matt: while it's true most of the airports have their hand out, since sfo got burned BADLY by choosing the vendor offering them the most $$ and not taking into acct the financial viability of the provider (or what the sfo contract would do to that viability) or the quality of the wireless experience, other airports got a lot more reasonable. i think you'd be surprised how reasonable some of the airport contracts are, esp. compared w/hotel contracts. yes, you have to deal w/local govt, and many of them are required to go thru a competitive bid process, which slows down the process, but i can assure you dealing w/hotels, coffee shops, restaurants, etc. can be just as painful a process. it all just depends on the location and the specific people/policies w/which you're dealing.
cheers-- kem (another former wayportion) At 01:51 AM 5/4/2002 -0700, Matt Peterson wrote: >You should know best Jim, coming from Wayport. > >Airports are run by port authorities, which exist to make money. Don't >tell me Wayport wheeled-n-dealed itself rights to wire(less) up an(y) >airport for free? They either want some insane amount of royalties, >profit sharing or monthly stipend. I blame the cellular industry; >landlords are now accustomed to $5000/mo 1/antenna deals. > >How do commercial 802.11 players convince building management that >they're not a telco carrier or HAM shack group with antennas; but >somewhere in between? > >-- >Matt Peterson Bay Area Wireless Users Group >Founder <http://www.bawug.org/> > -- > >On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 03:33:14AM -0500, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > Wait, what situation are the airports "caught in"? >-- >general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> >[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
