There has been a recent spate of airlines installing in-flight broadband connectivity - albeit crippled/filtered in some way in most cases. VoIP or voice capabilities seem to be the one app that many people hope is not allowed, citing that they don't want to have to listen to their neighbor chatting away for the duration of the flight. The people who are in favor of such services seem to be agreeable to being able to receive and reply to emails, and text while in flight.

Its not like this hasn't been tried before. Why the sudden interest in this niche service again? Yes, niche service, since logically the ability to access the Internet would be most useful to business class customers. You'd think in-flight broadband would be a no-brainer in this day and age. At least geeks, technophiles, and some business people would. But we all remember the failure that was Connexion by Boeing, don't we?

WiFi, high speed Internet, and broadband are still buzz words, really. Some companies still look at these words with an "if you build it, they will come (and use it and pay for it)" attitude (cough*muni-fi*cough). Therefor, I find it interesting - and somewhat surprising, honestly - to run across, on a somewhat regular basis, articles and studies that indicate that a fair number of people - business and non-business alike- are a bit wary of having access to in-flight broadband. Especially non-filtered/crippled broadband. I mean people do these things and use these services on buses and trains, don't they? People talk on their cellphones. They surf with their smartphones and laptops, thanks to 3G and WiMax, in those places. It isn't growing at an astoundingly fast pace, but you see such services catching on slowly but surely, especially on commuter trains, around the world. Right here in the good old USA Boston just announced they'll be testing such a service on some of their trains very recently. Why the mini-backlash against doing it on a flight?

Looking at it this way, I find the "I don't want to listen to my neighbor chatting away for the duration of the flight" argument ridiculous. People are doing it everywhere else. Why not a plane? Heck, if you want to sit at a Starbucks and enjoy your mochaccino, chances are you'll have to do it while listening to the clickety clack of keyboards and such. The same is true at some McDonalds. Hey, you can even count some bars and pubs in this list too. Last time I went to my favorite local watering hole, 75% of the people in the place were yapping into a cellphone or texting or googling some obscure factoid on their hacked iPhone in order to prove their buddy wrong during some beer-fueled debate. You'll tolerate it all while eating your BigMac or putting away a couple beers, but not while flying in a plane? Yeah, that makes sense.

Are flights then considered to be in the same category as, say, a theater? Not chatting away on your cellphone during a movie or performance makes perfect sense. No one wants to be distracted, and no one wants to distract the performers. But really, even this rule has been somewhat twisted in the modern era as you see people texting away during a movie/performance all the time. Since when has a plane become akin to a fortress of solitude? By its very nature, it is not... considering the amount of seat spacing (or lack there-of) on some flights. Been to library lately? Maybe no one chatting away on their cell - because that would be bad etiquette in a library - but plenty of people surfing porn and/or downloading music or gaming while you're looking for that book you have to read for your book report thats due the next day, or pouring over books researching for that term paper. That is fine according to etiquette.

I guess that brings up the "personal space" argument. If you're going to be in such close proximity to a stranger as one usually is for the duration of a flight, then the unspoken "personal space" etiquette rules come into play. You know... if you don't think doing certain things - like chatting on the phone while squashed next to a stranger - is polite, then you expect that your counterpart will respect the same unspoken rules. But again, the train, bus, and automobile point comes into play here. And again I ask what the difference is about a plane flight.


I do think that some filtering might be acceptable for the case of in-flight broadband. While I think in-flight broadband and the ability to surf the Net would be a good time-killer on a long flight or useful for the business person to get work done, etc., as a parent I would not like it if my 9 year old was squashed next to a person who is happily (make that probably very happily) surfing porn. Most people should agree with that kind of situation. So if we're going to do this thing, then yes, I think some common sense filtering is acceptable.

Hmm... that makes me think. If someone downloads music or a movie via P2P using an airlines' Internet service, who would the RIAA and MPAA sue? The customer, or the airline for allowing the downloading? Knowing the RIAA and MPAA, they'd probably sue both for copyright infringements, heh. And what about watching on YouTube that episode American Idol or whatever show you're missing while on your flight? Who would be responsible for that heinous crime? Eh, but I suppose that falls into the 'who is responsible for piracy, the user or the provider' debate, no? And moot anyway if the airlines filter P2P.

While writing this, I decided to call my brother, who is a very frequent business flier, to ask his opinion on in-flight Internet access and voice capability. He said he would absolutely use such a service if available, and also VoIP/cellphone service if he could - for many of the same reasons I mention above. That being the point that people do it everywhere else, so why not on a plane too?

The bigger sticking point, in my opinion, is cost. This is one of the main reasons behind the failure of Boeing's Connexion service. Reports will cite demand, but this is directly related to cost. The demand was there, else there wouldn't have been such a to-do when Connexion went under. Nor would there be airlines trying right now to resurrect an in-flight broadband service. Free would be cool, of course, but you know that woud mean ad-supported plus cost automatically included in the price of your ticket whether you use it or not. It would be better to be able to select Internet access as an option when you buy your ticket, with price dependent on the duration of the flight.

Clearly the airlines see potential for Internet access, even if its just text and email. With the way the industry is now, they wouldn't be investing in such a thing if they didn't think there was enough potential for revenue from such a service. Though there are some dissenters, voice capabilities would make it even more attractive to business travelers. I don't see the big deal in giving people the same access they have in other modes of pubic transportation. If people want to get testy about chatty people on long flights, this could be easily solved by limiting the times between which you can make voice calls on longer flights.

Let in-flight broadband fly, with voice capability. If its there, people will use it. I think the indifference right now to the possibility of the service is because people really haven't had a full taste of it and what it can do for them. And, as with other places and services, once people become used to having it and then come to rely on it, just as they did with the cellphone, in-flight netiquette will eventually develop of its own accord.