# could government regulate wifi provision in airports to punish monopolistic behavior? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 17, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360 "2010-01-17T22:25:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/21 "2010-01-18T20:02:09Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > … strike all references to the other ridiculous tenet of commerce, “Buyer beware”. Why should customers be the guinea pigs in any transaction? Because there’s always going to be some guy who says “Hey buddy - wanna buy a nice watch?” and no one but the potential buyer will be available to: - consider what’s offered - know the buyer’s actual needs, desires and system of values - decide if it’s worth buying ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/22 "2010-01-18T20:09:20Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I cannot defend any model where the fallout is “no-choice” for the customers. > > Shea Stadium in New York was one of the most egregious examples of a government handed out monopoly to one concessioneer, who promptly hired the most talentless indifferent slowest employees ever assembled. If you wanted to eat you had to suffer through it. No choice. Go to a different booth and it was run by the same people, and you got the same (lack of) service. Sure they made money because the prices were astronomical. Did they have commiserate expenses? No, just a captive audience, who couldn’t complain to anyone. > > Contrast to Toronto SkyDome, with actual competing vendors, where customers weren’t gouged because there was only one game in town. I think the Oakland Coliseum (baseball) was also a multi-vendor situation too. No gouging there either. > > Cont Actually, at Oakland Coliseum there is only one vendor: Aramark. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/23 "2010-01-18T22:48:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Plus, there is apparently only one wifi provider in each, so there is zero competition. O’Hare has data reception for at least 3 cell phone providers. I doubt the monopoly argument would work. Someone could argue that you should just get a cellular modem. I dont even bother with wifi. I just use my phone. If I traveled more Id buy a tethering plan. The last time I paid for wifi was on an ATA flight. Now thats a captive audience! > [@](#): > > Are there technical issues with maintaining multiple wifi networks in the same space? Yep, wifi isnt the solution for all our wireless needs. Wireless-B/G only has three non-overlapping channels. So if you had 5 vendors then it would quickly become useless as everyone crowded those channels. I guess N is a little better with 5ghz support, but because the FCC allocates so little spectrum to the [ISM band](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band), its really a natural monopoly of sorts. Perhaps the FCC should be giving us more meaty bandwidth in the ISM instead of selling it to google or whomever. Not sure what the solution here is. The airports could easily just have ethernet ports in various areas to accommodate more vendors. Sharing switches is easier than sharing radio. I doubt they want to. Airport pricing is like theme park pricing. Its set to what the market can bear. Until someone passes a law or a court ruling mandates it, I doubt internet access will be seen as vital or as a human right. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/24 "2010-01-18T22:53:36Z")
Also, if you travel a lot you can pay for Boingo wireless, which is 10 dollars a month. They have deals with all sorts of airports. Thats cheaper than a tethering plan. Looks like they service both midway and ohare. [http://boingo.jiwire.com/search-wifi-hotspots.htm?city\_id=35392&location\_type\_id=1&provider\_id=173](http://boingo.jiwire.com/search-wifi-hotspots.htm?city_id=35392&location_type_id=1&provider_id=173) ---
**Author:** ![fandango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b5ac83/32.png) [@fandango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fandango)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/25 "2010-01-18T23:13:06Z")
PDX (Portland, OR) has free wi-fi. There’s also a law in Portland that the airport shops/cafes can’t charge more than would be expected for the same item in the city, in other words, the airport Wendy’s charges the same as the Wendy’s in the mall. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/26 "2010-01-18T23:23:53Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I cannot defend any model where the fallout is “no-choice” for the customers. It’s strange, because I don’t normally find myself on this side of the argument when the subject is the freedom of the market… Who gets to be arbiter of what is fair and proper though? I appreciate that in the case of airports, the market is already being somewhat forced, but if that were not so (in the case of the privately-owned mall) - who gets to decide that the owners of the venue made a decision that needs overriding? How do we evaluate whether their decision to permit only one pizza restaurant is justified in some way? If we decide it’s not, how do we remedy it? IMO, market interference is most necessary when people are suffering some hardship as a result of market failure. I don’t think it works so well when its objective is just to satisfy our desire to see preferred choices on the menu. The provision of choices is just a tendency of competitive markets, not a guarantee - and I think in most cases, forcing it to do one thing will make it fail to perform in some other way. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/27 "2010-01-19T19:54:09Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Actually, at Oakland Coliseum there is only one vendor: Aramark. How long have they been in charge? I was last there quite a while ago (1994?). ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/28 "2010-01-19T19:55:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > It’s strange, because I don’t normally find myself on this side of the argument when the subject is the freedom of the market… > > Who gets to be arbiter of what is fair and proper though? I appreciate that in the case of airports, the market is already being somewhat forced, but if that were not so (in the case of the privately-owned mall) - who gets to decide that the owners of the venue made a decision that needs overriding? > How do we evaluate whether their decision to permit only one pizza restaurant is justified in some way? If we decide it’s not, how do we remedy it? > > IMO, market interference is most necessary when people are suffering some hardship as a result of market failure. I don’t think it works so well when its objective is just to satisfy our desire to see preferred choices on the menu. > > The provision of choices is just a tendency of competitive markets, not a guarantee - and I think in most cases, forcing it to do one thing will make it fail to perform in some other way. To me fair and proper is choice, as in store A and store B, not store A or nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/29 "2010-01-19T21:21:34Z")
Sure, choice is nice, but it isn’t always naturally available - and forcing it to happen may have undesired effects in other ways - in our hypothetical mall example, imposing upon the mall owner the requirement to offer a choice of pizza restaurants may mean he cannot attract such valuable tenders from competing chains - so his profit dips and (worst case) the mall goes out of business or has to cut back on cleaning the toilets, or some such. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360/30 "2010-01-20T01:47:48Z")
> [@fandango](#): > > PDX (Portland, OR) has free wi-fi. There’s also a law in Portland that the airport shops/cafes can’t charge more than would be expected for the same item in the city, in other words, the airport Wendy’s charges the same as the Wendy’s in the mall. This is how it is in Pittsburgh as well, free wifi and pricing parity. I’m curious what would happen if a vendor in an airport with paid wifi decided to install their own network and offer it to customers for free, since we know that wifi doesn’t stay within walls very well. For instance, TGI Fridays is rolling out wifi nationwide, and they have some airport based locations. I wonder if there could be repercussions against them if they said “we’re going to go ahead and put wifi in with our provider at our airport restaurants too.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-government-regulate-wifi-provision-in-airports-to-punish-monopolistic-behavior/525360.md?page=1)