Slashdot Mirror


Virgin American In-Flight Internet Review, From In-Flight

wintersynth writes "I've posted a review of Virgin America's in-flight internet provided by Gogo. Here's the scoop: Avg. .90 megabits/sec DL, .283 megabits/sec UL, ping: 130.6 msecs, $12.95 for the duration of the flight. Verdict: AWESOME. In fact, I'm posting this from 36,000 feet right now. Skype did not work for voice, even though I'm pretty sure those stats are over the minimums. Any ideas from the slashdotters on what might be going on?"

198 comments

  1. Skype by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    You could be experiencing a difference of bandwidth versus latency. Although the two are related, you could be suffering high latency with Skype's servers. You might try pinging those servers compared to pinging www.google.com. If you are experiencing high latency, Skype uses UDP rather than TCP (like normal web traffic). If I remember correctly, UDP packets are many small packets which may perform badly over connections of very high latency. Your bandwidth readings on a TCP sight might look just large enough to use Skype but since it's a UDP service it could be unusable.

    Another possibility is that Gogo is demoting UDP traffic in some sort of QoS scheme to ensure that things like e-mail and regular HTTP traffic aren't slow or interrupted because 4 people are using Skype.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Skype by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Skype uses UDP rather than TCP (like normal web traffic). If I remember correctly, UDP packets are many small packets which may perform badly over connections of very high latency.

      UDP shouldn't have anything to do with latency, nor is it limited to "many small packets". UDP is just a transport protocol that lacks the error checking/data integrity and ordering mechanism of TCP. If such features are important to you then you need to use TCP or build them into your application that uses UDP.

      The advantage of UDP comes in time critical applications where it's probably better to lose a few packets (i.e: have a second or two of dead air during a phone call) than delay the transmission (conversation stops while it waits for the lost packets to be retransmitted). Latency really doesn't have anything to do with it, although latency is bad for VoIP for other reasons.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Skype by willda · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We recently switched to WildBlue satellite internet service and it has a fair amount of latency. No big deal really but it would be too much for Skype and you have to assume that the same problem would hold true for any sat service. (BTW WildBlue is awesome compared to the dial-up rurals have to put up with :)

    3. Re:Skype by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I canna change the laws of physics

    4. Re:Skype by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      (BTW WildBlue is awesome compared to the dial-up rurals have to put up with :)

      I hope it survives overcast skies and rainy days. My company had Hughesnet for a long time before we got sick of the limitations and finally ponied up for a T-1. We are too far out to get cable or DSL. The T-1 isn't really cost effective from a bandwidth point of view (my cable provider could give us five times the bandwidth for what we are paying now) but it's great from a reliability standpoint and WAY better than any satellite service I've ever seen.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Skype by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      I use Wildblue as well, have for a few years, and it handles weather far better than Hughes did. It slows down some but has yet to go out entirely.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    6. Re:Skype by willda · · Score: 0

      It's done nothing but storm for a week here & we haven't had a seconds trouble with it. TV has gone out a couple of times but not WB.

    7. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      In other words, UDP says:
      "here take it!".

      TCP says:
      Client: "Hi, Nice to meet you, I'm TCP-Client".
      Server: "Hi, TPC-Client I'm TCP-Server." (shakes hands)
      TCP-Client: "I've got data for you. Here you go."
      TCP-Server: "I got most of the data and it appears uncorrupt, but I'm missing page 2 and 374. Cand you send them again?"
      TCP-Client: "Here you go. That's all, Goodbye"
      TCP-Server: "Damn, he left before I could say goodbye"

      Or something like that, it's been a while since my network programming class. But it was a lot of fun implementing these protocols. =P

    8. Re:Skype by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 1
      How does it work? Is it satellite based? Or is it using terrestrial radio.

      I seem to recall that those in-flight pay phones they used to have worked on a VHF radio network operated by ARINC.

      Needless to say, if the service is satellite based, you will have noteceable latency.

    9. Re:Skype by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Informative

      I fired up Skype and dialed out. Massive failure. For some reason the sound is horrendously choppy and thin sounding. It was completely unusable.

      You're experiencing high "jitter." Jitter is the change in delay from packet to packet. If odd numbered packets take 100 ms and even numbered packets take 150 ms then you have 50ms of jitter.

      Certain protocols like VoIP and NTP require connections with low jitter in order to perform acceptably.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    10. Re:Skype by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

          That's close, but I'm not sure your technical jargon is exactly how I learned it. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:Skype by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      It's done nothing but storm for a week here

      You live in Central New York? ;)

      Sounds like they have a better service than Hughesnet. Hughes would die on days with heavy cloud cover, no rain required.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Skype by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Just in case anyone wants more info:"

      I want more info!!

      If you're still on the flight...how much are drinks on Virgin? What good scotches do they offer? Any single malts? Any good beers?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Skype by daveime · · Score: 1

      Mod +1 Educational.

      That's the best explanation I've heard of protocol handshaking in a long time.

      UDP says "here, take it" ... might make that my next sig ;-)

    14. Re:Skype by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      We learned the handshake as YO/SUP. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Skype by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They serve Glenlivet for scotch. I'm pretty happy with that, as I'm a single-malt guy and enjoy the various Glenlivet offerings, but I've heard other passengers complain mildly about the lack of Johnny Walker or Chivas Regal. Drinks run something like $6.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:Skype by awall222 · · Score: 1

      UDP would actually better here, since UDP packets are send-and-forget, though you're not guaranteed delivery. Over a high-latency network, you don't want to bother re-transmitting anything for voice communications, because like the above poster said you'd have seconds of silence waiting for the retransmissions.

    17. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Your post confused me. Could you rephrase it in terms of a car analogy?

    18. Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TCP will also increase the amount of packets the sender sends at a time if he gets back a lot of positive responses (ACKs).

      In other words, if the first few messages get through, then they will send more at a time in subsequent "sends", and keep increasing until losses occur, then it will cut back down, and ramp it up again.

      Though, there are many different implementations, this is the most commonly used style.

    19. Re:Skype by Meski · · Score: 1

      Glenlivet! That's going to keep me happy. ANyone who *wants* Johnny Walker, give them the generic, they'll never know.

    20. Re:Skype by willda · · Score: 0

      You live in Central New York? ;)

      No, Southeastern Ohio :^)

    21. Re:Skype by gnapster · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about a car rental analogy? You book a car rental ahead of time.

      With UDP, the rental place leaves the keys in the ignition.

      With TCP, you go to collect your rental. Sign on the door reads "Yes, we are OPEN! Please come in." You enter and approach the counter.
      Client: "I'd like to rent a car. I have a booking."
      Agent: "Thank you for choosing us, sir! Here is your contract. Please sign here, here, here, here, and here."
      Client: [signs] "There you are."
      Agent: "Here are your keys."
      Client: "Thank you."
      Agent: "Your car is the green Fiat, three spaces to the right of the door. Have a nice trip."
      Client: "I can see it from here!"
      [Client goes out to car and puts luggage in trunk, then gets in the driver's seat. The keys won't fit in the ignition. He gets out and walks back to the building entrance. The door is locked and a sign reads "Sorry, we are closed. Please come back later!"]
      Client: "Damn, he left for the weekend before I could say goodbye."

  2. Its about time by hamanaka · · Score: 0

    Now I can surf from the sky

  3. Skype? by HuckleCom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably blocked everything VoIP related to force airphones on you.

    1. Re:Skype? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Probably blocked everything VoIP related to force airphones on you.

      Except that most airplanes removed airphones long ago, since they never really worked economically. Certainly Virgin America's brand-new planes won't have them.

      They probably blocked everything VoIP related so that the people next to you don't throttle you for shouting in to your fucking Bluetooth headset while they're trying to read, sleep, or otherwise try to ignore you.

    2. Re:Skype? by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They probably blocked everything VoIP related so that the people next to you don't throttle you for shouting in to your fucking Bluetooth headset while they're trying to read, sleep, or otherwise try to ignore you."

      This, so much this.

      Flight time is quiet time, for god's sake leave the phone alone or I might just kill you. Trust me, I already hate you enough for having the audacity to get up to use the bathroom, for smelling of *anything* and for claiming rights to the middle armrest between our seats. If you start yakking away I can't be responsible for my actions. Now have fun with your internets but PLEASE shut the hell up.

  4. May I be the first to say by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I tried dialing the Skype test call, but I only caught every other word. So much for my dreams of in-flight video conferencing while yelling over the din of jet engines.

    Oh god, I hope you, nor anyone else, ever gets this to work.

    1. Re:May I be the first to say by lawaetf1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen. Can you imagine an 8-hour flight with everyone yapping around you? Hideous.

      "yeah.. no that's what I said!.. oh he always acts like that HAHAHA... hey are you going to that thing on saturday?....... yeah but Jim will be there!..... oh this flight is taking for-EVER... geez promise you'll come visit me!.... oh hang on, he's calling, I'll call you right back!.. no, it's ok, we don't land for another four hours.. mmkay, bye--kisses!.... hey honey!"

      --
      CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    2. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean, "I hope neither you, nor anyone else"?

    3. Re:May I be the first to say by Joce640k · · Score: 0, Redundant

      >Oh god, I hope you, nor anyone else, ever gets this to work.

      This.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:May I be the first to say by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The plastic knives and forks supposedly don't work well for hijacking, but they should be okay to use on an in-flight yapper. For bonus points, use the spoon.

    5. Re:May I be the first to say by Reber+Is+Reber · · Score: 1

      Sitting down with the Boston Globe, AirCell chief executive Jack Blumenstein said American, Delta and Virgin America have asked his company to block VoIP calls. "People don't want to have people talking around them on their cellphones," said Bluemstein. "The nightmare of 20 people on the plane shouting, 'Can you hear me now,' all the way from Boston to LA . . . a lot of people have taken positions saying we don't want that. So we block it." Interestingly, Blumenstein revealed that AirCell also provides the ability for in-flight communications via VoIP for the cockpit crew and cabin crew for voice communications to an airline's operations center. In the future, the high-speed data service may ultimately provide a path for enhanced cabin services (one presumes this would be a combination of stored/local updating and real-time feeds) such as video, audio, television and more. http://www.fiercevoip.com/story/inventory-airline-flight-voip-0-3-4-undecided/2009-03-08

    6. Re:May I be the first to say by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      People seem to have no problem doing this attempting to have a convo on a busy street (times square for example), whats the big deal other than people complaining as if they have some logical reasoning? Sure, you don't want to hear about someone's gonorrhea, I get that. People don't tend to scream at the top of their lungs in an airplane, plus it is pressurized to reduce the need to scream further.

      If everyone has small chatter it actually creates a bit of a whitenoise effect = sleep.

    7. Re:May I be the first to say by youn · · Score: 0

      How different would that be from people already talking to their neighbor on the airplane... no need for wifi to make a lot of noise :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    8. Re:May I be the first to say by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you mean, "Did you mean, "I hope neither you nor anyone else"?"?

      The second comma separates "nor anyone else" from "you", but "anyone else" is an ultimate qualifier, which should be placed at the end of any lists.

      You're using "gets" for "you" when you should be using "get". This seems correct since you're using "neither" and ", nor anyone else" to (incorrectly) form a list.

      Since there is no list involved, the ultimate qualifier should be used parenthetically after the verb, or without the comma. If we're using it parenthetically, we drop the "neither" and commute that negative over to "ever", and change "gets" to "get" as well.

      "Oh god, I hope neither you nor anyone else ever gets this to work."

      "Oh god, I hope you never get this to work (nor anyone else)."

      If you add in a third comma it's still wrong.
      "Oh god, I hope neither you, nor anyone else, ever gets this to work." Separating out "nor anyone else" with commas before the verb "gets" ties "gets" to "you", which is incorrect. Parenthesis should be used here if you want to keep "nor anyone else" before the verb in order to prevent any conjugation conflict.

      If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, do it correctly.

      If you're going to bitch about my use and nesting of quotation marks and punctuation at the beginning of my post, eat a dick. What is inside a quotation must be copied exactly. If it includes quotation marks, so be it. Nobody said it had to be easy (or unambiguous) to parse, and any attempt to use single quotes, block quotes, etc. can be foiled if you need to quote something containing them, so they do not provide complete disambiguation.

    9. Re:May I be the first to say by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      Too bad we aren't allowed to bring any sharp objects or weapons...I guess I will just have to slam my head against the wall till I pass out...

    10. Re:May I be the first to say by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Informative
      People don't tend to scream at the top of their lungs in an airplane,...

      They talk louder because they judge how well they are being heard by how well they hear themselves. Over the constant drone of jet engines, people have to talk louder to hear themselves. Thus, they assume they need to be that loud so the microphone just an inch away from their face can hear them.

      plus it is pressurized to reduce the need to scream further.

      "Pressurized" is a relative term. Standard cabin air pressure is around 8000 feet altitude. Less than sea level. The pressure is lower than normal, even though the cabin is "pressurized".

      If everyone has small chatter it actually creates a bit of a whitenoise effect = sleep.

      I don't know what airplanes you fly on, but on the ones here on earth, lots of people chatting isn't "white noise" by any stretch of the imagination. The people ahead/behind you are always louder and prevent any realistic averaging. HA HA HA YOU DIDN'T...

    11. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The plastic knives and forks supposedly don't work well for hijacking, but they should be okay to use on an in-flight yapper. For bonus points, use the spoon.

      "Why the spoon?"

      "It's dull. It will hurt more, you twit!"

    12. Re:May I be the first to say by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Funny

          Noise canceling headphones, with pressure relieving ear plugs.

          I've flown a few times with slight upper respiratory infection (because I had to, not that I wanted to). With that usually comes Eustachian tube dysfunction. That can range from annoying to painful. By painful, I mean feeling and hearing your eardrum ripping open, and then not being able to hear anything but a rattle for the next few days.

          So when I fly, I buy the pressure relieving ear plugs. They usually sell them in pharmacy stores and the gift shops at the airport. Over them, I wear decent noise canceling headphones. I can hear the movie, music, or my laptop, but I can be completely unaware of the person beside me.

          I've flown with crying babies and shrieking teenage girls near me. The only time I remove the headphones is when I want to ask the stewardess for another drink. :)

          Go for it kids, get your Skype working. Don't disturb my drinks and we're all fine.

          But please, I beg all of you. If your ass is as wide as two airline seats, PLEASE book two seats. No matter how large you are, you're not welcome to share my seat for an 8 hour flight. Don't complain that the seats are too small, when your BMI is over 40. Stop making excuses, and stop eating so much. Your weight is directly effected by your intake. That's all there is to it.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, "gets" is fine if you are using British English as opposed to American English. It is far more common this side of the Atlantic than "get".

    14. Re:May I be the first to say by daveime · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Yes, I'm on the plane now".

      "Well no shit Sherlock, I just dropped you at the airport. You'd hardly be likely to be on the elephant now, would you ?".

    15. Re:May I be the first to say by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      People seem to have no problem doing this attempting to have a convo on a busy street (times square for example), whats the big deal other than people complaining as if they have some logical reasoning? Sure, you don't want to hear about someone's gonorrhea, I get that. People don't tend to scream at the top of their lungs in an airplane, plus it is pressurized to reduce the need to scream further. If everyone has small chatter it actually creates a bit of a whitenoise effect = sleep.

      I assume you've never actually been on an airplane, then.

      There is perfect white noise coming from the engines and ventilation systems. Anything else disrupts the beautiful harmony of it.

      And sadly, there's some effect whereby earplugs actually magnify nearby talkers rather than quieting them; I think it's because they are more effective against the speech-frequency range of the ambient white noise, so your ears acclimatize and boost that range in "software".

      Cheap phone calls on airplanes would be hell. I would spend any amount on in-flight internet access just so I could nc /dev/random the entire flight and crowd all the Skypers off the air.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    16. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I am thinking that they don't want you talking on the phone in the airplane... but that is just an Anonymous Coward's opinion

    17. Re:May I be the first to say by Rayeth · · Score: 1

      Except you can't use gets, because the subject of the sentence is you, not everyone else. It may be popularly used, but I'm pretty sure even in British English no one would ever say: "You gets out of bed."

    18. Re:May I be the first to say by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Never been to Wales then, have you?

    19. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "either" pairs with "or".
      "neither" pairs with "nor".

      Either you forgot to post anonymously, or you are an idiot. I found your comment neither helpful nor polite.

    20. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've flown a few times with slight upper respiratory infection (because I had to, not that I wanted to).

      So you think your "had to fly" is more important than anyone else's "had to" not get sick.

      Asshole

    21. Re:May I be the first to say by tux0r · · Score: 1

      Your weight is directly effected by your intake.

      Randall, is that you? :)

      --
      ( Redundancy is ) ^ n
    22. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to escape any quotes inside your quote, otherwise you'll get a syntax error :)

    23. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love the earplug idea, gotta try that.

      As for your weight comment- go fuck yourself you biggotted asshole.

      Why not just let the flood gates open, tell us how much you hate gays and blacks now too, and give us your infallible stance on religion!

    24. Re:May I be the first to say by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Had to fly as in, I wouldn't have a job if I refused to work. In case you haven't noticed, getting a new job isn't as easy as it was a few years ago.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    25. Re:May I be the first to say by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          If I wanted someone sitting in my lap, I'd ask them to. The only people I've ever wanted in my personal space on an airplane were girlfriends, and we had very comfortable flights cuddled up under the crappy airline blanket watching the in-flight movie. You probably wouldn't understand that, being the statistical norm for here, you've never had a girl to hold hands with, much less be willing to be in your personal space.

          Would it be just as fair for me to prop my feet up on their lap during the flight? Hey, it's ok, you were in my personal space, I thought we were suddenly good friends, right? I'd love to have the extra space to stretch my legs out.

          If there were an extremely religious [gay|bi|straight] [man|woman] sitting beside me on the same flight, I'd be fine with it. We'd likely have a good conversation during the flight. But, if they shove their religion or sexuality on me through the flight, we're going to have some firm words about boundaries in casual conversation. Oddly enough, virtually all of the gay and bi, and very religious people I've known have been very respectful about sharing their opinions and listening to mine.

          Now go put the cheeseburger down and tub of ice cream down, and consider that you really only need 2,000 calories a day (if you're active), not the 20,000 that you're currently consuming as an after dinner snack.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    26. Re:May I be the first to say by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      uh what?

      I've flown both domestic and internationally. The only time the engines are noticably loud is during take-off and landing. The rest of the time, not so much.

      Oh not to mention, for security reasons (this was overseas from new york to israel) we made phonecalls mid-flight using those crap-phones. Plane is pretty quiet, really.

      What would be wrong with having a designated calling area on a plane, similar to smoking areas?

    27. Re:May I be the first to say by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      What would be wrong with having a designated calling area on a plane, similar to smoking areas?

      A designated calling area would be fine. SQ18/19 (RIP), the greatest economy-class flight of all, had a stand-up lounge and snack area in the back that tended to concentrate the gabbers, which was good for everyone. What I'm worried about is someone sitting right behind me yakking for 22 hours on one of the Asia-America flights I have to do constantly.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    28. Re:May I be the first to say by Monty_Lovering · · Score: 1

      What's biggoted about objecting to a fat person making your flight uncomfortable, because their (in 95% of cases) lack of restraint means their lard shares your seat with you?

      Be honest, someone being fat is normally THEIR fault, and something they can do something about.

      Someone being balck or gay does not make your flight uncomfortable if they sit next to you, is not something they can do something about, and is not 'a fault' based on lack of self control.

      Asshat.

    29. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monmouthshire != Wales?

    30. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't disagree that overweight people need to take responsibility for the amount of space they're taking up, your statement "Your weight is directly effected by your intake" is missing a lot of information. For someone who is overweight, if they are not also working out, going on a diet is likely to reduce their lean body mass, meaning that over the long run they're are going to get fatter.

      When you tell fat people that all they need to do is reduce what they eat, and they do, and then they get fatter, they give up entirely.

      If you're overweight, go see a nutritionist, maybe find an inexpensive trainer through a gym, don't just reduce your portions down to the point where you're uncomfortable but can handle it. In the short term you'll look thinner, but it'll be your muscles that are being reduced, not your fat. And that's going to lead to you ballooning up later.

    31. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're using "gets" for "you" when you should be using "get".

      The period goes inside the quotes.

      Parenthesis should be used here...

      Just one? How about "parentheses?"

      Nobody said it had to be easy (or unambiguous) to parse, and any attempt to use single quotes, block quotes, etc. can be foiled if you need to quote something containing them, so they do not provide complete disambiguation.

      Why did you feel the need to put a comma before "so?"

      If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, do it correctly.

      Ditt-motherfuckin'-o.

    32. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knew one missing 'n' could spark such debate? You guys need to get laid. By women.

    33. Re:May I be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pardon me, but do you have any panties that aren't in a bunch up your ass?

      No? Thanks anyway.

  5. maybe..... by L3370 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Do they possibly have Skype blocked from usage on this network?

  6. Internet on a plane by kentrel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes,

    You need to watch this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jETv3NURwLc

    1. Re:Internet on a plane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Internet on a plane by bigredradio · · Score: 1

      This was the first thing I thought of when I saw this article. I knew some knucklehead would bitch about the speed or the fact it does not work with his home-made Linux distribution. Thanks for the perspective.

    3. Re:Internet on a plane by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

      Obligatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/434/

  7. Skype... blocked or just sounded bad? by Zondar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They might have a way to block Skype, or it could just be a large amount of jitter from you to the Skype gateway you were trying to reach.

  8. Louis CK would be pleased. by E.+Edward+Grey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Skype did not work for voice, even though I'm pretty sure those stats are over the minimums.

    Everything is awesome and no one is happy!

    --

    ---don't make me break out my red pen.

    1. Re:Louis CK would be pleased. by Tengoo · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point

    2. Re:Louis CK would be pleased. by Xoltri · · Score: 1
      --
      -Xoltri
    3. Re:Louis CK would be pleased. by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      We'll be taking your kingdom now. Thanks for stopping by.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
  9. VOIP on planes = bad by gcnaddict · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We don't want to hear you talking on the phone while flying, and neither does Virgin.

    Logically, they likely blocked it in order to preserve the sanity of other passengers.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:VOIP on planes = bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? I would pay the random people sitting beside me on a plane to talk on the phone instead of trying to drag me into some inane conversation about their dog's recent illness.

    2. Re:VOIP on planes = bad by merreborn · · Score: 1

      We don't want to hear you talking on the phone while flying, and neither does Virgin.

      Logically, they likely blocked it in order to preserve the sanity of other passengers.

      The keyboard/controller device for the little computer in the back of every seat on Virgin's planes doubles as a phone handset, if I recall correctly. Because Virgin doesn't want you to talk on the phone on the plane... unless you're paying $2/min.

      Let's be honest: if they're doing anything to prevent skype from functioning, it's purely a financial decision.

    3. Re:VOIP on planes = bad by mcsqueak · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest: if they're doing anything to prevent skype from functioning, it's purely a financial decision.

      I've never seen anyone use an airplane phone. Granted, I've only flown 20 times total in my life thus far, but still... I don't think "forcing" people to use their phones is a decision that will really help them stay financially viable.

  10. Srsly? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe I'm just insufficiently wealthy, or insufficiently internet addicted; but is 13 dollars for what is essentially five hours of DSL actually exciting?

    1. Re:Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I was going to post the same. I'd much rather spend say $6.00 on a book and read it on the plane. Powering up a notebook and jabbering on tweeting on twitter about "omg, I am totally on the tubes from 30,000 ft." is just a waste of time and money.

    2. Re:Srsly? by Rycross · · Score: 1

      It is if you're stuck in a crowded, narrow tube for 5 hours, little to keep your mind off the situation.

    3. Re:Srsly? by PoliticalGamer · · Score: 1

      I think it is impressive that it is even possible. The price will probably work its way down eventually, but this shows that it can be done.

    4. Re:Srsly? by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess going from a single tube to a series of them is an improvement...

    5. Re:Srsly? by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I think it would be great down time to write or work on stuff that takes 5 hours of concentration that you rarely get in other places.

      That's actually why I like taking the train so much. It takes longer to get there, but I can't be distracted by all the "normal" things, so I work on stuff that doesn't get attention often.

    6. Re:Srsly? by redstar427 · · Score: 1

      Very exciting!

      Most plane trips are boring enough. Having access to the Internet would be worth that money to me.
      The cost of the plane ticket was far more money that the Internet fee.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Srsly? by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      When you're paying 300 or more for the flight, and you're sitting in a cramped tin can for 6 hours, 13 bucks for internet is a godsend. I just wish the power adaptor under my seat wasn't broken on my last flight.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    8. Re:Srsly? by netsavior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2 magazines at the airport gift shop could easily cost you $12.95, nobody bats an eye at that...

    9. Re:Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that your hard drive can be confiscated without any reason during immigration, yeah, I'd say internet access on international flights is pretty cool.

    10. Re:Srsly? by rm999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one who assumed they are targeting business travelers? 13 dollars is nothing to them, literally - their company pays for it.

      Internet on the plane is an awesome concept to the average person, but I think most people will change their mind when it comes down to typing in their credit card number.

    11. Re:Srsly? by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      Try paying 15 Euro for an hours worth internet in Schiphol.

    12. Re:Srsly? by lefiz · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right. I fly coast to coast for work dozens of times per year and being able to do research, keep up with emails, and be otherwise productive is great. And my clients are more than happy to pay $13 to allow me to work for 5-6 hours, rather than sit there not working, but still billing.

    13. Re:Srsly? by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Bring a blank HD with you, download the data from your home server on the way to the meeting, sync it back before heading home ...

    14. Re:Srsly? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      A bottle at the airport to replace the one they stole from you at the security gate will cost you $3.

    15. Re:Srsly? by PAjamian · · Score: 1

      Yes, when you can get work done on the flight at a rate of several times that per hour it is very much worth it.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    16. Re:Srsly? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      is 13 dollars for what is essentially five hours of DSL actually exciting?

      It is for freelancers like me; it means I can earn back the cost of the flight.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    17. Re:Srsly? by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      Try walking across the road from the train station entrance; there's a free hotspot in the lobby of whatever hotel is over there.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    18. Re:Srsly? by kisielk · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Especially if it has VPN access.

      The price at the new Vancouver Convention Center for a wireless 1.5/0.5 mbps conncetion with VPN is something like $120/day.

    19. Re:Srsly? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm just insufficiently wealthy, or insufficiently internet addicted; but is 13 dollars for what is essentially five hours of DSL actually exciting?

      I've routinely paid that much per day for access at hotels while traveling on business. For me, it was a cost of doing business. Now that I've gotten Boingo my costs are reduced dramatically at Boingo hotspot locations (~10/month). Beats tethering my Treo or iPhone.

      while it may be aimed at the business passenger it's still only two or three drinks on a transatlantic flight so I suspect you'll see more passengers spring for it; especially those with kids who'll spend the entire flight on chat with friends and not be bugging their parents. "OMG I'm on a plane"

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    20. Re:Srsly? by pdbaby · · Score: 1

      Might I recommend a book? It's a lot cheaper (as long as you aren't a faster reader, anyway). I've also found an iPod to be handy when I want to give my eyes / neck a rest

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    21. Re:Srsly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine playing your favorite MMO while on a plane. By the time you land, you've gained like 3 levels, gotten some sweet gear and you have no idea that 15 hours just went by. Makes the whole plane trip sound much more appealing than listening to the guy next to you talk about this great new MLM venture he'd like you to participate in.

    22. Re:Srsly? by silent_artichoke · · Score: 1

      And that's not counting the rum that was in it.

    23. Re:Srsly? by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      There was this one guy who told me about this awesome idea he had for making soap. Out of liposuction clinics. Can you believe it?

  11. Traceroute? by maxrate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A traceroute to (anything) would have been very interesting.

    1. Re:Traceroute? by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Tracing route to www.l.google.com [74.125.45.103]
      over a maximum of 30 hops:

          1 3 ms 1 ms 1 ms linksys.local [192.168.1.1]
          2 4 ms 2 ms 6 ms really.powerful.transmitter [192.168.1.0]
          3 424 ms 527 ms 530 ms secret.router.on.the.moon.moo [127.0.0.2]
          4 830 ms 832 ms 927 ms pwnt.by.brazil.sat.mil [403.406.408.410]
          5 84 ms 79 ms 79 ms GOOGLE-INC.FTL.warp.Level3.net [4.71.20.22]
          6 52 ms 53 ms 51 ms yx-in-f103.google.com [74.125.45.103]

      Trace complete.

    2. Re:Traceroute? by breakfastpirate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is the .moo TLD reserved only for celestial bodies whose composition is above 50% dairy?

    3. Re:Traceroute? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, it's reserved for MOOs. secret.router.on.the.moo.MOO is actually a text-based VR specializing in dusty conspiracy theory role-playing. And furries.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Traceroute? by DaleGlass · · Score: 1

      For furries, there's the .fur TLD on OpenNIC

  12. Linky by E.+Edward+Grey · · Score: 3, Funny
    --

    ---don't make me break out my red pen.

  13. Skype is Not Blocked by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably blocked everything VoIP related to force airphones on you.

    From the article:

    I'm trying to get some critical production tasks done, and the rep I work with emailed me to call her. Thinking I was so tricky and cool, I fired up Skype and dialed out. Massive failure. For some reason the sound is horrendously choppy and thin sounding. It was completely unusable. I didn't get a chance to speak and see how I sounded on the other end. I tried dialing the Skype test call, but I only caught every other word.

    Sounds like he could connect, it was just choppy.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by frieko · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat theory: they could throttle Skype packets just enough to "make it look like an accident" that it doesn't work.

    2. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could still be throttled to those amounts. So it allows text chatting but not voice...

      That said, average speed of 0.9 megaBITS? 900kb/s connection? And if that is average, it means that half the time it is below that... No wonder if it is hard to use Skype, especially if he has any other traffic.

    3. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat theory: they could throttle Skype packets just enough to "make it look like an accident" that it doesn't work.

      I knew there was a reason why I route all my traffic through a VPN when I use connections I don't own......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by lefiz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have an asterisk PBX at work, and have used my VPN to connect to the box using SIP and AIX from multiple Virgin flights (some full, some empty). All of the calls, through any configuration, were choppy (though the call remained connected). I think its a combination of latency, jitter, and the bandwidth that ruin the call quality. Although it was choppy, I could check my voicemail (download side) but voicemails that I left for others (upload side) were nearly incomprehensible. I was getting pings greater that the OP, despite getting slightly faster speeds.

    5. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      My experience would suggest that the jitter is more to blame than the latency. It's kind of cool that it worked well enough to check your voicemail though. I'd probably be content with that -- who wants to be making a bunch of phone calls from the airplane anyway?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by daveime · · Score: 1

      I was using Skype on a 33.6k modem years ago ... AFAIK, it self-adjusts to the pipe available, so don't think it's the bandwidth that's the problem.

    7. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by silent_artichoke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly, nobody wants to hear some asshole yammering into his laptop for a 4 hour flight. "WHAT?!? YES!!! I'M FLYING...FLYING. I SAID I'M FLYING!!!" Shut the fuck up already! Send a text message or something. Those people do NOT need to hear from you because (wait for it) YOU ARE FLYING, ASSHOLE! Shakrai, this wasn't aimed at you in particular. It's just that you are the first one to bring this up so far.

    8. Re:Skype is Not Blocked by NMEismyNME · · Score: 1

      And who wants to listen to you making a bunch of phone calls, for that matter?

      Sounds like a job for Larry David

  14. Banned VOIP by Reber+Is+Reber · · Score: 2, Informative

    Joining American Airlines, Virgin America has demoed its in-flight Gogo broadband service. Official policy for Virgin Airlines is to block VoIP parts, but, rather than just let sleeping dogs lie, it seems to be a rite of passage for tech media wonks to demo work-around as they write about their experiences. From: http://www.fiercevoip.com/story/no-voip-blocking-virgin-america-beta-voip-holes-aa/2008-11-23

  15. Welcome by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    "AWESOME. In fact, I'm posting this from 36,000 feet right now."

    Let me be the first to welcome you to the Mile High Virgin Club.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Welcome by johannesg · · Score: 1

      He certainly came to the right site for virgin americans...

  16. Any ideas what might be going on? by kindbud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any ideas from the slashdotters on what might be going on?

    No. Is there anything else I can help you with?

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  17. Your choice by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any ideas from the slashdotters on what might be going on?

    It's the "block the VOIP" feature which tested much more positively than "kill the annoying guy on the phone" with focus groups.

    1. Re:Your choice by Bandman · · Score: 1

      Damn, I've already commented in this thread, but I LOL'd.

    2. Re:Your choice by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine why.

    3. Re:Your choice by Clever7Devil · · Score: 1

      It sounds like they're not outright blocking VOIP (yes, I get that it was a joke, bear with me) but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that they're screwing with VOIP traffic. Don't they already provide phone service on board? Sounds like what I would do to protect that business.

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
  18. RF on planes? by Avatar889 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I thought they explicitly banned RF devices from being operated on planes for "security reasons"?

    Did they also make a whole bunch of changes to the plane or did they actually test to see if it would cause any harm (like the FAA prevented the MythBusters from doing).

    I for one can't wait to fall out of the sky because some 12 year old needs to download his pr0n faster, so he brings a yagi on the plane.

    --
    Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementia (There is no great genius without a mixture of madness) - Aristotle
    1. Re:RF on planes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they banned RF devices from operating on planes for 'financial reasons'. Those $4/minute calls wont happen if johnny customer can yap away on his celly cell under 10,000 feet, or on his skype/vent chat thingymabober over the great series of tubes.

  19. Compared to other bogus airline charges . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . you at least get something for the extra money.

    As opposed to those other airline surcharges, like: extra baggage charge, security charge, too little baggage charge, late charge, early charge, right on time charge, homeland security charge, screaming kid charge, lack of screaming kid charge . . .

    "Hello, and welcome to our flight. In order to ensure Homeland Security, alcoholic beverages will now cost $20 each. And non-alcoholic beverages will not be served."

    "Our toilets are fitted with lapping sensors, so don't even dream of doing the family dog thing."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  20. Did you even try online gaming? by netsavior · · Score: 1

    seriously, no WoW raid, no TF2 performance stats?

    1. Re:Did you even try online gaming? by atari2600 · · Score: 1

      Yea like wow raiders ever get out. Also, raid times don't revolve around someone flying.

  21. I tried this, it was good by vmxeo · · Score: 1

    I tried this service several weeks ago between LA and NYC. While I didn't try Skype, I did RDP back to my computer back at my office through a VPN. Surprisingly, it worked quite well. There was also a novel trill in people asking where you were, and giving them a location 30,000 ft above some midwest state. Having outlets underneath the seat was nice too. Those perks alone are *almost* enough for me to dump JetBlue as my priamry airline of choice and fly Virgin America. But sadly, their routes and time schedules aren't quite there for me yet. Maybe someday soon...

  22. Crypto by t00le · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You might want to try to vpn into work or home, then try to use Skype. Chances are they filtering what ports are allowed, so going through a crypto tunnel will remove this ability.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
    1. Re:Crypto by t00le · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't added QoS into my original post. If you VPN into work or home you can remove their ability to filter or tag your connections through a VPN. By tunneling everything through a VPN it would be a true test since anyone with a clue will set crypto traffic with a high priority on a border network.

      If it's still unusable it will be due to errors on the transmission, which with tcp would be classed as slowness. With UDP it would be missing packets that are not re-transmitted.

      An analogy, in quake w/ tcp code you would hump a wall when lagged, but with udp you would teleport through the wall.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail
    2. Re:Crypto by Shadow-isoHunt · · Score: 1

      Actually the difference inbetween NetQuake and Quakeworld performance was the addition of clientside motion prediction... it really had very little to do with TCP or UDP. Prior to that, a client had to wait ~300ms for a status update before you were allowed to move, or other players would move. With client side prediction, for a limited period of time you can keep moving in the world even after you've lagged out, and the other players will get a predicted path of movement until you come back. If you've been lagged out for too long you get the "teleportation" problem when your packets finally reach the server, because you didn't follow the client-side predicted path and the server just told the other clients you're elsewhere. It still beats netquake.

      --
      www.isoHunt.com
    3. Re:Crypto by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      An analogy, in quake w/ tcp code you would hump an invisible wall when lagged, but with udp you would teleport through the wall.

      There, fixed that for you

  23. I hope by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

    Any of you fellow nerds will make your laptop adhoc/an access point to share the connection if you end up buying service.

    Or, better yet, offer a discounted rate for the above and make some or more of your money back :D

    --
    from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    1. Re:I hope by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Using your laptop wirelessly to connect to other laptops is against FAA rules, duh.

    2. Re:I hope by PRMan · · Score: 1

      So connect 30,000 feet down to your home PC across town to their PC and back up 30,000 feet.

      See, no problem.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  24. maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    you couldn't use skype because the connection was likely via satellite and that usually means you get to download really big packets really fast, but a lot of small packets could be highly inefficient I THINK

  25. Your fellow passengers are thankful... by pongo000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Skype did not work for voice, even though I'm pretty sure those stats are over the minimums.

    1. Re:Your fellow passengers are thankful... by plague3106 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I don't get this; your screaming brats are a-ok, but someone talking on the phone is not? As if all people that talk on their phone end up screaming.

    2. Re:Your fellow passengers are thankful... by EkriirkE · · Score: 1

      Ok. No. Yes. Yes.

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    3. Re:Your fellow passengers are thankful... by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, screaming brats are NOT okay. But the only proven method for shutting them up tends to be frowned upon in most legal circles. However, the constant nattering of someone on the phone does not need to be added to the situation. I fail to see how VoIP and screaming kids are even close to analogous. There's factors such as "kid's ticket was paid for, person being chatted with did not purchase ticket." Thus, it's in their interests to keep things as quiet as possible for the people who have actual tickets.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Your fellow passengers are thankful... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      But the only proven method for shutting them up tends to be frowned upon in most legal circles.

      What, you mean parents actually being in control of thier children? Or not taking them on a plane until they are able to do so?

      However, the constant nattering of someone on the phone does not need to be added to the situation.

      Sorry, if you want to ban phones, I want to ban kids.

      I fail to see how VoIP and screaming kids are even close to analogous.

      You're right; the screaming kids are far more irritating.

      There's factors such as "kid's ticket was paid for, person being chatted with did not purchase ticket."

      And you're not hearing the person on the other end of the phone; just the person who actually bought the ticket. This point is just plain stupid, I think you'll have to admit. Buying a ticket doesn't give a kid any right to be annoying, and if you're going to complain about one, I don't see why I can't complain about the other.

      Thus, it's in their interests to keep things as quiet as possible for the people who have actual tickets.

      I agree; don't allow small children on planes, and I'll go with your ban on phones. Unless you're willing to do that, I'm going to push to allow phones. Don't like it? Though, I bought a ticket, and I didn't get to kick your screaming kid off the plane.

    5. Re:Your fellow passengers are thankful... by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Honestly? I'd not mind if they banned kids from certain flights. You'd never get a full ban through. That'd get you a whole whack of discrimination and civil rights suits. Not to mention that sometimes, a kid's perfectly behaved until take-off, so saying "not letting them on until they behave" doesn't work. So yeah, they have movie times set aside for people with small children, why not flights?

      They could bill them as "noisy and non-noisy flights." Noisy, you can make phone calls, have kids, etc etc. Non-noisy, if you disturb other passengers, you get an FAA fine, or put on a no-fly list, or something.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  26. The Mile High Club... by Drone69 · · Score: 0

    ...prevents me from any time for the internets.

  27. Next time try MSN messenger... by Brit_in_the_USA · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...you can send wave file samples and receive them as "packets" using the record button. Start with this 2 way radio approach to talking and see where you can go from there.

  28. Fools! by oldhack · · Score: 0

    If you actually RTFA, you'd see it ends with "...^$#$#@G^@#@&^*... Lost carrier".

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  29. Blocking by district · · Score: 0

    There is a phone ban on airplanes now, which seems to apply to the calling itself rather than the device used (i.e. skype is out.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/31/congress-upholds-cell-pho_n_116187.html This article mentions it in relation to the new wi-fi service. http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/communications/0,39044192,39365108,00.htm

  30. Voip in the sky by Igarden2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If there is a god in the sky, voip will stay blocked.
    I can't imagine sitting around someone who is talking incessantly on a phone on an airplane.
    I don't care to listen to my own family members talk on a telephone for any length of time.

    --
    Normally I ascribe all life to intelligent design, but in your case I'll make an exception.
  31. It's not supposed to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skype (and other VOIP apps) don't work on GoGo inflight internet by design.
    I happen to be in a position to know.

    1. Re:It's not supposed to work by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      [[Citation needed]]

  32. Why pay for this by qbzzt · · Score: 1

    Depends on the reason you're flying.

    Business travel is sometimes "fire fighting". There is a big problem, so the company flies in an expert to fix it (or at least diagnose and convince the customer a fix is forthcoming).

    In this situation, being able to work on the problem remotely while in the air is a good thing.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
  33. In Flight by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

    Virgin American In-Flight Internet Review, From In-Flight

    Which would be far better if the blog in which this was written was called "In-Flight". And if this person was on the run from the law. Then we'd have "Virgin American In-Flight Internet Review, From In-Flight, On In-Flight, In-Flight".

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
  34. No by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, UDP packets are many small packets which may perform badly over connections of very high latency. Your bandwidth readings on a TCP sight might look just large enough to use Skype but since it's a UDP service it could be unusable.

    Not to be an asshole, but why has the above been modded "informative"?

    All voice traffic is UDP. TCP wouldn't make any sense for streaming. Skype uses separate flows for chat, voice, and control. UDP is perfect for connections with very high latency because it can fill the pipe. Try using a straight TCP flow on a 2Mbps satellite connection. Good luck if you can use more than 800Kbps. ACKs will kill you.

    --
    End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    1. Re:No by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd say this on /. - but you need more windows.

      (pun intended, here's an explanation if you don't get it)

    2. Re:No by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      Did you understand what I said in my reply to the eldavojohn's post, which was total poppycock btw, and which for an incomprehensible reason got modded "5 informative"? I was talking about *one* flow (in this case, streaming sound). It helps to have larger windows in TCP over high latency links, but that's not what we're talking about here.

      Shouldn't mods have a minimum comprehension of the subject before modding posts for the content, or am I expecting too much?

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoooooosh*

  35. Re:Your choice: Skypes on a plane? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    It's the "block the VOIP" feature which tested much more positively than "kill the annoying guy on the phone" with focus groups.

    Odd, I would have expected the latter to be much more entertaining. Certainly more so than the movie.

  36. Latency would be *bad* by w0mprat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was an early adopter of WAN wireless internet in my area. While reasonable download speeds *could* be achieved on average the latency was terrible. Essentially the latency of data traversing the cellphone networks with some proprietary transmission protocol was unavoidable, since these networks were never designed for Teh Internets. Indeed you don't really notice 200-300ms of unstable latency when you're on a mobile call, but you do when your trying to shunt data over it the same network. All up, I had a 5mbps connection where a minimum latency floor of 300-350ms to local servers was the norm. These days with new GPRS through to HSDPA or whatever, things are a bit better.

    The same with something in flight internet.

    I would have been more interested in your pings to Google.com I bet they would have been rubbish.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  37. Great streaming porn by ItsPaPPy · · Score: 0

    Just what we need the ability to pull up your favorite porno streaming site and have some kid jacking it in the bathroom. Its bad enough you can only use 1 bathroom per your section of the plane.

  38. Southwest airlines testing now by Eharley · · Score: 5, Informative

    Southwest is testing Wi-Fi on four of its planes now. I was on one on a flight from Las Vegas to Baltimore. They sent me an email the day before telling me that the plane would have wi-fi and that it would be free during this test period.

    The speed was fantastic, but I didn't benchmark it. However, I was able to do a video iChat with my wife at home. Didn't try to do any audio, just video.

    The big drawback about Southwest is that their planes have no power outlets. Not sure if they're going to add them. But they're aware of the issue.

    1. Re:Southwest airlines testing now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wife??

    2. Re:Southwest airlines testing now by kd5zex · · Score: 1

      They will probably install outlets in each seating area, but the catch is that there will be one less than the number of seats in the seating areas.

    3. Re:Southwest airlines testing now by naturaverl · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered while flying why there aren't any outlets in the passenger area. Even 12-volt car receptacles would be nice. Is it that the FAA deems it too much of a (fire | shock | malicious act) hazard?

    4. Re:Southwest airlines testing now by markttu · · Score: 1

      I was on a WiFi SWA plane last week. It benchmarked at 5meg down and about 300k up. Ping time was ~800 ms. I don't have the tracert anymore, but service on SWA is provided via http://www.row44.com/

    5. Re:Southwest airlines testing now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I flew internationally with emirates at the end of last year and every seat in the plane was within reach of an outlet; yes, even in ecconomy. worst case scenario you'd have to plug into the outlet on the next seat in front of you, instead of the one in front of you.

      i'd expect that most long haul planes would be kitting up like that these days, since pretty much everyone is carrying a number of electronic devices that need charging to last the length of a flight.

  39. Skype and video games probobly won't work. by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

    Skype and video games will probably never work because of the huge latency of satellite communications. Pretty much anything that is real time is going to be tough over a consumer grade satellite connection. I mean I play video games over the internet with my tethered cellphone and that is pushing it and the latency of cellular connections is lower by orders of magnitude then satellite connections.

    But having any internet connection, especially one with decent bandwidth, is a god send to any buisness traveler or slashdot reader =].

    Besides I will start taking trains if they allow skype on the plane. I mean how long before you have 50 people talking while your trying to sleep.

    1. Re:Skype and video games probobly won't work. by Princeofcups · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been working as a contractor for Aircell, the company behind the network, and it is not satellite, except for a few points. The network is 100 cell phone towers to T1 to internet. Max bandwidth is 3Mb. And yes VoIP is blocked for obvious reasons.

      For more info, check out aircell.com.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    2. Re:Skype and video games probobly won't work. by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      I've been working as a contractor for Aircell, the company behind the network, and it is not satellite, except for a few points. The network is 100 cell phone towers to T1 to internet. Max bandwidth is 3Mb. And yes VoIP is blocked for obvious reasons.

      For more info, check out aircell.com.

      Wow, thanks that was truly enlightening. So this is based off of the cellular receivers that they have been working on. That is such a better solution than using satellite. This sure is promising then and probably a lot more affordable and a heck of a lot more reliable than a satellite connection.

      I use a cellular internet connection (it works with a little tweak for the HTC fuze, which is built into all of the custom ROMs) for extended periods of times and I never have a problem with it. It is pretty fast and latency is significantly higher than standard connection but no where near enough to be unusable.

      It is good to know they are going to keep the cellular connection to internet only (hopefully) and that they blocked VoIP. I mean its already noisy enough on a plane with people just talking to each other, I couldn't imagine a whole business section yapping on the phone.

      I just hope more planes get this technology and it is good that it has proven to not interfere with the plane and now its just a matter of investing in the equipment.

       

  40. Used this years ago by Wayfare · · Score: 1

    I used Connexion by Boeing over the Atlantic on SAS about 5 years ago or so. The speeds were good considering I was 36,000 feet above the water somewhere between Iceland and Greenland. The prices were similar then, I think. I used it for a few hours just browsing and chatting and didn't run into any problems. I would pay for it again, but only on long haul flights.

    Connexion shut down due to financial feasibilty, is this the same satellite network but with new owners?

  41. Let me take a shot at it... by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfscking skypes on this motherfscking plane!"

    but seriously: I've done some pretty serious coding and work with VoIP using several codecs and most are very bad at dealing with high latency connections -- variable latency is even worse. This has been pointed out several times in here already.

    The pipe is big enough, but it's too long. {Insert your own joke here}

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  42. plane pr0n by TheKidYo · · Score: 1

    i hope they put a "no laptop" sign on the lavatory doors or at least add a section in the safety video before take off about eyes falling out or hair growing on your hands

  43. Re:Skype and latency by BraksDad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skype worked for me over hughesnet from the middle of missouri. That network has serious latency issues.

    --
    Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  44. obviously by onionlee · · Score: 1

    obviously no phones allowed during flights.
    duh.

  45. Jitter Buffer by pathological+liar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Asterisk 1.4+ has a jitter buffer for at least IAX and SIP which helps to work around jitter in most cases. Given that they know what they're doing, I assume Skype does too.

    Jitter is (relatively) okay, it's packet loss that VoIP is particularly sensitive to. Packet loss at levels that will only mildly inconvenience most other traffic will screw up VoIP quite badly... there's no mention of packet loss in the article that I see, but I suspect that's what's causing the poor quality.

    1. Re:Jitter Buffer by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GSM codec popularized by mobile phones, and commonly used by VoIP packages actually tolerates bit and packet loss quite well.

      It uses a progressive refining encoding, and a probabilistic packet layout to keep the core 'shape' of the sound through all but the most severe conditions, so that losses are likely to only affect the details.

      It also specifies protocols for 'looping' previous datagrams in a way that makes it easier to understand what was being said through such losses.

      Keeping in mind that there's actually extremely little temporal detail in human speech, it's possible (and in my mind, hopeful) that what you were experiencing is the result of the airline deliberately choking known VoIP providers, in order to not end up with a plane full of jerks yelling into their laptop for a six hour flight.

    2. Re:Jitter Buffer by pathological+liar · · Score: 1

      It uses a progressive refining encoding, and a probabilistic packet layout to keep the core 'shape' of the sound through all but the most severe conditions, so that losses are likely to only affect the details

      If you'd read the article (I know, it's Slashdot etc) you'd know that's exactly what he's describing. The sound was choppy and 'thin' -- that's what happens when you add more jitter or packet loss than the setup can cope with. All things being equal I'm guessing it's not jitter, it's outright packet loss because...

      it's possible (and in my mind, hopeful) that what you were experiencing is the result of the airline deliberately choking known VoIP providers, in order to not end up with a plane full of jerks yelling into their laptop for a six hour flight.

      I doubt it. I'm sure it's a fairly limited pipe and I'm sure thought has been put into QoS but I doubt very much that they're specifically targeting VoIP traffic. What's more likely is that if the pipe is actually full their shaping is dropping some voice packets, on top of the existing packet loss from the system. You can easily get choppy, thin voice on bad residential DSL, I have no doubt you could get it even on good airplane wifi.

    3. Re:Jitter Buffer by EdIII · · Score: 1

      in order to not end up with a plane full of jerks yelling into their laptop for a six hour flight.

      in order to not end up with passengers killing a plane full of jerks yelling into their laptop for a six hour flight.

      There fixed it for you :)

  46. my experience by madcat2c · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I recently had the chance to use wireless on a delta flight, and it was $9.99 for the duration of the flight. I didn't use it because the flight was just one hour, but on my connecting flight to France there was no internet. I could have used it on that flight as it took almost 11 hours.

  47. great by moondo · · Score: 1

    Having internet access might be a great way to increase security aboard a plane.

  48. RFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        That's close, but I'm not sure your technical jargon is exactly how I learned it. :)

    I'm sure the jargon can be made official-like by including it in an RFC published on April 1.

  49. .90 mbps ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Avg. .90 megabits/sec DL, .283 megabits/sec UL"

    You mean 0.9 mbps DL and 0.283 mbps UL ?
    Is it standard practice in English to drop the leading zero ? or is this a marketing trick to mislead readers ?

    1. Re:.90 mbps ? by llevity · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's standard, but it's pretty common. I don't know about marketing trick. Usually context is enough to figure it out.

      I mean, the difference between 0.283 and 283 is significant to make someone double take, and find that leading decimal point, I'd think.

  50. .90 mbps ? by matt007 · · Score: 1

    "Avg. .90 megabits/sec DL, .283 megabits/sec UL"

    You mean 0.9 mbps DL, and 0.283 mbps UL ?
    Is it standard practice in English to drop the leading zero ? or is this a marketing trick to mislead readers ?

  51. Why electronics are banned on planes: by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Why electronics are banned on planes:

    Unlike the conspiracy theory that "they want you to pay for Airphone services", electronics are banned for two reasons:

    (1) For cell phones, a cell phone in a plane is "seen" by far too many cells and generally confuses the cell network. This is the same reason that they were relatively useless for locating the missing hikers, in recent history, on Mount Hood, which has the same altitude-based issue.

    (2) For all electronics, the (now very old, but not yet replaced in all US airports/aircraft) ILS/LOC systems are oversensitive to electronic interference, which is why you are required to shut portable electronics off on takeoff and landing, when an emergency might require their use(*).

    [*] ILS/LOC was supposed to be replaced by MLS, but with the advent of GPS and the hopes that it could be used instead, few MLS systems were deployed in the US, and most that were have been shut down. Instead, the GPS-based WAAS is being deployed instead, which broadcasts differential corrections for the intentional GPS "wobble" that was intended to prevent GPS being used by an adversary for targeting purposes (meaning it's still usable for that, if you include WAAS). Fears about the ability of the US to "turn off" GPS signals on a theatre-basis have led to continued deployment of MLS in Europe.

    See also:

            http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html
            http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Landing_System
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System

    -- Terry

    1. Re:Why electronics are banned on planes: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? ILS uses frequencies around 100 MHz, mobile phones use at least 400 MHz and most are above 900 MHz. If the ILS receiver is going to be interfered with by the mobile phone system, it will be the towers broadcasting at thousands of watts, not the handsets. And the towers are broadcasting no matter where the phone is.

      Your second point does not stand up to cursory examination.

  52. Virgin America's WiFi is Awesome I agree by johntdavies · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure why you didn't get Skype working, Skype's a little temperamental at times I guess. I had a full video link for almost an hour while flying over the Rockies, amusingly of the 8 people in first class 7 of them had Macs and we were all surfing the web at 39,000 feet. The connection was pretty much perfect, I got similar speeds too, there appeared to be no restrictions on ports so I was able to run a VPN and SSH, I could even watch BBC iPlayer films via VPN to the UK. I did try to log a few devices in at the same time and it was interesting to see that you could log in a second device with the same password but it instantly disabled the previous device. This means that you can't use your iPhone (for example) at the same time as your laptop, log back in though and it works fine. A small price to pay. I'm hooked, I'm a geek yes but this is technology, why has it taken so long to provide something so simple? Thank you Virgin. -John-

  53. If you can ask me to not take up extra seatage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Can I get you to stop reclining into my knees?

    Im 6'4, my body frame will be large no matter how skinny I am, and yes I can wear a seatbelt without an extension.

    Do you think I can shrink by not eating?

    1. Re:If you can ask me to not take up extra seatage by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You're a different matter.

          I'm 5'8", and my knees hit too. But at least I'm not leaving fat rolls in the adjoining seats.

          I agree, they really need to do something about the forward spacing of the seats. Slipping my laptop bag under the seat in front of me is more of a magic trick than a boarding task.

          But be happy that I don't lean my seat back, unless the seat behind me is empty or there's a kid in it.

          I prefer to opt for the first class upgrades. No fat rolls. Sometimes I can't even touch the seat in front of me with my feet. I did that once in row 1. I had to slide my butt to the front edge of the seat to be able to touch the wall. It was refreshing and entertaining. :) The free booze didn't hurt the trip either. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:If you can ask me to not take up extra seatage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow dude!

      The community at large thinks you're an asshole; can't say I disagree either!

      Think some soul searching is in order?

    3. Re:If you can ask me to not take up extra seatage by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I never claimed I wasn't one.

          Obesity is a self induced problem. I was on my way to being overweight once. Not obese, but I saw the problem and took care of it. I started exercising more, and eating less. For years now, I've maintained a BMI of about 23. It was a personal problem, and I took care of it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  54. Used Delta's in flight last X-mas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Streamed football on my Sling Player and used Google Talk with headphones to my step-dad in Pittsburgh. I typed and he talked. Didn't want to bother the person next to me and I didn't know how loud I would have to be. No latency and the quality was exactly like using my tethered phone in a car.

  55. Why Skype didn't work: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it had, we would have cellphones on planes, and in the middle of your stupid podcast, 30 or so people close to you would have lost it and ripped you apart.

  56. In-Flight Internet Review, From The Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing like having your overbearing boss micro-manage from 35,000 feet up.

  57. FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two way communications are illegal according to FCC/FAA regulations even if they are not radio. That is why they block Skype. They probably do so by blocking UDP protocol communication. Skype uses UDP because it ensures packets are delivered in the order they are sent even if some take longer than others to get through the Internet.Has anyone tried Google chat video on VA?

  58. ssh and $12.95 of bliss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ssh into a server and tunnel skype through that, and skype will be fine...

    and yes, $12.95 for 5 hours of DSL is totally worth it when you're flying cross country regularly - you can only by so much magazine content for $12.95 unless you're going to haul massive weighty tomes of dead trees with you on flights all the time. I always bring a ton of reading material anyway, but I'm glad for the service. Nice to see this in the states, international airlines had this years ago...

  59. YooYoo.info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Video clips from all genres

  60. Great Experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I flew from JFK to SFO on AA and used gogo. My experience was awesome. I did a speed test using speakeasy.net/speedtest and got 3.0MB d/l and almost the same u/l. I was able to use skype (text chat only - didn't try voice, didn't want to be obnoxious). I also streamed a movie with zero lag using netflix AND used my slingbox to watch my home cable tv service. All thumbs up from me!!!!

  61. Sounds familar by greenfield · · Score: 1

    In fact, the original post and the referenced article is very similar to a comment I made two months ago regarding American Airlines offering wifi. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1182095&cid=27401567

    --

    --Sam