I do a lot of flying in and out of Boston’s Logan Airport, so I’ve been following the controversy about WiFi there with some interest.

The story is that Massport, the government agency that runs the airport, is trying to tell tennents — like the airlines — that they can’t operate their own WiFi networks. But the FCC previously ruled that landowners had no authority can control use of the WiFi spectrum on their premises.

Glenn Fleishman pointed out a November 25 editorial about the matter. The editorial calls Massports action a “frequency grab” and suggests a likely reason for Massports unusual interest in the matter:

[T]he airport has granted a monopoly to one provider that charges $7.95 a day, part of which comes back to the airport.

Massport’s complaint is about potential interference or use by terrorists, but Fleishman notes that

If Wi-Fi interferes with airport purposes than the airport is not operating itself correctly, and the TSA, FAA, and FCC should assert control over their use of spectrum until it’s sorted out.

The editorial remarks that the airport’s complaints don’t pass the “common sense test”

The airwaves in and around airports are used for hundreds of purposes, including cellphones, taxicab radios and local law enforcement. Yet Massport would have us believe that only Wi-Fi poses a problem.

Meanwhile, Atlanta has gone wireless, and Fleishman can’t help buy point out:

[N]ote that Atlanta is not whining, like Boston, about several existing Wi-Fi networks operated by airlines and others interfering with critical systems and emergency response.

tags: airlines, airwaves, atlanta, boston, cellphones, common sense test, editorial remarks, emergency response, faa, fcc, glenn fleishman, government agency, logan airport, massport, spectrum, taxicab, tsa, wifi

I wasn’t really paying attention in June when WiFi Net News reported on a FCC decision regarding control of WiFi:

The FCC says landlords, associations can’t regulate Part 15 use: The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology says that the function of regulating and coordinating frequency use is reserved to the FCC itself. It’s a clear refutation of mall owners, airports, and condominium associations to limit use of Wi-Fi and other wireless technologies.
And it’s hard to put their conclusion any better than they themselves:[quote]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 where the user has a “direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in the property, except under certain exceptions for safety and historic preservation.”

So this recent report that the Tampa Airport Thinks FCC Rules Don’t Apply was a more interesting news hit than might have been expected. It seems the Tampa airport authorities have retained counsel and are planning some appeal.

There was a recent spat at the University of Texas where they first tried to prohibit WiFi, the spent some time considering the use of private WiFi, then, recognizing the June FCC ruling rescinded the WiFi ban.

This would, of course, have local implications, if anybody tried to test it.

My opinion: this FCC ruling is actually good for consumers. If the FCC left it to landowners, they’d be creating local monopolies that charge high premiums for service. Further, since the ruling effects all unlicensed services, not just WiFi, it could be creating a regulations nightmare where other non-commercial spectrum uses, like FRS, might be banned or limited. Further, the ruling is actually about the use of radio spectrum, unlike recent copyright limitations mandated by the FCC.

fcc, wifi, unlicensed spectrum, rules, spectrum, University of Texas, regulation, frequency allocation