  rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27 Pensacola, FL
1 edit | Yes
Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits?
I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. |
|
  pb5k more cowbell Premium join:2005-11-16 Glendale, AZ
·Cox HSI
| I don't mind that they would cite "airport security" as the reason, so long as they can disclose specfically how their paid wifi access is "safe" while continental's free wifi is dangerous to "airport security". 
Put up or shut up, I say. -- "When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" -- Theodore Roosevelt |
|
  tsu9
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | It's a well-known fact that terrorists have lots of frequent-flier miles.  |
|
  exocet_cm I am the law Premium join:2003-03-23 New Orleans, LA clubs:  
·Cox HSI
·Suddenlink
·Cingular Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
| said by tsu9 :It's a well-known fact that terrorists have lots of frequent-flier miles. And use free wifi. -- "I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot "I'll take things only I know" for a thousand Alex.
|
|
  footballdude Premium join:2002-08-13 Imperial, MO
| reply to rachelsfx said by rachelsfx :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits? I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. OK, first off, Continental isn't exactly the little guy here. Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'? Fifthly (is that a word?), just exactly what is being kept from the public?
Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? -- What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
  wifi4milez Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07 New York, NY
·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
1 edit | said by footballdude :Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? On this website, unfortunately yes.  -- я люблю медведей! |
|
 PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR
| Well, duh!!
Well that's no surprise. What part of "unlicensed spectrum", "Part 15", and "must accept any interference" does Logan not understand?
Talk about arrogant. Logan decides it wants to use some unlicensed spectrum, and then tries to kick out other unlicensed users. Even if the other users happen to be tenants, the OTARD Rule, a result of the 1996 Telecomm Act, says that Logan can't do what they are trying to do.
If Logan wants a piece of spectrum to themselves, they can apply for a license in a licensed portion; that's what that spectrum is for: exclusive use. |
|
  Zaber When all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08 Cleveland, OH clubs:
·Expedient
·XO COMMUNICATIONS
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to pb5k Re: Yes
It is a threat to airport security. The airport is looking for another revenue stream and this cuts into it. That would have been money that could have been used to make the airport more secure. Just like every time someone downloads a song the RIAA members loose a CD sale. As far as it being National security (a claim made by the airport administration), it the airport is insecure, the entire nation is.
Wow I can't believe I actually typed that with a straight face. Its very simple, its all about the money. Next thing we will hear is how it endangers children because pedos can use Continental's WI-FI for free. -- Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
  Raptor Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21 London, ON | Go Figure...
I'm sorry...did the FCC just do the right thing?....*shocked and in awe* -- ....where's my fiber? |
|
 wentlanc You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30 Maineville, OH
| reply to footballdude Re: Yes
said by footballdude :Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? Yes. And, just to make you upset! (kidding of course)
It would seem that there is some amount of subject hopping going on. However, it does seem that more people are hopping on to the "In the name of security" bandwagon since the prez successfully convinced the nation using that same speech. Using people's safety against them, with no proof, has become more commonplace in the last 5 years, and is a despicable tactic.
puritan |
|
 RayW Premium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT clubs:
·XMission
| reply to rachelsfx said by rachelsfx :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits? I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. I am glad you acknowledge that Bush is the most powerful President we have ever had. But I am afraid he can not take credit for this one. The MTA has been gouging people using dubious reasonings long before even Bush Senior was president. The Kingston Trio did a song called 'Charlie on the MTA' which was actually written in 1948 by Jacqueline Steiner and Bess Lomax Hawes and was a political commentary on the perceived excesses of the MTA. There are other songs over the years about the MTA, but that is the one most people know of.
So the MTA thing is older and more pervasive than even President Bush at his best can be held accountable for. They just used a bad law for personal gain, like many others, including President Bush's nemeses, Hollywood. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to tsu9 said by tsu9 :It's a well-known fact that terrorists have lots of frequent-flier miles. Tasteless on so many levels... but very devilishly funny for some reason Almost spit up the coffee there! -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
  pnh102 Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to rachelsfx said by rachelsfx :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." KILL! KILL! KILL!
I really should stop listening to FOX News on the way to work  -- Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
  GlobalMind Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL
| reply to Raptor Re: Go Figure...
said by Raptor :I'm sorry...did the FCC just do the right thing?....*shocked and in awe* LOL my thoughts exactly. |
|
 Desdinova
join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to footballdude Re: Yes
Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'?"
The airport appears to be dragging out the old chestnut that was lionized and popularized by Bush and his administration as a catch-all excuse to justify any action that otherwise would get uncomfortably examined.
I'm guessing the complaint is that a lot of folks are tired of hearing the "national security" excuse for many reasons that don't seem to have any connection with national security at all.
Logan Airport stated early on that unrestricted wifi in the airport posed a national security risk but I don't recall any more elaboration beyond that (which suggested that their claim was dubious).
Yes, fifthly IS a word...*grin* |
|
  cwy1980 Premium join:2004-08-10 Monmouth Junction, NJ clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
| The most ironic part of this argument regarding Logan using the "security concerns" excuse is that, from a physical security perspective, cell phones are a FAR greater potential security concern than WiFi...
Poor Boston Logan Airport...all that revenue they lose from Continental's WiFi customers must really make them feel insecure... -- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy |
|
 raccettura
join:2002-09-28 USA
| Doesn't apply to universities
Note that this doesn't apply to universities:
"The rules prohibit homeowner associations, landlords, state and local governments, or any other third parties from placing restrictions that impair a customer antenna user's ability to install, maintain, or use such customer antennas transmitting and/or receiving commercial nonbroadcast communications signals when the antenna is located 'on property within the exclusive use or control' of the user."
From: »arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···797.html
Note that this prohibits landlords but doesn't say anything about network owners.
So no, you can't open a network you don't own to the outside world. Do it at work, you will get fired, and likely sued. Do it at school and face consequences.
This just means your landlord can't tell you no wireless devices because it degrades their signal quality. Doesn't say anything about your ISP barking because you didn't enable WPA on your access point. |
|
 TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09 Enola, PA
| reply to Raptor Re: Go Figure...
said by Raptor :I'm sorry...did the FCC just do the right thing?....*shocked and in awe* Even a broken clock is right twice a day. |
|
 pantrw
join:2006-01-22 Mexico | reply to rachelsfx Re: Yes
well, with all due respect, US paranoia kind of makes everything a "national security" issue, and yes, it BLOWS -- Life is too beautiful to waste it by being stupid |
|
 bwalker25
join:2005-12-20 Durham, NC
| reply to raccettura Re: Doesn't apply to universities
Actually I read it very different! 
In addition, questions have arisen about the ability of homeowners associations, landlords, and other third parties to prohibit customer use of small antennas when consumers install and operate them as unlicensed devices.
In response, we reaffirm that, under the Communications Act, the FCC has exclusive authority to resolve matters involving radio frequency interference [RFI] when unlicensed devices are being used, regardless of venue. We also affirm that the rights that consumers have under our rules to install and operate customer antennas one meter or less in size apply to the operation of unlicensed equipment, such as Wi-Fi access points - just as they do to the use of equipment in connection with fixed wireless services licensed by the FCC." The "third parties" to me would emcompass a massivly large Multi person environment or MTE as the FCC put it and that would include a college or university or hospital or whatever else. In a college or university the landlord is the university/college, seems to me that this does apply to colleges. Moreover given this statement by the FCC, I would assume sinse a wireless access device that is being used without permission is unlicensed and therefore unless RFI (radio freq. interference) is happening there isn't much that can be done to shut it down, provided intellectual property isn't being damaged or copyright laws violated...
the FCC even stated only they have this authority, to say that a consumer has to shut down a wireless access point. However not many people would keep one up if legal action was threatened against them.... |
|