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. |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
1 edit | 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. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to quibbly
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. |
|
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| said by PDXPLT :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. Only 2 words come into play here that renders the FCC ruling null and void - National Security.
Please don't slam me, most of the readers here are thinking the same thing.
Is this fair? nope. Is it going to change, not any time soon.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke |
|
TheGhost
Premium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Comcast
1 edit | The issue with the "National Security" issue is that it seems to be a Red Herring. If Logan is depending on using this knowingly wild-west area of Spectrum for areas of airport security, they have bigger problems. If what they are saying is truly the case, what would stop some terrorist from setting up some "rogue" hotspot and bringing down the entire airport? Next thing they will say is "no more laptops or routers" passing through Logan. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to djtim21
said by djtim21 :Only 2 words come into play here that renders the FCC ruling null and void - National Security. Uh, there is no basis in any law that allows a local government entity to override Federal Law (in this case, the Telecommunications Act, from which the FCC gets all its power) in the name of "national security". Besides the fact that it makes no technical nor logical sense. 'just nonsense thrown out by ignorant liberal-arts-major lawyers who don't know what they're talking about. |
|
quibbly
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX
| reply to TheGhost
Good point TheGhost. If Logan is depending on wifi as their form of communication and are using the National Security issue as a reason to keep it private, then they do have a bigger problem.
If I read between the lines, then this is no more than Logan trying to capitalize on their wifi and want to keep free hotspots from entering the picture. Wouldn't this corner the market on being a Monopoly? |
|
