Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Continental & Logan

Thu Sep 1 01:48:05 UTC 2005

Agreed, the interference issue is only an excuse to enforce their lease

The real issue about which we should be concerned is the use of the Over-The-Air
Reception Devices (OTARD) rules.  Massport is claiming they are exempt from the
OTARD rules while Continental is claiming the rules apply and protect their
ability to install the 802.11b access point.  Continental didn't ask the
Commission to rule on interference or wireless competition.  They asked the
Commission to rule on whether or not OTARD protects WiFi from the very same
actions Massport is taking.

My point is that OTARD grants us the ability to install WiFi equipment in our
rented or leased homes and offices.  If Massport wins, owners of ***ANY***
rented and leased property could require renters and leasers to either connect
their WiFi, and other Part 15 wireless data devices, to a common antenna, or
remove them from service.  Think about it.  This could affect not only WiFi
systems, but Bluetooth, Zigbee, UWB, and other interesting technologies we might
be interested in, and not just at Logan Airport.

If you are at all interested in this, I urge you do look up the seven page
comment I just filed a few minutes ago on behalf of the company I work for.
(Search on Document 05-247 for comments from Partners HealthCare System, Inc.  I
can also email the comments if you request them.)  Once you've done that, I hope
you will offer your own short comments.


Rick Hampton, WD8KEL

-----Original Message-----
From: ham-80211-bounces at lists.tapr.org on behalf of Perry - K4PWO
Sent: Tue 8/30/2005 3:41 PM
To: KC2MMi; TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11
Subject: Re: [Ham-80211] Continental & Logan
Still wouldn't solve the problem... Logan is looking at loss of WiFi revenue 
from prime demography... business people.  The "interference" issue is a red 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "KC2MMi" <kc2mmi at verizon.net>
To: <ham-80211 at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: [Ham-80211] Continental & Logan

> Lawyers. Idiots. Too many of each on both sides of this one! The basic 
> issue
> is whether contract law can speak "against" other rights, and that's a
> subject only the courts can and will rule on. (And they have ruled both
> ways, and continue to do so.)
> Anyone want to send a couple thousand feet of tin foil to Continental? And 
> a
> five-figure consulting fee bill?<G>

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list