Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware IT

Wi-Fi Coming on U.S. Domestic Flights 317

Posted by timothy from the but-terrorists dept.
jvptoad writes "The NY Times is reporting that United Airlines has received approval to offer Wi-Fi Internet access on its planes. Although it will be over a year before the service is available, I wonder if this will impact the discussion on cell phone usage in planes (which seems to be centered around the annoyance of people talking loudly on the phone). Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wi-Fi Coming on U.S. Domestic Flights More

Wi-Fi Coming on U.S. Domestic Flights

Comments Filter:

  • Uh, latency? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by g0at ( 135364 ) <ben @ z ygoat.ca> on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:45PM (#12741039) Homepage Journal
    repeat: uh, latency?
    • It'll probably be bad -- but a "walkie-talkie" system like Nextel has might solve that problem.
    • repeat: uh, latency?

      could you resend that packet? i didn't get it the first time ...

    • Lagged connection is better than none at all.

      For me, I could do the email thing, update the web site, and check my system info, all while in flight.

      That'd be very handy.
    • Bah it'll probably cost so much that latency will actually work in your favor. If they charge $1/byte, and it takes 6000ms round trip, you'll at least be able to make the flight on a single credit card.
    • Most of these flights won't be flying as high as many of the satellites we use to carry a lot of our voice traffic. Why should the latency need to be worse?
    • Latency only matters for time-sensitive applications like games. You're crazy if you want to try playing games on airplanes. Your e-mail already takes minutes to go between servers, and web pages often go years between being posted and reaching you. Latency will be at most a few seconds.

    • Re:Uh, latency? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @08:27PM (#12741981) Homepage
      I guess I don't understand why you think latency would be a problem. The service is likely going to NOT rely on geo-stationary satelite links, so there's no speed of light issues to geo-stationary orbit 32,000 miles away. Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky. That would be rather difficult in an airplane moving side to side, up and down, etc.

      What's far more likely is they'll use existing cellphone towers, and possibly the same LEO (low earth orbit) satelites that satelite phones use. Planes fly at only 40,0000 feet or so, so that's only about 8 miles up. LEO is only about 200-500 miles, so the lightspeed time is rather short at 500/186,0000 seconds. Really they'd only need to use LEO sats flying over remote parts of the US, or over the ocean.
      • Hmm... that's true. You're right, my question was perhaps a bit off-the-cuff.

        I had it in the back of my mind that "satellite-based" internet services give terrible lag though, hence this inquiry. Why would they be high-latency relative to wireline?

        -b

      • Re:Uh, latency? (Score:4, Informative)

        by twostar ( 675002 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @10:00PM (#12742687) Journal
        Doesn't anyone do their homework anymore? Connexion By Boeing is via geostationary satellite. Why waste putting a bird up that is only visible to the ground for a few minutes each pass when you can buy time on a couple of geo birds?

        You want to know if your plane has Connexion? Look on top for a square "bubble" about 3 feet on each side and purtruding about 6 inches. That's where the antenna is, and yes it tracks the satellite, not that hard, we've been doing it for years on military planes.

        http://www.boeing.com/connexion/backgrounder.html [boeing.com]

        The Enabling Technology
        Connexion by Boeing uses a worldwide network of geostationary satellites and ground-based receiving stations to relay data between aircraft and the global information network. An advanced-technology antenna designed and built by Mitsubishi Electric Co. enables aircraft to maintain high-quality connectivity, even at high latitudes.

      • Re:Uh, latency? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by doormat ( 63648 )
        Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky. That would be rather difficult in an airplane moving side to side, up and down, etc.

        You do realize that JetBlue has this on ALL their airplanes, right? How else do you think you get DirecTV serivce to your seat?
  • Either that or get some good headphones, because if you start playing Duke Nukem on your laptop when I'm sitting next to you, I'll be showing you where the off switch is.

    Sorry, your right to infringe on society ends where my eardrums attached to my body stuffed into a seat where your laptop requires you to lower your tray table for the whole flight begins.

    And if you don't like it, fly first class.

    • Re:Time for air travellers to learn what mute is (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:17PM (#12741382) Homepage
      Using headphones is of course just common courtesy.

      That said: earplugs. Earplugs, earplugs earplugs.

      Not because people perhaps sit on the phone, and not because people will sometimes talk to each other. Not even for the guy snoring loudly throughout the flight or for the two-year old who's screaming himself across the pacific ocean.

      An airplane cabin is _noisy_. That constant whine/hum/hiss is the single most tiring noise I know of. True, you conciously tune it out after half an hour or so, but it's incredibly fatiguing. For a long time I didn't realize that a good deal of my jetlag, fatigue and inability to sleep on the plane was actually due to that incessant noise (that, and that I never drank enough liquids - nonalcoholic liquids).

      Once I started using earplugs during the entire flight (you can hear the movie just fine through the plugs) and making a point of drinking water throughout, the difference was huge. I arrive reasonably refreshed, not bleary-eyed and disoriented. The day-night cycle is still screwed up, of course, but the impact is much less.
    • I hate to break it to you but, much to the chagrin of the Christian right, the rights to not be annoyed, bothered, or offended aren't included in the U.S. Bill of Rights. In fact, in the situation you just described the only person who would likely be breaking the law would be you when you laid a hand on the other person's laptop (potentially destroying, valuable, unsaved work running in the background while the game was playing). If you don't like being cramped in small seats with potentially loud passenge
    • Yeah... my friend said it best...

      "Don't fuck with my serenity".

      Words to live by, and put on a T-Shirt.

  • non-reg (Score:4, Informative)

    by compm375 ( 847701 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:46PM (#12741048)
    People should use the non-reg links when posting about a NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06uni ted.html?ex=1275710400&en=022fb6cd810b1719&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland&emc=rss [nytimes.com]
  • What are the chances I'll be able to set up a Counter-Strike server on my flight to Washington?

  • Lufthansa... (Score:3, Informative)

    by choongiri ( 840652 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:49PM (#12741083) Homepage Journal
    ...has had wifi on its flights for a over a year [lufthansa.com] now.

  • VoIP on planes (Score:5, Informative)

    by scseth ( 127105 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:50PM (#12741094) Homepage
    Sure the technology will be there (vonage, skype with 802.11 phones)...

    but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).

    Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying.

    Now United needs to offer power injectors at each economy plus seat

    • Re:VoIP on planes (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Beatlebum ( 213957 )

      "Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying."

      Really? You mean you don't have anything equally important that you could work on that doesn't require real-time connectivity? I find that very hard to believe. Perhaps you're just one of those people that constantly checks email and IM instead of doing real work (the stuff you could do offline). How many technology jobs *require* constant real-time connections? I'm sure they exist, but I can't thin

      • Re:VoIP on planes (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zorander ( 85178 )
        Access to version control/searchable hyperlinked documentation/build servers isn't important? How many corporate development architectures fit onto a laptop?

        He said it made him more productive. It does. Rooting around on my hard drive for ADC docs is much more time consuming than typing into google or a search box. What about that library you didn't think you needed the docs for because you weren't using it directly?

        Now that I'm used to having the internet and google as a resource at work when writing cod

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:VoIP on planes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TummyX ( 84871 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @02:24AM (#12744247)

      but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).

      Well, despite what most people here on slashdot would have you believe (armchair critics who have no experience whatsoever which is nothing new around here), that's not the case. I had internet access on a singapore airlines flight from London to Singapore last week. I used MSN video conferencing as well as skype-out on my tablet pc and both worked flawlessly. Using a webcam and conversing in ink while on a plane was awesome.

      Skype-out worked really well - a tiny lag (not annoying at all) and perfect audio quality. Calling someone from my tablet on a plane without paying the ridiculus $5.90/min charge for normal plane-land calls was awesome and despite the fact that I had to use the inbuilt microphone on my tablet, the people on the other end say they heard me suprisingly clearly. I got a bluetooth headset for my tablet as soon as I got to singapore airport :-).

      I should also note that the service had a web based live "chat" support and they were very helpful with my queries regarding the usage costs.

  • Good and bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zzyzx ( 15139 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:50PM (#12741096) Homepage
    I have to admit that I would probably use this quite a bit to check my email and play on the web on flights.

    However, I'll miss the fact that there was a space where I couldn't do those things. There's so much pressure on people to be available all the time, that it was nice to have forced downtime.
    • I have to admit that I would probably use this quite a bit to check my email and play on the web on flights.

      This feature would allow me to fly more often.

      Being on call 24/7 for work requires me to be able to fix issues on our servers via remote desktop over our VPN. This means if I will be out of contact for more than an hour, or am planning to go some place where it would take me more than an hour to get to an internet connection, it is basically frowned upon.

      However, I'll miss the fact that there wa

  • Great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vertdang ( 822271 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:50PM (#12741099)
    Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n and talking his ass off on his cell the whole flight.

    I am overjoyed.

    • Great... now the fat, sweaty, stupid, irritating, guy next to me on every single flight I've ever taken can now be surfing for horse pr0n and talking his ass off on his cell the whole flight.

      You know, I've found that butter does wonders for keyboards. That and spilled coffee.

      As to the cell phones, if he doesn't take the hint after the butter, apply that to the cell phone as well.

    • You know the perfect cure for that?

      "Oh my god, the dude next to me is looking at horse porn! Ewwwwwww!" at volume. I suspect the guy will most likely STOP when you say this.

      And if he doesn't, you can always ask him if his machine has a burner in it.

  • LuftHansa has it already (Score:5, Informative)

    by HarveyTheWonderBug ( 711765 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:53PM (#12741128)
    I flew LuftHansa (the German partner of United) 3 weeks ago as they were starting offering this service, and i did try it for free. It works pretty well. Normal cost is 10 bucks for an hour or 30 for the whole flight. Unfortunately, i was travelling in Economy where you can't plug your laptop. And Wifi drains my battery pretty fast. still managed to send emails from above some really remote places...

  • Okay, I give up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:55PM (#12741149)

    What is it with you people who get upset when people talk on a mobile phone? Do you also get annoyed at people talking face to face in your presence? Do all forms of conversation in which you are not involved annoy you, or is it just the ones using a form of technology?

    • Re:Okay, I give up (Score:2, Informative)

      by VMaN ( 164134 )
      Listening to ½ of a 2 way conversation is actually stressful
    • Humans find it easier to blank out conversations if they hear both sides . If you just hear one side of the conversation it can be very annoying. Its not the technology so much as that its a one sided affair
      Personally it does not bother me, but i can understand why people dislike it.

    • Re:Okay, I give up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:21PM (#12741428) Homepage Journal
      Actually, people seem to yell (or talk very loudly) into cell phones because the reception sucks on both ends, and repeating things too. I don't appreciate being yelled at, and I don't appreciate someone next to me yelling.

      Then there's the irritating chirping of the two-way systems. I can try to blank out the talking, but the chirps are on a different order of hard to ignore.
      • Actually, people seem to yell (or talk very loudly) into cell phones because...

        "I SAID that the reception sucks! Yes, SUCKS. Are you listening to me? No. Yes, no. TURN OF THAT NOISE DAMMIT - oh wait a second. Waitress, mind giving me an extra soda? Thanks.

        No.
        Yes.
        No.

        I _DO NOT_ appreciate yelling!
        (at some point, someone tells me to lower my voice tone)
        I can't help it, reception is awful, and look, if they allowed phones, it was for a reason.
        Moron...
        No, it wasn't to you.
        No, i said it wasn't to you! There'

      • Re:Okay, I give up (Score:4, Informative)

        by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:43PM (#12741612) Journal
        Actually people yell into cellphones because they think they have to in order for the person at the other end of the call to hear them on their miracle of miniaturised technology when, in reality, their extra-loud voice is attenuated back to a reasonable level by their phone anyway.

        It really beats me why people on trains etc. can't grasp the three basic rules of mobile/cell phone etiquette ie:

        1) Put your phone's incoming 'ring' on single beep or, better still, vibrate mode.

        2) Disable keyboard beeps and tones.

        3) The microphones in modern cell phones are very sensitive - speak at a volume level that will not annoy those around you.

      • Re:Okay, I give up (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Scott Byer ( 830577 )
        Americans yell into cell phones and don't have any cell phone etiquette. I just got back from Japan, where everyone has a cell phone, and where everyone understands how to actually use them. You don't use them while on the train, or you go between cars where you won't bother anyone, and you talk into them, letting the noise-reduction actually work and not bothering those around you. Only here, back at home, do people seem to be so stupid that they don't understand there's a proper place and method for us
    • When's the last time someone talked in a normal voice on a cell phone? For whatever reason, almost everyone talks quite louder on the phone than they do face to face.

  • airpwn3d! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:55PM (#12741150)
    > Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."

    Time for serious airpwnage. No, not the kind of pwnage that'll befall you for playing CS (namely wearing a headset and being prone to mutter things like "OK, 3 terrorists to the left, one's got a gun! Kill that fucker!" under your breath) on an airplane.

    I'm talking about the amount of fun you can have when that annoying cellphone-addict using Skype to escape the withdrawal... you can already hear him from three seats behind of you, hollering to his wife and kids... and then the holler he makes when he finds himself airpwned! [evilscheme.org]

  • pretty cool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moz25 ( 262020 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @06:59PM (#12741192) Homepage
    I guess it's pretty cool to be chatting and posting to slashdot while you're flying. It's just so much more l33t. Speaking of which... controlling your botnet from 30k feet in the sky must make it feel more special too.

    How does this impact issues with interference of electronic devices? Is that problem solved to a degree that (even?) wi-fi and affiliated devices are not an issue?
    • controlling your botnet from 30k feet in the sky must make it feel more special too.

      Not as special as when you're at sea level controlling a botnet that's 30K feet in the sky.

  • Interference with nav system all of a sudden gone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thekaz ( 879553 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:03PM (#12741232)
    For the longest time airlines were telling us not to use electronic gadgets, fearing "interference with the navigation system." Well, if they're OK with having bunch of passengers putting out 1 Watt each @ 2.4 GHz, how come they were objecting to the little blackberry (albeit at a different frequency) and other two way radio devices?
    • Never was an interference problem in the first place.

      • Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go (Score:4, Informative)

        by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @08:19PM (#12741911) Journal
        I am a test pilot and one of the things we have to do with each new test article is perform an EMC/EMI/EMV test(the so called E-cubed testing) before the item ever flies (incidently this includes firmware upgrades to avionics). I can tell you that probably about 10% of the hardware we put into or most modern military aircraft do indeed have problems passing these tests - and these are items that are specificaly designed to meet the military's strict E-3 requirements. These components must be redsigned before testing can continue. Somehow I doubt that the makers of every electronic gadget out there, (music players, portable games, etc where profit margins can be razor this) are so diligent in their designs. Let me say this very clearly - I do this for a living and when it is my ass in coach and the flight attendant tells me to turn off my palm pilot, you better believe I do.

        Oh, and if you ever see me on a plane, make sure you are sitting next to me - I will be the guy in the safest row of seats.

    • Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go (Score:5, Informative)

      by kentborg ( 12732 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:38PM (#12741573)
      Three things.

      1. Many kinds of radio receivers create a local "intermediate
      frequence" (IF) version of the received signal at a much lower
      frequency because it is easier for circuitry to deal with those low
      frequencies. Unfortunately, this IF signal leaks out, and those
      frequencies are close to those used for navigation. The FAA,
      reasonably, objects to that.

      2. Cellphones are based on the idea of short range communications
      (from your phone to the celltower you could likely see if you knew
      where to look) allowing the bandwidth you are using to be reused
      many times in one city. When you turn on your phone in a plane at
      high altitude, your phone (being far from any cell site) turns up
      to full transmit power, and blankets several *states* worth of
      territory. A lot of frequency reuse can't happen when you do that.
      The FCC, reasonably, objects to this. (How can cellphones inside a
      plane soon be allowed? By having a small cellsite inside the
      plane, instructing phones on the plane to turn their transmit power
      to the lowest setting.)

      3. General purpose conservatism. A powerful transmitter (ham radio
      anyone?) can also mess with lots of nearby electronics. Given all
      of the confusion over what kind of electronics some device might
      be, and given how pissed off you would be if your plane were
      plummeting to earth because a bad decision, being conservative
      might be OK, even with you.

      This doesn't mean silly things don't happen. I was once (long ago)
      told I couldn't listen to my CD player on a plane. The airline
      uniformed backhaul "expert" told me that the CD player had a "laser!",
      and it could interfere with the plane. Nonsense. I expressed
      disbelief, suggesting that the laser was safely inside...but the
      expert didn't buy it and he had authority over me so I shut it off.
      However, just because he was completely wrong in his argument doesn't
      mean that every airline safety rule (air in the tires?, gas in the
      tank?, sober pilot at the wheel?, no shootouts happening on the
      plane?) is silly.

      -kb

  • And i thought... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ribo-bailey ( 724061 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:08PM (#12741288) Homepage
    The crapper was a pretty exotic place to get on IRC from. Imagine it from 30,000ft ... on the crapper.

  • Finally! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Illserve ( 56215 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:09PM (#12741303)
    With this put an end to the ridiculous idea that listening to my ipod in row 38 can cripple the navigational instruments of an airliner?

    If that pittance of an electrical field could have any appreciable impact on an airplane, any solar flare would result in the complete destruction of the world's airline fleet in a single day.

    • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rimclean ( 783231 )
      No, you cannot listen to your ipod 10 minutes either side of take off and landing because you need to be able to hear any emergency announcements coming over the intercom. Not because your ipod interferes with cockpit controls.
      • uh huh, and I can't operate my computer because...

        • Your computer will become an excellent projectile in the case of an emergency stop, hard landing, crash etc. And I do not want to have your laptop impacting my neck...
          (The same reason I prefer that people sitting behind me in a car are using the seat belts: I do not want to be crushed between them and my seatbelt.)
    • Contrary to your belief that your iPod cannot possibly interfere with any radio based systems, allow me to remind you of the following items,

      1. Microprocessor based systems have clocks that usually have square wave profiles running at several MHz. Recall that square wave signals have significant power at many harmonics, well into the bands used on airplanes.

      2. You might think your iPod is working perfectly, but how can the pilot be sure that it meets the required specs for RF emission? Perhaps it has be

  • from the but-terrorists dept. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:15PM (#12741357)

    But! But! But...the terrorists will use it for...

    And what about those dasterly in-fight phones on the back of the seats? They could call their terrorist friends today and plan their evil plans that way without Wi-Fi.

    But! But!

    Ahhhh, be quiet

    • Actually the terrorists will simply ignore the rules and make the call from their cellphone anyway. I find it more than a little amusing when people say "Oh the terrorists will use their phones to coordinate attacks!" Nothing's preventing them from doing that now! Our attitude toward security will have to improve greatly if we think that silly little rule would prevent a terrorist from using their phone on the plane.

      As for the issue of one-sided conversations being difficult to ignore, do your fellow pass

  • Skype and VoIP -- latency good enough? (Score:4, Funny)

    by MMHere ( 145618 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:17PM (#12741383)
    Will the latency of this link be low enough to support decent response times for VoIP?

    If they're using a satellite link (they must be), then your loud Skype+headset conversation will be just as uncomfortable for you to use as it is for others around you to observe.

    "He-"

    "Hello?"

    "Huh?"

    "What?"

    "You started talk-"

    "You began-"

    "You go."

    "No you... Go ahead!"

    Damn satellite latency.

  • It is not simply the duty of our government regulators to protect us from Loud Annoying Cell Phone Users. It is their duty to protect us from the very indignity of being annoyed, regardless of the source of that annoyance.

    I for one will not be happy until we passengers are sedated in the terminal, packed in bubble-wrap, loading into the plane like cargo, and revived with a stiff drink at the destination.

    Ah! The only way to travel!

  • Ad-Hoc (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nukem996 ( 624036 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:30PM (#12741500)
    I was on a plane a few weeks back and we set up a Ad-Hoc network and played CS on the plane(yes sound was off). I also text messaged on that flight, phones dont do anything to planes, neither does WiFi. Anyway I think its a great idea as long as people dont use their sound.

    • Re:Ad-Hoc (Score:3, Informative)

      by kentborg ( 12732 )
      "phones dont do anything to planes"

      Correct. And the FAA doesn't particularly object to your use of a
      phone on a plane. However, the FCC objects because cell phones at
      high altitude mess with the cell phone systems.

      Cell phones work on the idea of frequency reuse as your phone talks to
      one cell tower just a block or so away and many other people elsewhere
      in the city can also be talking using the same bandwidth. However, if
      you use your cell phone at 30,000 feet you will prevent cell systems
      in several *states

  • To quote the Onion... (Score:3, Funny)

    by peipas ( 809350 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:30PM (#12741502)
    "If they lift the ban on cell-phone use, they better lift the ban on passengers beating the shit out of each other, too."
  • What exactly would be so difficult about having an RJ-45 jack coming out the seat? It would be a heck of a lot more secure, you wouldn't make everyone sit in the radio waves (which incidental could interfere with other equipment) you also have to take into account that the EM the aircraft puts out could disrupt the WiFI chatter.

    I'm all for embracing new technology but existing technology would work perfectly well (if not better) in this scenario.
    • 1. you need to do physical installation into each seat
      2. you need to run wires from each jack to some central location
      3. the jacks and wire add up to a fair amount of extra mass, which means the plane needs more fuel and can carry less payload
      4. not everyone carries an rj-45 patch cable, so the airline will need to keep some handy (yet more mass)
      5. little kids will stuff action figures or food into the sockets, destroying them or even shorting the whole network out
    • - installation cost in running CAT-5 to each seat, and more importantly getting it certified for flight.

      - weight
    • Aside from the technical difficulty getting ethernet through all those spaces in an existing aircraft, it would require a HUGE amount of downtime to run it all. Laptop power is different since they already have wires carrying something near the right voltage in the general area of the seats (for the lights etc)
  • Anyone know what the actual bandwidth is going to be like? Just because the wireless link in the plane is 802.11b doesn't mean that the connection will be remotely 10 Mb.

    • Re:WiFi != fast (Score:2, Informative)

      by NadMutter ( 631470 )
      I was on a Lufthansa flight from Munich to Boston last week. Seemed to get about 270kb/s down & a not so good 40kb/s up. Latency was around 650ms to us and about 1.5% of packets were dropped.

      I still managed to be productive, send somebody a bug fix 2 hours after take-off, IM, email etc. Definitely worth the $30 (and would have been worth $100 if the person in front didn't think he was at the dentist).
  • Has little to do with annoyance.

    It has to do with the phone being close to too many base stations, loading them up with traffic.

  • SAS have had... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Osrin ( 599427 ) * on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:36PM (#12741555) Homepage
    ... this for a while, I catch the Seattle -> Copenhagen flight on a regular basis.

    I'm pleased to say that it (Boeing Conexion) seems to work pretty well. I can browse the web at a reasonable speed, let Outlook sync mail and on occasion have been able to log in and play WoW for an hour or so with no noticeable interruptions.

    SAS will even let you pay for service using your miles from their frequent flier program.

    I'm glad it will finally be on Domestic flights as well, this gives me a reason to choose United. (I have to agree with the lack of desire to see people using Skype over it though).

  • Don't forget your VPN (Score:3, Informative)

    by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @07:55PM (#12741725)
    Don't forget to hook up with a VPN if you're using in-flight wi-fi.

    www.publicvpn.com works, and it's cheap!
  • I love the hogwash that comes from the airline industry. They tell you that you cannot use your cellphone in the plane because it can interfere with their navigation equipment. I doubt that can actually happen, by the way. They probably tell you that so you'll use that phone built into the seat in front of you, that costs Lord only knows how much per minute, instead of your own phone, because you'll be afraid to get killed by screwing up their nav stuff.

    And now, at the same time, they say OK to WiFi, which

    • Re:Hogwash (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spagetti_code ( 773137 )
      (I am a private pilot). If you are flying in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - on instruments alone), you have placed the lives of your pax in the hands of the pilot and his instruments. There are no outside clues when things go wrong. See here [airdisaster.com]
      for the top 100 air disasters. Two of them were purely ILS failures.

      I'm not so confident that it can't happen. There are numerous anecdotal stories in the industry of NAV equipment wandering off course. In 1999 there were 76 reported incidents [washingtonpost.com] of possible

  • Legal issue??? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @08:01PM (#12741775) Journal
    Just a thought:

    What jurisdiction does a plane flying over, say, international waters actually fall under - for example, is the inside of a US-registered plane considered to be US territory or do a generic set of International rules apply?

    I just wondered as this might raise some interesting legal issues with regards to data protection etc. ie: emailing a customer database back to the office, downloading porn, sharing files or DMCA-infringing stuff etc.!!?? Mind you, hosting your DVD ripping apps at an altitude of 30,000ft over the Atlantic by constantly flying from NY to London and back is not going to come cheap!!

  • depends on network configuration (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Atilla ( 64444 ) on Monday June 06, 2005 @08:28PM (#12741988) Homepage
    If the airlines don't want people using skype or VOIP in general, they can set up a firewall/proxy so it would not be possible.

    yes, there are l33t hackers that would create a VPN tunnel via HTTP or some other such shit, but the majority of general public don't have any idea how to do that.

    also, it could be a matter of policy - if they catch you being loud when you're not supposed to, they can tell you to stop, and if you don't - someone in a uniform will be waiting for you when you get off the plane :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close