Airlines to Offer In-Flight Internet Service

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

No Voice?

[gambit3 (463693)]

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

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

Re:No Voice?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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

Re:

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

Which doesn't necessarily mean anything. Holes can be punched in firewalls. Skype is particularly good at that, for example. I suspect we'll see plenty of VoIP calls being made from aircraft, assuming that latency isn't excessive.

Re:

[Steeltalon (734391)]

For once, I'm going to say that I hope they do block those ports and have flight attendants tell people to stop using voice communication. When I'm stuck in a plane, I don't want to be forced to listen to your phone call.

Re:

[rootofevil (188401)]

likeohmygodnowaydidhereallyjustsaythat?

youve got to be kidding me. there is absolutely no reason i need to hear the person i am wedged next to talking about the CUTEST thing his daugther did the other day. flying is unenjoyable enough without sitting through a conversation with my seat neighbors aunt tillie about the smallest little bullshit details in his life because they are so bored they dont have anything else to do.

even worse would be a teenage girl (or a 30-something who wishes she was a teenage gi

Re:

[Opportunist (166417)]

By plugging ports and shaping traffic?

It's likely that they'll do what they can to avoid having someone transmit large amounts of data through a presumably quite expensive link.

Re:

[sherms (15634)]

"By Plugging in ports", Please for give me, but this makes me have a flashback to Die hard 4. I can see it know, There going to have some of the same actors from that show, make a Die hard 5, where Bruce and that other kid (Hacker from die hard 4) happen to be on the same plane while Terrorists, take control of the plane (Via the on board internet). Making the government think they are going to crash it into some famous location. They still manage to crash and get just cuts and scratches and only a few dead

Re:

[Red Flayer (890720)]

Okay, now I've ruined the plot for Die Hard 5.

I'll submit that, just as for Die Hard 2,3, and 4, the plot likely began in a ruined state.

Re:

[twiddlingbits (707452)]

Expensive for YOU, not them. If 25% (to use the lower #) of the 350 people on a widebody plane used the service during the flight that would be 80 people times $10, thats $800 revenue PER FLIGHT. That's like selling another two or three tickets. The equipment such as the router and wiring (assuming they won't do wireless) will add weight to the plane increasing fuel costs a few dollars a flight. The cost of the equipment might run an few 1000's but that'll be written off. So there is a LOT of profit to them

Re:No Voice?

[jandrese (485)]

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

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

Re:No Voice?

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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

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

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

But not on all planes. I've been on three flights recently, a 737, a DC-10 and a 767, none of of which had in-seat phones, at least not in coach. It's possible that first class had them on the 767, but I know that first class did not have them on the 737 (I sat directly behind first class). The DC-10 didn't offer first class seating.

Re:

[notthe9 (800486)]

The phones seem to be fading away. I think they didn't make money on them.

Re:

[D-Cypell (446534)]

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

Even funnier that these phones are incredibly expensive to use, and the airlines want to prevent people using free VOIP while onboard.

Re:No Voice?

[Asic Eng (193332)]

and how could they limit that?

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

wouldn't it all be packets at that point?

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

Re:No Voice?

[porcupine8 (816071)]

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

Worst nightmare

[wombatmobile (623057)]

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

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

What would you do?

What could you possibly do at that point?

Re:

[tknn (675865)]

Hope that they smother you to end the pain...

Re:Worst nightmare

[FinestLittleSpace (719663)]

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

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

Re:

[IndustrialComplex (975015)]

Someone will likely bring out a study that concludes that your brain interprets one-sided conversations differently than if you hear both sides of the conversation.

Personally, I think that some people just wouldn't like the person next to them at all. Cell phone or not.

Re:Worst nightmare

[porcupine8 (816071)]

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

Re:Worst nightmare

[kidgenius (704962)]

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

Re:Worst nightmare

[jcuervo (715139)]

Admittedly if it's loud, it's annoying, but what's so different about a fart in the bathroom to a face to face fart?

If I farted on my girlfriend's face, she'd be pissed.

Re:

[mikael (484)]

Put one some headphones and play a video on my laptop, like this one [The Two Ronnies - crossed lines [youtube.com], or just listen to other music.

Had me until this line...

[explosivejared (1186049)]

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

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

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

Re:Had me until this line...

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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

Well, in that case I declare that 2008 will be the year of Vista on the desktop!

Re:

[xaxa (988988)]

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

Well, in that case I declare that 2008 will be the year of Vista on the desktop!

The emphasised bit is important ;-)

Re:

[rolfwind (528248)]

How is it hurting it? You're just making people aware of it, although they might come away a little disappointed the first time when comparing reality to the hype.

But that may not be a bad thing to bring people in before it's truly ready. I was first introduced to Linux back 10 years ago, and I went away thinking it was not ready for regular desktop use for a normal person. But that first version was my baseline, and as the years went by, I came away more and more impressed with what the Linux communitie

Re:

[explosivejared (1186049)]

Well I see you got my allusion to "the year of linux on the desktop." You see the problem is not that I think calling this "the year of something," instead it's the fact that people keep taking my jokes seriously (see my sig for proof). Apparently what I thought was an absurd allegory for the trials of linux was actually an insightful and interesting commentary on marketing technology. Moderation confuses me more often than not now.

Re:

[SL Baur (19540)]

But that may not be a bad thing to bring people in before it's truly ready.

We've been told that cellphones and notebooks with wireless internet access may have deadly interference with the airplane's avionics and communications systems. What has changed? Inquiring minds want to know!

Re:

[YrWrstNtmr (564987)]

What has changed? Inquiring minds want to know

Maybe because the aircraft and the associated internal network is designed for it at the start.

offtopic

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

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

Re:

[Zebedeu (739988)]

Bonus fun if you're middle-eastern-looking and keep flying your plane into buildings :-)

w00t

[ByKai (1199767)]

w00t a flying cyber cafe! Now we just need some starcraft CDs and a bunch of angry koreans to scream at each other

Don't hold your breath

[Opportunist (166417)]

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

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

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Correct. And given that most of us choose flights that are not nonstop (i.e., flights with layovers) due to their cost usually being much lower than nonstop flights (though this is not always the case), you probably won't wind up on too many domestic flights that are more than 4 hours anyway. So unless you travel overseas, you're probably not likely to see this very much in 2008.

The Internet is the second most important feature.

[dada21 (163177)]

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

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

Re:The Internet is the second most important featu

[ZeLonewolf (197271)]

Some planes do have in-seat power. The Airbus A330-300 which I've flown to Europe many many times has in-seat power in coach. In fact, Lufthansa (Germany's national airline) had free wifi last year on their transatlantic Boeing jets. Not sure what happened to that service, but it was great...only problem was THOSE jets didn't have power. Just bring extra batteries for your laptop I suppose :)

Re:

[east coast (590680)]

If you're willing to pay 40 bucks a flight for simple internet access you'd think you'd be willing to spend a bit more and buy an extra battery for the laptop.

Re:

[elinenbe (25195)]

Almost all seats now include either a plane power adapter or a standard plug. If you will pay $40/flight, you can surely buy an air adapter.

Re:

[kidgenius (704962)]

I know this won't help you in your case, but American Airlines MD-80's (a fairly old aircraft) have power adapters in coach under the seats. When you book your next flight, check out Seat Guru [seatguru.com] and it will tell you if a particular aircraft has power adapters.

...not during takeoff and landing, but...

[DriveDog (822962)]

...what about during waiting time on the ground at the gate after the door is shut or sitting on the taxiway? If not then, then they're missing a big opportunity to pacify some agitated customers.

I keep hearing this

[C_Kode (102755)]

I keep hearing say this is coming, but when is someone actually going to go through with actually doing it?

This internet will also be for porn

[finlandia1869 (1001985)]

Trekkie Monster was right! Can't wait for the first time a flight attendant has to ask a customer to stop surfing for porn.

Likely very limited bandwidth

[rickkas7 (983760)]

Unless JetBlue/LiveTV acquired another license, they're seriously bandwidth limited. In 2006 they got a license [wikipedia.org] to use a 1 MHz slice in the 841 to 851 MHz spectruum. Increasing the number of ground stations and using directional antennas helps, but we're definitely not talking anywhere near broadband speeds if they're still using that spectrum (which used to be used by GTE Airfone).

Flying into the US

[PinkyDead (862370)]

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

I don't get it

[SL Baur (19540)]

We've been told that notebook computers with wireless internet and cellphones interfere with the avionics and are dangerous and must be kept off the entire flight. Now internet access from planes is O.K. What has changed?

Just asking.

-sb (dreading the horribly long flight across the Pacific he faces to go home for Christmas)

Re:

[cp.tar (871488)]

I wouldn't like to either talk to someone on the phone or have to listen to other people's conversations while on a plane.

YMMV.

Re:

[aplusjimages (939458)]

I would prefer more leg room.

Re:

[squidguy (846256)]

) This has been tried before - Lufthansa? United? Wasn't popular.
Actually, it was very popular on Lufthansa. The problem was that Boeing (owned Connexion) wasn't seeing much ROI across all the airlines and couldn't keep the service running for its limited deployment throughout the carriers. US airlines couldn't afford to install it, generally.