Google Gives the Gift of Free Airport Wi-Fi

itwbennett writes "Google is giving you something to be thankful for as you travel this holiday season. The company announced today that it is offering free Wi-Fi at 47 airports across the US between now and January 15. If you haven't booked your flights yet, you want to factor this into your plans. Here's a list of the 47 airports, which cover about 35% of all US passengers, according to Google. The Burbank and Seattle airports will continue to offer the free Google Wi-Fi indefinitely." The HuffPo notes another altruistic note in Google's gesture: "As another way to pass on the spirit of the season, once they log on to networks in any of the participating airports, travelers will have the option [of making] a donation to Engineers Without Borders, the One Economy Corporation, or the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. Google will match the donations made across all the networks up to $250,000, and the airport network that generates the highest amount per passenger by January 1, 2010 will receive $15,000 to donate to the local nonprofit of their choice."

Comments

To "the season"

[alexborges]

Fuck the season

Fuck the horse (or "raindear") it rode in on.

And fuck the "spirit" of whatever the hell makes you feel all twingly inside and more "giving"

You are either a good person or an asshole, regardless of the time of the year.

Re:To "the season"

[DesScorp]

You are either a good person or an asshole, regardless of the time of the year.

So good of you to represent the assholes.

Train stations

[tirerim]

Great. Now how about some train stations to go with those airports? Boston South Station, New York Penn Station, Philadelphia 30th Street Station, and Washington Union Station would be a good start. Add Chicago Union Station and Los Angeles Union Station for those outside the Northeast Corridor.

Re:Copying MS?

[dgatwood]

Sadly, this is next to useless because it doesn't cover any of the airports you are likely to be flying through. None of the major airline hub cities except Las Vegas and Miami are included on the list. Not DFW, not Atlanta, not Denver, not LAX, not Salt Lake City, not Cincinnati, not Chicago, not JFK.

Unless you're a complete fool, you probably have a pretty good idea how early to get to the airport to fly, and for most of us, that means printing your boarding pass from home before you leave, and arriving an hour before the plane leaves. That gives you thirty minutes through security, ten minutes in the airport, and then you're gone. There's very little time to use Wi-Fi, though I suppose if my plane were delayed out of San Jose due to maintenance problems, it might be marginally useful.

Similarly, when you get to your destination, Wi-Fi is the last thing you're thinking about. You're making a beeline for the luggage conveyor (if you checked any), then a beeline for the taxi stand or the pickup area or the car rental place. So although it's nice in theory that I could get free Wi-Fi when I get to Nashville, the fact of the matter is that I won't use it there, either, nor on my return trip.

The one part of your trip that you're not in control over---the one part of your trip where you actually spend a significant amount of time sitting in the airport twiddling your thumbs---is that three or four hour layover. Statistically speaking, this is almost always going to be in Dallas/Fort-Worth, Atlanta, Chicago, LAX, or Denver---maybe Las Vegas if you are flying from somewhere in the western U.S. to somewhere else in the western U.S., but even then, you're much more likely to go through LAX.

So it's a nice idea in principal, but in practice, you'd have a hard time picking worse airports in terms of improving things for U.S. passengers. The airports listed are almost never used for connections except maybe puddle jumper biplanes out to Lexington, KY or something. I mean, I guess they could have picked Jackson, TN (MKL), Milan's Linate Airport (LIN), and Air Europa (UX) or something, but....

Re:heh

[moosesocks]

If a plane can be brought down by a weak 2.4Ghz transmission, we have other *much* more serious issues to consider.

The planes should be tested against the most powerful transmission equipment that somebody could possibly smuggle on board the aircraft, not the other way around. RF shielding isn't exactly rocket science, and one would hope that any critical circuitry would already be shielded, given the crazy electromagnetic stuff that happens in the upper atmosphere where the planes happen to spend most of their time.