Wi-Fi Coming on U.S. Domestic Flights

jvptoad writes "The NY Times is reporting that United Airlines has received approval to offer Wi-Fi Internet access on its planes. Although it will be over a year before the service is available, I wonder if this will impact the discussion on cell phone usage in planes (which seems to be centered around the annoyance of people talking loudly on the phone). Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."

Comments

Uh, latency?

[g0at]

repeat: uh, latency?

Re:Uh, latency?

[TheSHAD0W]

It'll probably be bad -- but a "walkie-talkie" system like Nextel has might solve that problem.

Re:Uh, latency?

[WillAffleckUW]

repeat: uh, latency?

could you resend that packet? i didn't get it the first time ...

Re:Uh, latency?

[Leroy_Brown242]

Lagged connection is better than none at all.

For me, I could do the email thing, update the web site, and check my system info, all while in flight.

That'd be very handy.

Re:Uh, latency?

[nacturation]

could you resend that packet? i didn't get it the first time ...

Don't worry -- just wait for the dupe article later this week.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Austerity Empowers]

Bah it'll probably cost so much that latency will actually work in your favor. If they charge $1/byte, and it takes 6000ms round trip, you'll at least be able to make the flight on a single credit card.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Surt]

Most of these flights won't be flying as high as many of the satellites we use to carry a lot of our voice traffic. Why should the latency need to be worse?

Re:Uh, latency?

[Esine]

Yeah, you definately need to RTFM

Re:Uh, latency?

[guyjr]

Not to mention IM. I'd think that'd be the most efficient way given the expected high latency.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Leroy_Brown242]

Well, I IM via IRC and Bitlbee. irssi in a screen can be painfull in high lag situations.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Latency only matters for time-sensitive applications like games. You're crazy if you want to try playing games on airplanes. Your e-mail already takes minutes to go between servers, and web pages often go years between being posted and reaching you. Latency will be at most a few seconds.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Vellmont]

I guess I don't understand why you think latency would be a problem. The service is likely going to NOT rely on geo-stationary satelite links, so there's no speed of light issues to geo-stationary orbit 32,000 miles away. Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky. That would be rather difficult in an airplane moving side to side, up and down, etc.

What's far more likely is they'll use existing cellphone towers, and possibly the same LEO (low earth orbit) satelites that satelite phones use. Planes fly at only 40,0000 feet or so, so that's only about 8 miles up. LEO is only about 200-500 miles, so the lightspeed time is rather short at 500/186,0000 seconds. Really they'd only need to use LEO sats flying over remote parts of the US, or over the ocean.

Re:Uh, latency?

[akeyes]

repeat: uh, latency?

Re:Uh, latency?

[g0at]

Hmm... that's true. You're right, my question was perhaps a bit off-the-cuff.

I had it in the back of my mind that "satellite-based" internet services give terrible lag though, hence this inquiry. Why would they be high-latency relative to wireline?

-b

Re:Uh, latency?

[doubleshot]

JetBlue's satallite service for television works just fine, however I don't know how it does it's satallite homing, however it does use satallite with DirectTV...

so most likely they will be using that sort of technology with data, which is already being done ... oh, and I think there are regulations the FCC has with air to ground communications where using cell phone towers would be out of the question...

Re:Uh, latency?

[markwalling]

i was under the impression that the cell phone rule was origionally a FCC rule because of the number of cells your phone could sign on to

Re:Uh, latency?

[twostar]

Doesn't anyone do their homework anymore? Connexion By Boeing is via geostationary satellite. Why waste putting a bird up that is only visible to the ground for a few minutes each pass when you can buy time on a couple of geo birds?

You want to know if your plane has Connexion? Look on top for a square "bubble" about 3 feet on each side and purtruding about 6 inches. That's where the antenna is, and yes it tracks the satellite, not that hard, we've been doing it for years on military planes.

http://www.boeing.com/connexion/backgrounder.html

The Enabling Technology
Connexion by Boeing uses a worldwide network of geostationary satellites and ground-based receiving stations to relay data between aircraft and the global information network. An advanced-technology antenna designed and built by Mitsubishi Electric Co. enables aircraft to maintain high-quality connectivity, even at high latitudes.

Re:Uh, latency?

[flawedgeek]

The cell phone providers actually pressured the FAA to ban cell phones on airliners, because when you're flying within range of 100 towers, you're using resources on all 100 towers. It was the cell providers, not anything to do with navigation.

Re:Uh, latency?

[badmonkey]

satelites carry next to no data or voice traffic anymore - its all fiber.

Re:Uh, latency?

[markwalling]

thats what i was trying to get out, but i thought that the system wasn't designed to handle connections by one phone on that many towers (as in computer crashes)

Re:Uh, latency?

[jelle]

Thanks to google images, this picture.

I see three things on top of that. Now which is the connexion antenna?

Re:Uh, latency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously so I don't get in trouble tomorrow when I go to work tomorrow ;-)
The plane linked in the picture is CBB1, our test platform. This plane has 3 of our antennas on it: two phased array antennas and one mechanically steered dish antenna(the Melco antenna mentioned above). The first two (very flat) rectangular bumps towards the nose of the plane are the phased array antennas. These antennas are each capable of simulatenously tracking multiple satellites, which can be used to provide directTV as well as internet service. They can also be configured to use one antenna for receive, one for send. None of our customers has multiple phased arrays due to the cost (VERY expensive) and this antenna is only used for government and business jets. The rearmost (largest) hump is the Melco antenna that was mentioned above.
Connexion is actually far superior to what is offered by Verizon. We offer far more services than anybody here knows. We offer our service on planes, vehichles, and boats. We also offer much more bandwidth than Verizon. Our system has the capability to recieve at nearly 80Mb/sec (none of our customers has ever used this capability since it requires extra antennas that increase cost and drag (one antenna == 20Mb up and down)), and transmit at nearly 20Mb/sec. We also offer a number of other services that I don't think we have anounced yet, but are REALLY cool.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to mention, Connexion is based on Linux :-) Any Connexion equipped plane has a few Linux machines running on it (no wonder I love my job).

Re:Uh, latency?

[twostar]

Did not know they had phased arrays, awesome. Looks like fun stuff to work on.

Re:Uh, latency?

[doormat]

Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky. That would be rather difficult in an airplane moving side to side, up and down, etc.

You do realize that JetBlue has this on ALL their airplanes, right? How else do you think you get DirecTV serivce to your seat?

Re:Uh, latency?

[digitalchinky]

Ah, what planet are you from? I er, do satellite signals for a living. Still by far the vast majority are voice circuits - although technically they are all binary when spat out of the modems. Most of these are in the form of CEPT E1's and DTX-240's (Stanard IDR's), although there are still many IBS systems kicking around - more and more frequently we see packet switched voice, have always seen multiplexed and compressed, or simply jammed into vocoders of varied size and fed over any number of transmission types. Voice is still pretty common. Internet is not nearly as common as you would imagine, though there are huge numbers of private networks that sometimes carry internet. I haven't seen any reduction of voice in my visible section of the clark belt.

Re:Uh, latency?

[digitalchinky]

Kind of stupid to reply to myself... To be more precise, I have only ever seen an increasing load on satellite systems, never the opposite. There are more signals (and satellites) now than there were 10 years ago. Big business to be had.

Re:Uh, latency?

[digitalchinky]

The code and associated overhead to deal with handoff between cell sites, to my knowledge, has not been implimented anywhere as of yet. Definitely computationally intense, and bandwidth hungry - cell sites would have to communicate info to each other over distances of hundreds of kilometres, and not just with their neighbours as they do now.

Might not be too TDMA friendly either, from memory the maximum range (due to timing) is somewhere around the 30 kilometre mark from the cell site. (Don't quote me on that, it's been a long time since I've had to care about it) It'd likely screw over the maximum capacity for each channel - tolerances and all - meaning less money, so I can understand why telco's are reluctant. As you also mentioned, computer crashes can sometimes be the result.

Re:Uh, latency?

[badmonkey]

And there's probably been an even larger increase in overall load, causing satelite's slice of the pie to shrink, regardless if the satelite load has increased.

Re:Uh, latency?

[rabbit994]

Yes but Satellite TV on a plane only has to worry about recieving. They have to do both sending and recieving with Wireless internet.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Hasai]

"Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky."

Um, nope. When I was in the military, all we needed was this rather strange-looking antenna that was roughly the shape and size of a frisbee. Not sure how it worked, but it did the job just fine.

Re:Uh, latency?

[se7en11]

Cellphone towers point down. They are not meant work in plains.

A friend of mine was piloting a small plain around Alabama and lost total power in the plain. Fortunately he had a cell phone and was able to maneuver close enough to the ground to pick up a signal. He was only able to speak in small intervals because the signal kept going in and out.

Point: I don't think cellphone towers will work for "big" plains.

Re:Uh, latency?

[Anonymous Coward]

"A friend of mine was piloting a small plain around Alabama"

Kansas called. They want it back.

Re:Uh, latency?

[hplasm]

Most of these flights won't be flying as high as many of the satellites we use to carry a lot of our voice traffic. Why should the latency need to be worse?

I hope that the satellites are all higher than the planes, or someone is in BIG trouble..

Re:Uh, latency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man.. No wonder I love your job too.

Re:Uh, latency?

[heftysmurf]

check this out, this is a company called wi-fi t.v It's pretty cool check it out http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/?d=79384 cheers

Re:Uh, latency?

[heftysmurf]

check this out, this is a company called wi-fi t.v It's pretty cool check it out http://www.primezone.com/newsroom/?d=79384 cheers

Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[WillAffleckUW]

Either that or get some good headphones, because if you start playing Duke Nukem on your laptop when I'm sitting next to you, I'll be showing you where the off switch is.

Sorry, your right to infringe on society ends where my eardrums attached to my body stuffed into a seat where your laptop requires you to lower your tray table for the whole flight begins.

And if you don't like it, fly first class.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[JanneM]

Using headphones is of course just common courtesy.

That said: earplugs. Earplugs, earplugs earplugs.

Not because people perhaps sit on the phone, and not because people will sometimes talk to each other. Not even for the guy snoring loudly throughout the flight or for the two-year old who's screaming himself across the pacific ocean.

An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of. True, you conciously tune it out after half an hour or so, but it's incredibly fatiguing. For a long time I didn't realize that a good deal of my jetlag, fatigue and inability to sleep on the plane was actually due to that incessant noise (that, and that I never drank enough liquids - nonalcoholic liquids).

Once I started using earplugs during the entire flight (you can hear the movie just fine through the plugs) and making a point of drinking water throughout, the difference was huge. I arrive reasonably refreshed, not bleary-eyed and disoriented. The day-night cycle is still screwed up, of course, but the impact is much less.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you don't like it, fly first class.

likewise.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[WillAffleckUW]

An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of. True, you conciously tune it out after half an hour or so, but it's incredibly fatiguing. For a long time I didn't realize that a good deal of my jetlag, fatigue and inability to sleep on the plane was actually due to that incessant noise (that, and that I never drank enough liquids - nonalcoholic liquids).

Not as noisy as the military cargo carriers I sometimes had to fly in, strapped in to the webbing.

But I agree as to the impact of noise and drinking nonalcoholic liquids - this is why I get the ice and use it, before having wine with dinner. Dehydration is a big impact.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[GameMaster]

I hate to break it to you but, much to the chagrin of the Christian right, the rights to not be annoyed, bothered, or offended aren't included in the U.S. Bill of Rights. In fact, in the situation you just described the only person who would likely be breaking the law would be you when you laid a hand on the other person's laptop (potentially destroying, valuable, unsaved work running in the background while the game was playing). If you don't like being cramped in small seats with potentially loud passengers then the onus is on you to buy a first class ticket. What exactly were you planning on doing if the person next to you happened to have a crying child, grab it from the mother and smother it with a pillow till it stopped?

The only people that have any say as to whether someone should have to turn the sound off on a flight are the flight attendants based on airline policy. In which case, they are responsible for handling it. Actively trying to turn someone's laptop off while they're using it is not only likely to be illegal but is also probably a good way to start a fight.

One of the down sides of freedom of speech/expression is that we all have to get used to the fact that we are, inevitably, going to be offended by something someone else in society does in the process of expressing their rights. The cost of that freedom is that we have to get over ourselves and learn to live with each other. Unless the other person is doing something that directly causes you harm (not just an annoyance for a few hours on a public plane) then you really shouldn't be complaining. This is something that the Christian right can't seem to handle. Much like the passenger in the plane that overreacts to noisy fellow passengers, they constantly seek to change the world around them to match their religious beliefs by limiting the right of other people.

-GameMaster

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[WillAffleckUW]

I hate to break it to you but, much to the chagrin of the Christian right, the rights to not be annoyed, bothered, or offended aren't included in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Who said they were?

I just said if you persist in rude behavior when seated next to me, and that includes talking loudly on your cell phone, I reserve the right to forcibly apply butter to your keypad.

This isn't a problem in a lot of other countries because they don't talk loudly when on cell phones, out of common courtesy - something one should have learned in kindergarten, IMHO.

Your mileage may vary.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Moofie]

"I reserve the right to forcibly apply butter to your keypad."

So if I infringe on your notions of politeness, you will attempt to destroy my personal property?

You'd be wise not to sit next to me on an airplane, buddy. I guarantee you will not enjoy the consequences of your actions.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[wazhere2k5]

Let me see, you must be the guy that... 1. travels infrequently (or you must not spend much time in the air) 2. refuses to bathe, then wants to sleep the whole flight thinking you own the flight, while sleeping you continue to enter my space to slobber on my shoulder. Of course you won't move for anyone to goto the bathroom. God Forbid anyone bother you. My only words for you are get a life, people put up with you (I forgot, you must be perfect). Anyway most people opt for the Noise Cancelling headphones to drown out all the snoring on long flights. I would suggest you travel by train, you can get a private room there.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[wazhere2k5]

Better Idea let the fool get violent on one of todays aircraft. Remember the Patriot Act. Go Ahead try it, I hope you like your nearest FBI office. If I remember right zero tolerance:)

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[GameMaster]

"I reserve the right to forcibly apply butter to your keypad"

he, I don't think you'll be reserving any right for yourself that aren't given to you by the laws of the country you're in at the time. A little thing called the rule of law stops people from enforcing their own arbitrary beliefs on other people. "Rude behavior" is a subjective thing. No one has elected you the rudeness police.

"something one should have learned in kindergarten, IMHO."

The law trumps your opinion. Thinking otherwise is how people justify all sorts of things like robbery and murder.

-GameMaster

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[interiot]

I absolutely second that! On very long flights (eg. 13 hours), the difference in quality of sleep with and without earplugs is huge. I can't sleep very well at all without earplugs. I'm a very heavy sleeper, so I don't really wake up much during flights even without earplugs, but the constant background whine/hiss makes for very poor sleep.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[nettdata]

Yeah... my friend said it best...

"Don't fuck with my serenity".

Words to live by, and put on a T-Shirt.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Zeinfeld]

An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of.

Two words: Crazy Frog.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

You, and unfortunately most of the newer generations, have forgotten something: besides "rights" and "laws", there is this thing called "code of conduct". That includes saying "thanks" at appropriate times (there are no laws making you thank others, but we still do).

If we all behave like you, this is what will happen: person A plays Duke Numek with sound on (no laws against it!), person B sneezes in a way that the fluids happen to hit A's screen (no laws against it!), A strecthes his arms repeatedly in a way to block B's view of the movie(no laws against it!), etc... Or we can all try our best to not annoy the others, whether there are laws or not, whether we're infringing on our own rights or not. That is "learning to live with each other".

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the earplugs, I just stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and sing "LA LALA LALA" at the top of my voice. Blocks out all external noises. Guaranteed.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

You a Firefly fan?

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy next to you should consider himself lucky. Anyone doing that next to me gets stuffed down the food elevator into the cargo hold.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[nettdata]

Actually, I am... but that's now where the saying came from.

A friend of mine was going through the MOST brutal divorce I'd ever seen... calling the cops and making stuff up left and right in order to try and get custody of the kids.

Long story short, she says my buddy threatened her with bodily harm (he's into martial arts big time), so he had to go to "anger management".

While there, he met a guy we'll call "tiny"... 6'6", 300lbs, shaved head, goti, biker type all the way.

During the "lets talk about why you're angry" sessions, he pipes up with "they fucked with my serenity, so I had to kick their asses.... they would have been fine if they just didn't fuck with my serenity." The whole "class" breaks out laughing, and the next session, some guy hands out T-shirts with "don't fuck with my serenity".

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[nettdata]

I should say SHE was calling the cops up, making stories... so much so that the cops offered to testify in his behalf about the extreme level of bullshit she was spewing. ...stupid preview...

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you buddy....ill do what i want in my seat, which is my space which i paid for..., i will have it at wha i think is a reasonable volume, you might still hear a bit, but youll have to put up with it. dont like it, fly first class.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Lesson No. 25]

Using headphones is of course just common courtesy.

That said: earplugs. Earplugs, earplugs earplugs.

Another (significantly more expensive) option is noise-cancelling headphones. I have a set of Bose noise-cancelling headphones from work, and they are great on the plane. You can go cordless, or pipe in music with the headphones jack. And mine came with a dual-plug adapter, so you can use them to listen to the sound of the in-flight movie (in most (all?) planes).

Other than the cost (~$300?), the only real downside (in my experience) is that you shouldn't use the noise-cancelling feature during take-off or landing. When I once asked a flight attendant why, she said it was so I could hear instructions in case of any emergency. But I think it may also have something to do with being an electronic device (since the noise-cancelling is active; it does take a battery). I wouldn't think they put out much EM noise, but you just don't know without thorough testing.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost of that freedom is that we have to get over ourselves and learn to live with each other. Unless the other person is doing something that directly causes you harm (not just an annoyance for a few hours on a public plane) then you really shouldn't be complaining.

Actually, no. With rights come responsibilities. You, as an allegedly intelligent member of society, have a responsibility not to gratuitously piss people off when you don't need to. It's common courtesy.

If you can modify your behaviour in a way which does not cause you excessive inconvenience, and which improves the flight for your neighbour, you should do so.

Your neighbour should be able to indicate that he is unable to sleep because of the sounds of explosions coming from your headphones, and your response should be to apologise and turn the volume down.

Similarly, your neighbour shouldn't object to the fact that you are using a laptop in the flight, as long as you accept that you'll need to move it out of the way every time he wants to get up to go to the bathroom.

It's not about what's legal, it's about what's the right thing to do.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[WillAffleckUW]

"I reserve the right to forcibly apply butter to your keypad."

So if I infringe on your notions of politeness, you will attempt to destroy my personal property?

It's only the best butter.

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[GameMaster]

Well, I never suggested that these were things that I actually do myself. What I did suggest is that no matter how annoying you might find someone else's actions, you have absolutely no right to take it upon yourself to physically correct their annoying (but otherwise completely legal) behavior.

While your stereotype of me as being part of the "newer generation" may have been relatively close to the truth (I'm in my mid-20s) I'll chalk that up to dumb luck considering that your accuracy ends there. As it happens, I do like to say please and thank-you at appropriate times. I also do what I can to be polite when the situation calls for it (such as in cramped spaces like in the example). However, these things are about me and I acknowledge that the only person whose behavior I can control is me. The moment I start to think that I can control what someone else is doing simply because it is annoying me I become the more wrong of the two. Just because someone else is being an a$$ doesn't justify me being one. It certainly doesn't justify illegal vigilantism.

This is a personal pet peeve I have whenever I hear someone (be they a random semi-irrational poster on Slashdot or a fundamentalist religious organization) claim that they have nominated themselves to impose their beliefs of what is annoying, immoral, or offensive upon other people. Regardless of whether you try to get the laws changed or whether you personally take it upon yourself to physically force something on others (which is outright illegal) I, personally, find it far more objectionable than any act, or group of acts, I have ever been offended by. I think it is a sign of emotional immaturity/issues that people are incapable of simply allowing others to live as they wish and ignoring thing that don't directly effect them.

-GameMaster

Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is

[GameMaster]

Yes and no. I completely agree with your assessment of what some-one playing video games on a cramped flight should do to be polite. However, what I disagree with vehemently are the action suggested by the parent poster about what he intended to do should the person playing games refuse to be polite.

You and I may feel that there is a responsibility to be polite, but not everyone else agrees. In a free society they should have a right to disagree and continue living their lives as they see fit (as long as they don't commit any action that infringes on the legally given right of others). There is a major difference between the law and social obligations like the "responsibilities" you referred to. The problem with imposing social "responsibilities" upon others (whether it be by adding "morality" laws or through vigilantism as was advocated by the parent post) is that one has to wonder whose version of social "responsibilities" do you impose?

Social responsibilities, unlike the basic premises of the U.S. Bill of Rights, are inherently cultural or religious. There have been numerous examples of social "responsibilities" that were outright repugnant to basic freedom such as the "responsibility" black people had that said they were expected to follow what we used to call segregation (I don't know if you are American. If you aren't and you haven't heard of segregation you should be able to find out about it through Google). In that case, at least until the latter part of the last century, that social "responsibility" was enforced by law (especially in the southern U.S.). Even today, there are parts of the U.S. where a black person walking into a restaurant may be ignored by the wait staff until they leave or possibly receive even worse treatment...

That is why we run this country by rule of law and, in most cases where religious fundamentalism hasn't shanghaied our legal system, don't force people to follow social "responsibilities". The exception to this include (as I mentioned in my original post) when the owner of a public business, such as the airline that owns the plane, make their own rules for what is allowable behavior. They can do this because the person making the noise always has the choice of simply not doing business with them but they are the only ones that can make that choice. Also, as was mentioned earlier, they aren't legally allowed to base those rules on certain things like sex, race, or creed. Another example of where we impose social "responsibilities" is in the case of local noise ordinances or zoning laws that control how "ugly" you are allowed to let your property look. These are done, in most cases, because it has been proven that having multiple junked cars on your front lawn has a direct impact on the property value of your neighbors as does large amount of noise. While I, guardedly, agree with these types of laws even they have room for abuse.

-GameMaster

non-reg

[compm375]

People should use the non-reg links when posting about a NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06uni ted.html?ex=1275710400&en=022fb6cd810b1719&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Re:non-reg

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the NYT, since it's just a press release you can read it direct from United.

Re:non-reg

[tehcrazybob]

I've noticed a lot more registration links on Slashdot lately. I wondered if it was maybe because more people are using the BugMeNot extension for FF and don't think much of it.

Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[topgeek]

What are the chances I'll be able to set up a Counter-Strike server on my flight to Washington?

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[FidelCatsro]

You could if you wanted to , but the latency would be apauling

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[Widowwolf]

Just imagine a lan party...brings a new meaning to the Mile high club

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[nacturation]

"Bomb has been planted."
"Storm the front!"
"Hostage down!"
"Get out of there, it's going to blow!"

Tonight on CNN, a thirteen year old suspected terrorist on a domestic flight has been arrested and moved to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation. As per PATRIOT Act regulations, the boy has been denied an attorney, no charges are pending, and no judge is set to hear the case. The FBI hasn't released any details, but I for one welcome our new terrorist catching overlords.

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[LiquidCoooled]

Not if its a LAN match ;)

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

Just imagine a lan party...brings a new meaning to the Mile high club

A sad, geeky meaning.

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

The truely scary part comes after it is soooo well engrained that it doesn't even show up on CNN anymore...

-(

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[FidelCatsro]

That could be Turbulent

Re:Multiplayer On-Line On-Flight Gaming

[KlomDark]

No, attempted impregnation of your hand in the airplane bathroom does NOT make you a member of the Mile High Club. Sorry...

VOIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't allow VOIP, as I hate chatter on a plane. Its bad enough to sit next to tourists and listen to them blather on about their vacation to sit next to a business man discussing dropping his pants in some deal would be horrible.

Lufthansa...

[choongiri]

...has had wifi on its flights for a over a year now.

Re:Lufthansa...

[millennial]

Does Lufthansa have U.S. domestic flights?

Re:Lufthansa...

[JanneM]

So does SAS. It turns Japan-Europe from a ten-hour purgatory into a something fairly bearable.

Re:Lufthansa...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the difference being that the FAA is allowing them for US flights.

Re:Lufthansa...

[drmarcj]

Yes, and last time I flew them the wifi "was broken". So much for the famous German efficiency. I'm sure US airlines will do better though.

Re:Lufthansa...

[ipjohnson]

Only if you count the ~10 minutes your flying in US airspace while leaving Logan

Re:Lufthansa...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it surprise you that the US gets it after everyone else? That's pretty common in the technology world.

VoIP on planes

[scseth]

Sure the technology will be there (vonage, skype with 802.11 phones)...

but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).

Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying.

Now United needs to offer power injectors at each economy plus seat

Re:VoIP on planes

[Beatlebum]

"Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying."

Really? You mean you don't have anything equally important that you could work on that doesn't require real-time connectivity? I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps you're just one of those people that constantly checks email and IM instead of doing real work (the stuff you could do offline). How many technology jobs *require* constant real-time connections? I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of many.

Re:VoIP on planes

[joeybagadonuts]

It's not jitter - although that won't be healthy either - it's the delay that will kill ya. However, I'm sure every non-technical l337 h4x0r will try it once. Once.

Re:VoIP on planes

[DrEldarion]

Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying.

That, to me, is a drawback. I don't WANT to be productive on a flight. It's nice to have a place where you're guaranteed to not be able to work.

Re:VoIP on planes

[elgaard]

>but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma
>terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).

You imagine wrong.
I received a VoIP (SIP) call from an airplane (a SAS flight). I wasn't a great line, but definitely useful and the latency was not too bad.

Re:VoIP on planes

[GutBomb]

ever heard of VPN for the intranet? with so many companies jumping on the web application bandwagon many applications require connectivity to the web server.

Re:VoIP on planes

[zorander]

Access to version control/searchable hyperlinked documentation/build servers isn't important? How many corporate development architectures fit onto a laptop?

He said it made him more productive. It does. Rooting around on my hard drive for ADC docs is much more time consuming than typing into google or a search box. What about that library you didn't think you needed the docs for because you weren't using it directly?

Now that I'm used to having the internet and google as a resource at work when writing code, it's harder to do it the old fashioned way. There's no reason to anymore. Once you've built a development methodology, messing with it by removing internet access is a *bad idea* and likely to introduce bugs and inconsistencies.

Re:VoIP on planes

[div_2n]

Given that satellite Internet has at a minimum a half a second latency per packet, VoIP communications most likely wouldn't work. Even if they did, it would be miserable in ways that no language is capable of describing. The conversation would be worse than a walkie talkie conversation.

I'm guessing that the call you received wasn't VoIP. Else, it didn't use satellite based Internet service.

For the calculation on the latency of satellite Internet, go here .

Re:VoIP on planes

[TummyX]

but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).


Well, despite what most people here on slashdot would have you believe (armchair critics who have no experience whatsoever which is nothing new around here), that's not the case. I had internet access on a singapore airlines flight from London to Singapore last week. I used MSN video conferencing as well as skype-out on my tablet pc and both worked flawlessly. Using a webcam and conversing in ink while on a plane was awesome.

Skype-out worked really well - a tiny lag (not annoying at all) and perfect audio quality. Calling someone from my tablet on a plane without paying the ridiculus $5.90/min charge for normal plane-land calls was awesome and despite the fact that I had to use the inbuilt microphone on my tablet, the people on the other end say they heard me suprisingly clearly. I got a bluetooth headset for my tablet as soon as I got to singapore airport :-).

I should also note that the service had a web based live "chat" support and they were very helpful with my queries regarding the usage costs.

Re:VoIP on planes

[TummyX]

Well he never said that it was using satellite internet. I can assure you that, from experience, VOIP using on-plane wifi internet access works and works very well.

Re:VoIP on planes

[elgaard]

I assume it was through sattellite. The plane was somewhere very north in Canada, coming from Europe. It was a VoIP (SIP) call, I received it on a D-Link SVG1402.

The calculation gives 240ms of latency (half RTT). That is a little more than is normally accepted in telephone systems, and there are more sources of latency. But it was not miserable.

Re:VoIP on planes

[Lord_Dweomer]

Oh cram it you troll. Who are you to decide what is "important" work and what is not? And he never said he had a tech job. What if he is a stock broker? Or any other job that requires real-time data to make accurate business decisions with? What if real-time communication via IM and email is crucial to landing some deals he's working on?

Just because you have a narrow and uneducated view of what qualifies as "important" work, doesn't mean you get to pass judgement on the work of others.

Good and bad

[zzyzx]

I have to admit that I would probably use this quite a bit to check my email and play on the web on flights.

However, I'll miss the fact that there was a space where I couldn't do those things. There's so much pressure on people to be available all the time, that it was nice to have forced downtime.

Re:Good and bad

[halltk1983]

Buy a motorcycle...

Perfect excuse 100% of the time!

"Why didn't you answer your cell?"
"I was on my bike, woman!" (really at a bar)

Re:Good and bad

[That's Unpossible!]

I have to admit that I would probably use this quite a bit to check my email and play on the web on flights.

This feature would allow me to fly more often.

Being on call 24/7 for work requires me to be able to fix issues on our servers via remote desktop over our VPN. This means if I will be out of contact for more than an hour, or am planning to go some place where it would take me more than an hour to get to an internet connection, it is basically frowned upon.

However, I'll miss the fact that there was a space where I couldn't do those things. There's so much pressure on people to be available all the time, that it was nice to have forced downtime.

I'm sure these people will still come up with an excuse not to be reachable. "Sorry, my WIFI card/battery/laptop died. Sorry, they said their WIFI router wasn't working on the flight. Sorry, I forgot and packed my wallet in my suitcase, and couldn't purchase WIFI time. etc...

Cell phone usage I would object to, unless they limited it to a secluded "room" on the flight where people could go to talk on their cell phones. Or perhaps a "cell phone section" of the airplane which you would pay more to fly in, and which could be separated from the other rows by a heavy curtain to block out the sound.

Then again, it wouldn't affect me too much as I can always plug my headset in and tune those folks out.

Re:Good and bad

[Moofie]

Any space can be a space where you can't use these tools. Use the power button.

I'm sorry you have difficulty restraining your urge to use the Internet, but I don't see why that should get in the way of me doing so if I choose.

I don't need forced downtime. I have a great manager. (Yes, they do exist.)

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I'll miss the fact that there was a space where I couldn't do those things. There's so much pressure on people to be available all the time, that it was nice to have forced downtime.

Congratulations on being such brainwashed technocratic pussy that you can't let the phone ring or turn off your computer.

Re:Good and bad

[GutBomb]

it's less of a question of willpower, it's more a question of your boss making you do work since you have the ability to.

Re:Good and bad

[GutBomb]

Congratulations on being such brainwashed technocratic pussy that you can't let the phone ring or turn off your computer.

no that brainwashed technocratic pussy is my boss who will fire me if i don;t answer the phone or turn off the computer

Re:Good and bad

[Moofie]

Your boss can't make you do anything. You can choose to exchange your time for the boss's money, which, again comes down to willpower.

You're not a slave. Don't act like one.

Re:Good and bad

[Anonymous Coward]

no dude, you're whatever dumb shit he called you because YOU have a shitty frigging job. don't blame your boss or employer, blame your fucking self. you weren't pulled into an unmarked van and forced to toil away on this sinister ray of death, you put yourself in that position sapping your life away and becoming disgruntled with things. fuck that, move on. life's too short to put up with horse shit you don't agree with. no bills are worth that, and same goes for family. worst case, save up some money to use while getting a new gig. get a new mortgage and pay it off with your new job. don't blame someone else for your problems.

Re:Good and bad

[GutBomb]

ok you try being a free spirit when you have a kid to take care of. i would just quit any job if i didn;t like it before, but now i have something fragile that will die if i don't have steady employment.

Re:Good and bad

[GutBomb]

if i do not do that work, i get fired. if my boss asks me to send him what i did on the plane and when i land i don;t have anything, i get fired. sure it may be a shitty job, but when you have a helpless kid to take care of and it's the only job you can find it's better than being unemployed.

Re:Good and bad

[Moofie]

It's an unfortunate situation you're in, but it's still a situation of your choosing.

Re:Good and bad

[CohibaVancouver]

Being on call 24/7 for work requires me to be able to fix issues on our servers via remote desktop over our VPN. This means if I will be out of contact for more than an hour, or am planning to go some place where it would take me more than an hour to get to an internet connection, it is basically frowned upon.

Not to preach, but what kind of a life is that? This weekend I went up to the cottage. I sat on the beach with a whiskey in one hand and a cigar in the other and watched the tide roll in and the eagles fishing. No cell phone, no page, no internet. What if you want to go to the movies, or out on a date or? Do you always have to be ready to stop whatever you're doing at a moment's notice?

Great...

[Vertdang]

Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n and talking his ass off on his cell the whole flight.

I am overjoyed.

Re:Great...

[Brento]

Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n

I hate to break this to you, but I was actually doing that the whole time on my Treo. I just kept it in my pocket and snuck looks when you went to the restroom.

Steve Ballmer

Re:Great...

[Vertdang]

*shakes fist*
Damn you, Steve... Damn YOUUUUUUU!

Re:Great...

[TellarHK]

You know the perfect cure for that?

"Oh my god, the dude next to me is looking at horse porn! Ewwwwwww!" at volume. I suspect the guy will most likely STOP when you say this.

And if he doesn't, you can always ask him if his machine has a burner in it.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n and talking his ass off on his cell the whole flight.

Yea, it sucks traveling with your coworkers.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the in-laws.

Re:Great...

[Sheepdot]

Ummm..

You weren't perchance on Flight 51 to Amsterdam out of Quebec, were you?

Tarrorists Have Won

[dotslashdot]

Now it will be even easier for tarrorists to IM each other on the airplane (complete with the sneering faces icon set.) Actually no one will care if the plane is 'jacked because everyone will be too busy IMing each other: ROFATTF (Rolling on the Floor at Thirty Thousand Feet.)

Re:Tarrorists Have Won

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem. dictionary.com

Re:Tarrorists Have Won

[__aaclcg7560]

Now it will be even easier for tarrorists to IM each other on the airplane (complete with the sneering faces icon set.)

No, no... Air marshals have sneering faces. Terrorists have happy faces. You can't play the game if you don't know the differences between the white-hats and the black-hats.

Bozo on the telephone

[mspohr]

The flight I was on last week was the first time I have ever seen anyone use those phones built into the seats. Anyway, this was the most obnoxious phone call I have ever had to sit through. The guy (across the aisle) chatted on loudly about the mundane drivel in his life. Can you imagine an airplane full of these conversations? Pass the earplugs!

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[IBeatUpNerds]

The guy (across the aisle) chatted on loudly about the mundane drivel in his life.

I guess he couldn't have spoken that long, considering the rate is 10 USD per minute.

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[lowrydr310]

On Continental flights, if you're a Verizon Wireless customer you can use their Verizon Airfone for $0.10 a minute if you pay the $10.00 monthly subscription fee.

Not a bad deal if you cannot go a few hours without a telephone.

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[vinnythenose]

Isn't the mundane drivel of people's lives usually why the phone each other? Why should it be any different on a plane? It just sucks that they're sharing it with you, kind of like on the street, in a mall, at restaurants...

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[Moofie]

"Pass the earplugs!"

Exactly. You can solve this problem all by yourself!

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[CarrionBird]

Question: What part of the incident was so offensive? The volume? The mundaneness of his life? That he could afford to waste that much money? Or his belief that he was "important" enough to warrant using a phone on the plane?

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[Pollardito]

they'll charge you $3 for the earplugs and make money on both sides of the deal

Re:Bozo on the telephone

[mspohr]

It was irritating having to listen to one side of a telephone conversation. It has been well documented that most people find this irritating. The conversation itself was unremarkable.

LuftHansa has it already

[HarveyTheWonderBug]

I flew LuftHansa (the German partner of United) 3 weeks ago as they were starting offering this service, and i did try it for free. It works pretty well. Normal cost is 10 bucks for an hour or 30 for the whole flight. Unfortunately, i was travelling in Economy where you can't plug your laptop. And Wifi drains my battery pretty fast. still managed to send emails from above some really remote places...

Re:LuftHansa has it already

[lowrydr310]

$30 for the whole flight?

I don't need internet THAT bad. I'd rather put the money toward the purchase of a GameBoy Advance to keep me occupied.

Re:LuftHansa has it already

[HarveyTheWonderBug]

Well, when it's a 12 hrs flight, it comes as cheap as some internet cafe. You might even get your boss pay for it and log a day of work while your airborne... But I'm not sure i'd like this to happen to me ;)

Re:LuftHansa has it already

[Omnieiunium]

I flew them last spring when they first were introducing the service. It wasn't finished yet but it looked kinda pointless. I mean, do you REALLY need to talk to your friends? I mean for business people it would be useful but I have read that an airplane is the last place where your company can reach you.

Re:LuftHansa has it already

[Cruciform]

"the plane is going down! before i die, i just wanted to say i hate you for all the shit you've put me through!"

*click* Sent!

"um, disregard last message. it was just turbulence. I'll be a little late getting home from the airport honey."

Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with you people who get upset when people talk on a mobile phone? Do you also get annoyed at people talking face to face in your presence? Do all forms of conversation in which you are not involved annoy you, or is it just the ones using a form of technology?

Re:Okay, I give up

[VMaN]

Listening to ½ of a 2 way conversation is actually stressful

Re:Okay, I give up

[FidelCatsro]

Humans find it easier to blank out conversations if they hear both sides . If you just hear one side of the conversation it can be very annoying. Its not the technology so much as that its a one sided affair
Personally it does not bother me, but i can understand why people dislike it.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with you people who get upset when people talk on a mobile phone? Do you also get annoyed at people talking face to face in your presence? Do all forms of conversation in which you are not involved annoy you, or is it just the ones using a form of technology?

It doesn't need to involve technology - I just don't give two shits about anyone else's business. Fortunately, there are always headphones ...

Re:Okay, I give up

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Actually, people seem to yell (or talk very loudly) into cell phones because the reception sucks on both ends, and repeating things too. I don't appreciate being yelled at, and I don't appreciate someone next to me yelling.

Then there's the irritating chirping of the two-way systems. I can try to blank out the talking, but the chirps are on a different order of hard to ignore.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Peyna]

When's the last time someone talked in a normal voice on a cell phone? For whatever reason, almost everyone talks quite louder on the phone than they do face to face.

Re:Okay, I give up

[rzebram]

Although I don't usually back up communists kittens, there was a study conducted here supporting it.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Linker3000]

Actually people yell into cellphones because they think they have to in order for the person at the other end of the call to hear them on their miracle of miniaturised technology when, in reality, their extra-loud voice is attenuated back to a reasonable level by their phone anyway.

It really beats me why people on trains etc. can't grasp the three basic rules of mobile/cell phone etiquette ie:

1) Put your phone's incoming 'ring' on single beep or, better still, vibrate mode.

2) Disable keyboard beeps and tones.

3) The microphones in modern cell phones are very sensitive - speak at a volume level that will not annoy those around you.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, people seem to yell (or talk very loudly) into cell phones

So, in other words, you dislike people talking too loudly, rather than mobile phones? Why is this always expressed as "I hate people talking on mobiles phones" then? Plenty of people can talk at a reasonable level on mobile phones and plenty of people talk too loudly without them. Why not just say "I hate it when people talk too loudly" instead of "I hate it when people use mobile phones?"

Then there's the irritating chirping of the two-way systems.

What are you talking about? What's a "two way system"?

Re:Okay, I give up

[Quevar]

What is it with you people that get upset when people like to have a little bit of quiet?

I can have nice conversations in my lab with people a few feet from me and most people are not bothered because they do not hear us talking more than about 10 feet away. But, whenever someone answers a cell phone, they are inevitably much louder and people on the other side of the lab (30-40 feet away) can hear them.

Conversations on planes are at an acceptable level right now, but with people talking three times louder, it is going to be a real nuissance. And people are going to be much more inclined to talk more since they will be able to talk to people they know.
As it is now, as soon as the plane lands, the noise level gets much louder with everyone turning on their phones and talking. I can hear people on the other side of the plane telling their friends and families that they'll be at baggage claim 3 in 10 minutes.

Re:Okay, I give up

[WillAffleckUW]

What is it with you people who get upset when people talk on a mobile phone? Do you also get annoyed at people talking face to face in your presence? Do all forms of conversation in which you are not involved annoy you, or is it just the ones using a form of technology?

You know, in other countries, people don't talk loudly on their cell phones. It's called common courtesy. In fact, they usually move out of their seats to somewhere where the noise of a hushed conversation won't bother the other passengers.

Just because you have a cell phone doesn't give you the right to be rude to other people within your hearing range. If it's that important, you shouldn't have flown in the first place.

Re:Okay, I give up

[geoffb91]

People talk louder on cell phones because, unlike most landlines, they cannot hear an echo of their own voice in the receiver.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's not clear that people DO talk louder. There's just something annoying about cell phone converstations:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html

(Why Mobile Phones are Annoying)

Re:Okay, I give up

[johnlenin1]

Yup, you are exactly right. Anyone know why most cell phones seem to not have this aural feedback?

Re:Okay, I give up

[Scott Byer]

Americans yell into cell phones and don't have any cell phone etiquette. I just got back from Japan, where everyone has a cell phone, and where everyone understands how to actually use them. You don't use them while on the train, or you go between cars where you won't bother anyone, and you talk into them, letting the noise-reduction actually work and not bothering those around you. Only here, back at home, do people seem to be so stupid that they don't understand there's a proper place and method for using cellphones. And it's not while tailgating me on the freeway!

Re:Okay, I give up

[Frogbert]

Plus the sound of an American accent is akin to the compression used in television commercials to make them seem louder. Americans seem louder when they are talking at the same level as others... /theory

or maybe they are just loudmouths.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Pollardito]

they did a study a while back of people's irritation at other commuters talking on cellphones on a subway. the results basically showed that even at the same conversational volume, people talking on cellphones seem more annoying because you naturally pay more attention to conversations that you can only hear one side of (i.e. you unconsciously spend time trying to figure out what the other side of the conversation must be)

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

They pay a monthly fee and choose an obnoxious ringtone that notifies the nearby public that the conversation that is about to following contains facts or references to inane details of the callee's life. But, hey, it's their monthly mobile phone fee.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is rude. It shows zero consideration for your fellow human being.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Nexx]

It did take a while to add the "whisper mode" on the mobiles.

My first mobile there didn't have it, but my second one did. Also, the higher-end ones sound much better than cheapo phones from here (for example, my Razr sounds just as good, my Nokia 6100, not so much), so there's less psychological onus to yell into them.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Cecil]

It's because you can only hear one side of the conversation. It sounds like I'm joking, but truthfully, that's a major part of it. I remember a study that was done which indicated this. It's one of those things that just causes the human brain to get very upset, kind of like computer generated characters that are close to human, but not quite. The brain knows that something's wrong and it just feels really uncomfortable.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're being tailgated, you're going too slow and probably in the wrong lane! :)

Re:Okay, I give up

[cmorgan47]

i heard a story a few weeks ago explaining that people talk loudly on cell phones because they get no feedback in the "phone ear." with landline phones a bit of your voice is sent to your earpiece but with cell phones this is not the case.

Re:Okay, I give up

[JoeDuncan]

Ok, here are some answers:

Question 1) Because it's annoying
Question 2) No
Question 3) Yes, but only for conversations in which only one side is heard

As for *why* public cell use is annoying, it doesn't matter what the medium is, if we can only hear one side of the conversation, it interrupts and puts more demands on our attention (ever been annoyed by the guy in the next cubicle talking loudly on the phone? - I say loudly in this context becdause cubes are built to muffle noise so you won't generally hear normal conversation).

Our brains are trained to know what a turn-taking conversation is and so can tune it out. However, if you can only hear one side of a conversation, it's like constantly telling your brain to start paying attention because there's a new conversation starting up!

Check out this link for relevant research:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html/

So, in conclusion, talking on a cell in public is just plain rude. Unless you deliberately want to be a jackass, go somewhere private to have your conversation, don't disturb everyone else.

Re:Okay, I give up

[zCyl]

Perhaps you haven't noticed the tendency of people on cell phones to drive faster than everyone else. See, the cell phone is a distraction which reduces attention to everything around you, so in order to resolve this, cell phone using drivers go as fast as they can and swerve through traffic as much as they can, so they get to where they are going faster to avoid being a danger to everyone else on the road. Or something like that...

Re:Okay, I give up

[ArsenneLupin]

The microphones in modern cell phones are very sensitive - speak at a volume level that will not annoy those around you.

But it will catch ambient noise very sensitively as well. So, if you're phoning out of a noisy place (plane, train station, or ... gasp... you're company's NOC) you still need to shout to cover the ambient noise, or else the person at the other end will not understand you.

Re:Okay, I give up

[Anonymous Coward]

My cell has speakerphone, so fu ckyou all!!! Listen to both of us, that'll shut you up

airpwn3d!

[Tackhead]

> Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."

Time for serious airpwnage. No, not the kind of pwnage that'll befall you for playing CS (namely wearing a headset and being prone to mutter things like "OK, 3 terrorists to the left, one's got a gun! Kill that fucker!" under your breath) on an airplane.

I'm talking about the amount of fun you can have when that annoying cellphone-addict using Skype to escape the withdrawal... you can already hear him from three seats behind of you, hollering to his wife and kids... and then the holler he makes when he finds himself airpwned!

Can You Hear Me Now?

[Doc Ruby]

Having flown Frankfurt->NYC, I can tell you that people don't need any excuse to have too-loud conversations on transatlantic "overnight" flights.

Re:Great... or how I learned to Love Butter

[WillAffleckUW]

Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n and talking his ass off on his cell the whole flight.

You know, I've found that butter does wonders for keyboards. That and spilled coffee.

As to the cell phones, if he doesn't take the hint after the butter, apply that to the cell phone as well.

Boeing Connexion?

[Anonymous Coward]

This, I assume, is the Boeing product again as mentioned before?

Re:Boeing Connexion?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Diffrent. Verizon AirPhone. PicoCell head end in cabin. Direct to ground link. No Sats involved.

pretty cool

[moz25]

I guess it's pretty cool to be chatting and posting to slashdot while you're flying. It's just so much more l33t. Speaking of which... controlling your botnet from 30k feet in the sky must make it feel more special too.

How does this impact issues with interference of electronic devices? Is that problem solved to a degree that (even?) wi-fi and affiliated devices are not an issue?

Re:pretty cool

[pyrrhonist]

controlling your botnet from 30k feet in the sky must make it feel more special too.

Not as special as when you're at sea level controlling a botnet that's 30K feet in the sky.

Interference with nav system all of a sudden gone?

[thekaz]

For the longest time airlines were telling us not to use electronic gadgets, fearing "interference with the navigation system." Well, if they're OK with having bunch of passengers putting out 1 Watt each @ 2.4 GHz, how come they were objecting to the little blackberry (albeit at a different frequency) and other two way radio devices?

And i thought...

[ribo-bailey]

The crapper was a pretty exotic place to get on IRC from. Imagine it from 30,000ft ... on the crapper.

Re:And i thought...

[daevux]

or even .... webcam porn from the crapper on the plane!

Re:And i thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to bust your dreams, but cybersex in the bathroom still won't get you into the mile-high club.

Re:And i thought...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the bash.org quotes...

Am I missing something?

[ipaullin]

Anyone still think United will be around for a year? Did the morons who run UA are still forget that in debt? Oh, I remember now. They just cut employee pension because they were still Chapter 11.

May 11th, 2005 United Gets OK To Ditch Pensions

"United's pensions are underfunded by an estimated $9.8 billion."

Way to go United.

airphones suck

[grahamsz]

I've made a couple of calls with them - when flights get diverted and such shit, and it's virtually impossible to have a conversation.

Took me about 5 attempts to dial out and after that i had to scream down the phone so my wife could hear me.

It sounded worse than voip on a dialup connection... beat me why anyone would pay the $10/minute unless it was an emergency.

Finally!

[Illserve]

With this put an end to the ridiculous idea that listening to my ipod in row 38 can cripple the navigational instruments of an airliner?

If that pittance of an electrical field could have any appreciable impact on an airplane, any solar flare would result in the complete destruction of the world's airline fleet in a single day.

Re:Finally!

[rimclean]

No, you cannot listen to your ipod 10 minutes either side of take off and landing because you need to be able to hear any emergency announcements coming over the intercom. Not because your ipod interferes with cockpit controls.

Re:Finally!

[Illserve]

uh huh, and I can't operate my computer because...

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

They made me turn off my palm pilot during takeoff last time I flew. And I didn't have any headphones on. I neglected to tell them that it can't be completely turned off.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

"They made me turn off my palm pilot during takeoff last time I flew. And I didn't have any headphones on. I neglected to tell them that it can't be completely turned off."

Give it to me for a few minutes ... I'll get it turned off.

Re:Finally!

[pz]

Contrary to your belief that your iPod cannot possibly interfere with any radio based systems, allow me to remind you of the following items,

1. Microprocessor based systems have clocks that usually have square wave profiles running at several MHz. Recall that square wave signals have significant power at many harmonics, well into the bands used on airplanes.

2. You might think your iPod is working perfectly, but how can the pilot be sure that it meets the required specs for RF emission? Perhaps it has been reparied, perhaps to replace a battery, and perhaps by someone who isn't properly trained and doesn't reassemble and test for RF leakage?

3. What do you think the pilot should do when you decide to turn on your iPod at the very minute he's trying to negotiate with a tower over approach, and it masks out a command to shift flight levels during initial approach (forget final)? Do you think he has time to go through the cabin to find the one device that interferes?

4. Remember that your iPod is at least two orders of magnitude closer to the airplane's antenna than the transmitter the pilot is trying to listen to. Your iPod might not intentionally transmit at very high power, but it still might be stronger than a signal that is, oh, 5 miles away on the ground (cruising, line-of-sight straight down).

5. Multiply your iPod in row 38 by, say, 38 rows. You now have 38 times as much possible interference. I'm frankly surprized that electronic devices are allowed at all, and amazed that since compliance to turn things off is never 100%, there aren't more problems on takeoff and approach due to interference. I have witnessed one instance of what was likely in-flight interference when the PA system was non-functional in the air, but fine on the ground. Can you imagine if there had been a problem on that flight?

6. Solar flares have impact over very large structures, like power lines, where the integrated voltage and current can add up to substantial levels. They don't have much effect on objects the scale of an airplane. That said, solar flares can, and do, impact communications through atmospheric effects. Perhaps pilots on Slashdot could comment here.

7. The real problem, which perhaps readers are beginning to understand, is not that handheld electronic devices do interfere with the navigation and communication systems on airplanes, but that they may interfere, and, worse, they may interfere at a critical moment. With potentially hundreds of lives at risk, the FAA errs on the side of caution, and as a result, we have an air system which is by-and-large exceedingly safe.

Re:Finally!

[Illserve]

I am aware of all of these things.

If any of this is true, why the hell are they allowing 802.11?

Re:Finally!

[pz]

It certainly is a vast change of policy for the FAA since they for years and years wouldn't even allow non-superheterodyne transistor radios. I'm with another poster who doesn't understand why it would be reasonable to have active cell phones and active 802.11b in the air when each of those transmitters when working correctly is putting out tens of mW.

Re:Finally!

[jcuervo]

One imagines that emergency announcements would be accompanied by a) the little "fasten seatbelts" light coming on, b) a sudden change in altitude, and c) fellow passengers clasping their hands and holding their heads in prayer and/or running up and down the aisles, arms up and flailing wildly with a panicked look on their faces, screaming "BLAHLALALALALALA WE'RE ALL GONNA DIEEEEEEE".

I can't hear what they're saying on that intercom half the time anyway.

Let me guess the price!

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

Umm $10.00 per minute? ..hmm but wifi is usually charged by the hour so that's $600.00/hour. No thanks!

Re:Let me guess the price!

[telstar]

"Umm $10.00 per minute? ..hmm but wifi is usually charged by the hour so that's $600.00/hour. No thanks!"

From the article:
Lufthansa, which offers Wi-Fi on many of its international flights, charges a flat fee of $29.95 for an entire flight or $9.95 for a half-hour.

Why let facts get in the way of a good Slashdot post?

Re:Let me guess the price!

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

I wonder why the inflight phones are $10/minute then? Maybe they're cheaper now, I haven't checked since 1987.

People who play networked WiFi games in the air

[WillAffleckUW]

and don't turn the sound off or use earphones or earbuds or talk loudly while doing so ... are just asking to have their connection hacked ...

I predict a lot of unnecessary fights as a result of this, given behavior patterns of many air travellers.

from the but-terrorists dept.

[Bananatree3]

But! But! But...the terrorists will use it for...

And what about those dasterly in-fight phones on the back of the seats? They could call their terrorist friends today and plan their evil plans that way without Wi-Fi.

But! But!

Ahhhh, be quiet

Re:from the but-terrorists dept.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up, for great justice!

Re:from the but-terrorists dept.

[Widowwolf]

ahhh but they could be overheard on those phones...!

Re:from the but-terrorists dept.

[Greyfox]

Actually the terrorists will simply ignore the rules and make the call from their cellphone anyway. I find it more than a little amusing when people say "Oh the terrorists will use their phones to coordinate attacks!" Nothing's preventing them from doing that now! Our attitude toward security will have to improve greatly if we think that silly little rule would prevent a terrorist from using their phone on the plane.

As for the issue of one-sided conversations being difficult to ignore, do your fellow passengers a favor and fill in the empty bits with increasingly bizarre responses to what the person on the phone is saying. Their mental health is in YOUR hands!

Skype and VoIP -- latency good enough?

[MMHere]

Will the latency of this link be low enough to support decent response times for VoIP?

If they're using a satellite link (they must be), then your loud Skype+headset conversation will be just as uncomfortable for you to use as it is for others around you to observe.

"He-"

"Hello?"

"Huh?"

"What?"

"You started talk-"

"You began-"

"You go."

"No you... Go ahead!"

Damn satellite latency.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[HermanAB]

Never was an interference problem in the first place.

No good if the seat in front is reclined

[CohibaVancouver]

Not too long ago I was on a 4.5 hour flight on UA from BOS to DEN with a full seat-recline in front of me. If I could have actually used my laptop I might consider purchasing inflight wireless, but with a seat in front of me reclined even a little bit there's no way I can even open it - As a result my laptop remains stowed in the overhead bin.

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[praxis]

Use a Tablet PC! That's what I do, and it's quite comfortable even in a cramped space.

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[Linker3000]

You need THESE!!

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a clue: the fold-out table on jets is on rails; it pulls out, toward you, so that it remains clear of the seat back in front of you when it's reclined.

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[Frogbert]

I've found the best way to deal with someone like this is to order pickled onions/ salami/ anything that gives shocking bad breath and then breath, heavily and slowly as close the the headrest as possible. Fart loudly if you can. Pick your nose and wipe it on their headrest. Occasionally say your name and clap three times. Have a converstation about your most recient bowel movements with the person infront of you, if they don't speak your language all the better, if they do consider making up a language in which to talk to them. No one wants to be near a disgusting smelly nut, much less talk to one.

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[Atzanteol]

Wow. I was flying this morning and was thinking about whether it would be possible to create something like this. Nifty! Didn't know they already existed!

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Clever, but really using them on an unwilling front-seated passenger would probably violate some FAA reg and/or cause a nice uniformed person to be waiting for you atlanding.

Re:No good if the seat in front is reclined

[CohibaVancouver]

Here's a clue: the fold-out table on jets is on rails; it pulls out, toward you

Either you don't fly very often, or when you do you're in business class or "economy plus" or on American Airlines "old" more-room-in-economy configuration. On a "typical" carrier the tray table is not on rails and doesn't slide forward because there is nowhere for it to slide - There is simply no space on a flight with thirty-one inches of seat pitch.

WiFi might Open up for Cell Phones?

[BrainSurgeon]

Why would you need a cell phone when you could use VoIP via the WiFi system?

However, image having a varity asshats all screaing into their boom mic, "Can you hear me now? Uh, wait. What about now?"

Loud annoying passengers

[Bob the Hamster]

It is not simply the duty of our government regulators to protect us from Loud Annoying Cell Phone Users. It is their duty to protect us from the very indignity of being annoyed, regardless of the source of that annoyance.

I for one will not be happy until we passengers are sedated in the terminal, packed in bubble-wrap, loading into the plane like cargo, and revived with a stiff drink at the destination.

Ah! The only way to travel!

Re:Loud annoying passengers

[jratcliffe]

I for one will not be happy until we passengers are sedated in the terminal, packed in bubble-wrap, loading into the plane like cargo, and revived with a stiff drink at the destination.

Frankly, this sounds like a notable improvement on coach.

Ad-Hoc

[nukem996]

I was on a plane a few weeks back and we set up a Ad-Hoc network and played CS on the plane(yes sound was off). I also text messaged on that flight, phones dont do anything to planes, neither does WiFi. Anyway I think its a great idea as long as people dont use their sound.

Re:Ad-Hoc

[kentborg]

"phones dont do anything to planes"

Correct. And the FAA doesn't particularly object to your use of a
phone on a plane. However, the FCC objects because cell phones at
high altitude mess with the cell phone systems.

Cell phones work on the idea of frequency reuse as your phone talks to
one cell tower just a block or so away and many other people elsewhere
in the city can also be talking using the same bandwidth. However, if
you use your cell phone at 30,000 feet you will prevent cell systems
in several *states* from reusing that frequency. Why will the talked
about future cellphone use on planes work? By having a low powered
cell site *on* the plane, your cell phone will turn its transmit power
all the way down and it will not reach the ground. (And by charging
really high roaming fees.)

Yes, airlines do stupid things and have many stupid rules, but these
electronics rules are not completely stupid.

-kb, the Kent who is less worried about adhoc 802.11b networks on a
plane.

To quote the Onion...

[peipas]

"If they lift the ban on cell-phone use, they better lift the ban on passengers beating the shit out of each other, too."

Why not RJ-45?

[Manip]

What exactly would be so difficult about having an RJ-45 jack coming out the seat? It would be a heck of a lot more secure, you wouldn't make everyone sit in the radio waves (which incidental could interfere with other equipment) you also have to take into account that the EM the aircraft puts out could disrupt the WiFI chatter.

I'm all for embracing new technology but existing technology would work perfectly well (if not better) in this scenario.

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[appleLaserWriter]

1. you need to do physical installation into each seat
2. you need to run wires from each jack to some central location
3. the jacks and wire add up to a fair amount of extra mass, which means the plane needs more fuel and can carry less payload
4. not everyone carries an rj-45 patch cable, so the airline will need to keep some handy (yet more mass)
5. little kids will stuff action figures or food into the sockets, destroying them or even shorting the whole network out

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[Linker3000]

Yeah and my PDA with WIFI doesn't have an Rj45.

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[Jack Porter]

- installation cost in running CAT-5 to each seat, and more importantly getting it certified for flight.

- weight

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[jonwil]

Aside from the technical difficulty getting ethernet through all those spaces in an existing aircraft, it would require a HUGE amount of downtime to run it all. Laptop power is different since they already have wires carrying something near the right voltage in the general area of the seats (for the lights etc)

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[twostar]

And you have it for the win. Seriously, the wire runs on an aircraft are ridiculous as it is. I can't imagine trying to run 200-500 new lines for all of the seats, not to mention the weight cost. Planes can't carry more fuel since they're already trying to flight at max gross takeoff weight, means less people and increased cost. wire - installation - maintenance/repair - weight cost + guaranteed interference free wireless + installation + single point maintenance + virtually no weight cost + interference from 2.4GHz not an issue (it's already swamped anyway)

Re:Why not RJ-45?

[Squirrley]

Dude... i wanna see some kid take down a network with chewing gum, that would be cool

WiFi != fast

[Mechanik]

Anyone know what the actual bandwidth is going to be like? Just because the wireless link in the plane is 802.11b doesn't mean that the connection will be remotely 10 Mb.

Re:WiFi != fast

[NadMutter]

I was on a Lufthansa flight from Munich to Boston last week. Seemed to get about 270kb/s down & a not so good 40kb/s up. Latency was around 650ms to us and about 1.5% of packets were dropped.

I still managed to be productive, send somebody a bug fix 2 hours after take-off, IM, email etc. Definitely worth the $30 (and would have been worth $100 if the person in front didn't think he was at the dentist).

Shameless promotion

[ADRA]

Its coming,
http://www.sita.aero/News_Centre/Press_releases/Pr ess_releases_-_2004/Going_On_Air.htm

For the win!

[brickballs]

I think this is a good thing. I know I personaly will spend less time chatting on the phone if I have slashdot handy.

of course, when I get bored I read slashdot on my phone...

Loud and Annoying

[labal]

Actually, people have loud and annoying conversations on flight all the time, and it's got nothing to do with cell phones. Maybe airlines should consider ripping out vocal cords from passengers throats as they board..... Or maybe we should all grow up and learn to deal with it.

Cell phone ban on planes

[Wolfier]

Has little to do with annoyance.

It has to do with the phone being close to too many base stations, loading them up with traffic.

Re:Cell phone ban on planes

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of the resources needed to negotiate with cell phones ripping across the country at 400+ mph. The "annoyance" factor has nothing to do with it. You would overload the cell phone network if they were allowed on planes.

Satellite phones would be best to use on a plane since (an educated guess) they wouldn't need to negotiate their connection as often.

The EMC issues associated with using electronic devices probably won't bring down the plane . . . but the remote chance that it does is more than enough reason to ban their use during a plane's most vulnerable states - landing and take-off.

A little demonstration

[Spy der Mann]

Actually, people seem to yell (or talk very loudly) into cell phones because...

"I SAID that the reception sucks! Yes, SUCKS. Are you listening to me? No. Yes, no. TURN OF THAT NOISE DAMMIT - oh wait a second. Waitress, mind giving me an extra soda? Thanks.

No.
Yes.
No.

I _DO NOT_ appreciate yelling!
(at some point, someone tells me to lower my voice tone)
I can't help it, reception is awful, and look, if they allowed phones, it was for a reason.
Moron...
No, it wasn't to you.
No, i said it wasn't to you! There's this idiot next to me telling me to shut up.
Yes.
No.
FINALLY!! Well I have to go to the bathroom, I think that lobster is giving me nausea.
I said NAUSEA! Good bye!
*CHIRP*"

I hope that clarifies why it's annoying :)

Re:A little demonstration

[soft_guy]

Were you sitting next to me on a United flight last week? That's exactly the conversation I had on the plane after eating some funky lobster.

I know it's bullshit but...

[AtlanticGiraffe]

Will they still be asking us to kindly turn off all cell phones and other radio emitting devices?

SAS have had...

[Osrin]

... this for a while, I catch the Seattle -> Copenhagen flight on a regular basis.

I'm pleased to say that it (Boeing Conexion) seems to work pretty well. I can browse the web at a reasonable speed, let Outlook sync mail and on occasion have been able to log in and play WoW for an hour or so with no noticeable interruptions.

SAS will even let you pay for service using your miles from their frequent flier program.

I'm glad it will finally be on Domestic flights as well, this gives me a reason to choose United. (I have to agree with the lack of desire to see people using Skype over it though).

Re:Great... or how I learned to Love Butter

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've found that butter does wonders for keyboards. That and spilled coffee.
As to the cell phones, if he doesn't take the hint after the butter, apply that to the cell phone as well.

And if he still doesn't take the hint, apply the butter liberally to his asshole and tell him he'd better hope he won't be getting any calls anytime soon.

Better yet

[TofuDog]

"I was on my bike" (the one without the motor). -Takes longer to get from A->B (i.e., more time incommunicado), creates near zilch for pollution, and makes you fit.
http://www.pedalforanwr.org/

Re:Better yet

[GutBomb]

does it also turn you into a pushy asshole?

Re:Better yet

[halltk1983]

my bike gets about 95/gal, and gets me there on time. plus i can keeep up with traffic instead of blocking it. ::duck::

Two words

[timothykaine]

Port restriction

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[kentborg]

Three things.

1. Many kinds of radio receivers create a local "intermediate
frequence" (IF) version of the received signal at a much lower
frequency because it is easier for circuitry to deal with those low
frequencies. Unfortunately, this IF signal leaks out, and those
frequencies are close to those used for navigation. The FAA,
reasonably, objects to that.

2. Cellphones are based on the idea of short range communications
(from your phone to the celltower you could likely see if you knew
where to look) allowing the bandwidth you are using to be reused
many times in one city. When you turn on your phone in a plane at
high altitude, your phone (being far from any cell site) turns up
to full transmit power, and blankets several *states* worth of
territory. A lot of frequency reuse can't happen when you do that.
The FCC, reasonably, objects to this. (How can cellphones inside a
plane soon be allowed? By having a small cellsite inside the
plane, instructing phones on the plane to turn their transmit power
to the lowest setting.)

3. General purpose conservatism. A powerful transmitter (ham radio
anyone?) can also mess with lots of nearby electronics. Given all
of the confusion over what kind of electronics some device might
be, and given how pissed off you would be if your plane were
plummeting to earth because a bad decision, being conservative
might be OK, even with you.

This doesn't mean silly things don't happen. I was once (long ago)
told I couldn't listen to my CD player on a plane. The airline
uniformed backhaul "expert" told me that the CD player had a "laser!",
and it could interfere with the plane. Nonsense. I expressed
disbelief, suggesting that the laser was safely inside...but the
expert didn't buy it and he had authority over me so I shut it off.
However, just because he was completely wrong in his argument doesn't
mean that every airline safety rule (air in the tires?, gas in the
tank?, sober pilot at the wheel?, no shootouts happening on the
plane?) is silly.

-kb

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[thekaz]

Thanks, makes sense. Although I was told to turn off my noise cancellation headphones by the stewardess, so go figure. So the rule is not always applied sensibly.

Because...

[Jott42]

Your computer will become an excellent projectile in the case of an emergency stop, hard landing, crash etc. And I do not want to have your laptop impacting my neck...
(The same reason I prefer that people sitting behind me in a car are using the seat belts: I do not want to be crushed between them and my seatbelt.)

Re:Because...

[soft_guy]

I prefer that people sitting behind me in a car are using the seat belts: I do not want to be crushed between them and my seatbelt.

Your car doesn't have seats?

Re:Because...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Sovjet Russia...

Re:Because...

[Jott42]

I suppose you are joking, but in case you are not: A car seat will not hold for the impact of the backseat passenger! As a matter of fact, the hinges will probably not hold for the seat itself. I have once been first at the scene of a car-crash: single person in the car, both seats folded completely forward.

Don't forget your VPN

[mveloso]

Don't forget to hook up with a VPN if you're using in-flight wi-fi.

www.publicvpn.com works, and it's cheap!

Re:Don't forget your VPN

[Anonymous Coward]

SUPER! A Public Virtual Private Network! I want a single company to have access to my sessions.
I'll take my chances with the morons surfing at starbuck thanks!

Noise cancelling headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

Bliss amidst noise...

These work. It's a bit shocking when you take them off mid-flight and hear the roar around you.

Actually it's noticeable enough even just around the office. I never realized that the building A/C was that loud.

Re:Noise cancelling headphones

[stridebird]

You have a building A/C? That's not very anonymous...

Hogwash

[rice_burners_suck]

I love the hogwash that comes from the airline industry. They tell you that you cannot use your cellphone in the plane because it can interfere with their navigation equipment. I doubt that can actually happen, by the way. They probably tell you that so you'll use that phone built into the seat in front of you, that costs Lord only knows how much per minute, instead of your own phone, because you'll be afraid to get killed by screwing up their nav stuff.

And now, at the same time, they say OK to WiFi, which in my opinion is much more dangerous.

From on now, I'm driving.

Re:Hogwash

[spagetti_code]

(I am a private pilot). If you are flying in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - on instruments alone), you have placed the lives of your pax in the hands of the pilot and his instruments. There are no outside clues when things go wrong. See here
for the top 100 air disasters. Two of them were purely ILS failures.

I'm not so confident that it can't happen. There are numerous anecdotal stories in the industry of NAV equipment wandering off course. In 1999 there were 76 reported incidents of possible cellphone interference. On IMC, and especially when on approach, these have the potential to end in disaster.

Re:Hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

Well for starters the FAA has never banned cell phones in the air, it has been the airline operators and the FCC.

And two, how much about aerospace HW do you know about? Yes many of the more recent airplanes are safe but what about that 30 year old 737 with 25 year old navigation radios that help the plane land? They didn't use as many EMI protection mechanisms as we can today since most of the box was analog.

Re:Hogwash

[JoeDuncan]

Wow. That's just really stupid.

All you are going on is pure speculation. You want to believe that someone is screwing you over for a couple of bucks, so you will wantonly endanger hundreds of other people on a public flight because you refuse to believe that your phone could cause interference???

I don't give a RA about your doubts. Look up the facts. Do some research. Ask an expert. Hell, there are plenty of *informed* people who have posted to this very article with evidence that cell phones can indeed cause interference with navigation eq.

WiFi is more dangerous *in your opinion*? What the hell do you know about it? What are your sources? Why should anyone care about your opinion?

Ignorant people like you make me feel ill.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that now the airlines believe they have come up with a way to make money from these gadgets.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[bill_kress]

Very good points, I've always wondered about some of these questions. Thanks.

I wish the mod system didn't suck these days--you deserve better (but then hell, it's still early)

Break out the old bag of Windows tricks

[Mechcozmo]

This just means that there are more targets for someone to crack... recently while on a train I found someone with an ad-hoc network open. Hopped on, and managed to get admin access to his computer. Could have wiped all his files... but I'm a nice person. I just left a note that read he should be more careful and signed it, "Your Friendly Neighborhood Hacker"

Re:Break out the old bag of Windows tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a criminal loser. Don't you have anything better to do than break into other peoples computers.

Re:Break out the old bag of Windows tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

So what secure your computer and you dont have to worry about that loser. Your laziness or incompetence is not his fault, ever cut across someones lawn ?

Re:Break out the old bag of Windows tricks

[YrWrstNtmr]

Leaving your front door unlocked, while stupid, does not give anyone the right to walk in, rummage around, and leave a note reminding you to lock the door next time.

Re:Break out the old bag of Windows tricks

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing rummaging around on someone's insecure network share to entering an unlocked house is about as valid of an analogy as saying downloading music is stealing.

What about engine noise

[andrewjj20]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned, one of the problems with microphones on a plane is the background, and engine noise. anyone know if this is really that big of a problem, or are you going to need some good noise reduction algorithems. i don't know if algorithms will help, as it is mostly white noise.

Why would there be any more latency than normal?

[Bif Powell]

Why would there be any more latency than normal? How far do packets go from one side of the US to the other - 1000?...more?...how high are satellites?...100 miles, tops? I mean I don't know, I'm just saying why would using satellites lead to inherent latancy?

Legal issue???

[Linker3000]

Just a thought:

What jurisdiction does a plane flying over, say, international waters actually fall under - for example, is the inside of a US-registered plane considered to be US territory or do a generic set of International rules apply?

I just wondered as this might raise some interesting legal issues with regards to data protection etc. ie: emailing a customer database back to the office, downloading porn, sharing files or DMCA-infringing stuff etc.!!?? Mind you, hosting your DVD ripping apps at an altitude of 30,000ft over the Atlantic by constantly flying from NY to London and back is not going to come cheap!!

Re:Legal issue???

[micpp]

IANAL, but I'd imagine that the relevant laws would depend on what country the plane was getting the internet connection from.

Re:Legal issue???

[Anonymous Coward]

I would assume that it would be the same as using the internet on a cruise ship in international waters.

Re:Legal issue???

[MathFox]

General rules for planes are the same as for ships. The law of the country of registration of the vehicle are leading: an US plane is considered US territory when in international airspace. When a plane crosses the airspace of another country it has to abide the regulations of that country.

Hijacking

[cxreg]

This opens up a whole new defintion of airline hijacking (not that I'd expect the DHS to know the difference)

When will we see...

[cerebis]

the first Sky Marshall lead take down of an illegal p2p network at 40k feet.

Invoking the power of Samuel L.,

Cease, and desist! .. Mother fker!

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Keebler71]

I am a test pilot and one of the things we have to do with each new test article is perform an EMC/EMI/EMV test(the so called E-cubed testing) before the item ever flies (incidently this includes firmware upgrades to avionics). I can tell you that probably about 10% of the hardware we put into or most modern military aircraft do indeed have problems passing these tests - and these are items that are specificaly designed to meet the military's strict E-3 requirements. These components must be redsigned before testing can continue. Somehow I doubt that the makers of every electronic gadget out there, (music players, portable games, etc where profit margins can be razor this) are so diligent in their designs. Let me say this very clearly - I do this for a living and when it is my ass in coach and the flight attendant tells me to turn off my palm pilot, you better believe I do.

Oh, and if you ever see me on a plane, make sure you are sitting next to me - I will be the guy in the safest row of seats.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Anonymous Coward]

My father is an air traffic controller @ logan airport, and he has mentioned that cell phone usage in the radar room is frowned upon (thorugh not banned), because it causes the radio to become hard to understand. its not a big deal for him, because he is not talking to the planes while on the phone, but if a pilot is recieving a heading clearence, and someone dials their cousin, and the pilot hears 310 degrees instead of 210 degrees, he just might end up over restricted airspace (which does by the way, get you shot down).

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[kentborg]

I've been told to remove completely non-electronic ear plugs during take-off (or was it landing?). The idea is in an emergency, when chaos is generally winning, they want to be able to shout that the front exits are on fire, so go out the rear exit--and they want you to be able to hear so you don't lumber in the wrong direction and block the aisle.

-kb

depends on network configuration

[Atilla]

If the airlines don't want people using skype or VOIP in general, they can set up a firewall/proxy so it would not be possible.

yes, there are l33t hackers that would create a VPN tunnel via HTTP or some other such shit, but the majority of general public don't have any idea how to do that.

also, it could be a matter of policy - if they catch you being loud when you're not supposed to, they can tell you to stop, and if you don't - someone in a uniform will be waiting for you when you get off the plane :-)

Re:depends on network configuration

[Anonymous Coward]

like my mailman? or the cute 18 year old at starbucks? either will do.

Re:depends on network configuration

[Roger W Moore]

If the airlines don't want people using skype or VOIP in general, they can set up a firewall/proxy so it would not be possible.

I thought the whole point of skype was that it could function well behind firewalls?

Re:Why would there be any more latency than normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Geosynchronous satellites are about 22,000 miles up. That works out to over a half second of latency, assuming an absolute best case scenario.

Side note: You really don't know what you're talking about... "100 miles, tops?" indeed. Most non-geosynch satellites are twice that.

Intra-plane games would work fine

[leonbrooks]

OTOH you don't need the 'plane to provide the LAN for that. AdHoc would work fine.

Re:Intra-plane games would work fine

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Ad Hoc? Assuming you're not hoping there are enough random people who want to play the same game on that one aircraft, you can just use a crossover cable with your buddy. Or set up a hub and wired LAN if you have enough laptop-equipped people.

Re:Intra-plane games would work fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... you can't take a razor on the fucking plane, but they'll let you string up a switch and have cat5e strewn over the aisle & seats, under the drink carts, and on other unwitting passengers. Heck, even the copilot -- we all know he's not doing jack anyway.

Re:Intra-plane games would work fine

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

1. Hubs can't kill people. And you can garotte people as well with CAT5 as with a shoelace. Look on the TSA restricted lists...you see razors but not Ethernet. So I fail to see how your sarcasm means anything.

2. I still don't get how you'd manage to play games against unknown people on the plane. Do you just walk in and yell, "Hey, anyone has a laptop AND has Halo PC AND brought the CD for it AND wants to play?"? And hope to get a response? Normally you'd play against your friends, which means you've booked together, which means you're all nearby. Like in the same aisle, normally. So you're not strewing cable over any unwitting passengers.

Headache for Cell Phone Companies

[beanery_mo]

Just think of the resources needed to negotiate with cell phones ripping across the country at 400+ mph. The "annoyance" factor has nothing to do with it. You would overload the cell phone network if they were allowed on planes.

Satellite phones would be best to use on a plane since (an educated guess) they wouldn't need to negotiate their connection as often.

The EMC issues associated with using electronic devices probably won't bring down the plane . . . but the remote chance that it does is more than enough reason to ban their use during a plane's most vulnerable states - landing and take-off.

Re:Headache for Cell Phone Companies

[mjtg]

As I understand it, this is the ***REAL*** reason why you shouldn't use a cellphone on a plane. Its a courtesy to the phone companies. Imagine a cellphone tower near say JFK airport - if every plane that flew past it had 100's of cellphones switched on, then as they came into the tower's range, they would be negotiating to use that tower as their base. Then, a few seconds later, as the plane moved out of range, the tower would have to shut down all those connections. Imagine if towers had to do this, day-in, day-out, as each plane flew past !!!

In real life, a small percentage of people leave their phones switched on when they get on a plane (they forget to turn them off, or they're just jerks). This has no effect whatsoever on the plane's navigation capabilities. I can't imagine that the airlines care enough about the "annoyance factor" of cellphones to ban them for that reason either.

Been There. Done That.

[nguyenht]

"Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."

Singapore Airlines started this service in April from London to Singapore (15 hour flight). They offered promotional rate of US 25 for the whole flight, which I took.

It was damn nice to have access in the air. Yes - I Skyped. It did not bother people around me too much as airplane noise is quite loud. I used Skypeout so the person I was talking to was on POTS.

Luckily I was in business class, so I had my inseat power. I was online for most of that flight getting my $25 worth!

Don't knock it until you try it!

Batteries

[ducttapekz]

This is the third article today where battery life has taken something cool and made it less cool.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[clenhart]

Please mod parent down.

You can't use them for take off and landing.

You can use electronic devices during the flight, however.

That would be... 120-odd kilometers?

[leonbrooks]

Planes fly at only 40,0000 feet or so

That's higher than Rutan's plastic toy went! Where can I get me one of these 'planes?

Re:That would be... 120-odd kilometers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a british 40 thousand. :)

Bathrooms

[blastedtokyo]

Great. Now we'll probably also get people hogging the bathrooms just so that they can plug in their laptops or charge up.

Mod Parent Up!

[soft_guy]

That is a great idea! United should switch to it and it would probably save them!

I already pay extra to be completely unconscious at the dentist - why not on airplanes too?

(And, what they hey, at the barber!)

Two more words

[Anonymous Coward]

HTTP tunnel :p

Did it this week!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lufthansa just rolled out their inflight wifi service and was providing free access for the first week. I just flew from Boston to Munich on Lufthansa.

I used Skype to call a friend, and it worked flawlessly. I didn't notice any significant delay, I'm sure it was there but I was so geeked out that I didn't notice.

The stewardess even said Hi to my friend over skype. She got a kick out of it (besides thinking I was a total loser).

I had about 600ms latency, and also downloaded some podcasts at about 40-60kbps.

Re:Did it this week!

[TummyX]

Yes, I had the same experience on singapore airlines last week. I didn't notice any significant delay using skype.

Your sight is so short...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think tech people use the internet only for IMs and emails, you are one ignorant SOB. As a programmer, I use the internet to: access the project bug DB, look for reference manuals and solutions related to the project I'm working on, access the project's test servers, access the project's source code control server, etc. The internet is not essential, but like the grand-parent said, it can increase productivity a lot.

Um, if he's into horse pr0n already...

[leonbrooks]

...he may well either enjoy the "assault and buttery", or forcibly apply his newly lubricated 'phone to your butt... and maybe enjoy that, too, if you're unlucky.

Open the laptop right up so it's flat...

[leonbrooks]

...then rest the front edge on your knees, oriented vertically and type with your hands raised. A bit hunt-and-peck at first but not as bad as you might think. Not radically different from this.

And get one of those matchbox-sized optical scrollwheel mice 'coz they work on airliner seat arms and are much more convenient for scrolling than a touchpad or keys at that angle. Technically, the high-efficiency LED in them is a laser, but none of the paperwork says so which should help avoid the mindless legalist device-nazis - and if not, you can always shine it in their eyes and blind them to make them go away <d/g/r>.

It sucks power slightly faster (not an issue if you have armrest power available), but I can strap my laptop to the headrest of the seat in front (get aboard early and get the strap (I use dark matte grey CAT5) embedded into the headrest joint and essentially invisible before the seat's resident arrives), plug in a small USB keyboard and the abovementioned mouse to use it in reasonable comfort. If you could find a way to attach the laptop to the ceiling, you could probably even recline your own seat.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I had the "No CD players!" thing back in '97 or so. Thankfully I actually had a tape walkman with me, so I just put the CD player under the blanket and put the walkman on top of it. No more hassles!

Warflying Visualizations a Security Risk?

[drewzhrodague]

I'd love to see the warflying visualizations after an airborne wardrive. Using a directional antenna picks up signals on the ground, not in the air -- and are kinda useless mapping out unless you know the angles and charachteristics of the antenna. Might actually be nice to see what flyers pick-up with flightplans. Or would that also be a security-risk?

Re:Why would there be any more latency than normal

[Bif Powell]

Side note: You really don't know what you're talking about... As acknowledged by all the ?'s and the part where I say "I don't know". The first part of your post was information and not degrading in any way though.

How about AC outlets first?

[Patik]

I'd rather see more ubiquitous power outlets so I can at least watch a movie.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[YrWrstNtmr]

If the aircraft is designed for it, no problem. Quite a lot of places are pretty old, and were built before all these newfangled gadgets came into use.

Do you know that your RF emissions aren't interacting with the fuel flow signal that goes through the cable right next to your seat? I don't, and I'd rather not find out the hard way.

Re:Finally! (RF in planes)

[labnet]

You have obviously never tried to do any EMC compliance testing. The amount any consumer electronic device is allowed to emit is 30dbuV/m (-76dbm) (quasi peak) measured at 10m. Emperically, this is about the same as a medium to weak terrestial TV signal.
Do you suppose those aircraft windows do much of a job stopping any RF below about 500MHz?, so you can't purely argue faraday cage effect of the aircraft body.
Don't forget, modern jets have zillions of electronics in them from seat phones, entertainment systems, lighting inverters, motor control etc etc.
So your game boy/CD player etc is perfectly safe.
Transmitters are probably safe, but intermodulation effects may cause problems.

NY Times Article

[Anonymous Coward]

United Airlines Approved for In-Flight Internet Service

By JEREMY W. PETERS

United Airlines plans to announce today that it is the first domestic airline to receive approval from regulators to install wireless Internet networks on its planes.

United passengers will not be able to take advantage of the service just yet. The airline is still at least a year away from having its in-flight Wi-Fi service up and running. When it does, sometime in mid- to late 2006, passengers will be able to check e-mail, send instant messages and surf the Web at 30,000 feet.

Similar services are already available on international flights operated by Lufthansa and Japan Airlines, among other carriers Wi-Fi is also available in terminals across the country. Many airports, like LaGuardia in New York, charge a flat daily rate to use a wireless Internet connection, while JetBlue Airways offers free Wi-Fi at some of its gates.

Dennis Cary, United's senior vice president for marketing, said the airline would charge for the in-flight service but had not yet determined what the cost would be. "We're certainly aware of what the mental price points are for our customers," he said.

Lufthansa, which offers Wi-Fi on many of its international flights, charges a flat fee of $29.95 for an entire flight or $9.95 for a half-hour.

Major domestic airlines like United are trying to find new sources of revenue and rein in costs. Many are cutting back on perks or charging for things that used to be free, including food. American Airlines eliminated pillows from coach on its domestic flights last year, prompting Northwest and Delta to follow suit.

More high-tech amenities have traditionally been a marketing tool of low-fare carriers like JetBlue, which offers in-flight DirecTV service at every seat and is now installing XM Satellite Radio in its planes. Song, the low-fare subsidiary of Delta, offers a touch-screen audiovisual system with on-demand movies, video games and music.

United, a unit of the UAL Corporation, said it was not reacting to competitors but responding to what its customers have said they want. "Regardless of the competitive landscape, it's something we have heard loud and clear from our customers," Mr. Cary said.

Whether in-flight wireless Internet will entice more customers to fly United, which is operating under bankruptcy protection, is up for debate. "It's more bells and whistles that people like," said Betsy Snyder, an airline analyst at Standard & Poor's. "But does it actually lure people? I don't know. I think it's all ticket price."

United's Wi-Fi system will piggyback on its existing onboard phone network, which is operated in a partnership with Verizon. Data will be transmitted to and received from the planes through towers on the ground.

Mr. Cary said the Wi-Fi system would not interfere with communication between the cockpit and ground control. "Between our safety experts and those at the F.A.A., they are completely comfortable that this technology does not conflict with any of the other on-board technology," he said.

With Wi-Fi making its way to the nation's airplanes and the Federal Communications Commission seeking public comment on easing rules banning cellphones in flight, will cellphones be next for United?

Mr. Cary said United had no current plans to begin accommodating cellphones, but "where it goes next, we'll have to wait and see."

Why does

[grokMeNow]

it take a year to get this running?

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[ergo98]

I discovered this by accident one day, however try the following - I've repeated it on several keyboards.

-Type on your keyboard via such exercises as posting a troll on Slashdot.

-Now, dial on your cell phone, and while it's negotiating, move the cell phone near the wire on the back of your cellphone.

-Continue typing your troll.

In my instance the cell phone transmission rendered the keyboard useless, as it interfered with the communications. I wouldn't want the same thing happening in a plane. Of course having a cell phone directly beside a cable is vastly different from it being near controls or control wires many feet away, but better safe than sorry.

Re:Finally! (RF in planes)

[pz]

You have obviously never tried to do any EMC compliance testing.

Not formally, no. But I have over a decade of experience working with measuring microvolt signals in the presence and absence of interfering EM.

The amount any consumer electronic device is allowed to emit is 30dbuV/m (-76dbm) (quasi peak) measured at 10m.

And you're missing the point that this is what a consumer electronic device is allowed to emit when compliant, and there's nothing that guarantees John Q. Public's iPod isn't wildly out of compliance, either because of a manufacturing defect, because he dropped it and cracked the case (and thus violated the integrity of the shielding), or it was improperly repaired, or -- heaven forbid! -- he might have opened it to modify it for some reason, like to replace the battery (this is Slashdot afterall), and didn't do a bang-up job of putting it all back together again, or, it might be a counterfeit iPod from a country where they could care less about EMC compliance.

Just because Company A gets Device B to pass Official Test C doesn't mean your copy of B would meet the requirements of C over its entire lifetime. Stuff happens.

Don't forget, modern jets have zillions of electronics in them from seat phones, entertainment systems, lighting inverters, motor control etc etc.

All of which is -- or more importantly can be -- tested to ensure a lack of interference. That's not as easy to do with some random consumer device.

Hah!

[broody]

I went through the same argument with my old man regarding Amtrak; who happens to be one of the National Review kind of guys. In the end for me; the market developed quiet cars on the train for those who wanted to sleep or enjoy the silence but the majority chose to be able to talk to each other or make calls.

The ironic part, at least the last time I looked, was the only manufacturer offering iron clad safety guarantees for cell phone usage was airbus. Wahoo! We've gone full circle; the white jean jacket is trendy in Europe and I can talk on my cell phone on the plane.

Re:XXX

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever modded this redundant is a dumbfuck, look at the timestamp and its the first post to mention porn. Mod it down, but put a correct modifier on it, stupid mods.

Why charge for business / 1st class WiFi?

[schmidt4brains]

I flew Lufthansa in April from Vancouver to Frankfurt, and I found the WiFi service to be pretty fast. However, I do object to having to pay extra for this, even though I had business class ticket. Doesn't the airline have enough gross margin on the $1500 business class premium that they could toss in WiFi for free? I know that WiFi is available for all passengers (even you low-lifes in "steerage" class). But can't they just print some voucher code on my business/1st-class boarding pass that will auto-validate my WiFi link? Ah, screw it. I'll just have more free Chardonnay to make up for the cost.

Not very useful, unless...

[KC7GR]

One potential problem I see with this. I've run across a few (not many these days, but still a few left) WAPs that are set up in such a way that VPN traffic is not allowed through.

I hope that United will not be so short-sighted. Being self-hosted for my 'net presence, I depend heavily on VPN tunneling to get my mail, and keep an eye on the servers (via SSH), while I'm on the road. Wired or wireless connections that block VPN or PPTP traffic are 152% useless to me.

Has anyone flown on Lufthansa and succeeded with using VPN via their WiFi link?

Keep the peace(es).

that's what ear plugs are for!

[krunk4ever]

i agree it can be annoying for someone be speaking on the cellfone next to you, but i dont see that as the reason why we shouldn't allow it on planes if we allow them on trains, buses, subways, and probably any other public transportation available. just because you sat next to a family w/ 3 small obnoxious and annoying kids doesn't mean that they should be banned from flying, right?

creating interference i agree is the concern they had before, but if that's no longer a concern, i for one think electronic devices should be allowed on flights. wireless internet would be such an advantage for my flights between los angeles and oakland.

if you really think it's annoying to have someone on a cellfone sit next to you, just bring ear plugs or an mp3 player and drone out the voices next to you. or maybe airplanes can have a cellphone section (like for smokers in restaurants here in CA).

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Anonymous Coward]

When is the last time we shot down someone for entering restricted airspace?

Face it, the government is too pussy to shoot down.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Anonymous Coward]

Safest row of seats?

When your plane is crashing or being hijacked and sent into the world trade center, there is no 'safest row of seats''.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[jcuervo]

Oh, and if you ever see me on a plane, make sure you are sitting next to me - I will be the guy in the safest row of seats.

Behind the fat guy and next to the nun?

Lufthansa: Skype and WoW worked perfectly

[neoangin]

I flew with Lufthansa two weeks ago on their Munich to JFK route and used the broadband service. It is amazingly fast. I phoned friends for an hour using Skype and then played the drug World of Warcraft. That was the coolest way to blast a few hours away during the flighttime. The lag in WoW was green and under 100ms.

Julian

laptop:~# ethereal

[Anonymous Coward]

I brought my laptop into a Starbucks once, just to see what sort of traffic goes on. Not to be malicious, just out of curiousity: do these people realize they're on a completely open network? Do they take appropriate precautions?

No.

Passwords flew by, no pun intended, one after another. POP3, IMAP, HTTP. Email was sent. Forms POSTed. People were living out their electronic lives completely oblivious to the fact that the guy in the corner with the iced mocha and the "i read your e-mail" sticker on his laptop was in a position where he could easily do so.

Now I get to watch the stupidity onboard aircraft.

Joy.

SAS Is already doing this, over the atlantic.

[Anonymous Coward]

This only thing that's news with this is that this is to be done domestic in the US. This is already done by other airlines such as sas.

In April I was on a flight over to the US from Sweden. On this flight I got internet access for the entire flight. It was only $30. It was all wireless.

The speed was acceptable, better than I expected. A friend made a skypeout call just to test and it was also acceptable.

I lost the access three times. Twice for about 5 minutes and once for about 15 minutes. I still think that that's acceptable since I was in the middle of the atlantic.

Cheers,
Erik

No Cell Phones on planes...

[7Prime]

I don't mind so much when random bloggers get their facts wrong... but slashdot needs to start checking their facts and stop speculating:

I wonder if this will impact the discussion on cell phone usage in planes (which seems to be centered around the annoyance of people talking loudly on the phone)

This is simply wrong. I've heard a number of different speculations as to why this is: navigation interference, scam to make people use airphones, not annoying passangers. These are all incorrect. Now, I'm no expert on cell phone technology, but I've had a few explain it to me, so if I get any details wrong, please correct them:

When a cell phone is in activation, it attempts to connect with all nearby towers in order to find the strongest signal. Since the high-frequency in which cell phones operate at are primarily line-of-sight, when cell towers are spaced at their usual distance, somewhere around a mile or so depending upon the bandwidth needs, on the ground a phone is probably only going to connect with a limited amount of towers. Now, in the air, EVERYTHING is line-of-site, and thus the signal can go a much farther without becoming too obstructed, so a cell phone may be able to connect to towers much farther away. Let's say you are flying over the eastern sea board, where there are literally thousands of cell towers erected in a fairly small area, the moment your cell phone becomes active, it will attempt to connect with hundreds of towers, greatly clogging up the system, and in some extreme cases, causing parts of the system to shut down. This is where the "airphone network" comes in. The airphone network is identical in technology to a cell network, the only diference is that towers are spaced much farther apart to account for the longer range a cell phone has when in the air.

So, this is neither a plot to make you use their system, or shut up noisy customers, or even concern with navigation interference, cell phones simply "screw up" the system at high altitudes. The only way we'll ever see cell phones used on planes is under the chance that Airphone begins signing up individuals, or if the cell phone technology itself changed to take into concideration this problem. Don't expect to see either of these any time soon.

In any case, screw cellphones on planes, what I want to see is more 110 plugs in airports! Being from Alaska, I fly cross country a lot, and take my laptop along for work and entertainment. No matter how good a battery you have, there is no way a computer is going to keep charge in an over 15 hours of transit. I don't know how many times I've taken my laptop out searching for that PERFECT spot where there's a power outlet. I'm now beginning to see other people snooping around the same, you see this special look on their face.

- Eric

BTW: I just lost the game

I doubt any airlines will allow it

[Ogemaniac]

I will boycott any that do. Why can't people in the states learn to text message. Here in Japan, I have a 20:1 text/call ratio at least, as does everyone else. It is far less intrusive for everyone around you and the recipient, who can answer the call at their leisure. Talking on cells is forbidden anywhere to do with public transporation. Think about it - the vast majority of your calls are nothing more than 'hey, I'm gonna be ten minutes late' or something else you can type quickly.

airplances and cellphone

[chrisranjana.com]

Yes correct technology is always a double edged sword !

not satellite at all (read the article)

[Carl Oppedahl]

No, it's not satellite at all. Read the article:

United's Wi-Fi system will piggyback on its existing onboard phone network, which is operated in a partnership with Verizon. Data will be transmitted to and received from the planes through towers on the ground.

No worse than a Lunar conversation

[AnotherScratchMonkey]

Remember that we could communicate with astronauts on the Moon, a second and a half's latency away, with no trouble. You just have to put up with a bit of a pause between exchanges. It's no worse than talking to someone who actually thinks before he speaks. Or waiting for someone to type a reply in IRC.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Lesson No. 25]

Thanks, makes sense. Although I was told to turn off my noise cancellation headphones by the stewardess, so go figure. So the rule is not always applied sensibly.

I've been told to remove completely non-electronic ear plugs during take-off (or was it landing?). The idea is in an emergency, when chaos is generally winning . . . they want you to be able to hear so you don't lumber in the wrong direction and block the aisle.

I've been told the same (about being able to hear in case of emergency) regarding using the noise-cancelling headphones during take-off and/or landing.

As for the GP . . . after some consideration, I don't think that rule is not sensible. Aside from the hearing issue, if it takes batteries, it's an electronic device . . . the noise-cancellation is active, which means it is generating some EM signals. Now hopefully none (little) of that leaks out, and if so, hopefully it's not such that it would interfere with the plane's navigation equipment, but without extensive testing of the device in question (see this post), you really just don't know.

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[Keebler71]

Good point... I should have said "most crash-surviavable" row of seats.

Uses existing terrestrial cell towers, see link

[Anonymous Coward]

"AirCell is also developing a migration path to use digital protocols for higher bandwidth and expanded features. With all these developments, and strategic partnerships within the industry, AirCell continues to lead the way with airborne telecom technology."

http://www.aircell.com/

Re:Uses existing terrestrial cell towers, see link

[Anonymous Coward]

thanks!

Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go

[ArsenneLupin]

However, just because he was completely wrong in his argument doesn't mean that every airline safety rule (air in the tires?, gas in the tank?, sober pilot at the wheel?, no shootouts happening on the plane?) is silly.

Not silly, but maybe not realistic:

sober pilot at the wheel ;-)

and these are?

[fantomas]

there is a set of seats which are? I'd heard the back row, is this true?