Boston airport tries to kill free WiFi node

TalkBack 20 of 26:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Unfortunately...

...the airport may well have a case. They are not acting here as a government agency, but as a landlord (the port authority owns the land and runs the airport). Whether or not the port authority has any say over what services are offered by their tenents is really a matter of statute and the terms of the individual contracts.

Those hard-core libertarians out there may not like the idea, but large numbers of airports are publicly owned and are likely to be for the forseeable future. Such airports should be run as businesses, rather than as charities, which means maximizing the return on the public's investment, consistant with the public interest.

Personally, I think the airport is over-reaching, but this is certainly not the only example of a franchise monopoly being imposed for profit. Stadium consessions operate on much the same principle and are perfectly legal (remember that a lot of stadia are also publicly owned). A case could definitely be made for banning these sorts of deals (by both private and public landlords), but that's something for politicians to work out, not the courts.

Posted by: John L. Ries   Posted on: 08/04/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Using Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS to Achieve Highly Available, Load-Balanced Clusters Dell The Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS operating system integrates Cluster ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now