Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Questions arise as airlines introduce in-flight Internet

ANICK JESDANUN

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 11:46 AM EDT 31/12/07

Airlines, service providers will have to figure out how to handle the guy in 16E who's surfing porn sites ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: You're going to need bigger seats and customers will be asking for outlets for this laptops to pullin.
  2. D F from Canada writes: I don't think there's much of an issue here. Internet on airplanes is inevitable for one and secondly, I've never heard of magazine porn being an issue on airplanes (and they sell it at the airports) and furthermore, many people already have porn on their laptops and it's never been a problem as far as I know.

    In any case, who in their right mind would want to watch porn when there are two strangers sitting next to you? There's only one thing to do when watching porn and I aint doing that in an airplane.
  3. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: There's nothing like placing an order over international waters to make murky tax situations. Maybe signing in to receiver orders over international waters is about the same.
  4. Bill Kamies from Canada writes: Another example of society providing something that absolutely nobody needs and everybody has always done without.
  5. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: 16E? That was my seat! I was doing research!
  6. All Knowing from Vancouver, Canada writes: If it isn't the Nanny-state, it's now the Nanny-airline... Who cares if you sit beside someone surfing porn? If you don't like it - quit being a snoop and look away. If they had it on their disconnected laptops, there is very little to stop your neighbour from scrolling porn off-line (or reading that porn magazine he/she bought at the airport).

    The issue of phone calls is another matter. Like the ignorant days of smoking on the plane, noise from 1/2 a telephone conversation is NOT PRIVATE TO THE USER in such proximity.

    Perhaps the best solution for the airlines is to do like the Paddington Express train (Heathrow to Central London). Most of the train is NO CELL PHONE CALLS except for a designated area.

    The now-old 'Satellite phones' of 10 years ago had their own form of volume (and call duration) control - charges of $7 per minute!

    PS> I wonder if any porn restriction will apply to those passergers on the new Airbus A780 that pay the big bucks for a private stall/room/bed... ??? Talk about much ado about nothing in a world full of more pressing issues...
  7. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Why do we need internet service on a plane? And please do not allow phone calls!

    As for WiFi - has it been proven to be safe yet? Places like Lakehead University have banned it stating health concerns.
  8. Mike Mazza from Barrie, Canada writes: Whats so wrong with this? I can take on any content I want now. Whether it comes in digital form or magazine form.... my habits will not change. They should allow tax free orders over the internet while in the air. It will be a benefit to fly with these airlines. If they can save us a buck GREAT...they scratch our backs we fly more often :)

    They could designate a part of the plane to restricted access to certain websites and another part of the plane to no restriction. They can control this by having the question when you purchase your ticket. Unfortunately you may not beable to control where you sit because your row will be the same as you.
  9. Michael Powers from Canada writes: Be careful, an NDP member of Parliament might be sitting 5 rows behind you - just waiting.
  10. S G from A Happier Place, Canada writes: I was once on a plane with internet access and it was lovely. A whole bunch of us logged in and surfed without any problems. People should use headphones or mute their computers if they are going to experience internet content with sound, though, out of courtesy to others.
  11. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: While people yappng on telephones can be annoying, I have no other problem with internet access. What does annoy me, besides the ruthless fools who push the drink cart, are the idiots who think that they can recline their seats through me knees.

    If I never had to fly commercial air again, it would be a blessing.
  12. Wanda Fyooka from Vancouver, Canada writes: 'Just as most people have come to set boundaries for cell phone use in public settings...'
    ------------------------------------------
    What planet does this guy live on? Most cell phone conversations on the street, on buses, in restaurants, etc., that I've overheard (not intentionally, believe me!) have been unnecessary, meaningless wastes of time. That does not lessen how annoying they are, however.
  13. Jay Wortman MD from West Vancouver, Canada writes: I travelled by shuttle bus between Vancouver and Seattle recently and was delighted to discover I had wireless connectivity. I checked e-mail and surfed the net the whole trip and nobody appeared to notice or to care. Now that the technology is available there is no question it should be available on the airlines. I would vote for a ban on phone applications, though.
  14. Big D from Canada writes: We're all so concerned about the noise of conversations from phone calls? Before banning cell-phones, how about we put an age limit on flying... I can't count the number of flights I have been on, even in the past year alone, that have had some screaming infant or even somewhat-older child who screamed and cried or yelled at their parents.... No one seems to propose banning them from flights. If the guy next to me needs to raise his voice a bit, because of poor reception, so he can take care of business and feed his family???

    As far as the other concerns, I agree with the above - I can download the videos before hand to my laptop... but why are you looking at my screen anyways?
  15. B to the A to the R to the T from the left coast, Canada writes: I think VOIP and other internet services are long over due on air planes. And Big D is right, if I have to endure a 12 hour flight with some one's screaming spawn sitting next to me why can anyone endure hearing me having a conversation over the phone at normal conversation volume levels.

    As far as net porn goes, I've seen 'objectionable' content in R rated movies that can be viewed on some airlines entertainment systems. Regardless, if some one is gawking at my screen and are offended it is their fault, my content is for my eyes only, you have the choice to look away or find something more entertaining for your kid.
  16. Adrian D. from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thank goodness we have benevolent airlines to tell us what is right and wrong, what websites we should vist and which are morally objectionable. Coffee shops don't have this problem, airlines wouldn't be different. As for phone calls, who cares. If you can even hear over the roar of the engines or the whining babies and toddlers, its none of your own business. The only difference to people who complain about cell phone conversations and speak with the person beside them is they are upset they can only evesdrop on half the conversation. Grow up and read a book.
  17. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Adrian D. from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...The only difference to people who complain about cell phone conversations and speak with the person beside them is they are upset they can only evesdrop sic on half the conversation....
    --------------------------------------

    While it's certainly possible to speak in normal or even low tone of voice on a GSM (cell phone for the unilingual), it's seldom the case.
  18. All Knowing from Vancouver, Canada writes: Well - if we are going to ban internet access, then let's strap a barf bag on the kids too. Crying can be handled by earplugs... However, avoiding human gastric projectile can be tough (especially when strapped in).

    Twice (both times in a business suit enroute to a meeting), I have been on the receiving end of a full torsal helping of off-loaded stomach contents. Most galling is that neither the airline nor the dim-witted mother made any attempt at restitution for my resulting drycleaning. It seems that for the noble task of someone popping out a kid, my contribution is to accept their scion's human vomit as a societal courtesy.

    If I never have to fly again, it will be a blessing ...
  19. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: Why is the idea of a phone call such a big deal? If the two people beside you are chatting away for an entire flight, you deal with it. Not too many people would say that the chatters are being discourteous.

    What's the difference between two people chatting, and one person chatting into a phone?
  20. boom didi from Canada writes: Just get a private jet, easy see?
  21. A. Nonymous from Internet Ville, United States writes: It's simple, they will handle it like they [the airlines] handle most other 'value added services'. They will restrict it to a specific browser [internet explorer], use a proxy server that filters content, or a brain-dead interface that uses a 'portal' type system to control your 'internet experience', all for the low-low price of 9.99/hr.

    In other words, it will be so slow, crippled and useless, only the most desperate people will want to try it for the fun of it. Doing any 'real' work , or surfing 'those' sites will be next to impossible.
  22. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: If a caller can reduce the volume of his/her speaking voice, then: FINE. The problem is that his/her receiver may have difficulty hearing, and so the caller may raise the volume of his/her voice . . . at least that's what happens in public, down on earth, e.g., in restaurants. . . . You could solve the problem (?) by having a couple of phones near the bathroom, and setting a two-minute limit on phone calls (once they connect); that way, too, you could cut down on the number of people who feel it's important for their neighbors to know how 'important' they are by letting everyone know what 'big deal' they're working on.
  23. THX 1138 from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: Surfin' the web wouldn't be any different than in a street-level Starbucks. Desired privacy while performing confidential work should not be done in a crowded public area. That's called...common sense.

    Filtering out porn sites and telephone applications would be a good compromise. As for the user noise, I'll be flying to Britain this summer and my trusty i-Pod will drown out any annoying 'power-lunching' yuppies loudly broadcasting their business dealings. The biggest noise I hear on flights is the constant roar of the jet engine turbines and hissing recycled cabin air vents above my seat. 49 cent earplugs bought @ Canadian Tire also help.

    Trust me, the cost will be expensive for internet access @ 35,000 feet.
  24. On Edge from Canada writes: Great! So now it looks like it's high time we allowed smoking on airplanes again.
  25. THX 1138 from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: On Edge: Forget the allowing smoking again on planes! Buy some Nicorettes. That was one of the smartest moves the airlines ever did.

    Get rid of the stupid liquids restrictions and not charge extortion prices for in-flight food & beverages.
  26. On Edge from Canada writes: THX 1138 has that Victoria BC appreciation of irony! Especially as regards sacred public health cows. Hey, how about allowing pot smoking on board, bro!
  27. Ziad Fazel from Calgary, Canada writes: A. Nonymous, I think it will be just as limited as you say, but more like $9.99 for 10 minutes. Or some Zune-like points system that hides the cost and forces you to buy batches. For the latency and narrow bandwidth of a (satellite?) connection to a moving plane.

    I wonder whether the security aspects have been reviewed, like being able to set off a bomb in the air, safely from the ground, through the web.

    I'd like to see airplanes get GPS-aided navigation systems, so maybe the Wi-Fi revenues will pay for some combo module in the plane with both GPS and Wi-Fi.
  28. Siri Avtar from Canada writes: Gordon Murray: Now that's an interesting angle. I'm curious which groups might be lobbying hard for in-flight geekability. While I'm sure 99.9% of users would be surfing benignly as usual, it would be interesting to see the repercussions of a few major deals made in legally foggy space.
  29. H B from Canada writes: I love these guys that think they can look at or do any thing on a plane. All I can say is a quick elbow to the head would provide peace and quiet for the rest of the trip.
  30. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Have no fear - Air Canada will find a way to ensure that only the most benign sites are available.

    I have had the misfortune to have been forced onto AC twice in the past 2 months, each time was a new experience in discomfort, incompetence, surly service and, on the most recent trip, an endless loop of sanitized news, in a 40 minute English-French tag team affair.

    It is inconceivable that Air Canada would allow any appurtenance that would in any way alleviate the tedium, if not agony, of one of their passages into purgatory.
  31. Brian Marto from Derby, writes: I know from experience traveling across the Alantic on Air Transat Air Bus 310 they is not much room esp when someone reclines their chair, there has too be some rules in place so you do not disturb other passangers but it is a great idea but security is the main issue ,
    It would be great to pass time on a 6 hour or more flight but again security a terrorist could be on board chatting or talking these things have to be considered .
  32. Ziad Fazel from Calgary, Canada writes: Would it disrupt the flight if:

    1 - with my laptop screen in full view of nosey neighbours
    2 - I raised my eyes to heaven, praying fervently
    3 - and clicked this link

    http://boortz.com/mp3/archive/countdown.swf
  33. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: It's interesting that what George Bush called the "old world" is actually moving forward. Good work to Europe for actually enhancing air travel. Rules will be needed of course.

    I would guess that they will all bring in rules to keep "chatty Kathy's" from blabbing all flight. But also, they liklely won't like you using free voice calls, so will block that as it seems to be okay if you talk all you want and disturb others, just so long as you're paying the airline $4.99 a minute? Cute huh?

    Besides, flying is like riding a in cattle car with wings. Nothing special in it at all for the laymen, so might as well turn up the discomfort flames, as it's a hell ride anyways. I suggest tranquilizer, and eye covers. Skipping all food choices, and preying you are unconscious for most of the flight.

    It's an unfortunately "evil" needed to get to point B. If you have lots of time, or are not traveling too far, take a train. Much more human way to travel, and food is fit for human consumption. Also if the train is canceled they actually help everyone, not just the people in business class!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top