WiFi On Airplanes Coming. Does That Mean Airborne Skype?
from the we-can-hope dept
The New York Times says that several airlines are testing in-flight Internet services. JetBlue will apparently be offering free, but crippled service that includes only email and instant messaging. And Crunchgear suggests it will be even more crippled than that: only Yahoo! and BlackBerry-based mail and IM will be supported. For a lot of travelers (including me) that will be completely useless, although I guess something is better than nothing. At the opposite extreme, American (along with Alaska Air) is reportedly working on full-featured Internet access that will allow you to use the applications of your choice, but it will apparently cost around $10. The Times also notes the most intriguing possibility for this service: that Internet access may mean the ability to make VoIP-based phone calls. It's not clear that the Internet connection will be good enough to make phone calls practical initially, but as technology advances, it's only a matter of time before there's enough bandwidth to make calls practical.The Times calls this a "pitfall" and says that American won't permit Internet-based phone calls. But I have trouble imagining that ban sticking. Once it becomes technologically feasible to make calls, it will be extremely difficult for airlines to enforce a no-calls rule. There's no automated way to block phone calls, and stewardesses will have a difficult time policing the activities of dozens of passengers. The only way it would work is if the caller's neighbor was willing to rat him out, and I suspect that fellow passengers are a lot more opposed to the idea of cell phones on airplanes in the abstract than they would be about an actual cell phone caller in the seat next to them. After all, cell phone calls are commonplace on buses and trains, and while they're occasionally annoying, they're no more annoying than a loud real-life conversation or a crying baby. There's no groundswell of support for banning cell phone calls on public transit, despite the fact that the annoyance factor is exactly the same. One possibility is that we'd see different airlines cater to different customers, with some airlines aggressively prohibiting airplane-based phone calls and others allowing them. My guess is that business travelers, who generate a disproportionate share of airline revenues, will find the ability to get work done on the airplane to be worth the minor inconvenience of occasionally having to listen to a neighbor's phone call, and so airlines that permit calls will be more profitable.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: in-flight wireless, voip, wifi
Companies: american airlines, jetblue
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
not the same
On a train, subway or bus, if the cell phone next to you really annoys you then you have the option of moving to another seat or area. Ever tried doing that on a plane?
As for no groundswell of support for banning cellphones, it was enough for Amtrak to introduce silent cars, which of course would probably be impractical for planes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not the same
Yep. And anyone who uses a phone on a silent car instantly incurs the wrath of the passengers around him. I've seen it happen. It's like a zebra being pounced on by a pride of lions. So much for Tim Lee's claim that "that fellow passengers are a lot more opposed to the idea of cell phones in the abstract than they would be about an actual cell phone caller in the seat next to them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone calls are much more annoying than a loud con
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: phone calls are much more annoying than a loud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT? Re: phone calls are much more annoying than
Brilliant ideas! I wish you luck on both of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, in Japan, there is. A groundswell of support, that is. And they tell you so, explicitly, with signages in buses and trains.
(It's ok to text and read your mail though.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: buses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could we be more advenurous than VoIP on a plane
http://orient-expression.blogspot.com/2006/05/slingapore-airlinesyour-own-in-flight.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
voip != compatible with satellite
1. latency is the big killer.. the best round-trip latency on satellite is in the region of 660+ milliseconds.
2. packet loss - mobile satellite data will inevitably have this issue.. sat isp's believe up to 5 percent packet loss is acceptable under some conditions
3. proxy - most satellite stuff is done using HEAVY transparent proxy and caching, making it extremely difficult to establish real/direct connections to the rest of the world.
Satellite data is ok for non-realtime, browsing, download, etc. but horrible for gaming, voice/videoconf, etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: voip != compatible with satellite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: voip != compatible with satellite
This was 2 years ago, since then Skype has improved a lot and I believe it would work even better now.
The cool factor of making a video call from a plane might help with the acceptance issue: Other passengers might end up saying "wow" instead of fighting :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever caught a 20+ hour flight
Have you ever been on a 20+ hour train ride? No, well how about a 20+ hour plane ride - this is how long it takes to fly from the UK to Australia and the flight is bad enough without some twat chatting on the phone the whole time. Personally I would NOT fly with any airline that permitted mobile/voip services and I am sure there are plenty of people that will be the same.
Fortunately in London, their is no signal on most of the tube and there is now signs on buses to advise passengers not to put there music on speaker. Although doesn't stop them does indicate that it annoys people (including myself).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor Tim -- must be a hell ofa commute
So, Tim, I guess you routinely take bus rides of four hours or more. Sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blocking VOIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: blocking VOIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: blocking VOIP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's that for a groundswell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really Mad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Works fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new JetBlue system isn't satellite based, it's EVDO ground station based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bandwidth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baffling
WiFi on airplanes would enable awesome ways to pass the time whether it's catching up on TechDirt, tuning into Orb on my home PC to watch some television, or downloading email from work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> understand why people have this desperate need
> to be talking to somebody, (phone or email), 24/7.
Amen. You and me both.
People actually seem to be addicted to these things. I've watched people coming into movie theaters or various occasions and the first thing most of them do when they sit down is pull out their cell phones. Often they don't even make calls or text. They just mindlessly scroll up and down through their contact list or bounce between the menus. It's a bizarre phenomenon and actually mimics the psychological signs of addiction in many ways.
Personally, one of my favorite rituals every Friday is taking off the damn cell phone and throwing it in a drawer until Monday. For me it's a relief when I can free myself from the damned thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: by BTR1701
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha???? Maybe you're behind the times of the super technological advancement of something called a "Firewall". You could just block the known ports of all the applications/protocols you'd like to stop outbound. Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
block the ports
Doesn't comcast and other ISP's try and keep down vontage by doing this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tried skype on a plane
As it was quite a novelty, I had no complaints from my neighbours.
If it becomes mainstream, I am sure that it will be pretty annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe I could just annoy them naturally, you know... in the form of a gas :|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add me to the list of very frequent business travelers who strongly hopes that voice calls, no matter what the underlying tech, do NOT make it onto scheduled airlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]