device (amateur radio) to an unlicensed."

      Never happen. Licensed takes precedence over unlicensed EVERY TIME. The FCC has used that rule of thumb ever since it was created as an agency. There is _no way_ that the FCC is going to give up that tool, as it is their lifeline to justi
      • Never happen. Licensed takes precedence over unlicensed EVERY TIME. The FCC has used that rule of thumb ever since it was created as an agency. There is _no way_ that the FCC is going to give up that tool, as it is their lifeline to justification.

        National security, and "Critical infrastructure" trumps all, no matter what. The FCC better make sure the door is tight. Unfortunately, after the approval of BPL the door is off its hinges.
        • "National security, and "Critical infrastructure" trumps all, no matter what. The FCC better make sure the door is tight. "

          If I was the FCC adjudicator, I'd ask Massport why they're using a wide-open 802.11 network in the first place, if they're _so_ concerned about security. If 802.11 is being used for security, why didn't they apply for a license that would put them out of the anarchic spectrum that they're currently in?

          Like someone said up there: Do not use Part 15 devices for critical systems! Mein go

    • As far as I understand it, in Wifi interference is not a concern of the FCC, so long as you are below power limits.

      So why can't I use wifi on an airplane?

  • Why Logan anyway (Score:5, Informative)

    by robogun ( 466062 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:46PM (#13255162)
    It's easily the worst airport in the entire United States of America. It makes SFO look easy. Far, far overcrowded, clueless, jackbooted security, nasty CS reps, tough to get in+out, & way too many delays.

    Always try for PVD if at all possible. I guarantee I'll make the 45min drive into the city before you can find your bags at BOS.

    Same goes for SFO/OAK. I'm long gone before your 4hr delayed flight comes into SFO.
    • It's easily the worst airport in the entire United States of America

      Agreed! Trying to find a working electrical outlet in Concourse C (at least) is a true exercise in futility. Apparently MassPort disabled nearly all of them for some pathetic reason (concession to the for-pay internet kiosk maybe?).

      GRRR! This thread reminded me that I have to fly there twice this month.
    • i didn't find SFO or logan nearly as bad as kansas city. to get to a connecting flight, you have to go through security. there is a separate checkpoint for every gate.

      the mbta commuter rail will someday soon extend all the way from boston to tf green airport. no driving necessary.
    • Always try for PVD if at all possible. I guarantee I'll make the 45min drive into the city before you can find your bags at BOS.

      Yes, PVD is WAY nicer, but it's usually $200 more. :(

  • FCC (Score:4, Informative)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:47PM (#13255167)
    Prediction:

    Regardless of Massport's assertions of safety or interference and whatnot, the FCC will tell Massport to stuff it. If what is being used is FCC approved wireless, there's not a damn thing that Massport can do about it.

    That's _especially_ if they complain about interference, because all Part 15 devices _must_ accept any interference. 802.11 is smack in the Part 15 rules, so Massport can go pound sand.

    --
    BMO

    • Re:FCC (Score:2)

      by gkuz ( 706134 )
      Prediction:

      Regardless of Massport's assertions of safety or interference and whatnot, the FCC will tell Massport to stuff it.

      Only trouble is, Massport is the landlord and Continental is the tenant, and while very few of us have read TFA, I bet nobody on /. has read the actual lease. So this may very well not be an FCC dispute but a landlord-tenant matter. Massport still look like assholes, but they may actually have a legal leg to stand on.

      • Only trouble is, Massport is the landlord and Continental is the tenant, and while very few of us have read TFA, I bet nobody on /. has read the actual lease.

        The FCC has basically said that clauses that regulate these devices are illegal, so why would it even matter?

  • Part 15 (Score:5, Informative)

    by tiny69 ( 34486 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @08:48PM (#13255168) Homepage Journal
    Someone needs to go read Part 15 of the FCC regulations.

    http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47cf r15_04.html [gpo.gov]

    This part sets out the regulations under which an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator may be operated without an individual license.
    Specifically:
    Sec. 15.5 General conditions of operation.

    (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, for power line carrier systems, on the basis of prior notification of use pursuant to Sec. 90.63(g) of this chapter.
    (b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.

    Here's a link that explains things better. It's and FAQ for Wireless ISPs when they encounter interferance from HAM operators.

    http://www.qrpis.org/~k3ng/ham_wisp.html [qrpis.org]

    Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad. You're only recourse is to complain to the FCC and say the the offending party is operating outside of Part 15 (or whatever part may apply). I.E. - they are transmitter too much power. Commercial interest doesn't mean anything since you're an unlicensed user.

    • Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad.

      If an unlicensed station is interfering with a licensed station, the unlicensed station must stop operating, even if it complies with Part 15 rules. Of course, if two unlicensed stations interfere with each other, it's tough shit, they need to sort it out. The only way the airport can have a case is if the Wi-fi signal interferes with a licensed service.
      • The only way the airport can have a case is if the Wi-fi signal interferes with a licensed service
        If that's the case, then Massport needs to discontinue it's own wireless service. Saying that the other wireless service, "presents an unacceptable potential risk to Logan's safety and security systems" is a false claim to get rid of the competition.
      • The only way the airport can have a case is if the Wi-fi signal interferes with a licensed service.

        Which, funnily enough, is exactly what they are claiming:

        Last month, a Massport attorney warned the airline that its antenna "presents an unacceptable potential risk" to Logan's safety and security systems, including its keycard access system and state police communications.

        That's technically absurd, of course, which is probably why they trotted out a lawyer to say it. An engineer wouldn't be able to tell

    • Long story short, if you think someone is interferring with your wireless service, too bad.

      You're missing an important point here. Massport owns the airport that Continental Airlines is broadcasting its signal from.

      This would be like if you went into an Internet Cafe which offers pay wifi and started broadcasting a free signal. Part 15 of the FCC regulations don't prevent the Cafe from kicking you out.

      • You're missing an important point here. Massport owns the airport that Continental Airlines is broadcasting its signal from.

        I understood that part. Massport is just using the wrong argument.

        If Massport is going to claim that the wireless service that Continental is providing is a threat to safety and security, then Massport needs to shutdown it's own wireless service. That arguement falls under FCC regulations. However, if Massport claims that Continental is not authorized to run a wireless service,

      • IANAL, so check with one if you need to know exactly how the law applies.

        The FCC has rules that trump contracts. Your Home Owners Association cannot prevent you from putting up a direct TV type dish. They can put in a contract that you sign that you cannot have a dish, but if you install it there is nothing they can legally do because that part of the contract is illegal.

        I suspect the FCC will say the same here: You can put anything into the contract you want, it will have no legal force though. Air

    • Darn it, we're talking about WiFi here, and you're on heating and cooling.

      Get a grip man! I think you've posted to the wrong article

      (before you flame me, it's a joke)
    • So we have here the key to the missing steps:

      1) Setup WiFi device operating at just under max power which randomly broadcasts packets interfering with proper WiFi operation
      2) Charge the WiFi zone operator $100 a day to turn off your legal device
      3) Profit!

      Nah, I'm sure it's not a form of larceny... right? Right? Your honor?
       
  • As long as safety isn't affected, why not? Is no private business ever allowed to compete with the government for anything? Can the government sue Fedex for depriving the postal service of revenue?

    In any case, I don't think that the airline will be too happy letting freeloaders take bandwidth from paying customers, so the revenue loss to Logan will only be limited to those first class fliers who would have been willing to pay for internet access in the first place.
  • That attorneys will say anything if someone gives them money.

    Not that I needed another example.

    I should hire one to tell people I'm funny.

    That might be more than I can swing.

  • When you have a scarce but unregulated resource, in this case, spectrum, you wind up with the tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org].

    Here's the way I see it:

    Either

    1) it's a free for all, which, legally speaking, it probably is, and both parties are free to jam each other to death,

    OR

    2) there is a legitimate threat to security and it goes to court, in which case a judge will either order the security officials to use other frequencies or order EVERYONE else off of them,

    OR

    3) the two sides will come to some kind of agreement,

  • Obviously, if Continental serves coffee or food in their club, that should also be banned, since it might potentially interfere with the retailers that are selling food and beverages. Hell, if we want to follow this line of logic, how can any business justify allowing coffee makers, or even water fountains?

    Just because you pick a stupid way to make money, doesn't mean that I can't give away whatever you are selling. It's quickly becoming clear that offering free WiFi is becoming a stragegic decision being

  • really deserve to be smacked like the whining children that they are. Continental's free wireless in their private lounge poses an undue risk to the airport, yet THEIR airport-wide pay system doesn't, eh?

          I don't see the coffee shops complaining because you can get free a coffee in these lounges.

          Who is willing to help me lobby for the death penalty for people who make frivolous litigation, and their lawyers..?
  • Never, ever, ever, get in the way of a stream of State revenue. One way, or the other, you are going to get burned.

    Rule #2

    Unless you are willing to provide the State with a larger stream of revenue.

    Rule #3

    ( only applicable to large corporations )

    Unless you are willing to remove an even larger stream of revenue from the State to another.
    • Continental is a large corporation. However, they will likely not be able to interfere with the revenue stream of the Boston politicians. Boston has legendary political corruption and those who don't pay don't get to play.
    • And how does this relate to engaginc in a land war in Asia?

  • Please learn from Portland Oregon Airport (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:15PM (#13255354) Homepage
    I love the free wifi service at PDX. Its fast and it is everywhere at the airport. Could the Bostonians please ask the Portland people how they did it?

    Maybe technology and security is not the problem, but greed is?

    There are too many businesses benefitting from the "terror threat". It would seem to me that they would benefit somewhat from the threat not going away. People can easily be convinced to pay more for everyday stuff in exchange for "security" from terrorists.

    Come to think of it, some politicians too have recently used the terrorists to their advantage. They claim to have special talents for fighting terrorism. <sarcasm> Evidenced by recent global decline in terrorism. </sarcasm>
    • There are too many businesses benefitting from the "terror threat".
      The problem isn't that businesses are benefitting; the problem is that their benefit is unfair to everyone else (including other businesses), and a net loss to the economy. It's almost like the Internet bubble, except instead of everyone rushing to grab domain names they're rushing to grab monopolies in the name of "national security."
  • ...let Massport pay for shielding around the lounge to keep the free signal from escaping. This should show what their real intentions are.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:30PM (#13255438) Homepage
    I don't get Massport's claim at all. Continental and Massport are both using WiFi, which is 802.11. Massport claims that their system doesn't interfere with their system but Continental's does? This leaves two possibilities:
    1. Massport is using a different frequency or media sharing technology that's different from Continental's WiFi.
    2. Massport is full of shit.

    But if Massport is using a different system than 802.11, then how can their customer expect to use their WiFi devices with their APs? That leaves only one conclusion. Massport is full of shit.
  • This article - http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5817482.html [zdnet.com] has better links, including one to the FCC page where it is explicitly spelled out why Continental is in the right.

  • similar thing in Geneva, apparently (Score:4, Funny)

    by call -151 ( 230520 ) * on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:46PM (#13255512) Homepage
    I saw a similar thing in the Geneva airport- next to some pay-to-connect WiFi networks, an open wireless network named "hidden." I don't know the story, but the idea that Mssrs. Payperconnect asked the owner of the open one to make his hidden, and so he named it "hidden"- that cracked me up...
  • After September 11th, all of the legacy hub airlines have faced enormous challenges. Unlike all of their competitors Continental still treats their customers right by, at no extra cost, having food on long flights, clean airplanes, pillows, curbside check-in and great crews. Plus unlimited upgrades for elite frequent fliers. ;-)
    The other airlines that operate major lounge networks in the US all charge for wi-fi, Continental provides it for free and the MassHoles at BOS are suing them for it. Whenever given

  • The FCC already ruled on this (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anon E. Muss ( 808473 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @09:57PM (#13255562)
    The FCC ruled on this in June 2004. Here's the link to the FCC's Public Notice [fcc.gov]. Tennents in "hotels, conference and convention centers, airports, and colleges and universities" have the right to run their own WiFi equipment, and the landlord has no say in the matter.

    This has been discussed [slashdot.org] in Slashdot before.

  • Last time I was at Logan I tried to use their system. It was horribly expensive, but I needed to e-mail ... so I went ahead. It worked up to the point of charging my credit card and then died on me. I saw many other people hving the same experience. I somehow doubt that there really is an internett connection to it, its just a CC charging service.
  • I was at Logan last Fall and tried to get a wifi signal. They wanted something like $19.95 (I think) to connect for a few hours. At those prices I doubt that mAssport would be losing very much business...

  • it aint free (Score:3, Interesting)

    by b17bmbr ( 608864 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @10:07PM (#13255602)
    if they're offereing it to their frequernt flier club, then it's already being paid for. like when a rental car comes with "unlimited" milage. you already paid for the mileage up front. hell, my degree is econ, and finally i'm teaching it this year. it's a cost, that's all. if i'm not a freq. flier, then i don't get it. what's the confusion? it's a perk, like "free coffee". it's just part of operating costs. if "free wifi" entices me to fly continental, i've already paid for it. duh.
    • "a cost, that's all. if i'm not a freq. flier, then i don't get it. "

      Without special and expensive measures, WiFi signals won't stop abruptly outside Continental's lounge. So you should be able to use it unless there are thugs to keep you away OR they set up a system so that only their frequent flier club people can sign on and get access (which will probably cost Continental much more than just providing free service on a "what you see is what you get" basis).

      WiFi should never be regarded as secure and gua
  • is all they should have for weapons against this free provider. They are using a free, UNREGULATED channel. The FCC is the only one that can say who can or can't do something, and the airline simply does not have a say as to who broadcasts on those frequencies within the rules the FCC has set forth. If you can't turn a buck because someone else is undercutting you, TOO BAD. This is no different in any other business. That's like the corner gas station trying to sue the new Quick Trip that just moved in
  • is one reason NH folks refer to some of these people as Massholes.

  • Not just Continental (Score:4, Informative)

    by dlleigh ( 313922 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @11:38PM (#13256037)
    The last time I was in Logan's terminal A, my laptop not only informed me of the Massport network, but also one run by the Burger King outlet in that terminal.

    Nothing I could connect to, so maybe it's just for BK internal use. In which case, it would seem that Massport's complaint about other's WiFi messing with their systems is indeed a convenient excuse, and what they really want is a monopoly on internet access at Logan.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Close