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 members".

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:

It was.

(509) 982-2181                                   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    And I run my own wisp! (net meeting)

----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <>
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.

Harold Bledsoe
Deliberant LLC
800.742.9865 x205

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Peter R.
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 1:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OTARD

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

Bob Moldashel
Lakeland Communications, Inc.
Broadband Deployment Group
1350 Lincoln Avenue
Holbrook, New York 11741 USA
800-479-9195 Toll Free US & Canada
631-585-5558 Fax
516-551-1131 Cell

WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to