Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Airlines to Offer In-Air Wi-Fi
"Within the next year, US Airlines are going to be offering Wi-Fi service onboard flights. VoiP calls will be banned initially, but the article mentions that lifting the ban on cellphones may still be a possibility. 'AirCell will install equipment on airliners that will act as a WiFi hotspot in the cabin and connect to laptop computers and devices like BlackBerrys that have WiFi chips. In all, it will cost about $100,000 to outfit a plane with less than 100 pounds of equipment, and the work can be done overnight by airline maintenance workers, AirCell says. What makes the service particularly attractive to airlines is that they will share revenue with AirCell. The service will cost about the same as existing WiFi offerings. Mr. Blumenstein says it will charge no more than $10 a day to passengers. It will also offer discounted options for customers and tie into existing service programs like T-Mobile, iPass and Boingo. Speeds will be equivalent to WiFi service on the ground.'"
I can't say how happy reading this made me. I tend to travel a lot, and as such, I never get to use my laptop in flight because really... airlines suck at technological upkeep. out of the 25 flights I have taken in the last 18 months, I have been on ONE plane with some sort of airline adapter to plug into for power... Hopefully now when I get into first class I will be able to be online, and actually have power to keep my energy hungry machine going for awhile. Woohoo!
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
I hope phone calls stay banned. Airline flights are bad enough without having to listen to one side of a hundred phone conversations.
A jerk talking on his cellphone while I'm trying to enjoy a quiet plane ride.
Imagine a 5 hour cross country flight, sitting next to some idiot yapping at the top of his voice on his cell phone. That after having to strip down, empty your bags, and submit to a body cavity search just to get through security. That cross country road trip is sounding better and better every day...
So all I need is a big antenna in my backyard and some tracking software and I can have free wifi!
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Playing counter-strike will now be even more realistic. Imagine the kids screaming "haha, I'm going to blow this plane, you faggots!!!11" inside the plane. And the real CT squad goes berserker and pull their weapons. Pure pwnage!
What's the point of banning VoIP? How is a VoIP packet different from any other packet? A VPN or an SSH tunnel is all you need to thwart that.
the cell phones mess up the cell towers at that hight / speed
I seriously don't think that $10 per day for WiFi connection will satisfy the stockholders/investors.
$4,500,000,000 - At only $100k per plane x 4500 planes that fly in the North America area. (guess)
$xx millions - Wireless spectrum
Well, even with simplified math, that works out to hundreds of millions of user-day revenue just to pay back infrastructure investment. Where is the business plan for that?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Use VoIP now. Just tunnel it through SSH or some other protocol. I hate people talking on the phone as much as the next guy, but I'd make a call just to spite them.
They don't need to block it, they just have to tell the guy on the phone to shut the fuck up.
c++;
Well, 802.11b/g doesn't mess up the navigational systems, but 802.11a does, if you have any of that legacy equipment. It uses 5.5Ghz which is also the spectre in which radar is broadcasted. This is also the frequency many unlicensed WiMAX connections used, although primarily in countries where the original 3.5ghz spectrum is not available for licensing.
So what will keep someone with an internal wireless (cellular) broadband card in their laptop from using it, and claiming they are on the planes wi-fi network? To the passive observer, there would really be no way to tell the difference. Using cellular in a plane makes it explode or something, right?
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
There is absolutely no way that a laptop carried on a plane can simulate the sound of a real shotgun or rocket.
Have you even heard a real gun before? I guarantee you that the air marshals have.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
The article says that the wifi will cost the same amount per day as regular wifi.
Does that mean it will cost less if you are flying East?
liqbase
Why does it cost 100 grand for a plane?
-- lol pwned
Those services listed all cost about $10 per day and at most airports they are your only wireless internet options; for instance, here in Atlanta when you connect to the wireless network you can only access the airport information site and the menu of wifi providers so you can purchase one of their internet service packages. It sucks (especially since I used to live in Pittsburgh where they offer it for free), however, it seems like the market has shown that it will support a price of $10 to connect to the internet during your air travel, so it only makes sense that when they are extending the airport wifi structure to the actual airplane they use the same distribution mechanisms and the same pricing scheme.
audioLibre - freedom of music
May I suggest you use OpenVPN (VPN over TCP port 80/443) instead?
Much more flexible...
X.
Phones should always be banned on a plane. I can't think of anything more annoying than listening to dozens of conversations going on around me while I try to sleep.
"Hi Mom!"
...
"No, the plane just took off"
...
"Well, it was all right, but our flight out of Amsterdam was delayed. I have NEVER seen an airport backed up like that before"
...
"All-in-all, the trip was OK, but I am SO GLAD it is over"
...
"Well, for one, Linette was SUCH a B-I-T-C-H for this ENTIRE trip. I was so happy when she caught her connecting flight at JFK."
...
"Well, she used to be so nice, but, ever since her an Darren broke up, it has been a nightmare"
...
"He cheated on her!
...
"I KNOW! And he seemed to be so nice"
...
"He slept with NICOLE, of all people"
I beg the powers-that-be to never, ever allow the use of cell phones on a plane. It will be enough for many of us to slit our wrists.
I have a hard time believing that. If a WiMAX connection messed up airline naviagtion, the towers on the ground would be screwing them up whether a device was on the plane or not. Now, I know that they are not a definitive source of info, but the Mythbusters episode where they tried to interfere with an planes instruments with cell phones and other radio equipment, they showed that it is just not going to happen. They had to do some pretty serious work to get the plane's equipment to a state that it could be affected by non-intentional interference. Look at it this way. If you could crash an airplane by hitting it with consumer level radio waves, don't you think we would be seeing a lot more planes going down? Why take a shoe bomb on a plane. Just turn on a battery operated radio transmitter.
How is the risk of a remotely activated device detonating any greater than detonating a tape recorder with a built-in timer (i.e. Pan-Am 103)? If the latter can't make its way past physical security then why should the former? Do remotely activated devices use invisible explosives? Are they in any way different from locally activated devices that make them somehow undetectable? In this case, the risk is inherrently in the payload NOT in the activation technology.
I agree that there are holes in the system, but crying security risk before thinking the matter through does us all a disservice.
A few months ago we were driving up I-5 in California.
We were stuck in a traffic jam on the road, a good 20 miles from the nearest town. I pulled out my laptop to scan for wireless signals, and see exactly how 'isolated' this area was.
Surprisingly, I found several Access Points with names like 'JetBlue1203' and 'JetBlue1609'. These signals would start at low-strength, the signal would grow stronger, peak for about 5 minutes, and then drop off in strength--- almost as if they were coming from an Airplane overhead.
I suppose these AP's could have come from some other car on the road; but people generally don't run Access Points in their Car.
Traffic was at a standstill--- if the signal was coming from a nearby house or from a car on our side of the road; I would expect the signal to remain level for a longer period of time.
If the signal was coming from a car on the opposite side of the road, I would expect the signal quality to rise and fall quickly. In fact, I could detect a number of 'Ad-Hoc' wireless signals from some misconfigured Laptops-- those signals would zoom by pretty quickly (other side of the road), or remain stable (My side of the road).
I never investigated these further, but I always assumed these 'JetBlue####' Access Points were from JetBlue Airplanes, and I was lucky enough to be within line-of-sight of these signals. The airplanes were a few miles above us, which seems pretty distant for a Wifi signal... But still these Access Points had names like 'JetBlue'. What the heck were they?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I can't believe they are going to let people talk to each other on planes. Just think how bad it is going to be when you hear both sides of the conversation.
That will be twice as much chatter!!!!
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'm thinking about the 5 hour cross country flight, sitting next to the the ass that is either so stupid that he can't figure out that a $.50 pair of ear plugs would solve his problems,
Game theory, buddy. You making your incessant inane calls gives you slight benefit while annoying the hell out of about 100 people around you. Thus, not worth it. If everyone talks constantly on their phones during a long flight it's worse for everyone.
or is so self centered that he thinks everybody else should modify their behavior in public places because trying to force his desired behavior on everyone else
It seems to be the desired behavior of the masses - I've never seen anyone who enjoyed listening to a cacophony of cell calls - so that's democracy for you. Forcing societal norms on assholes since 1776.
seems like a better idea than putting in a $.50 pair of ear plugs.
Sure does, that's not particularly comfortable. I don't want to have to stick shit in my ears for 5 hours because you can't shut the **** up for 10 consecutive minutes.
You're not so damned important that you can't wait until you get on the ground. In the rare case that someone is, their company will reimburse them for the exorbitant back-of-the-seat phone.
I just wish that airlines would start offering free ear plugs, so we could all stop listening to the incessant whining of a bunch of intellectually challenged self centered ass holes.
The self-centered one is the dipshit who thinks his desires are more important than those of the 100 people around him. That would be you.
Or we could get the government (and people like you) out of regulating this and let the airlines make the decisions for themselves. If you don't want to share flight with people who can use cell phones, fine go to an air carrier that doesn't allow it. If enough people think like you, that carrier will be rewarded by the market. Meanwhile, people like me who have business to take care of on flights who want to use their cell phones can go to other airlines that choose not to restrict their passengers.
Which in the hell is it?
Are wireless devices going to cause the plane to crash or not?
If i can cause the plane to crash using my iPod during takeoff, why can i now use WiFi during the flight?
This all goes to show you why the asshole that refused to put away his iPod or laptop when told to was always right, and the stewdresses and do-gooder sheeple sitting around the cabin ratting them out are the real dumbasses.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Perhaps the airlines will be so kind as to offer complimentary razorblades with each flight?
It may be a "public" place but the poor bastard next to you can't just get up and walk away if your talking irritates him. Your "right" to talk and his "right" to peace and quiet are going to conflict. How you both deal with that will be interesting, especially if your seat-mate is as reasonable, accommodating and willing to compromise as you seem to be.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
sub service_passengers {
s enger));
foreach my $passenger (@passengers) {
if (passenger_talking_on_phone($passenger)) {
stewardess_action($passenger,PHONE_USE);
}
}
}
sub stewardess_action {
my $passenger = shift;
my $action = shift;
switch ($action) {
case EMPTY_GLASS:
fill_glass();
break;
case CALL_BUTTON:
disable_call_button();
stewardess_action($passenger,query_passenger($pas
break;
case NO_PEANUTS:
provide_peanuts($passenger);
break;
case PHONE_USE:
case SMOKING:
case DRUNKENNESS:
case FAIL_CREW_DIRECTIVE:
case SHOE_BOMB:
stewardess_panic($passenger);
break;
}
}
sub stewardess_panic {
my $passenger = shift;
pilot::divert_airplane();
if ($passenger) {
passengers::restrain_passenger($passenger);
fbi::arrest_on_landing($passenger);
}
}
paintball
Not to be rude and shock you with reality... but what makes you think it will be any cheaper to use cell phones on board? There is almost no way that you will be able to use a cell phone with the network of traditional cell towers, the distance, speed, and hand-off issues will get you nearly every time as well as yes the interference generated by the cell phone cranking up the power to try and reach that tower it caught a glimmer of but has already passed.
That being said - they are most likely installing pico cells which would either route to an onboard automated operator to process credit card details or you would be charged roaming fees out the wazooo, much in line with the air-phone rates currently offered.
As with any restricted environment, clients will most likely be proxied/cached/relayed for every possible service
The thought of allowing VOIP piques the interest of most geeks but questions of bandwidth, latency and packet sequence, and yes even revenue generation still wait to be answered. I could see them either up-selling to allow VOIP on a client by client basis or a per-call/per-min fee based relay. There is almost no chance of them passing up on this source of revenue given that existing air-phones have a hefty margin that is shared with the airline.
It's probably because most cell phone users think that today's technology still requires them to yell into the phone for others to hear them. :-)
Starmen.net
I find all this talk of internet access in economy hilarious. On most flights with the seat pitch what it is I can barely open a paperback book on the tray table. My laptop? Forget it!! It stays in the overhead bin.
Who catches the RIAA president using BitTorrent on their laptop to exchange "files"!
People, generally, speak very differently to others while in their presence than they do while on the phone. Let's look at the example of a moderately busy restaurant at lunchtime (not, say, TGIF during happy hour or kids-eat-free day at IHOP). Most of the time the "annoying" people in the restaurant are people on cell phones.
:)
Why do these cell-phone-people stand out, and why is this even trickier on planes? Several theories:
1) restaurants (and planes) are areas where it has traditionally been impossible and/or impolite to be on the telephone. People are paying quite a bit of money to enjoy their meal/trip, and expect some level of decorum from those around them.
2) When conversing with someone who is next to you, they can also observe the atmosphere and tailor the conversation (content, volume, laughter, emotion) to be appropriate. One party is probably not on the plane, and the party who is tends to get lost in conversation and converse without this regard. Is it the person on the planes responsibility to be polite? Yes. Do cell phones foster this behavior? I say no.
3) WHAT?!?!??! I'M ON THE AIRPLANE? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
4) In a restaurant and in an airplane people often try to converse, get business done, and eat. But planes have other considerations also. People try to watch movies (and no, headphones don't cancel out loud talking), sleep, read, or work diligently on their laptops. Some of these things are pretty hard to do when a large percentage of people are on the phone.
5) Extremely confined spaces mean people can be more irritable, and also require more consideration of others. Airplanes make quite a large number of people nervous, since they often combine numerous phobias/anxieties into one ordeal. Activities which foster respect, quiet, calm, and polite behavior should be fostered (such as movies, reading, sleeping, eating, headphone-music), and activities which don't shouldn't be (everyone on their cell phone, first-class vs coach rugby, or a lan party). Although those things may be rather fun on a plane, they're not exactly calm-enducing
Is there a middle road? Yes, and the airlines have a responsibility to try to promote it. Loud cell phone conversations should be given warnings, and then barred from use on 2nd or 3rd offense. On long haul flights, specific blocks of time should be set aside as no-cell-phone period, say when the lights go out for nap time or a movie is playing. Having some mention of these things by the crew serves a reminder that cell-phone politeness is really important on a plane. Staff shouldn't lie about why cell phones aren't allowed during certain periods, though, that's counter productive.
Do I think airlines care about these things? Maybe. They probably care more about money, though, and that's why they're going in the direction they're going (i.e., no VoIP on wifi, pay for cell phone service, encourage seat-back phone use, etc). As someone who tries to get things done on a plane (business, reading, etc) I welcome the option to use my cell phone at a reasonable rate, but I also feel that I'd be less-productive if everyone (including myself) turns plane rides into Verizon commercials.
Sounds a lot like the argument die-hard smokers make about their "right" to smoke.
Yes, you could issue earplugs to everyone, but why should they alter what they're doing because you're being offensive? If you happen to riddle your speech with profanity, and go to a grade school, the accepted solution is not for you to expect all the children to wear earplugs, it's for you to recognize the social norms of the environment you're in and modify your behavior to match.
Of course, why is the guy next to you an ass for being bothered by your behavior? He's not doing anything offense, he's reacting to something you're doing he finds offensive.
You don't have a right to talk on a cell phone, and you do have a responsibility to your fellow humans.
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
I've landed and noticed my phone was on and we didn't fall out of the sky on the way, so that's good news.
People trying to figure out what happened during 9/11 flight 93 noted that most calls fail from airplanes at altitude anyway.
Will people be loud talking on a mobile on the plane? You ever try to hear anything on a plane? Especially in coach? Imagine that, coupled with bluetooth headsets, coupled with normal loud mobile talker jackassery and it's a major mess (and yes, I'm a proponent of earplugs and noise cancellation). We should just be more like the Japanese and just not tolerate it as a society.
I'm not a geek, I just play one IRL.
I doubt the connection will be good enough for VOIP, but I also doubt they can block it. They would have to prevent all secure communications. That would exclude email (yes, at least 99% of business are smart enough to require VPN or at least ssl for email access).
I for one predict an increased demand for noise reduction headphones so you don't have to listen to the idiot next to you on their phone.
Alternatively people could just learn some manners and consideration for others. It's not hard to make/take a phone call in a public place discreetly and quietly without intruding on anyone else's day. That said, putting all the children together and all the phone users together (at opposite ends of the plane please - I'd much rather listen to a phone call than a baby) wouldn't be a bad idea at all.
I am so unimpressed with the way everytime a subject of connetivity on planes we all start screaming about cell phones.
The choice of cell phones is upto an airline, not the FAA or FCC. Cell phones on planes is comming and it will be everywhere but the USA.
There will not be 100 shouting people using the phones the system will support 4 people, and call will be aorund $1 per minute.
I am a full time connectivity designer for satcom and aircraft, and hold several patents on the subject, and I have to say:-
I will not be using my phone on any flight, and I will love wifi..
Lets not confuse the two systems.
-- email me @ 30,000 ft
I spent seven years traveling on a plane as part of my business. While it would have been nice to be able to conduct some business on the phone, the fact is, there are very few phone calls that can't wait for the three hours until you land.
I can imagine that right now, you are saying to yourself "Puh-leese! I HAVE to make that phone call to George. If I don't reply to him NOW, then there will be hell to pay." Well, I disagree. Have you ever been in an organization that has undergone a Business Impact Analysis? If you haven't, a BIA is when consultants come into your organization and study how long your organization can endure a disaster. How long can your organization live without e-mail? SAP/PeopleSoft? Your Warehouse Management System? How long could your organization survive without the Customer Relationship Management (Siebel) system? Basically, a BIA is a cost-benefit analysis for DR. If an organization has unlimited funds, they can make it through a disaster with almost no downtime. But, most organizations don't have unlimited funds. They need to identify which systems must be up immediately and which systems can remain unavailable for a long time.
A BIA is usually quite eye-opening. I was working at a hospital one time. The BIA there showed that their electronic patient health records system, which is the type of system upon which the lives of the patients dependl, could be down for eight DAYS after a disaster. Not hours. Not minutes. But DAYS. The organization (and the patients) would survive for up to eight days when all of the electronic patient records were unavailable. The management of that hospital was rather shocked and they realized that while they still needed failover and DR on their patient records system, that they could afford NOT to spend thousands of dollars on Oracle RAC. So, the final plan was that, in the event of disaster, the system would be down for about one hour. Oracle RAC, which is very expensive, would have reduced the down-time to about 15 minutes.
Do a BIA on your e-mail in-box and voice mail one day. Will your company lose money because you don't return a phone call or e-mail withing five minutes? Will the persons upstream and downstream in your business flow be unable to complete their tasks if they have to wait five hours for your response? In other words, that 'critical' call you are thinking about, is only critical to you. It's not critical to your company.
Schedule your time. Let people know that you'll be traveling between 6 am and noon on Monday's. Guess what? 99.99999% of the time, your phone call can wait.