Freedom is a precious part of Bostonian tradition — unless, that is, you've grown used to charging. The spat between Continental Airlines and Boston Logan International Airport is simple: Continental provides free Wi-Fi access in its frequent-flier lounge, while the airport charges all comers $8 a day for similar privileges.
The airport wants Continental to stop — the signals are a 'potential threat to public safety' — unless the airline agrees to use and pay for the airport's own wireless system. Whereupon the potential threat disappears. It's amazing how eight dollars buys you a revocation of the laws of physics.
The episode illustrates many facets of the interplay between commerce and technology. The airport is using security and unfocussed fear as the thinnest of excuses for greed-fuelled control freakery; this is a tendency that needs to be slapped down wherever it surfaces.
Elsewhere in the US, other reasons have been given to argue that free wireless access is wrong. The city of Philadelphia is building a municipal Wi-Fi network: the telcos have organised against it and are trying to get publicly-owned wireless networks outlawed. Their thinking is tortuous: it's too difficult so it won't work; even if it does work it'll reduce competition by providing more alternatives; and even if that's wrong there's no need for it because people have enough choice already. Presumably, wireless signals in Philadelphia don't interfere with police walkie-talkies.
This all stinks of desperation. The technology of wireless access is following the same pattern as everything else cast from silicon: more and more functionality at less and less cost. Frightening for people dependent on old business models built around scarcity, fantastic for the rest of us. Or it will be, if we're allowed to enjoy the potential of such systems.
Fortunately, technology will win. Even if the various antiquated business interests manage to force people to pay for this particular flavour of freedom, they'll have to deal with future inventions such as mesh networks — where there'll be no infrastructure to regulate — or wireless systems that can cover a city from a single base station which anyone can afford.
The only way to prevent users doing what they wish with technology is to institute a dictatorial, stateist regime where everything that is not permitted is forbidden. If there's any 'potential threat to public safety' in the machinations at Logan, it is this sort of thinking. Even if their greed doesn't permit them to stop, those who fight against progress and freedom should at least have the good grace to feel ashamed.
Talkback
How do you secure a wifi network in a city the size of Philadelphia? After the terror attacks in London the NY/NJ port authority shut off cell service in the tunnels due to security concerns. How is WIFI different than say cell service as means to set off a bombs remotely?. If anyone can connect and use it how do you secure it? And Congress has not a clue either. I doubt half of them even know how to send email let alone understanding discussing and legislating high level technical issues like securing public wifi systems?
http://www.phl-caw.org/weblog/2005/07/can-you-hear-me-now.html
Stephen Donato
www.phl-caw.org
Even if the terrorists use Wi-Fi to co-ordinate the explosions, removing that facility isn't going to change anything, they'll just drop back to more reliable methods like, oh, I don't know, timers?
What next, ban all clocks, watches and mobile phones, PDA's and computers with built-in timing equipment?
You aren't going to stop a terrorist by making him pay for wi-fi or blocking the signal totally, in fact a bomb working off a good old fashioned timer is probably easier to construct, cheaper and more reliable than one triggered wirelessly and if that doesn't work, then attach it to a so-called suicide-bomber...
Anybody who wants to create terror and panic will find a way with or without hi-tech. Putting a blanket ban on free networks or banning wi-fi or mobile signals on the underground or at airports isn't going to change anything, it's just letting commercial firms hold their monopoly through veiled threats and broken logic.
In fact you'll probably have the terrorists laughing their socks off because the Government/Airport Authority/whatever is doing their work for them by spreading the FUD and disrupting the lives of normal citizens, without the terrorists actually having to raise a finger!
Just look at the past, long before we had wi-fi networks or mobile phones, groups in Ireland, Spain, France, the Middle East, etc. managed to do create a lot of confusion, terror, panic and death. Modern electronics just makes for more expensive and possibly better co-ordinated attacks, but unless you put a whole city under house arrest and strip search every commuter, you aren't going to change anything.
You just lost another reader. Why? Cut down on cookies!!!
My son is going to be flying through Las Vegas McCarran airport in a few days, so I had a look to see what he might be able to do while he was waiting for his connecting flight.
Guess what!
Wireless internet access is provided in the whole airport free of charge.
So much for Boston airport trying to prohibit Continental Airlines from providing internet access free to ITS customers.
Tell the operators of Logan Airport to look at the example of McCarran airport in Las Vegas.
Stephen Siegel
Toronto, Canada
It's amazing that they are trying to pull this blantant money-making scheme, what about all the properties on the flightpath of landing aircraft? will they all be banned from having Wi-F?