Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Derek Kerton (profile), Nov 1st, 2006 @ 1:04pm

   
   

   Two Cheers For Continental

   as I wrote at Glenn's site: I may have taken a different point from this story, but my big take-away is shock: Shock that Continental is giving away WiFi in the Presidents Lounge, while my main airline, Untied, charges about $500 for membership, and also charges for WiFi access through T-Mobile. Plus there is the hassle of signing on with a credit card or account, which is a barrier to access. The result is I use a slower cellular modem to save a few bucks. Come on United! Get with the program, WiFi should be a utility in your Red Carpet Clubs, as it is in Continental's. Get rid of T-Mobile and put a $50 AP on a DSL line, and satisfy your high-end customers. So, two hoorays for Continental, for beating Massport, and for offering free WiFi in the first place.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   discojohnson, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 2:32pm

   
   

   maybe they do..

   massport might be able to tell continental airlines they can turn it off, as long as it's in their lease...or at least there's a line item that can be interpreted as such. although...i guess they didn't have anything that makes tennants do whatever they say in the lease or massport would have tried that already. i say "sucks to be massport" and good on the FCC for doing right.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Matt, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 2:38pm

   
   

   DE-NIED

   FCC = 1...Hackport = 0

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Xris, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 2:56pm

   
   

   Re: maybe they do..

   Actually, it looks like it's not allowed to be a clause in a lease. The article quotes the ruling (emphasis added):

   Restrictions prohibited by the OTARD [over-the-air reception devices] rules include lease provisions (as is the situation here), as well as restrictions imposed by state or local laws or regulations, private covenants, contract provisions, or homeowner’s association rules.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Neum, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 3:05pm

   
   

   Wow...

   It's so rare to read a story about the FCC and agree with what they have done. Next thing you know the RIAA will do something truly in the interests of the artists and dollar signs...Nah!!!!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 3:30pm

   
   

   thats very confusing

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Geren, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 4:29pm

   
   

   The FCC

   The FCC tends to get very upset when other entities muck with radio signals of any kind, especially when it impedes public access to receive signals (except for those assigned to the military).
   
   For those interested, the FCC forbids pretty much any rule that restricts access to over-the-air transmission. That also inlcudes HOAs that try to disallow TV antennae and sat dishes.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   martiin, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 4:32pm

   
   

   This is why apartments/condos/CC&R's can't regulate TV-antenne, and Satellite dishes...The FCC is in charge.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Mika, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 8:00pm

   
   

   This is what the FCC should send it's time on. Not censorship.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Mika, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 8:01pm

    
    

    *spend

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2006 @ 9:50pm

    
    

    This was despite the FCC being crystal clear that it, and it alone has the right to regulate unlicensed spectrum

    I'm wondering then, what does this mean for state and local laws prohibiting camera phones in movie theaters or driving while using cell phones? Do these laws violate the FCC's authority?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    tek'a, Nov 2nd, 2006 @ 2:33am

    
    

    i dont think so. the camera phone ban in movie theaters (if you can find a place that actually has one, theaters put up signs that lie 90% of the time) are a ban on a Camera device.
    
    police ignore those laws anyhow, at least when they are on the phone. its mostly just local/state gov wanting to be able to talk about how they are helping safety(and get reelected)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2006 @ 2:28pm

    
    

    Re:

    i dont think so. the camera phone ban in movie theaters (if you can find a place that actually has one, theaters put up signs that lie 90% of the time) are a ban on a Camera device.

    By your logic then, Massport could just prohibit some common electrical component, let's say resistors, unless they granted the device an exemption. Then they could just not grant exemptions to the resistors in Continental's WiFi devices.
    
    But I'm guessing the FCC would not allow Massport to prohibit components that were part of an FCC approved device. By the same token, the camera in a camera phone is a component of an FCC approved radio device. So are movie theaters beyond the authority of the FCC?
    
    As another example, I went to a golf tournament the other day where no one was being allowed in with a cell phone at all. Camera or not. I wonder what the FCC's position is on this?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    aaa, Nov 17th, 2006 @ 8:40am

    
    

    POWNED!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment