Massport Order Seen Rippling past Airport Wi-Fi
A Wed. order asserting FCC domain over Wi-Fi antennas has implications beyond its locus, a fight between the Mass. Port Authority (Massport) and Continental Airlines over an antenna at Boston’s Logan Airport, commissioners said Wed. The order, passed via electronic vote (CD Oct 23 p11), declares the FCC alone has dominion over such antennas under its over-the-air reception devices (OTARD) rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Massport claimed the right to restrict Wi-Fi antennas to guard air safety, ordering Continental to yank a Wi-Fi antenna in a closet at its frequent flyer lounge. That would leave the only Wi-Fi available to passengers a $7.95 daily service -- run by Massport. A wireless industry source said Massport saw its Wi-Fi as a way to recoup revenue lost when cellphone use torpedoed income from Authority-controlled payphones.
“Today’s declaratory ruling reaffirms the Commission’s dedication to promoting the widespread deployment of unlicensed Wi-Fi devices,” Comr. Copps said. “It clarifies that American consumers and businesses are free to install Wi-Fi antennas under our OTARD rules -- meaning without seeking approval from their landlords -- just as they are free to install antennas for video programming and other fixed wireless applications.”
“The Wi-Fi movement embodies the spirit of American freedom, and in our action we say, ‘Don’t tread on me,'” Comr. Jonathan Adelstein, noting Boston’s role in the American revolution, said: “That Part 15 services are ‘unlicensed’ does not mean that they should be treated differently than ‘licensed’ ones for purposes of our OTARD rules.”
The FCC is prepared to guard air safety if unlicensed Wi-Fi causes interference, Adelstein said. “I am sensitive to the operational challenges presented by airport environments, and the Commission has in place numerous services and rules that allow for licensed communications by public safety and commercial entities alike in these locales,” he said: “To the extent there is an interference problem with these licensed operations, particularly those involving public safety services, we should quickly step in.”
The Commission order has huge import, the Media Access Project (MAP) said: “Today’s decision… provides a powerful affirmation to the community wireless movement in the United States by protecting the rights of users to operate Wi-Fi access points and other unlicensed devices whether or not a landlord has an exclusive arrangement with a provider,” MAP said, noting that the week before Boston officials proceeded with a project to provide wireless access in the city’s Roxbury district. “Had the FCC decided for Massport, the landlords of these apartments could have blocked users from accessing the free or low-cost service the city of Boston will provide,” MAP said.
The FCC order traces OTARD rule history, which dates to their 1996 adoption and 2000 expansion to cover fixed wireless signals. This is the first time the FCC has described how the rules apply to Part 15 devices like Wi-Fi antennas, the FCC said.
“The OTARD rules make no distinction between radio devices using licensed technologies and those using unlicensed technologies,” the order said: “OTARD rules cover antennas used to send or receive ‘fixed wireless signals.’ Such fixed wireless signals may be sent and received by devices using either licensed or unlicensed technologies, and the same antenna may be used for both licensed and unlicensed transmissions… Just as… it makes no sense to distinguish between identical antennas based on the services provided via the antenna, there is no justification for distinguishing between antennas based on whether they are used with licensed services or unlicensed devices.”