 |
 | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| Re: YES!! said by livininarizona  :This is what we need! Puts some competition back in the airport and prevents the government organization regulating the airport(Massport) from holding up travelers with another onerous tax on many of the out of state residents who use the airport. Taxes on people who don't actually vote in a state is a favorite with politicians.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | 
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: YES!! "Taxes on people who don't actually vote in a state is a favorite with politicians."
Umm, what 'taxes' are you talking about. This is a ruling that states the unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed. The ruling has NOTHING to do with taxes, or fees, or 'homeland security'. The ruling just codifies the right of any user to use any 'unlicensed' spectrum, wherever they may be.
As usual, you attempt to obfuscate the issue by declaring it a 'tax issue', when in reality it's nothing of the sort.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| | | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| Re: YES!! said by karlmarx :As usual, you attempt to obfuscate the issue by declaring it a 'tax issue', when in reality it's nothing of the sort. As usual you try to obfuscate the issue by playing the semantics card. It may not be a tax in name, but it is an income stream for the government that the politicians don't have to worry about paying a price for. Why raise taxes to cover the port authority (risking a citizen backlash and being voted out)when you can jack up the price of a service for a captive audience and force out competitors at what is essentially gunpoint.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
|
| | | | 
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| Re: YES!! An income stream for government is not a tax. Tax is something that everyone pays and gets equal access to(police, fire, EMS, nice roads, water treatment and the such). An income stream is payed for by people that use the service, if you dont use it, you dont have to pay for it. | |
|
| | | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | The jokes on you dude. You should have read his/her post a little more carefully before you tried to cut him/her down. | |
|
| jtel
join:2005-06-28
Bristol, RI
| Not sure here but I doubt Massport is done with this and I doubt the FCC is the last legal resort in regards to 'lease agreements'.
From the Boston Globe:
"Massport argued that Continental's free service would interfere with its network, raise safety concerns and violate lease agreements." | |
|
| | travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM
| Re: YES!! said by jtel :violate lease agreements Yep. So the next time the lease expires there will be this funky little clause in the new lease that states that the rent will be 3X if the tenant wishes to use their own wireless ISP.
Celebrate now - the victory won't last long. | |
|
jloor
join:2001-09-14
New Brunswick, NJ | Yes! Now we have precident! | |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| This is a horror for the **AA's For once, the FCC ruled correctly. The UNLICENSED spectrum is just that, unlicensed. The spectrum is free for anyone to use. Why is this a bad thing for the **AA's you ask? Because now, as a homeowner, you can always say 'someone was using my wireless'. This means the **AssAsses don't have a legal leg to stand on. If I get 'sued' by the **AA's, I just say I have a free wireless access point. And as the FCC clearly states, I, the landlord, have no responsibility if someone uses my open wireless hotspot to download movies, mp3's, software, etc. This is a GREAT ruling for all those who believe the internet should be free for all to use, as they see fit. This is a great ruling which will ultimately strike down the illegal TOS that the megacorps try and force people to agree to. If you pay for an internet connection, you have the RIGHT to use it ANY way you want to. This ruling just codifies that right.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: This is a horror for the **AA's said by karlmarx :This is a great ruling which will ultimately strike down the illegal TOS that the megacorps try and force people to agree to. Megacorps? The "megacorps" (being the airlines here) won a huge victory here! They are now able tell the eeeeeeeeevil government (Logan Airport) to go screw itself with regards to Wi-Fi regulation.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|
| quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | Are you that twisted? Since I pay for my car, do I have the right to run you over without any consequences? The FCC's ruling doesn't say you can steal music/movies or distribute child porn, but you conveniently interpreted it that way. | |
|
| | 
lkviewguy
join:2004-02-13
Chicago, IL | Re: This is a horror for the **AA's ok that was a really dumb remark, stay on topic dude.
Must be a republican | |
|
| | | 
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: This is a horror for the **AA's said by lkviewguy :ok that was a really dumb remark, stay on topic dude. Must be a republican Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Avoid really dumb remarks and stay on topic, since you saw fit to do neither, sir.
--
Never ask what sort of a computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him? -Tom Clancy | |
|
| | | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
1 edit | I'm not dumb enough to blindly associate myself with either party. Life isn't black and white. | |
|
| | 
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| said by quatrix :Are you that twisted? Since I pay for my car, do I have the right to run you over without any consequences? The FCC's ruling doesn't say you can steal music/movies or distribute child porn, but you conveniently interpreted it that way. Putting downloading a few new tunes in the same category as downloading child porn is pushing it.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. | |
|
| | | quatrix
Premium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL | Re: This is a horror for the **AA's I was replying to someone who said "the internet should be free for all to use, as they see fit" and "you have the RIGHT to use it ANY way you want to", so no, I'm not pushing anything. | |
|
| 
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | Of course you also consider broadband access a utility. Im not going to pay for yours, sorry. step away from the government teat. | |
|
| 
djtim21
It's all good
Premium
join:2003-12-22
Buffalo Grove, IL
clubs:
| said by karlmarx :For once, the FCC ruled correctly. The UNLICENSED spectrum is just that, unlicensed. The spectrum is free for anyone to use. Why is this a bad thing for the **AA's you ask? Because now, as a homeowner, you can always say 'someone was using my wireless'. This means the **AssAsses don't have a legal leg to stand on. If I get 'sued' by the **AA's, I just say I have a free wireless access point. And as the FCC clearly states, I, the landlord, have no responsibility if someone uses my open wireless hotspot to download movies, mp3's, software, etc. This is a GREAT ruling for all those who believe the internet should be free for all to use, as they see fit. This is a great ruling which will ultimately strike down the illegal TOS that the megacorps try and force people to agree to. If you pay for an internet connection, you have the RIGHT to use it ANY way you want to. This ruling just codifies that right. This is a huge quote, but I needed to show it to make my point. This ruling has NOTHING to do with the RIAA/MPAA and a defence. This has NOTHING to do with the TOS that you agree to when you sign up with an ISP.
WHAT this does mean, is that if say you live in an apartment building, or you lease space in an office building, the landlord can not force you to use their wireless system, and can not stop you from putting out WAP's for access.
NO MATTER WHAT you are still responsible for your network, and what it does.
--
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” - Edmund Burke | |
|
| 
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| "If you pay for an internet connection, you have the RIGHT to use it ANY way you want to. This ruling just codifies that right."
Uhm, no. It only says a Landlord can't tell tennants they can't use wireless. It says nothing about sharing an Internet connection. You are still bound to your ISP's AUP. | |
|
| 
joako
Premium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by karlmarx : If you pay for an internet connection, you have the RIGHT to use it ANY way you want to. This ruling just codifies that right. So if I have in internet connection it is my RIGHT to trade child pornography and send death threats?
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir | |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| What does this mean for Universities? There are currently several Universities that ban students from running wireless routers on campus. Does this ruling have any effect on them? They are the landlord of sorts, but also the service provider.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: What does this mean for Universities? said by Camelot One :There are currently several Universities that ban students from running wireless routers on campus. Does this ruling have any effect on them? They are the landlord of sorts, but also the service provider. Unless you sign some kind of lease for your room on campus, I doubt it will help you. Of course, you could sue in court. You and fellow students could pool your beer money and sue, but I doubt you'd win.
--
--
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
|
| | 89707828
join:2006-10-24
Chicago, IL
| Re: What does this mean for Universities? This ruling means that the student cannot be prohibited from having and running a wireless router, but it has nothing to say about whether it can be connected to anything. The university can and might very well prohibit you from connecting that wireless router to their network, and the FCC is fine with that.
You can be sure that it would take about a second to detect. | |
|
| | 
StickyMU
@cdm.com
| said by TCH :
You and fellow students could pool your beer money and sue, but I doubt you'd win.
This made me laugh.
I think the OP hit the nail on the head when stating that the University is also the service provider. They probably have an Internet policy very similar to the TOS from an ISP such as Comcast or Verizon. | |
|
| 
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| If there the ISP as well then they have legal authority to say what hardware you can use and in this case you can't use a wireless router. It's not a spectrum problem, it's an ISP problem and if they state that. You will lose and not only that but any lawyer would tell you that up front really. | |
|
| claudeo
join:2000-02-23
Redmond, WA
| said by Camelot One :There are currently several Universities that ban students from running wireless routers on campus. Does this ruling have any effect on them? They are the landlord of sorts, but also the service provider. That seems to be a rather different situation, since the university is the service provider. At Logan, presumably the airline has its own ISP. But if a student gets broadband service from an outside provider and then runs a wireless router on that, the university cannot object. It can become a problem if the university cannot tell who the service provider is because the connection is encrypted; in that case the student might still be presumed guilty until proven innocent. | |
|
| moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Camelot One :There are currently several Universities that ban students from running wireless routers on campus. Does this ruling have any effect on them? They are the landlord of sorts, but also the service provider. If they run wireless routers using the University's network, then the school does have authority to ban them.
HOWEVER, if the students have their own network (not connected to the university system at all), then the school has no say. | |
|
| | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
| Re: What does this mean for Universities? said by moonpuppy :HOWEVER, if the students have their own network (not connected to the university system at all), then the school has no say. There's more than one way to skin that cat. The University could make it a part of the Student Code of Conduct that Wireless Access Points are not permitted on University premises. Violation results in expulsion.
Same thing with landlords. They can write the clause into the lease. If you agree with the lease, and sign it, you can be held in breach and asked to leave.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
|
| | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: What does this mean for Universities? said by NGOwner :said by moonpuppy :HOWEVER, if the students have their own network (not connected to the university system at all), then the school has no say. There's more than one way to skin that cat. The University could make it a part of the Student Code of Conduct that Wireless Access Points are not permitted on University premises. Violation results in expulsion. Same thing with landlords. They can write the clause into the lease. If you agree with the lease, and sign it, you can be held in breach and asked to leave. [NG]Owner Actually that is not true. A perfect example would be satellite dishes. Many landlords tried writing into the lease that putting up a dish/antenna of any kind is prohibited, relying on your argument that if the tenant signed the lease, they had accepted it. But because the provision violated FCC rules, it was void.
No party can enforce something that violates the law, even if both parties to the contract agreed to it. This is why most contracts have the "even if one part is deemed void, the rest is still valid" clause.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by NGOwner :There's more than one way to skin that cat. The University could make it a part of the Student Code of Conduct that Wireless Access Points are not permitted on University premises. Violation results in expulsion. Same thing with landlords. They can write the clause into the lease. If you agree with the lease, and sign it, you can be held in breach and asked to leave. [NG]Owner Consult the FCC's OTA rules and get back to me. Look at Camelot's One's post for clarification.
kthanxbye | |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| Oorah for the FCC You won't hear that very often from me, but this bait-and-switch money grab by Logan Airport mimics almost perfectly the recent online gambling ban. It was all about the money, so the first and most important thing that the politicians absolutely had to do was insist repeatedly that it wasn't about the money. So they invented not only false but patently absurd alternative excuses about — what else? — "risks."
--
The Toll
| |
|
mikes60
Stop Socialism Now
Premium
join:2001-07-31
Boynton Beach, FL
·AT&T Southeast
| The next step for the FCC Now the FCC should do something about the various airlines that have made deals with carriers, like T-Mobile, to provide wireless access in their club's for a fee (Delta's Crown Rooms as an example). It seems that many of these clubs seem to block access to free wireless that is provided by the airport itself.
In PBI (West Palm Beach) the airport provides free wireless access. But, Delta's Crown Room advertises T-Mobile, who provides some Business Center Services to Delta. Most of the time, the free access isn't available in the Crown Room, although it is only separated from the main airport concourse by thin wall. If I stand by the door with my laptop, it works, if sit down 3 feet away, it won't connect.
Is it being blocked electronically? I really don't know. But it is something to think about.
--
No good deed goes unpunished. | |
|
|
|
|
FCC: Logan Can't ban Airline Wi-Fi
