http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/01/02/sides_chosen_i
n_logan_wifi_battle?mode=PF

Sides chosen in Logan WiFi battle
Wireless and airport lobbies join dispute

By Peter Howe, Globe Staff  |  January 2, 2006

Logan International Airport officials' ongoing quest to ban airline lounges
from offering passengers free WiFi Internet services is angering a growing
array of powerful Capitol Hill lobbying groups, who say Logan could set a
dangerous nationwide precedent for squelching wireless services.

Already under fire from the biggest airline lobby, the Air Transport
Association, and the manufacturer-backed Consumer Electronics Association,
Logan officials are also coming under new criticism from the top US wireless
lobby, CTIA-The Wireless Association. All three groups are siding with
Continental Airlines Inc., which has asked the Federal Communications
Commission to overturn a Logan order last year shutting off Continental's
WiFi service in its Presidents Club lounge in Logan's Terminal C.

Soon after activating its own $8-a-day WiFi service in the summer of 2004,
the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, ordered Continental and
American Airlines to shut down WiFi services in their Logan lounges.
Massport also ordered Delta Air Lines Inc. not to turn on a planned WiFi
service in its new $500 million Terminal A that opened last March.

WiFi, which is short for wireless fidelity, offers Internet access at speeds
of up to 11 megabits per second over unlicensed airwave channels, within
''hot spot" zones up to 300 feet in radius covered by small Net-connected
transmitters. At Logan, subscribers get some free content, including flight
and weather information, but have to pay $8 for a 24-hour access to the full
Internet.

Massport has consistently argued its policy is only trying to prevent a
proliferation of private WiFi transmitters that could interfere with
wireless networks used by airlines, State Police, and the Transportation
Security Administration. WiFi service providers are free to negotiate
so-called roaming deals, Massport officials say, that would let their
subscribers who pay for monthly access use the Logan network. But major
providers including T-Mobile USA have balked at Massport's proposed terms,
saying the airport authority seeks excessive profits.

''What Massport is trying to do is create a monopoly on unlicensed spectrum
in the airport, and we think it's blatantly contrary to federal law," said
Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA, which represents wireless carriers
including Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint Nextel. CTIA recently disclosed that
it has begun informally lobbying the FCC to overturn the Massport WiFi ban,
and is preparing to step into the FCC case officially this week, Farren
said.

The FCC has been reviewing the Continental-Massport case since July, but has
given no indication of how soon it might issue a ruling.

Closer to home, Massport's position has also prompted opposition from
Partners HealthCare System, parent organization of Massachusetts General
Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Partners is rolling out many new
wireless-based systems for doctors and nurses to check patient records,
enter medical chart data, and order prescriptions.

Rickey L. Hampton, Partners's wireless communications manager, said the
hospitals are worried that if the FCC upholds Massport's ban on airport
tenants offering WiFi, it could set a precedent for landlords who lease
space to Partners. ''We believe the impact could extend far beyond the
aviation industry [and] have a chilling effect on unlicensed wireless
technologies as a whole," Hampton said, by empowering virtually any landlord
to shut down tenants' wireless networks.

Massport attorney Christine M. Gill said the charges of a Massport WiFi
monopoly ''may be great sloganeering" but misstate many key legal issues.
Reiterating that public safety and prevention of interference are Massport's
concerns, Gill said that ''Congress has not granted the FCC the authority to
preempt private lease restrictions on the siting of antennas used for fixed
wireless signals." Gill also said Continental and its allies have hung their
arguments on a law that applies only to wireless video signals, not WiFi.

However, Gill also acknowledged that ''installation of a WiFi antenna in
Continental's Presidents Club would have a detrimental economic impact on
Massport." Logan officials would have to ''devote substantial resources to
monitor the installation of antennas" by Continental and other airlines to
make sure they wouldn't cause interference, Gill said, and ''Massport would
also lose revenue associated with the operation of the central WiFi antenna
system at Logan."

Despite the fierce opposition, Massport has had backing from an airport
authority trade group, Airports Council International-North America, and
four other airport authorities.

Matthew C. Ames, an attorney for the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, which runs Dulles International Airport and Washington Reagan
National Airport, where airport-controlled wireless networks are being
installed, backed Massport's policy. Airports are too complex an
environment, Ames said, to allow totally uncontrolled wireless services.
''Allowing individual users free rein can make it impossible for others --
including the airport -- to operate effectively," Ames said in a recent
letter to the FCC, adding: ''Chaos is not a practical solution."

Peter J. Howe can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]  


---
You are currently subscribed to telecom-cities as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To 
unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manage your mail settings at 
http://forums.nyu.edu/cgi-bin/nyu.pl?enter=telecom-cities
RSS feed of list traffic: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/telecom-cities@forums.nyu.edu/maillist.xml

Reply via email to