N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Terrorists?
Sorry, but WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT.
Two airports I have visited this year, Las Vegas, NV, and Dublin Ireland, both had free WiFI in the common areas. It was really nice to be able to whip out my laptop and e-mail my friends.
Terrorism and security has NOTHING to do with it, this is a money grab..... |
|
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs:
| Boooo
Interesting way of trying to force people into using a product. I don't agree with it by any means. I wish free/discounted wi-fi was available at all airports and paid for or sponsored by the airlines. With winter months approaching it would be great to minimize the boredom in a delay situation by surfing the net or chatting with friends/coworkers.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
I'm re-moo-ing!!!
My Gallery * My Journal |
|
quibbly
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX
| Boston Airport WiFi
I was at the Boston airport last Saturday and I payed the the $7.95 connection fee. The speed was actually good and I had no issue with my Sonicwall VPN.
Onto the real issue, is this a monopoly? Could be. The airport has a right to charge a fee for a network they implemented. Do they have a right to ban all free spots? If it interferes with their Wifi communication and impacts the airport with any possible security loophole, I say yes.
It's not really possible for me to give a true and valid opinion without knowing all the facts. Need to find out who the owners are, how the WiFi is configured, what kind contract is there for the wifi and more on FCC regulations.
In my opinion, public wifi is a great idea. If the airport can come up with a plan with which channels would be used for the free spots, maybe something can be figured out. It is possible the airport is using multiple channels for configuration with VLAN. Vlan for public side where you pay and private for employees. I do remember seeing a location for Airport employees to login.
It will be interesting to see how this comes to play. I see the airport will be allowed to keep their network and not allow free Wi-Fi. |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| Terrorist are poor!
Didn't you hear!!! Terrorists don't have ANY money... so if it wasn't free, they can't connect and thus we will all be safe!!!!
What a load of crap...
Though, with so many airlines near/in bankruptcy... why are they taking on more costs???
In the end, all I have to say is... I hope the airlines go after the MPA like an abused, blood-thirsty, rabid pit bull. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| The FCC?
One day a guy is at work at starts looking out his window, where he sees two city workers. The first one is digging holes, and the second one is filling them back in.
Confused by this, he goes outside to see what this is about.
"Well sir, you see I did the hole, Bob plants the tree, and Mark fills in around it."
"But you are just digging holes and filling them back in!"
"Well yes sir, we don't stop working just because Bob aint here."
--
AMD X2 4400+/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
| they own the airport
if the Massachusetts Port Authority owns the airport, then they can charge whatever they want... if the airline doesn't agree, then too bad, go start your own airport. The airlines should be complaining about the thousands of dollars in fees it cost just to land an airplane at the airport... ever wonder why you don't see cessna 172's landing at boston logan, besides ATC not liking it, the cessna 172 pilot doesn't want to pay hundreds of dollars.... so if the airlines don't like that they can't broadcast wifi signals, then they can move to another airport, because they don't own the airport, they rent, and since they are renting, they must abide by the rules of the owner
personally, i think it's a load of crap that they are charging so much, but nobody says you have to use it, just like nobody forces you to buy a soda for $3 at an airport |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to quibbly
Re: Boston Airport WiFi
Won't happen with massport. They are yet another agency bleeding , no wait hemorrhaging cash. They dropped the ball on so many things that the little things that used to be free are starting to be charged for. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to nonner9
Re: they own the airport
The point is the WiFi spectrum is not MassPort's property and has no authority to regulate it.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nonner9
Really? Prove it.
Massport is only charged with managing the airport. I can find no evidence that it actually OWNS the airport. As far as I can tell, the state (or perhaps the city of Boston itself) owns the airport.
So, either put up or shut up; prove Massport OWNS the airport. |
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to N3OGH
Re: Terrorists?
If you think logically, the terrorists win! You don't want the terrorists to win, do you?
--
Buy Stuff From Me! - »www.DomainObjects.com |
|
justmesqui
Just-
Premium
join:2004-05-14
BH9 2RJ | they can use cell phones if they need
they don't need wi-fi, that is a load of crap |
|
Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON | reply to nonner9
Re: they own the airport
then in your logic would be that you rent an apartment or house the landlord could ban your WIFI and force everyone to use the landlord's system they run at a charge? WIFI is a open spectrum un-licenced that no one group owns the rights to. |
|
NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
2 edits | A landlord can ban the use of just about anything in his leased property in the lease. And if you agree to it by signing the lease and moving in, then you are in breach of the lease. Remedies include eviction, and possibly confiscation.
WiFi is not a protected activity or category (like satellite dishes). If the lease bans the use of WiFi, then you may not set up a WiFi access point in the facility you are leasing. The landlord can't force you to use his, but s/he can prevent you from setting up your own.
Now, if there is nothing in the MassPort lease that specifies this, or nothing that could be construed to include WiFi, MassPort doesn't have a leg to stand on.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. |
|
nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
1 edit | reply to phantom6294
somebody owns the airport, and whoever does has the right to have any rules they want
but at the same time, the airport will have a hard time forbidding setting up wifi if there is nothing in the contract which the airline signed... |
|
nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
1 edit | reply to ieolus
the airport can regulate what the lessee does within the scope of the contract signed by the airline |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to quibbly
Re: Boston Airport WiFi
said by quibbly  :Do they have a right to ban all free spots? If it interferes with their Wifi communication and impacts the airport with any possible security loophole, I say yes. You'll have to get Federal Law rewritten then. Write your Congressman.
Wi-FI operates under Part 15 of FCC Rules. As an unlicensed service, it has no right to be free from interference, and must accept any interference it receives. Also, the FCC is the sole regulator of non-Federal use of the spectrum in the U.S.
We've already gone through this with public university attempts to regulate Wi-Fi equipment. If the airport wants to be freee from interference, they can obtain a license to a slice of licensed spectrum, and set up operation. Then they need to somehow convince people to buy equipment n order to use it. Instead, they are illegally trying to leech off of the Wi-Fi industry. |
|
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| reply to NGOwner
Re: they own the airport
said by NGOwner :Now, if there is nothing in the MassPort lease that specifies this, or nothing that could be construed to include WiFi, MassPort doesn't have a leg to stand on. Well said. Though I still disagree with MassPort's heavy-handed and often bogus (security threat?) tactics.
--
Copyright infringement is illegal. Murder is illegal. Therefore, file sharing is murder. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to NGOwner
said by NGOwner :A landlord can ban the use of just about anything in his leased property in the lease. And if you agree to it by signing the lease and moving in, then you are in breach of the lease. Remedies include eviction, and possibly confiscation. WiFi is not a protected activity or category (like satellite dishes). [NG]Owner Well, Guess what?, 2.4Ghz is an ISM band setup by the FCC. It is for PUBLIC use, which means ANYONE is allowed to do whatever they want with it as long as it does not mess with or cause interference to licensed devices in any band. Since it is public domain, no one owns it per say, and no one is allowed to claim ownership, including airports. I could possibly see banning any type of wireless devices being plugged in on airport property, but thats about it?. If I wanted to be a jerk, I could go there right now and setup a network the covers the entire airport without ever going onto their property, and there is NOTHING they could do about it. As far as terrorists using it, that is total stupidity. Like any terrorist is going to sit where they may be security cameras filming them for a long period of time?. Besides, all they have to do is rent a car, find the closest town, and just drive up and down the city streets. They won't have to go far before they will find an open access point that some stupid user didn't encrypt. They can pull an IP, send their mail, check out some porn, and drive away, end of story.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net Join WISPA today! »www.wispa.org/ |
|
markyman
join:2003-10-06
Ashburn, VA
1 edit | Following the Bush Policy
I don't really mean to make this a political issue- so please don't start- but this is only in effect becuase of the BUSH policies. Everytime the word TERRORISM is mentioned anywhere, things are not questioned. It's like a free get out of jail card to do whatever you want, however you want it.
I'm not sure exactly how it is that by using this connections it'll be any safer... you think they'll monitor everyone who uses their WiFi??? you think they have the money to assign resources for this?? They can barely keep with regular security in airports.
Until these scare tactics are left alone as an exuse to do what comes to mind, this country will keep doing this crap. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to NGOwner
Re: they own the airport
said by NGOwner :A landlord can ban the use of just about anything in his leased property in the lease. And if you agree to it by signing the lease and moving in, then you are in breach of the lease... ...WiFi is not a protected activity or category (like satellite dishes). If the lease bans the use of WiFi, then you may not set up a WiFi access point in the facility you are leasing. The landlord can't force you to use his, but s/he can prevent you from setting up your own. If I remember correctly, the issue of a landlord forbidding the use of the mini satellite dishes has been brought up in court and that the end result was that the landlord couldn't prevent renters from using satellite and either had to allow the dishes to be used (the old cement bucket on the balcony method because a permanent mount would damage the building) or had to provide access to one. Anyone else remember this?
If we're going the landlord/tenant route what they have to forbid was use of access points, because they can't really forbid the use of the wifi spectrum. If someone were to take this to court the only reason I could see the airport winning is if they can prove that the access point itself causes some sort of permanent damage to the facility; and the only plausible reason they have is the terrorist issue, and it's only plausible if you don't look any deeper then the fact that it could be used to facilitate communication and ignore that the airport itself is offering wifi access.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! |
|
