WiFi On Airplanes Coming. Does That Mean Airborne Skype?

from the we-can-hope dept

Fri, Dec 7th 2007 5:07pm — Timothy Lee

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.

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

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dale, 7 Dec 2007 @ 5:48pm

not the same
"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." - not quite

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 ]
- BTR1701, 10 Dec 2007 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: not the same
  > it was enough for Amtrak to introduce silent cars
  
  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 ]
poisonfist, 7 Dec 2007 @ 6:11pm

phone calls are much more annoying than a loud con
I believe there was a study done about how someone on a phone is much more annoying than a actual conversation that may be even louder. It has something to do with our brain trying to guess what the other end is saying opposed to an actual conversation where you can hear both ends. I personally can agree to this and say that someone on a cell phone is a lot more annoying and hard to ignore than the loud couple sitting next to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ReallyEvilCanine, 8 Dec 2007 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: phone calls are much more annoying than a loud
  You're referring to this study which concluded that "hearing only one side of a conversation makes it more noticeable and intrusive." I would not only rat out any asshole sitting next to me in a plane having a conversation, I would quite likely disconnect his cord myself. What's more, I don't know anyone who wouldn't react (or at least want to react) in a similar manner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Johnny, 8 Dec 2007 @ 4:36pm
    
    WHAT? Re: phone calls are much more annoying than
    Unplug his wireless internet? Touch someone else's property and earn yourself a punch in the face mid-flight?
    Brilliant ideas! I wish you luck on both of those.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tym, 7 Dec 2007 @ 6:18pm

"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."

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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2007 @ 6:06am
  
  Re: buses
  I've ridden a really nice coach bus from NJ to NYC and back where the driver said "Keep you conversations to a minimum, if you have to talk be quiet about it. No cell phones. I don't want people who are sleeping to be disturbed. I only want to hear newspapers." And the bus passengers complied. It was probably one of the best commutes I've ever had in my life! This should become a standard for some flights, or at least sections of a plane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2007 @ 6:21pm

On my flight home after thanksgiving, I witnessed a passenger who was using a cell phone in the air get attacked by another passenger. I think there will need to be a serious public technology education initiative taken before telephone conversations on flights become tolerated by your average fear-trained joe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Mould, 7 Dec 2007 @ 7:18pm

Could we be more advenurous than VoIP on a plane
In Connexion 2.0 I too hope that they don't limit the usage to only email and IM. We always have to consider bandwidth but if the new rollout is as [un]popular as Connexion 1.0 then there should be plenty to go around. One day I hope to catch up some TV while flying between work locations. I mused on what could be possible in May 2006
http://orient-expression.blogspot.com/2006/05/slingapore-airlinesyour-own-in-flight.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inc, 7 Dec 2007 @ 9:14pm

I don't see it hard to disrupt VOIP considering the constant stream of data needed to flow. They could implement traffic shaping and make port 80 traffic faster then other ports. This wouldn't stop savvy users from setting up a machine else and proxying traffic over port 80 but it would keep enough people without VOIP of any qaulity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zeroJJ, 7 Dec 2007 @ 11:36pm

voip != compatible with satellite
voip is generally incompatible with satellite due to several factors

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 ]
- KW, 8 Dec 2007 @ 2:49am
  
  Re: voip != compatible with satellite
  I used Skype about a year ago using Connexion with no noticeable delay issues. Even video streaming was working but at a pretty low frame rate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Oberle, 8 Dec 2007 @ 6:21am
    
    Re: Re: voip != compatible with satellite
    Same with me. 2 years ago, I used Skype with the Lufthansa Connextion service, and the audio quality was all fine. Video was also working but quality was low.
    
    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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2007 @ 5:26am

and then people on phones always tend to think the other person can't hear them and talk louder, while people having a conversation usually talk just loud enough for the other person to hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 8 Dec 2007 @ 10:08am

Ever caught a 20+ hour flight
Re: "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."

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 ]
Mark, 8 Dec 2007 @ 10:16am

Poor Tim -- must be a hell ofa commute
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.
So, Tim, I guess you routinely take bus rides of four hours or more. Sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rizwan, 8 Dec 2007 @ 10:45am

Saw it coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julie, 8 Dec 2007 @ 12:07pm

blocking VOIP
The ISP can block VoiP calls utilizing rules based automated systems and anything else they want to block including bandwidth. Where do you get your innacurate information!!!!!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Johnny, 8 Dec 2007 @ 5:07pm
  
  Re: blocking VOIP
  There are always ways around "blocks". Always. At most, ISPs simply enable undocumented detours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Julie, 9 Dec 2007 @ 8:17am
    
    Re: Re: blocking VOIP
    What is being implemented is a wall garden environment, and there are limited protocols being authorised so workarounds via ports are not an option, even if they did exist. So good luck with your port scanning.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2007 @ 6:45pm

I personally would put a boot up the ass of anyone talking on a cell phone next to me on a plane.

How's that for a groundswell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Dec 2007 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re:
  It's a good thing there are people like you who's solution to any perceived personal inconvenience is violence. Otherwise the police would be out of work
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max Powers, 9 Dec 2007 @ 1:08am

Really Mad
I can see it now. A passenger gets so mad they grab the phone out of the hand of someone and opens the door to throw it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
J, 9 Dec 2007 @ 1:32am

Works fine
I used skype on SAS and Lufthansa flights using Boeing Connexion several times and it worked fine for me. Just used it and did no theory on why it worked though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2007 @ 4:23am

How much bandwidth are they getting to the plane? All the users on the aircraft share a single connection. 1 person using skype? Sure. 20 people using skype? maybe not. This is also almost surely an asynchronous connection.

The new JetBlue system isn't satellite based, it's EVDO ground station based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Julie, 9 Dec 2007 @ 7:49am
  
  Re: Bandwidth
  At last someone that knows what they are talking about. Also all the planes in the radius of the groundstation share the same bandwidth. The maximum theoretical bandwidth would be a little over 3Mbps with actual performance below this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jordan, 9 Dec 2007 @ 9:52am

Wow
I'm really surprised. You are all a bunch of pussies. Its just a freaking phone call. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill M, 9 Dec 2007 @ 11:59am

Baffling
I, too am more concerned about bandwidth than about people talking (cell phone, Skype, or otherwise). I learned a long time ago "the only way to fly" is with one of those in-ear noise isolating headphones and an MP3 player. Between the roar of the engines, passenger interactions with stewardesses, and the always-mentioned crying babies, there is plenty of noise on planes already. Cell phones wouldn't add much to that, and I would much rather Aunt Suzie talk to her sister in Atlanta than tell me all about her trip to DisneyLand. Unless of course she's cute.

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2007 @ 1:56pm

Maybe I'm getting too old but I still can't understand why people have this desperate need to be talking to somebody, (phone or email), 24/7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BTR1701, 10 Dec 2007 @ 8:04am
  
  Re:
  > Maybe I'm getting too old but I still can't
  > 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 ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2007 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Re: by BTR1701
    It is probably because their brains are empty.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wha????, 9 Dec 2007 @ 7:03pm

"The only way it would work is if the caller's neighbor was willing to rat him out....."

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Dec 2007 @ 10:28pm

block the ports
Can't you just block the ports that skype or vontage uses?
Doesn't comcast and other ISP's try and keep down vontage by doing this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mart, 10 Dec 2007 @ 12:40am

Tried skype on a plane
ElAl, Israel's national airline, offered free internet access on all transAtlantic flights for a few months last year. I used skype with video and it worked pretty well.

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 ]
Kraw, 10 Dec 2007 @ 4:53am

if it's ok for the guy next to you to blab on a phone, wouldn't that make it ok for me to bring some portable speakers to hook up to my powerbook so I could enjoy my dvd without headphones?

Maybe I could just annoy them naturally, you know... in the form of a gas :|
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2007 @ 10:49am

As has already been pointed out: Length of trip, can't move seats, etc, etc.

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 ]