Slashdot Mirror
Ars Looks At In-Flight Internet — State of the Art vs. Things To Come
Ars Technica has posted an absorbing article about the short history of Internet and cell-phone access for passengers aboard commercial airplanes, which does a lot to sate my curiosity about the factors holding it back, and gives some ideas about what to look forward to. An excerpt: "Despite the volume of equipped aircraft, we're still in the early days and the continued availability of mile-high WiFi is certainly not guaranteed. It's an expensive, long-term investment to supply consistent and usable broadband Internet service at 35,000 feet. Surveys show people want access, but it's unclear how much (or even if) they'll pay for it. Aircell says that 20 percent of passengers on equipped cross-country flights use its service, but it's mum about numbers on shorter segments."
Since my software company is still mostly regional in nature, it's rare for me to fly more than a 1-2 hour hop at a time. It's barely worth pulling my laptop out at all since I have to wait until about 15-30 minutes until after boarding to begin, and have to put things away 15-30 minutes before actually getting off the plane.
If there was some way that I could sit down, plug in and sign on, and use my computer while the plane is preflighted, taxi, waiting at the taxiway, takeoff, and then final descent from 10,000 to landed and departing the plane, I'd be far, far more likely to pay for the short-ish hops that I tend towards.
And don't give me the "radio interference" crap - there's no evidence at all to support this and it's routinely ignored by anybody in the industry. Think about it: how many routine flyers, do you think, have forgotten to turn off their phone when they sit down, or just didn't bother? How many incidents have occurred as a result?
It's zero, in case you are wondering....
On another note, I routinely send texts while flying my private plane, which I also use for the shorter end of the hops I take. (whichever's cheaper and/or more convenient)
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Maybe you have a two hour flight. On an 18-hour flight there's only so much you can read, sleep, and watch before you start to get antsy. I'd surely welcome internet on those flights.
that's teh shizzle bizzle
And don't give me the "radio interference" crap - there's no evidence at all to support this and it's routinely ignored by anybody in the industry.
How many times do you have to be told that the point is to make sure you pay attention to what is happening around you since take off and landing is when the plane and you are most vulnerable.
Actually, pretty much nobody is saying that except you and for good reason: It doesn't make any sense. The instructions are specifically to "put away all electronic devices", not "put away all distractions". They don't mention and don't seem to care about books, mechanical toys, etc. While rubik's cubes are rather uncommon distractions, books are not and yet passengers are never instructed to put away reading materials. This despite the fact that a good book can be every bit as distracting as a laptop computer.
So 98% are egocentric asshats who think there is only one reality, and it's *theirs*. And the other 2% only aren't, because they are too dumb for it.
Sounds about right... ;)
That only applies to people who actually post a comment. Those of us who aren't posting in this discussion are the intellig...
...oh, damn! :(
Blank until
Question is: how many tax nexus areas do you cross while being productive? Well, at least I have to wonder about such things where I work. ;-)
Here's an interesting quote: "Nordwall reports that the RTCA Committee 177 inquiry found 137 `incidents' (pilot reports, anecdotes) reported either to them, or to the FAA/NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) program, or to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). VOR reception (2) was affected in 111 incidents -- by far the most common occurrence. From the 33 reports direct to RTCA, 21 incidents related to laptop computers and only 2 to cellular phones. Navigation systems were affected in 26 of those incidents; fuel systems, warning lights and propulsion reported one incident each. Rough correlation of suspect with effect by turning the suspect device on and off was found in 14 cases, on-off-on in 6 cases, and no correlation in 13 cases."
Incidents > 0.
If I remember correctly, Thales generation 2 HUDS for A737's had a known issue with interference from mobile phones / laptops - they would blank or flicker.
operation of any electronic devices not certified by the FAA for use in the aircraft will technically invalidate the airplane's Airworthiness Certificate. so they are required by the FAA to tell you to turn them off.
Regulars would love Internet access and will pay for it. For short hop flights, where there might be 45-60 minutes of internet time, you can do some email, review a report, check voicemail, instant message with colleagues, and so on. Lots of use cases.
Road warriors have things planned out. The laptop is hibernating in the seat pocket, or else, increasingly, you can use an instant-on tablet or smartphone. Leisure travelers obviously can use the same tools. The barriers to getting out a computer and using it are getting lower.
I'm just surprised it's taking so long. Southwest announced a couple of years ago that they were putting wifi on all their planes, but to date I have seen it only once, and I fly a couple of times a month. I wish they would hurry up. They charge $5 which seems reasonable enough for most people.
The only problematic area will be phone calls, either VoIP or cell. It's going to distract and annoy people who are stuck in these sardine cans, typically with no way to get up and move away from a loud talker. There's going to be a few air rage incidents before they figure out that they have to specifically ban voice communications in flight.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
"And don't give me the "radio interference" crap - there's no evidence at all to support this and it's routinely ignored by anybody in the industry"
I love how technology types tend to think they know everything about every piece of technology because they can use VB.
Aside from being a geek and occasional programmer, I'm also a pilot. I've also personally encountered navigational interference from a cellular phone. I think that qualifies as "evidence at all to support this". You can also refer to the link posted below that gives detailed accounts of specific interference on scheduled airline flights.
Seriously, airplanes are not computers. The rules are not meant to be broken. The rules are intended to be as minimally invasive as possible while still protecting against all potential issues. Note: This statement does NOT apply to TSA rules. They are maximally invasive and minimally effective. I'm only speaking to FAA rules regarding flight safety.
The real issue in this case is that some devices can/do cause interference and others don't. But, on a commercial airliner with hundreds of passengers that might each be carrying a potentially interfering device, the rule is that everybody has to turn them off and safely store them. Of course, the issue of a laptop being a potential projectile during a rough take-off/landing is also a concern. Short of having flight crews carry around an FCC manual and an RF meter to test every single device that a passenger might want to use, I think the current situation is a reasonable compromise.
So, basically, you'll never get what you want. The FAA and the airlines are in the business of protecting and delivering passengers respectively. They are not in the "allow some random passenger to use whatever device he wants that can potentially screw up the airplane at any time" business. If you want that level of service, charter a Gulfstream. Small, private aircraft can and do provide that level of service. If some electronic device is screwing with navigation, it's very easy to know who's device it is and have them turn it off. That's not easy on a commercial airliner.
As for the article topic, I would LOVE to have this available and would happily pay probably as much as $20 to use it on a cross-country or international flight. Being able to accomplish something with otherwise wasted time is always a win.
Radio interference from cell phones is real.
A few years ago I was flying (privately, in a light aircraft). I was flying with a friend on a trip, and it was to be his first real instrument approach (in the rain, at night). I was at the time instrument current.
And it was a good job too. Seconds after ATC cleared us for the approach, his wife called and his phone went off. Immediately, all audio was obliterated by "bip b b bip b b bip b b bip b b bip BRRRRRRRR" (if you own a GSM phone, you'll know the sound if you've ever left it near your car radio, or any audio equipment). If ATC had called at that moment to tell us to do something else, we wouldn't have heard a thing over that noise. Fortunately he could hand over to me and I could continue the approach while he dug his phone out and switched it off.
At the very least it was highly distracting, at the worst, ATC might have wanted to tell us something important and we'd have missed it.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
£0.10 to send an email is fine.
I wouldn't even want to connect my computer on a service that expensive because i'd be worried about background data use racking up a huge bill.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
"49% of the comments will be from people who would not use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do.
49% of the comments will be from people who would love to use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do."
The difference is that the first 49% are irrelevant. The second 49% are not. Why? Because the last 49% would make the system commercially viable, and the first 49% does not have to pay for it if they don't want to.
Slashdot is full of cynical naysayers with opinions that the world does not care about one bit. Out of this large group, there is a small group of naysayers which the world really should have listened to. Separating the two is much more difficult than what one might think.
I missed the Superbowl this year because I was on a flight :(
If only there were some worldwide global communications platform that you could use to somehow stream video from your home to your computer.. oh well, maybe it'll happen one day!
which is totally what she said
Could a state insist that state sales tax be levied on in-flight beverages, for example? Or for that matter, suspend sales of alcohol during the few seconds of flight over a dry county :) ?
Could I get a hooker while the plane is flying over Nevada?