 
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..... | |
|  | 
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | 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 | Re: Terrorists? they can use cell phones if they need
they don't need wi-fi, that is a load of crap | |
| | | | 
Harddrive
Premium
join:2000-09-20
Norwich, CT | Re: Terrorists? What does MassPort think? The terrorists are going to have a Wi-Fi card sticking out of their Koran? | |
| | | | | stufried
Premium
join:2003-10-13
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
| Re: Terrorists? The Mass authority recognizes how fiscally conservative terrorists are.
even though the terrorists put out close to half a million dollars to fund 9-11 and bought first class round trip tickets for what was definitely a one way flight, no self-respecting terrorists would fork over $7.95 for wifi access.
Even terrorists have budget constraints these days. We should absolutely defer to their expertise in this area. | |
| | | | | | 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| Re: Terrorists? said by stufried  :Even terrorists have budget constraints these days. Maybe they could have a button on the webpage that says "If you are a terrorist, click here and save 30%..."
--
A is A | |
| | averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| said by N3OGH :Terrorism and security has NOTHING to do with it, this is a money grab..... Ding Ding Ding we have a winner! | |
| 
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 | |
| | 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| Re: Boooo said by Nick :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. What really sucks about airport wifi during summer and winter storm seasons is that, at each airport, you have to pay a fee. So, if your initial departure is delayed and any of your connecting flights is also delayed, you have to pay the fee at each freaking airport. Blows bigtime. Personally, I'd rather have the airline I'm on sponsor it. That way, assuming I'm on a consistent carrier, I'd just have to punch in the SSID that's on my ticket at each airport and bingo, I've got connectivity without the aggravation of "paying twice".
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| 
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 | 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. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 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:
| Re: Boston Airport WiFi 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 | Re: Boston Airport WiFi 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. | |
| | | | |
quibbly
Premium
join:2003-02-07
Sugar Land, TX
| Re: Boston Airport WiFi 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? | |
| | | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| 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. | |
| 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 | |
| | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | 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 | |
| | | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
1 edit | Re: they own the airport the airport can regulate what the lessee does within the scope of the contract signed by the airline | |
| | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| | | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC
1 edit | Re: they own the airport 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... | |
| | Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON | 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 | Re: they own the airport 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. | |
| | | | 
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| 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
| 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/ | |
| | | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| Re: they own the airport said by superdog :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? That's about all they'd have to do.
[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
| It is for PUBLIC use, as you indicate, but that is not the point in question. The point is that Boston airport is not going to allow airlines to offer wireless access to it's travelers. This would be totally legal depending on what the contract says which the airline signed.
I may not agree with it, but I do agree with contract law.
anyway, you make a good point, you can are able to go set up a wireless network which covers the airport, which means
the airlines could find a legal loophole to setup a wireless access point outside of the airport which could be
accessible to their customers within the airport...  | |
| | | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| 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! | |
| | | | 
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Don't listen to NGOwner.. The FCC has CLEARLY ruled on exactly what he is attempting to misinform everyone about.
Read the post at the FCC.Gov, who owns the airwaves.
»www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
It's stated in PLAIN ENGLISH, the LANDLORD has NO RIGHTS over the spectrum, only the FCC does. Rule: 47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, as Amended on October 25, 2000.
The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule.
Bottom line, NOONE can stop you from installing a wifi hub in an area you lease or own. Period.
--
Grand Poobah | |
| | | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
3 edits | Re: they own the airport I deleted the earlier post, as I unfortunately didn't read your link thoroughly enough. You are right as it pertains to the MassPort issue:
The order states: quote:
Q: What are "fixed wireless signals"?
A: "Fixed wireless signals" are any commercial non-broadcast communications signals transmitted via wireless technology to and/or from a fixed customer location. Examples include wireless signals used to provide telephone service or high-speed Internet access to a fixed location. This definition does not include, among other things, AM/FM radio, amateur ("HAM") radio (but see 47 C.F.R. §97.15), Citizens Band ("CB") radio, and Digital Audio Radio Services ("DARS") signals.
emphasis added
It appears that what the airlines are doing is commercial in nature.
However, as a landlord to a private party, it appears that I can prevent the use of a wireless access point, because what you do in an apartment is not commercial in nature and is not protected by this order. This presumes that the equipment is yours. It changes if Comcast puts a wireless device in your apartment, say a wireless cable modem router, and you pay Comcast for that wireless device. In that situation the device is commercial and is protected by this order.
Leave it to the FCC to turn something cut and dried into something murky.
[NG]Owner | |
| | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: they own the airport said by NGOwner :Since when in 802.11 used to receive video? [NG]Owner Well the rule isn't limited to video, fixed wireless is included. Technically I don't think this applies to wifi yet, but I imagine it would be extended if this were brought to court simply because part of the reason this rule was implemented was to prevent landlords from forcing their tenants into only buying the landlords services.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| | | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| Here's another item from your link that makes the situation even more murky:
quote:
Q: If my association, building management, landlord, or property owner provides a central antenna, may I install an individual antenna?
A: Generally, the availability of a central antenna may allow the association, landlord, property owner, or other management entity to restrict the installation by individuals of antennas otherwise protected by the rule. Restrictions based on the availability of a central antenna will generally be permissible provided that: (1) the person receives the particular video programming or fixed wireless service that the person desires and could receive with an individual antenna covered under the rule (e.g., the person would be entitled to receive service from a specific provider, not simply a provider selected by the association); (2) the signal quality of transmission to and from the person's home using the central antenna is as good as, or better than, the quality the person could receive or transmit with an individual antenna covered by the rule; (3) the costs associated with the use of the central antenna are not greater than the costs of installation, maintenance and use of an individual antenna covered under the rule; and (4) the requirement to use the central antenna instead of an individual antenna does not unreasonably delay the viewer's ability to receive video programming or fixed wireless services.
This is getting interesting.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
| | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: they own the airport said by NGOwner :Here's another item from your link that makes the situation even more murky I don't think that's murky at all when you consider the rest of the regulation. What they're saying is a landlord can force you to use their antenna if the signal quality is at least as good as what you can get with something located within your unit. Other parts of the reg state that you must be able to receive that type of service on that antenna, eg. the landlord can't put up a tv antenna and then say you have to use it to receive satellite signals.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| | | | | 
dongato17
VIP
join:2000-07-28
Atlanta, GA
| said by G_Poobah :Bottom line, NOONE can stop you from installing a wifi hub in an area you lease or own. Period. Sorry bud, but this is NOT true. The OTARD rules protect the consumer that wants to receive the signal. It does not protect the entity that wants to transmit the signal. To clarify more, a landlord or gov't entity cannot prohibit a DSS dish or fixed wireless device used to receive wireless signals (with certain limitations), however, they can prohibit a device that serves the access. The airlines are all under a lease that allows them to do certain things and not to do other things. The airport authority has every right to prohibit the installation of the radiators.
The same can be applied if you rent a house out to someone. You cannot prohibit a fixed wireless receiver from being installed on the home (with certain exceptions), but you can prohibit that same person from using that same antenna as a distribution point. To quote from the same link above:
"Q: Does the rule apply to hub or relay antennas?
A: The rule applies to "customer-end antennas" which are antennas placed at a customer location for the purpose of providing service to customers at that location. The rule does not cover antennas used to transmit signals to and/or receive signals from multiple customer locations."
Another item to note is that the rules require an "excluse use" area for the radiator. I think you will find that the facility leases that the airlines have probably do not have many "exclusive use" areas included.
-Hal
--
Harold Bledsoe
Deliberant Wireless
»www.deliberant.com | |
| | | | averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
·Cox HSI
| A landlord can put anything they want into a lease contract - Does not mean it is legal to do so, and does not mean it is enforceable.
This is interesting because this fall within FCC part 15. I don't believe the lease could control FCC part 15 freq's but it could put in a do not compete clause. | |
| 
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
| Re: Following the Bush Policy said by markyman :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. I'm pretty sure if you got GWB's opinion on this he'd side with the airlines.
I could also point out the political views of most people in the Boston area and how the people at the port authority probably have the same slant (especially after reading their statement quoted a couple posts down); and how interesting it is that, when it benefits them, they resort to the same tactic that they decry the other side for using...but that would be off topic.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| MassPort Rebuttal Leave it to BBR to only show one side of the argument. USAToday also ran the counterpoint.
Here is the link: »news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200510···YwM3NDI-
Here is the text: quote:
It's about equality, security
By Craig Coy
Who gets to provide high-speed wireless Internet access at Boston's Logan International Airport is a case of airlines putting travel perks for an elite few ahead of the broad interests of the traveling public. (Related: Our view)
By providing its own central Wi-Fi network, and by restricting airlines from installing their own competing networks, Logan is ensuring the availability of high-speed Internet access for all passengers. They may choose from among hundreds of Internet service providers, with Wi-Fi service available throughout the airport. Passengers may use their existing ISP at no additional charge. Those without an ISP may pay a nominal fee for 24 hours of service.
In contrast, airlines at Logan offer limited service to their elite frequent fliers who pay extra to join private, members-only clubs. Some airlines even negotiate incentives from ISPs to limit service to club members who subscribe to a particular ISP. Unlike the airlines, the Massachusetts Port Authority, which operates Logan, treats all passengers and ISPs equally.
In these days of terrorism and safety alerts, security is a critical consideration for Logan's decision to offer central Wi-Fi. The central network is designed with that goal in mind. Massport's primary focus is to create a safe environment for airline passengers. The central Wi-Fi network provides first responders at Logan with enhanced services and secure communications.
The airlines' Wi-Fi networks are not only exclusive but also could degrade the quality of service for all users. Imagine the Wi-Fi chaos if every airline, every vendor, every security agency and every ISP deployed its own system.
These are difficult times for airlines, struggling to stay alive amid rising fuel costs and stiff competition. Still, airlines shouldn't value elite passengers over the safety of the traveling public. All airlines enforce governmental restrictions on the use of electronic devices on aircraft. Why do airlines now want to ignore similar common-sense restrictions on the use of Wi-Fi devices in airports?
Craig Coy is chief executive officer of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which manages Logan International Airport.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
| |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: MassPort Rebuttal said by NGOwner :USAToday also ran the counterpoint. Holy spindoctoring Batman.
I might actually buy into it if they didn't resort to playing it as the big bad rich people vs. the poor common man.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| |
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| said by NGOwner :Leave it to BBR to only show one side of the argument. USAToday also ran the counterpoint... It is clear that this person does not know what he is talking about...
--
A is A | |
| | phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| To save space... I am going to provide snippets of the aforementioned article. Please do not think I am trying to misquote, skew the article.
Article: "Passengers may use their existing ISP at no additional charge"
My Response: So, I have Cablevision Optimum Online, which is an ISP... so I can use the "official" Logan Wifi network at no additional charge??? Something tells me that isn't QUITE what is meant by that. Rather, I would surmise they mean if you have a pre-existing hotspot plan, for example T-Mobile's, you use your credentials for T-Mobile and thus access the Wifi. Thus, IMHO, the article is VERY misleading.
Article: "The central Wi-Fi network provides first responders at Logan with enhanced services and secure communications"
My Response: Only COMPLETE IDIOTS would RELY on an UNLICENSED spectrum for emergencies. The fact they indicate they provide "enhanced services" to me implies they are required services for the necessary emergency response. If they are, they shouldn't be using this the wifi spectrum.
Article: "Why do airlines now want to ignore similar common-sense restrictions on the use of Wi-Fi devices in airports? "
My Response: Common sense? HELL NO. Either they aren't common sense restrictions... or there are a LOT of people on this thread without common sense.
Lastly... I travel quite a bit; I racked up over 31,000 miles on Continental in under 5 months. Now, I am one of those "elite passengers" and anything my airline does to make my travel (and time away from home and the office) more enjoyable, more tolerable, more productive, etc is fine by me. I HIGHLY doubt the airlines are putting their frequent flyers ABOVE the public safety. | |
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | Re: MassPort Rebuttal said by phantom6294 :To save space... I am going to provide snippets of the aforementioned article. It's not so much an article as it is an opinion piece. Look at who it's written by and what they say about him in the end.
quote:
...
By Craig Coy
...
...
Craig Coy is chief executive officer of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which manages Logan International Airport.
I'm surprised no ones mentioned that yet.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | How is it that a local coffee shop thinks it's better for business to cover the cost of WiFi and provide free service to its customers, and yet a large airport needs to pass on the fees?
Of course, I drop the princely sum of $5 on my average visit to the coffee shop, versus $500 on my average visit to the airport. Which one gives me WiFi included in the price?
Effin' cheapskates. | |
| 
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY | For a State that loves Opensource They sure are greedy bastards | |
| | nonner9
join:2005-10-14
Charlotte, NC | Re: For a State that loves Opensource you call it greed, but a business is in the business of making money, not helping out everybody... | |
| | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: For a State that loves Opensource said by nonner9 :you call it greed, but a business is in the business of making money, not helping out everybody... It's not a business tho, it's the government. The port authority is a division of the local (I think county) government.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| | dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| Yeah, but Logan Airport has always nickled-and-dimed people to death.
Example, now obsolete: used to be that they'd charge a buck or so for the use of a luggage cart in the international arrivals terminal (before customs, certainly before any bureau de change). Yup, all those foreign visitors arrive with one-dollar bills in their pockets. Welcome to America, land of the fee!
(This has since changed due to public complaints; luggage carts are now free at Terminal E, International Arrivals).
Logan's high up on my list of incompetently-run airports. | |
| sinus007
join:2005-06-02
Cleveland, OH
| Fear Hi,
IMHO, the main thing that all should be aware of isn't whether MPA has rights to ban wi-fi access, etc: it's just the usual grab money whenever and wherever you can and make sure the competition doesn't do the same. It's how the officials on all government levels started to make use of fear tactics. Are we switching from the Land of the Free to the Land of the Fear?
Just my $.02
AK | |
| 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| LMAO there are assholes and then there are Massholes. it's all about the money. ya know what? veil it as a way to foil terrorists and the fed gubment will pay for it all anyway with our tax dollars, not just the people from tax-achusetts.
--
I am not herbert. | |
| | roachxp
join:2004-05-26
Milford, MA | Re: LMAO The Airline that is offering the free Wifi in Boston, is also the ones that pays most of Massports bills since they use Boston has their main hub for their planes. Now won't it be the kicker if they moved out because of a Wifi dispute. | |
| cdbma
join:2003-01-19
Bolton, MA | It's Massachusetts same state that:
- spent $14B+ for the Big Dig
- has more toll booths than any other state that I can think of
- still regulates auto insurance
Stop trying to be rational. Nobody's listening! | |
| | 
totamak
And they call me nuts?
join:2000-10-24
Los Angeles, CA | Re: It's Massachusetts Don't forget Ted Kennedy's typically awesome bar tab and insurance payments for flood damage to his car | |
| vincom1
join:2005-02-01
Wayne, NJ
| Continental Airlines I am a Continental Airlines Platinum Elite and President's Club memebers, part of our PAID membership is FREE WIFI in any of the Continental President's Clubs! I highly doubt any of the contract signed by Continental to rent space for thier private lounges have a wifi restriction on them. I pay for my wifi through my club membership -- Continental does a good job of making sure the signal does not leave the clubs BTW - so whats the issue? many other airlines CHARGE thier club memebers. | |
| | | |
|
|
Boston Airport Wi-Fi Cabal