Airlines to Offer In-Flight Internet Service

Ponca City, We Love You writes "JetBlue Airways will soon begin testing a free e-mail and instant messaging service on one aircraft, while American Airlines, Virgin America and Alaska Airlines plan to offer a broader Web experience in the coming months, probably priced at about $10 a flight. A recent survey found that 26 percent of leisure travelers would pay $10 for Internet access on a two-to-four-hour flight and 45 percent would pay that amount for a flight longer than four hours. The airlines plans to turn their planes into the equivalent of a wireless hot spot once the aircraft reaches its cruising altitude but service will not be available on takeoff and landing. While the technology could allow travelers to make phone calls over the Internet, most carriers say they have no plans to allow voice communications."

Comments

No Voice?

[gambit3]

"most carriers say they have no plans to allow voice communications."

and how could they limit that? wouldn't it all be packets at that point?

Re:No Voice?

[morgan_greywolf]

They could easily block ports commonly used for VoIP and/or VoIP proxies. In fact, they could make all Internet access go through a proxy server, just like they do in a corporate setting. This is getting to be increasingly common in hotel Internet access.

Re:No Voice?

[gEvil (beta)]

"most carriers say they have no plans to allow voice communications."

Funny that most airlines have had in-seat phones on planes for over a decade...

Re:No Voice?

[Asic Eng]

and how could they limit that?

By telling you "voice communication will not be allowed".

wouldn't it all be packets at that point?

Not at the point where you talk into the microphone. It's pretty easy to detect, and given just how annoying it is to sit next to a person talking into their cell phone ... it wouldn't take long for your seat neighbour would complain to the stewardess.

Re:No Voice?

[porcupine8]

Pretty easily: "I'm sorry sir, I'm going to have to ask you to turn that off to avoid disturbing other passengers."

Re:No Voice?

[jandrese]

Chances are it will be satellite based internet anyway, making it useless for interactive games (you could play a card game or something like that, but FPS/RTS/etc... are right out thanks to the high latency).

I've always wondered just how much money the airlines make from those seatphones. I've never seen anybody use one, ever.

Worst nightmare

[wombatmobile]

FTA: "Many travelers find the prospect of phone calls much less palatable than having a seatmate quietly browsing e-mail."

Yes. Imagine sitting in the center seat between two obese passengers talking non-stop about things you don't want to know about.

What would you do?

What could you possibly do at that point?

Re:Worst nightmare

[FinestLittleSpace]

I've always been interested why people have a bigger issue with people talking on the phone than talking to a friend on a plane/train.

Admittedly if it's loud, it's annoying, but what's so different about a phone than a face to face conversation?

Re:Worst nightmare

[porcupine8]

For the same reason that it's ok to talk to your seatmate but not to your friend sitting three rows away. You talk quietly to someone sitting right next to you, but for some reason many people seem to feel it's necessary to project into the phone inches from their mouth. I think it has something to do with the fact that cel phones, unlike receivers on traditional phones, don't actually reach to your mouth anymore, so people subconciously feel the need to make up for that - plus, of course, if your signal isn't so hot you might actually NEED to speak up. Either way, it's far louder and more annoying.

Re:Worst nightmare

[kidgenius]

A couple of differences, one being is that during a face to face conversation, you tend to not talk extremely loud. Some phones incorporate a slight "echo" so that you can actually hear yourself talking (much like landlines). Many phones don't, and what ends up happening is people yell into the phone, which is exactly what Alexander Graham Bell discovered when he first invented the thing. Additionally, we perceive face-to-face conversations as normal. Cellphone conversations are just weird to us humans (being a relatively new thing). Also, and perhaps slightly more nosy, people like to listen to other people's conversations, and when you can only hear one half of the conversation, it probably annoys people on some unconscious level. It's just programmed into us that communication exists face-to-face, or at least that's how it primarily has been for eons.

Re:Worst nightmare

[jcuervo]

Admittedly if it's loud, it's annoying, but what's so different about a fart in the bathroom to a face to face fart? If I farted on my girlfriend's face, she'd be pissed.

Had me until this line...

[explosivejared]

"I think 2008 is the year when we will finally start to see in-flight Internet access become available..."

Note to everyone, declaring this "the year of implementation x of tech y" automatically sets that tech back indefinitely. This is how this will work out now. The service will be used for years by technically elite fliers who rave over its superior stability when compared to ground based wi-fi. Then several years down the road a group with the motto "airline wifi for humans" will again attempt to make the year of "in-flight internet access", only to realize that the people are still reluctant to adopt it. It's a proven paradigm.

So remember, if you are passionate about a technology, do not declare this "the year of it," as you are only hurting it.

Re:Had me until this line...

[morgan_greywolf]

So remember, if you are passionate about a technology, do not declare this "the year of it," as you are only hurting it. Well, in that case I declare that 2008 will be the year of Vista on the desktop!

offtopic

[gEvil (beta)]

Unrelated to in-flight internet service, but has anyone ever tried playing a flight simulator on a laptop while on a plane? I'd love to see how quickly you could get yourself kicked off by doing that. : p

Don't hold your breath

[Opportunist]

Yes, we'll see the first planes with this service in 2008. On lines that are heavily contested and where competition is high, so passengers will choose carrier X over Y because they can get internet access. Don't count on it being available on domestic flights where only one or two lines have already split the market up between them, or on lines that are overbooked anyway.

Not to mention that the first planes to be fitted with this will take off in 2008 (allegedly). That doesn't mean that every plane there is will suddenly become equipped with it. Usually, such things take a long, long time.

The Internet is the second most important feature.

[dada21]

...but I need a power source. I usually travel with my "lite" laptop, and a spare battery, but even that's not always enough. Some of my flights (ORD->BOM) last nearly 20 hours (with 1 stop, where I could theoretically recharge somewhere).

I don't mind paying upwards of $40 for a flight for web access, actually, but I'd assume few others would. Speed/latency isn't an issue, but I do wonder how well it would work over large bodies of water.

Flying into the US

[PinkyDead]

"We are experiencing a little RIAA turbulence and so the Captain has turned on the no downloading sign. Please refrain from downloading anything until the airplane has come to a complete stop and you are safely within the terminal building."