Why clip Wi- Fi’s wings?

Today’s debate: Internet access Our view: Flierswill pay more if airports are allowed to restrict competition.

Sitting in the San Francisco airport last Sunday, Don DePalma checked his e- mail on his laptop. The sightwas hardly unusual. Like many itinerant executives, DePalma frequently uses Wi- Fi “ hot spots” in airline VIP lounges, coffee shops and other locales around the country.

But when DePalma, president of a market research = rm, returns home to Boston he will = nd a different scene. The Massachusetts Port Authority has shut down most hot spots in Logan International Airport. American Airlines, which provides Wi- Fi access to subscribers of a nationwide service run by T- Mobile in all of its Admirals Clubs, has been told it can’t in Logan. Continental is engaged in a similar = ght.

Instead, the airport has granted a monopoly to one provider that charges $ 7.95 a day, part of which comes back to the airport.

This move is an audacious assertion of power by local government. The authority, known as Massport, does not own, control, or have any right to regulate frequencies assigned to Wi- Fi. It is rightfully being challenged at the Federal Communications Commission by airlines and telecom companies.

If Massport gets away with its frequency grab, other airports, and perhaps local jurisdictions, would no doubt follow suit. That, in turn, would do irreparable harm to one of the most important recent tech innovations.

When economists marvel at surging worker productivity in recent years, they need look no further than the 45 million Wi- Fi capable devices that will be sold this year, providing cheap and convenient access to Internet from virtually anywhere.

This remarkable technology, virtually nonexistent six years ago, has E ourished in a competitive and unlicensed marketplace.

Ceding it to local government

gains nothing while damaging

the economy.

This case is not about the

right of local government to

impose taxes to fund essential

public services. It is about the

seizing of assets ( Wi- Fi frequencies) for the purpose of

destroying competition and

imposing monopoly prices.

Massport claims that Wi- Fi

systems — at least those that

don’t provide itwith a revenue

stream — could interfere with

tower communications or help

terrorists communicate. This is

not supported in any of its = lings with the FCC.

Nor does it pass the common sense test. The airwaves in and around airports are used for hundreds of purposes, including cellphones, taxicab radios and local law enforcement. Yet Massport would have us believe that only Wi- Fi poses a problem.

Normally, this would be a slam-dunk decision for the FCC. But the = ve- member board is down one member, a circumstance that often leads to inaction.

This lack of direction at the FCC poses a grave threat to the future of Wi- Fi. If governments get their hands on it, being productive while on travel will get a lot more expensive.