Subject: [NEXTEL-1] U.S. airlines, airports battle over Wi-Fi spectrum

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 08:39:52 -0400

US airlines, airports battle
over Wi-Fi spectrum issues
Bob Brewin, Computerworld

06/21/2004

The airport authority-controlled Wi-Fi networks at several airports
are shaping up as ground zero in an emerging battle between
airlines and airports over the use, regulation and management of
wireless networks at the facilities.

A wireless network at Logan International Airport in Boston, a
similar system at Denver International Airport (DIA) and others
planned for the Raleigh-Durham International and Los Angeles
International airports are at the center of a fight over the unlicensed
wireless spectrum used to support a wide range of applications,
from passenger Internet access to remote check-in kiosks.

When Logan turns on an airportwide Wi-Fi network next week,
airlines and their passengers will have to pay to use the network,
something United Airlines Inc. views as an "unnecessary expense,"
according to Mike Mader, a ground systems radio engineer who
handles Wi-Fi installations for United.

While passengers can choose whether or not to pay for access
to Wi-Fi hot spots at Logan, airlines, which use Wi-Fi networks
to support key applications such as bag tracking, have no choice,
according to Barbara Platt, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts
Port Authority. Massport, which operates Logan, requires airlines
and other airport tenants to use the Universal Wireless Ethernet
System (UWES) installed at the airport, Platt said.

United, a division of UAL has installed its own Wi-Fi networks to
support bag-scanning operations at numerous airports, including
its Chicago hub. But Mader said the carrier will have to use the
Massport network under the mandate imposed on all airport tenants.
That's not as cost-effective as United installing and operating its
own network, Mader said.

Platt said the UWES provides for better management of the wireless
spectrum at the airport and "ensures Wi-Fi runs smoothly for all users."
Platt declined to provide pricing details.

TWI Interactive, developed the Logan network in partnership with
Electronic Media Systems. TWI said its five-year contract guarantees
Massport a minimum payment of US$200,000 in the first year of the
pact and as much as US$300,000 in the fifth, up to a maximum of 20
percent of gross revenue. That revenue could exceed US $1 million
annually.

Chuck Cannon, a spokesman for DIA, said payments from its Wi-Fi
contractor, AT&T Wireless Services, could run about US$250,000
per month. Like Massport, DIA maintains that it needs to manage the
Wi-Fi spectrum in the unlicensed 2.4- and 5-GHz bands to ensure
frequency and spectrum coordination, according to Jim Winston,
director for telecommunications at the airport. DIA is owned and
operated by the city of Denver.

"If we don't coordinate, it's going to be a zoo out there," Winston
said.
If the airport let all its tenants install Wi-Fi networks, "there would
be
mass confusion," he said.

Jeremy Denton, director of government affairs for the Industrial
Telecommunications Association (ITA) said that from his perspective,
revenue -- not frequency coordination -- stands behind the move by
airport authorities to control Wi-Fi networks. The ITA is a trade group
that counts among its members airport Wi-Fi users such as United,
FedEx and United Parcel Service.

In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission in March,
the ITA said that the "sole motivational goal" by airports to regulate
Wi-Fi use "is to increase the airport authority's revenue." The ITA
has asked the FCC to issue a declaratory ruling against airports'
attempts to regulate the unlicensed spectrum, saying they have no
legal standing to do so under FCC rules.

While Denton would like to see the FCC rule quickly, he predicted
that the agency would put the ITA filing out for public comment, a
process that could take a year or more. Massport's Platt and DIA's
Cannon both declined to comment on the filing.

Based on his experience at DIA, Mader said not only do airport-
controlled Wi-Fi systems impose extra costs, they don't immediately
deliver what's promised. Mader said he has worked since October
to resolve coverage and interference issues with the AT&T Wireless
network at DIA because the access points installed for the Wi-Fi
network used by United for its bag-scanning system don't provide
the needed coverage.

United wanted the access points to cover the ramp area out to and
beyond the tail of a Boeing 777 to support scanning of late bags
loaded into the plane, but the signal didn't reach that far. Mader
said United also experienced interference from another 2.4-GHz
network, which was traced to the DIA central car-rental facility,
close to a mile from United's gates. All these coverage and interference
problems have now been resolved, but it took about six months longer
than the time it would have taken United to do the job on its own,
Mader said.

Winston blamed United for the problems, saying the airline was
unable to figure out coverage issues on its own. "They don't have
the expertise," he said.

John Killeen, global network systems manager at UPS, said the
company operates Wi-Fi networks to sort packages at about 90
airports. Airport attempts to control Wi-Fi spectrum are a minor
issue today, but if the FCC ruled in favor of airports as a result
of the ITA petition, airport control could become a "potential problem."
Killeen said he would like to see the FCC act quickly on the ITA
petition.

Ken Pasley, director of wireless business development at FedEx,
which also uses Wi-Fi systems to sort packages, said airport attempts
to control spectrum "could clearly affect us," though probably not as
much as passenger carriers, since FedEx operations are far from
terminals where shared-use networks have been installed.

Pasley said he supports the ITA petition and views airport-owned
and managed Wi-Fi networks as a way for them to boost revenue.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;702782156;fp;16;fpid;0

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/61FxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---

From: Rick Parrish <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:25:16 -0500

Marcel wrote:

>spectrum at the airport and "ensures Wi-Fi runs smoothly for all users." Platt declined to provide pricing details.
>  
>
I *think* United and the other tenants could make a fair-use argument 
similar to court decision that allows tenants to erect a satellite dish 
or TV antenna. This is a bad precedent that could get worse. Imagine the 
airport authority charging a cell phone tax for persons taking or 
placing on airport property. That's pretty much what this is.

Of course it does not suprise me that *some* folks in airport management 
think they own the sky!

-rick

 
Yahoo! Groups Links