The case involved Continental Airlines providing free Internet access to
both employees and passengers who were members of their "members club".
The AP was set up in the lounge area where it was accessible to "paid
Continental's position was that they were within their own exclusive
leased space and subsequently could provide such a service and were
protected under the OTARD determination and ruling.
The airport authority argued that the system could cause interference to
the airports existing master antenna system which supplied passengers
with cellular and internet access (for a fee obviously) amongst other
services. They wanted Continental to pay to put their equipment on the
master antenna system or use the airport system. In addition, they
would pay for "RF Studies" to see if the system could be placed without
issue (Probably Marlon with his spectrum analyzer! :-P ). The airport
also argued that they had listed in their lease contracts with the
airline that they could not use radio systems or spectrum not approved
by the airport authority.
Clearly the Commission must have seen this otherwise..
First, I doubt that anyone in the Commission was happy with the airport
authority trying to say who could use what spectrum where. After all,
that is their exclusive job as allowed by law. So that didn't go over
well I'm sure.
Second, Continental proved, without a doubt, that they had exclusive
rights to use the space they leased. As such, they are within the OTARD
guidelines to supply the service.
And finally, the airport authority would need to suffer interference
before they could complain about Continental's Wi-Fi system. And we all
know how quick the Commission jumps on interference issues under Part
15. Especially when you are using type accepted equipment.
I think the case settled as expected.
John Scrivner wrote:
In this particular situation the client (tenant) was owner of both
ends (base station and CPE) I think. Correct me if I am wrong. I seem
to remember reading that the airline wanted a private WiFi network for
themselves. The airport (landlord) was trying to prevent this. In this
type of a situation I think OTARD would apply regardless of the type
of equipment used.
In the event of a base station where a third party ISP is the
beneficiary of use of a base station OTARD right of access would still
not apply. I welcome feedback, corrections, rebuttals here. Truth is I
know little about this but think I would like to know more. If anyone
else has knowledge of this particular case and can add more
enlightenment it is much appreciated.
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
22.214.171.124 (net meeting)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Bledsoe"
To: "WISPA General List" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] OTARD
Fascinating. I had always read OTARD to only cover client devices and
not base station devices.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.deliberant.com
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OTARD
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING REGARDING THE
OVER-THE-AIR RECEPTION DEVICES (OTARD) RULES. Found that Massport's
restrictions on Continental's use of its Wi-Fi antenna are pre-empted by
the OTARD rules and therefore granted Continental's petition. (Dkt No.
05-247). Action by: the Commission. Adopted: 10/17/2006 by MO&O. (FCC
No. 06-157). OET
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com