Ars Looks At In-Flight Internet — State of the Art vs. Things To Come 101
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."
Let me make a prediction... (Score:1, Insightful)
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 remaining 2% might be vaguely useful, or they may be dumb like this one.
Takeoff/landing sequence key for shorter flights (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:No shit, Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Takeoff/landing sequence key for shorter flight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Quick response from a pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.