Can a Landlord Control Your Spectrum? FCC repeatedly says no.... In 2005, an interesting debate sprung up in Boston between Continental Airlines (who wanted to offer free Wi-Fi to frequent flyers) and Logan Airport (who wanted to charge customers $7.95 a day). To get their way, Logan and the Mass. Transit Authority claimed that Continental's service was a threat to airport security and shouldn't be allowed. This, combined with the University of Texas's efforts to ban all "unsanctioned" Wi-Fi hotspots, fostered debate over whether a landlord has any authority over wireless transmissions on their property. But with the FCC consistently and repeatedly stating (pdf) that only the federal government has such authority, there really isn't much of a dispute. From their statement in 2004: "The FCCs Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) releases this Public Notice in response to questions from the public regarding the use of unlicensed devices, including customer antennas, especially in the context of a variety of multi-tenant environments (MTEs). MT environments encompass venues such as hotels, conference and convention centers, airports, and colleges and universities. In particular, questions have arisen about the role of the Commission in addressing and resolving radio interference (RFI) issues in these settings. 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." Commissioner Martin is apparently preparing to side with Continental in the dispute, but is waiting for approval from two other FCC commissioners.
|
 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. | |
|  |  pb5kCan't TriforcePremium join:2005-11-16 Glendale, AZ | Re: Yes 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 | Re: Yes It's a well-known fact that terrorists have lots of frequent-flier miles.  | |
|  |  |  |  exocet_cmYou delete it, I'll find itPremium join:2003-03-23 New Orleans, LA kudos:2 | Re: Yes 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.
| |
|  |  |  |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | 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. | |
|
 |  |  ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none join:2000-06-08 Cleveland, OH | 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 | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Yes Actually some groups have already fought wifi deployments based on the claim it endangers children by causing cancer. The deployments were in schools. | |
|  |  |  |  |  ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none join:2000-06-08 Cleveland, OH | Re: Yes I remember that, somewhere in Canada I believe. However the cancer argument won't work because Boston wants to start a competing service. -- Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
|
 |  |  | | I think its a joke that the airport wants to control the airline's security. The airline in my opinion should have full control off all security over the airport. The planes are the targets, not the food courts. | |
|  |  |  | | Well you you must realize that SANCTIONED Hot-spots must be capable of not interfering with other radio sources, instead of those UNSANCTIONED Hot Spots you know how much NOISIER they can be....(snicker, chortle, BWHAHAHAHA) | |
|
 |  | | 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 | |
|  |  |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY 1 edit | Re: Yes said by footballdude:Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? On this website, unfortunately yes.  -- я люблю медведей! | |
|  |  |  wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb.. join:2003-07-30 Maineville, OH | 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 | |
|  |  |  DesdinovaPremium join:2003-01-26 Gaithersburg, MD | 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* | |
|  |  |  |  cwy1980Premium join:2004-08-10 Monmouth Junction, NJ | Re: Yes 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 | |
|
 |  RayWPremium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT kudos:1 | 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. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Yes "I am glad you acknowledge that Bush is the most powerful President we have ever had"
Bush is the most powerfull president we have ever had? LMAO. I think you need to get a clue. Look back upon WW 2... | |
|  |  |  |  RayWPremium join:2001-09-01 Layton, UT kudos:1 | Re: Yes Who else could destroy the US economy before he was allowed in the White House, and over a month before Clinton handed over the power to do so? The folks you are referring to at least had to be in office to do what they did.
But that is only the impression I get from what everyone (and I use the term 'everyone' loosely) claims Bush is responsible for and when it occurred. My personal opinions are nowhere near as lofty. -- I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
 |  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD | 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. | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Yes said by pnh102: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 Mr. President please step away from the computer it;s time for your bath ! -- "It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|  |  |  |  calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Yes What the H? This is Bush's FCC leaning toward preventing someone from squishing free WiFi.
We've crossed a new frontier here--Rachel and others can bash the Bush administration even when they do the right thing.
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 |  | | 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 | |
|  |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | national security = our profits - I think a real terrorist would just fork over the $7.95 - get off it already. GEEZ! -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 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. | |
|  RaptorNot 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? | |
|  |  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL | 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. | |
|  |  |  calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Go Figure... Yes, and some people here are so blinded by Bush hatred that they can't realize this....
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 |  | | 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. | |
|  |  wtansillNcc1701 join:2000-10-10 Falls Church, VA | said by Raptor:I'm sorry...did the FCC just do the right thing?....*shocked and in awe* <cynicism>
No. Continental has better lobbyists than Logan </cynicism>
-- That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. | |
|
 | | 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. | |
|  |  | | 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.... | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Doesn't apply to universities But even if Universities can't legally say not to have Wifi hotspots, they can disconnect your internet for connecting a wifi hotspot to their network. | |
|  |  |  |  rawWar EaglePremium join:2001-01-17 Madison, AL | Re: Doesn't apply to universities Correct, but that's a Terms of Service issue, not a spectrum issue. They can cut you off, but they can't force you to remove the hotspot (even if said hotspot connects to nowhere). -- [BBR]raw America's Army BBR Enemy Territory clan founder | |
|  |  |  |  | | said by masterpjz9:But even if Universities can't legally say not to have Wifi hotspots, they can disconnect your internet for connecting a wifi hotspot to their network. Correct.
We also have established laws prohibiting you from giving out access to a network without authorization (we call that hacking or social engineering). If you work at NASA and you give someone access to the internal network... you get in trouble.
There are so many opportunities to bust you.
I just hope nobody takes this one thing to seriously. The standard doesn't apply in most common situations. | |
|
 |  | | Well I can restrict it in apartments, i enforce it. Esp when it will interfere with video i set up to monitor dumpster and parking lots.
Every law has a loophole in technology. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Doesn't apply to universities said by markopoleo:Well I can restrict it in apartments, i enforce it. Esp when it will interfere with video i set up to monitor dumpster and parking lots. Every law has a loophole in technology. WRONG! Learn what Part 15 rules are. | |
|  |  |  richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith | said by markopoleo:Well I can restrict it in apartments, i enforce it. Esp when it will interfere with video i set up to monitor dumpster and parking lots. Every law has a loophole in technology. Then you're breaking federal law, committing a felony, I believe. And the only people who can enforce it are federal officers. And even private areas can't actually restrict it ; what they can do is make life very difficult. In the case of private colleges, what they do is state in their rules 'use of wi-fi will result in your suspension and/or expulsion'. They don't have the teeth to actually stop you from using wi-fi, but they can [especially if it's a private college] suspend you from the college. You can continue to use wi-fi, but at that point you would be trespassing & subject to local laws on that. | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Charter
| Re: Doesn't apply to universities WRONG its legal for me to block it.
Like all laws...as i said, loopholes abound, here is my loophole that is used ALL over the place by landlords.
The law does not apply if the landlord use includes reporting criminal activity, in my case i use for watching dumpster this is included since I have had previous people caught doing this.
Its not like I just make this stuff up, I don't spend thousands of dollars and not ask a lawyer to figure this out for me.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  richk_1957If ..Then..ElsePremium join:2001-04-11 Minas Tirith | Re: Doesn't apply to universities OK maybe you asked a lawyer, but I went around in circles about this very topic [interference with other services] with the FCC years ago [things might have changed since then] and it came down to this. The only regulation of RF transmission comes from the FCC. And there was a case of local police monitoring their impound yard and getting interfered with. The FCC issued a restraining order against the person transmitting for a period of time & told the police the had that time to shield their system, after which the person transmitting could resume operations.
And I've been told time & again, the only ones who can enforce the FCC laws are federal LEO. Anyone else, including local police [state, county, town] cannot do this - if they do, they are subject to prosecution. I've seen it happen.
This might be different than what your lawyer told you & with the latest laws from the DHS, is probably even more restrictive, but this is the summation of my communication with the FCC. | |
|
 |  1 edit | "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."
Ummm...Aren't most universities run by a state government? Aren't Major airports run by state/county governments?
The FCC has consistently ruled against governments that tried to restrict or circumvent the FCC rulings in these matters. The only real difference is that a airport has not been involved.
There MIGHT be a glitch because part 15 gear does not require a license, but I doubt it will be found that a landlord has the power to restrict RF emissions coming from a tenants area because, under the law the tenant has the exclusive right to use and control of the area under his control, such as offices, ticket counters, etc.
The hangup here seems to be that they want their system to be airport wide. I dont see why myself. The most likely users of their free WiFi would be their customers in waiting areas and adjacent lounges.
All they really need to do is set up their system in their areas of the airport for customers waiting, etc. | |
|  |  |  marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM join:2002-05-13 Saint Louis, MO kudos:1 | Re: Doesn't apply to universities said by Fatal Vector:Ummm...Aren't most universities run by a state government? No, the vast majority are private. Even the state with the largest state university system, California, has only 43 university campuses compared to hundreds of private campuses in the state. -- ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu Professional Geographer Geographic Information Science researcher | |
|  |  |  |  calvoiper join:2003-03-31 Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Re: Doesn't apply to universities Even so, where this has come up (Dormitories) the Universities are landlords.
calvoiper -- VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none join:2000-06-08 Cleveland, OH | Why is this complicated? The FCC says that a someone, landlord, university, whatever cannot prevent someone from using the 2.4G portion of the spectrum. The university is well within their rights as the network maintainers to demand that no one may connect a wireless access point into their network.
In short if you want to run a hotspot get your own internet access and make sure it is not a violation of the TOS. -- Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime | |
|
 Michieru2zzz zzz zzzPremium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | ... The obvious answer is no simply because then they would control what cellphone provider works in there property, whose allowed to use Bluetooth and such.
This has nothing to do with terrorism but the obvious fact that the airport simply does not want it for some (competition?)unknown reason because I am not going to RTFA. | |
|  | | Should be a Law Amtrak should get the same money, on a dollar per dollar basis, as does the airline industry from local, state and the federal government. Why should one form of transportation get more money, or any money at all?
That being said, if the FCC enforces their rules, then Logan Airport and UT at Austin would be facing severe legal problems. | |
|  |  | | Re: Should be a Law [Mass. Transit Authority]
One trivial detail, the airport is operated by Mass. Port Authority, a totally different but equally independent state agency. | |
|
 | | If security is depending on using the unlicensed spectrum... If Logan Airport security is depending on using the unlicensed spectrum... some heads need to roll. Until then it might be safer to avoid going through Logan altogether. | |
|
 | |
|
|