This is actually an update to an earlier posting. Officials at Logan International Airport in Massachusetts attempted to shut down all Wi-Fi access points in the airport other than their own. The FCC interceded and ruled against the airport, allowing any business to provide its own Wi-Fi.
Boston.com – November 2, 2006:
A two-year effort by Logan International Airport officials to shut down private alternatives to the airport’s $8-a-day wireless Internet service was decisively rejected yesterday by federal regulators, who blasted airport officials for raising bogus legal and technological arguments.
The Federal Communications Commission unanimously sided with Continental Airlines Inc. in a challenge Continental brought. The FCC ruled the airline has a clear right to offer WiFi access in its Terminal C lounge, and the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, had no authority to order Continental to shut it off.
Massport activated its own WiFi service in 2004.
“Today we strike a victory for the WiFi revolution in the cradle of the American Revolution,” FCC commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein said in a prepared statement. Evoking more Revolutionary War symbols, he added: “The WiFi movement embodies the spirit of American freedom, and in our action we say ‘Don’t tread on me.’ “
Top airline, consumer electronics, and telecommunications groups also weighed in against Massport, as did Partners HealthCare System, the Boston hospital giant. It said the Massport policy could have established a dangerous precedent for landlords forcing tenants to buy landlord-controlled WiFi service.
You can read the FCC’s opinion here in PDF format.
This is shocking! I can’t believe the FCC actually came down on the side of consumers.
“I can’t believe the FCC actually came down on the side of consumers.”
Actually, the FCC came down on the side of all the business wanting to sell Wi-Fi to consumers.
“Actually, the FCC came down on the side of all the business wanting to sell Wi-Fi to consumers.”
Generally competition is good for consumers. Any decision by the government that blocks monopolies and encourages competition is usually good for the consumer.
I’ll agree with you, Chris – in principle, though.
This is the same FCC that has presided over the wholesale passing of the public airwaves into a few private hands and abetting those same hands in the extinction of independent media outlets. To paraphrase Charles E. Wilson’s infamous line, “What’s good for Clear Channel Communications is good for America.”
So, while the result in this particular case is a net positive for the little guy, don’t for a minute believe it was made in his interest. It’s just that Massport has less juice with the Repubs than does Continental, et alia…
So Pontificated The Ghoti
All radio frequency spectrum is designated for specific use under the jurisdiction of the FCC. In this case it made the decision it did because the FCC licenses the airwaves. In this case the various flavors of 802.11 Wi-Fi standards make it possible to transmit, under certain criteria, without a license (FCC Part 15, Part 92 ect.). There are other regulations that come into play in situations like this, various Telecommunications Act of 1996, ITU Reg, OTARD rules and so on.
What the airport essentially did was, although inadvertently, lay claim that they had the right as the sole licensed user when it did not have the authority to do so. Thats how the FCC viewed it and thats how they seem to have ruled.
While the FCC ruling might come as a welcome note for many, look for it to be overturned on appeal. Simply because it interferes with the Airport’s right to run a business. There is nothing stopping Continental from doing what it likes on it’s leased property, that doesn’t include competing with the Airport.
The FCC has the authority to oversee and enforce the airwaves, but it doesn’t have the authority to interfere in business relationships that would rightly come under the Federal Trade Commission. Their very last two sentences in their opinion (pg 23),:
”Furthermore, neither Massport nor AWG has any reasonable expectation or right to generate revenue from the use of unlicensed spectrum. Therefore we conclude that granting Continental’s petition will not result in the regulatory taking of Massport’s property rights”
is wrong and clearly interferes with property rights. What this decision does is take what has been a commercial right and transform it into a private right.
There is no contest about the FCC’s right to regulate airwaves, but I do think they overstep their authority when they regulate commercial enterprise. Although much was made about radio interference and safety, the FCC gave very little consideration to previous decisions concerning trade and reliance upon prior FCC’s rulings concerning commercial trade.
Sounds good, until you think about it.
There really wasn’t any new ground broken on this. The FCC ruled in accordance with US Spectrum Management policy.
Don’t confuse the issue as an impediment on property rights or commercial trade.
What essentially happened was the airport didn’t do their homework. The airport was essentially trying to claim sole usage for a portion of spectrum that is part of U-NII/ISM (Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure / Industrial, Scientific and Medical) and this band is designated as unlicensed spectrum IAW (In Accordance With) FCC, Title 47.
In other words, in the US, nobody can lay claim and restrict another user from operating a Wi-Fi network as it does not belong to them.
There isn’t anyone stopping the airport from offering their own wireless services in this band; they just can’t restrict others from doing so.
There is a process in place for commercial entities to coordinate for the use spectrum. They just have to comply with FCC rules.
If you are a company that plans to make or create an emitter or create a business plan around RF emissions you would be well advised to have a Spectrum Manager work for you in order to avoid these issues. In 10 minutes a Spectrum Manager would have saved these guys two years of pain. Goodness only knows how much these guys have spent on lawyers.
The URL is an offhand link that discusses some of the IEEE 802.11 issues with unlicensed spectrum.
http://www.lns.com/papers/part15/Regulations_Affecting_802_11.pdf
RMR
You make the same error the FCC made. The real issue isn’t about the actual spectrum used. Actually, that is all the FCC may rule on. The real issue is whether the airport must allow someone to undercut their enterprise and thus lose profit.
The airport ran a business of selling internet availability to waiting patrons. By running a similar business, Continental was in competition with the Airport. The lease agreement stipulated that Continental couldn’t compete with the Airport (run an ISP). The FCC does not have the authority to rule on eminent domain but they did. To cover that fact, they denied it occurred and spent 22 pages outlining why the antennas and spectrum are OK.
There have been cases where people have been charged for logging on to someone’s wireless router, along with at least one guilty plea.
http://tinyurl.com/seb8j
This case was in Florida and I believe there is another in Illinois.
This case isn’t about network security or OTARD rules. It is about commercial business. If the WiFi becomes free, then all those cities becoming wired won’t be able to charge for the service. Businesses won’t be able to stop anyone from freeloading onto their network from a sidewalk.
The FCC didn’t make a mistake. I understand your point full well. I understand the point of eminent domain and it has nothing to do with this.
As I mentioned before the airport was treading into territory before doing their homework. You can run any business you want to within the provisions of the law. As a land owner I cannot enforce provisions in a lease that are technically illegal.
Your example of the router was a horrible one. A router is personal property and bandwidth is being paid for by someone. If I pay for that bandwidth then I own it. But I don’t own the frequency. That frequency is there for usage by anyone. I have no right to complain of interference because it’s a FCC Part 15 issue. So if I have a hotspot at my business and the guy next door starts one he has every right to do so but they have no legal footing to try and restrict me. So I can use the same frequency he’s using, I just have no recourse for spectrum resolution and I can’t log onto his network.
The airwaves have no boundaries. The closest we have to a boundary is the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regulation, which is ratified by our congress as having treaty status, stating that spectrum is a sovereign resource, governed by each country as it sees fit.
How much airspace for flight travel do you own above your home? Can you dictate what radio airwaves may travel through your property lines before it must ask your permission? Can a landlord in an apartment complex restrict the usage of any wireless router by their tenants except theirs?
Two completely separate issues. I completely understand your point. I’m sorry my point was lost on you.