Boston globe story about Massport -- they run Logan airport and other transportation sites -- attempting to monopolize wifi spectrum at the airport. This has much larger ramifications: who owns wifi?

[ from Sides chosen in Logan WiFi battle - The Boston Globe by Peter Howe]

Soon after activating its own $8-a-day WiFi service in the summer of 2004, the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs Logan, ordered Continental and American Airlines to shut down WiFi services in their Logan lounges. Massport also ordered Delta Air Lines Inc. not to turn on a planned WiFi service in its new $500 million Terminal A that opened last March.

WiFi, which is short for wireless fidelity, offers Internet access at speeds of up to 11 megabits per second over unlicensed airwave channels, within ''hot spot" zones up to 300 feet in radius covered by small Net-connected transmitters. At Logan, subscribers get some free content, including flight and weather information, but have to pay $8 for a 24-hour access to the full Internet.

Massport has consistently argued its policy is only trying to prevent a proliferation of private WiFi transmitters that could interfere with wireless networks used by airlines, State Police, and the Transportation Security Administration. WiFi service providers are free to negotiate so-called roaming deals, Massport officials say, that would let their subscribers who pay for monthly access use the Logan network. But major providers including T-Mobile USA have balked at Massport's proposed terms, saying the airport authority seeks excessive profits.

''What Massport is trying to do is create a monopoly on unlicensed spectrum in the airport, and we think it's blatantly contrary to federal law," said Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA, which represents wireless carriers including Verizon, Cingular, and Sprint Nextel. CTIA recently disclosed that it has begun informally lobbying the FCC to overturn the Massport WiFi ban, and is preparing to step into the FCC case officially this week, Farren said.

The FCC has been reviewing the Continental-Massport case since July, but has given no indication of how soon it might issue a ruling.

Closer to home, Massport's position has also prompted opposition from Partners HealthCare System, parent organization of Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Partners is rolling out many new wireless-based systems for doctors and nurses to check patient records, enter medical chart data, and order prescriptions. Rickey L. Hampton, Partners's wireless communications manager, said the hospitals are worried that if the FCC upholds Massport's ban on airport tenants offering WiFi, it could set a precedent for landlords who lease space to Partners. ''We believe the impact could extend far beyond the aviation industry [and] have a chilling effect on unlicensed wireless technologies as a whole," Hampton said, by empowering virtually any landlord to shut down tenants' wireless networks.

And not just landlords, but perhaps any other property authority? Like my housing association?

This is a terrible precedent, and pushed us directly in the wrong way. I am an ardent believer in free municipal wifi as probably the single best investment that American can make in its future. It will remove one of the most basic barriers to access for the poor, as well as sparking local involvement through ubiquitous access. But where are the visionary leaders who will push this to a national discussion? Municipal wifi will make these sorts of issues moot. Why doesn't the Mayor of Boston join this discussion, or the Governor?

And, more important, as we look back on Katrina and other disasters, a well designed wifi mesh (with redundant cells, battery and generator backups) could allow all sorts of grassroots disaster recovery. But, oh I forgot, talking about disaster preparedness is so last year already. At least until the next one hits.