Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:12:00 PST Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090209/1216543706.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090209/1216543706.shtml not everybody's happy about it (via Wolfe's Den ). There are the usual comments about passengers being annoying by making loud VoIP calls or not turning down the volume on YouTube videos, but inserted in is the unchallenged statement from a flight attendants' union spokesman saying it fears "terrorists plotting a scheme on a plane could use Wi-Fi to communicate with one another on board and with conspirators on the ground." As Glenn Fleishman points out, this is only slightly ridiculous. If you're a terrorist, you're hardly likely to se a ban on in-flight phone use as an impediment to communications, while the airplane's WiFi system doesn't enable any on-board communication that wouldn't be possible with other technologies like Bluetooth, or even ad-hoc WiFi networks. There are plenty of more legitimate reasons to dislike in-flight WiFi, but the suggestion that it's making planes unsafe is a fairly hollow one.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> panic-stations! http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090209/1216543706 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:22:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1726232072.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080822/1726232072.shtml concern over mobile phone use in the sky being too "annoying." Some of the companies providing internet-in-the-sky have claimed that they would block VoIP calls, but that's going to be pretty difficult. As we've pointed out in the past voice is just data and you can always find a way to disguise the data, such that it won't be blocked. And, indeed, that seems to be exactly what's happening. Andy Abramson talks about how he got around AirCell's VoIP blocking when talking to a friend who was on one of these wired airplanes. There's always going to be away around those things, so unless Congress really decides to ban all voice calls on phones, why not wait and see if people chatting really is a problem?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> of-course-not http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080822/1726232072 Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:58:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080808/0240241932.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080808/0240241932.shtml silly for Congress to pass an outright ban of talking on mobile phones in-flight, but that probably won't stop the effort from going forward. However, new research is showing how this may be even less necessary than many assume. First, contrary to the idea that most people are worried about in-flight phone use, most younger users seem to actually support it.

As for the concern that it would just be really "annoying"? It turns out that when you look at actual tests (what a concept), this turns out not to be a problem. Passengers develop their own etiquette for keeping quiet and not pissing off other passengers. In other words, social pressures can handle most of the worst scenarios without the need for any sort of law that bans it in all situations. But, of course, this is Congress we're talking about. They're not huge fans of basing laws on what actually happens, but on what will generate the best headlines.

Also, just to respond to some of the misconception in the comments to the previous post: the potential ban has absolutely nothing to do with the technology issues related to using mobiles on airplanes. It's entirely about the etiquette/annoyance issue. Most of those technical issues have been worked out by putting a "picocell" on the airplane itself to redirect the voice traffic in a more efficient manner, rather than having the phones try to connect directly to towers on the ground.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we're-congress,-we-don't-do-empirical-evidence http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080808/0240241932