American Airline's WiFi will cost $10-$13, anti-missile system still free

As you know, American Airlines is prepping in-flight WiFi in addition to, uh, anti-missile systems. Good news on the former, pricing is set. Good if $10 WiFi for flights less than three-hours or $12.95 for longer flights excites your fiscal sweet-spot like it does American's. Rollout will begin this summer on AA's 767-200 jets before rolling out across its entire fleet.

[Via WNN]

[tealfixie @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:26AM]

Um, F that, Just give me a damn power outlet in the seat please. What good is wifi if my battery is dead in 3 hours

[Cola @ Jan 23rd 2008 11:14AM]

Aircell, the company providing the service, uses cell towers on the ground to make the link to the plane. While cheaper than satellite (and possibly with less delay for VOIP), you don't have cell towers in the ocean. Further, I don't believe they have any agreement with Canada or Mexico to use their cell towers(if they ever get to Europe dealing with all the regulatory demands of each individual countries will be a pain). that means that a flight to anchorage would lose coverage either if it went over water or into canada.

Additionally, Aircell antenna is pointing down (not up to the sky as needed for satellites). when they come to an agreement with a satellite company to use sky capacity over oceans, they need to retrofit planes with an antenna pointing up. two antennas means increased drag, fuel cost, and equipment.

Basically, don't expect this on intercontinental flights just yet and especially not at these price points.

[OneLove @ Jan 23rd 2008 11:19AM]

Anti-missile system is not free, costs just hidden in higher ticket prices and gub-mint aid.

[THJ @ Jan 23rd 2008 11:36AM]

Nice! I can't wait to play WoW "Australia style"

[alexmueller @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:05PM]

10 dollars for a 2 hour flight? That's ridiculous, and what if you switch planes does it carry over, or do you need to pay 10 again?

[Jeff @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:27PM]

10 bucks is "ridiculous"? You need to get a job, dude.

Some of us remember when it cost $1,500 to fly economy on a 2 hour flight, with no internet.

Of course, planes in those days did have actual *bars* in them to pass the time: http://www.departedflights.com/COpub.html

[alexmueller @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:31PM]

Thanks Jeff, I'll keep that in mind while I'm working, and yes it's still ridiculous.

[Mike @ Jan 23rd 2008 1:21PM]

Not ridiculous, but actually pretty inexpensive when you think about it.

Have you priced magazines lately in the airport news stands?

I used the defunct Boeing service on a trans-Atlantic Lufthansa flight and it was a please to use -I think it was $19.95 at the time, and for transfers, was good for 24 hours. there also was a subscription option.

Alas, the Boeing service is no more.

I think the issue is setting the right point, and actually getting enough subscribers to cover the costs. Just think of the infrastructure for each plane, the maintenance, the quality of service, etc. And then compare to the cost of alternative "keep me occupied during this flight" alternatives.

[IndiaTech @ Jan 23rd 2008 2:26PM]

$1,500 for a two hour flight!!! What were you flying, Air Force One?

Seriously, what were you flying?

[Andrew @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:42PM]

I don't know what he was flying but the font used for that bar-in-plane ad is the same font used in BioShock's Rapture.

[Carlos @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:23PM]

I'm glad I can tether my cell phone to my laptop and use the internet that way. All for free! I get pretty decent speeds too, and with Evdo Rev.A coming shortly, its bound to get even better.

[Mike @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:26PM]

Anyone else think it is funny how for years the flight attendants would bitch-slap you if you even thought about turning on a wireless device, saying it may interfere with the flight electronics, but now that they can make money off of it, suddenly it is no problem? Do you think maybe it was never a problem?

[grjohnston @ Jan 23rd 2008 2:25PM]

I'm sorry, but except at home (or for a dollar an hour at internet cafe's if I'm traveling on an exceptionally long trip and chose not to bring my laptop), I don't pay for internet. Until WiFi's a free service for everyone, I'm not giving money for it. Sure, this might mean WiFi for everyone won't happen, but only if you believe that corporations have all the power, and people have none. We lived without internet for centuries; I can go a couple hours on a plane without shelling out cash for the service.

[THJ @ Jan 23rd 2008 3:28PM]

Viva la revolution! Open Source WiFi will crush the Capitalist Pigs! Pony Express FTW!

[nikster @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:49PM]

You have the freedom of not paying for it. I'll hand over $10 and surf away - each to his own.

Too bad this is cell phone tower based, I wish they'd revive the Satellite scheme from years past (Connexion or something). I used that once, it was $15 for a 10 (?) hour flight, and worked just fine. For long flights this kind of makes way more sense.

[vaiyach @ Jan 23rd 2008 5:24PM]

So can I continue seeding on-flight?

[Dan @ Jan 24th 2008 8:06PM]

That's quie a headline Mr. Ricker.

[A Texan in Bavaria @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:09AM]

I'd love to have that service on a trans-Atlantic flight for that price. First thing that's made me consider flying AA in ages!

Now, if only Lufthansa could sort theirs out again...

[Hester @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:14AM]

So Skype or other VoIP will be work? Can't wait to sit next to that!

[Flashpoint @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:20AM]

I was just about to say that... alot of foriegn businesses use Skype now and if you had a PSP or other Skype device, you'd theoretically be able to chat with them nonstop across the Pacific/Alantic.

I wouldn't be suprised if airlines started buying PSP and renting them out for flights. Internet access, Skype, gaming and music right at your seats.

Of course, I also wouldn't be suprised if Sony put its PS3/PSP operating system hybrid into airplanes so you could use the remotes as input devices for that type of service. The Japanese "Magic 3" system is already like that.

[NHAnimator @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:56AM]

If ANY airline starts allowing phone calls of ANY sort, you can bet that I will NOT give my business to them.

As much as I would like to make phone calls myself, I imagine sitting next to "Yup. Yup. Yup. No. Not really. Oh my God! No way! No! Ya. Did he? No he didn't! No way!" for three hours would make anyone reach for a parachute.

Apologies in advance for the caps, but GO THREE HOURS WITHOUT A PHONE CALL!

[Bob @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:01AM]

VoIP traffic is blocked at the switch on these systems.

[BobTurbo @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:08AM]

Anybody starts chatting on my pleasant flights and I will ask for them to be ejected.

[Bender Bending Rodriguez @ Jan 23rd 2008 9:08AM]

@ Bob,

Skype, and most other services, can be set to run over HTML. There is no way the switch will be able to determine the packet type. This also means that there is no QoS for VoIP either.

[Dan @ Jan 23rd 2008 9:30AM]

@ NHAnimator / BobTurbo:

Um, credit card phones have been in plane seats for donkeys years now.

[MEAT! @ Jan 23rd 2008 9:48AM]

If people are allowed to gab on their phones in restrictive, public places (planes, trains, buses), then I should be allowed to smoke cigarettes, too. The second hand smoke covers a similar area as the ear-shot radius of the gossiping teenage girl, and I guarantee that the carcinogens are far less deadly than the danger created when my nicotine-deprived hands pop the door open and I throw her the crap out.

Like OOHMMIGAWWD! this guy was just like "be quiet!" and I'm like "Um, no, this is a public plane," and then I was like, "um, noooo way! I paid $20 for this internet, like I knoooooooowwwww. That was so not hot."

[Nick @ Jan 23rd 2008 1:17PM]

@Dan

yes but the cost of those has kept their use to a minimum. But some chatter box would love to pay a flat rate of 10 or 12 bucks to have unlimited talk/usage time until the plane lands.

[Philip @ Jan 23rd 2008 2:13PM]

@ MEAT!

Thats a smart idea, light a cigarette in a closed cabin full of oxygen.

[IndiaTech @ Jan 23rd 2008 2:20PM]

@Bender

HTML has nothing to do with networking! It is a language. Something like your ability to speak English or Spanish has nothing to do with your ability to use a phone!
I don't know about other VOIP services but Skype certainly doesn't use TCP / IP to route the call. It requires a P2P network and will not work otherwise.
I think more or less they will just allow traffic through port 80. Which means it is good for your regular browsing but can't do anything else. Even streaming.

[MEAT! @ Jan 23rd 2008 3:48PM]

@Philip

A closed environment full of oxygen is the ONLY place a cigarette can be lit. E.g., within Earth's atmosphere.

(FYI, smoking was allowed in pressurized planes for years, as obnoxious as it was.)

[MEAT! @ Jan 23rd 2008 3:51PM]

@MEAT! (that's me) and @Philip

And by "full" I mean 21% concentration; and an airplane is not a pre-Apollo 1 space capsule.

[Garst @ Jan 23rd 2008 3:54PM]

@Philip

The air in an airplane isn't highly compressed, if compressed at all. There is no large threat posed from smoking on a plane. If there was, I'm sure we'd see at least one plane a year turn into a flying fireball. The problem with smoking on a plane is there is no place for the smoke to go or any way for it to really get dispursed, so it would cover a much greater area than a person's voice, MEAT.

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jan 23rd 2008 6:18PM]

@ IndiaTech,

I used HTML to make it simpler for laymen, but apparently that was a mistake.

Skype can use TCP/IP port 80. Unless they are filtering all destination IP addresses that correlate with Skype VoIP servers.

[IndiaTech @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:55PM]

@Bender
Skype doesn't have a Skype Server. It is a P2P network. The only time Skype uses a server is when a person logs on.
After a successful log on it connects to other nodes just like any P2P. Again, no TCP / IP connection here. Skype uses UDP for packet transport.
The only time TCP / IP comes into picture is when you cannot connect to any node. Then Skype tries to connect to a supernode using TCP first, then TCP on 80 and finally TCP on SSL.
Skype evolved from KaZaa just like Joost evolved from Skype.
The IP & port which a node uses for Skype is determined by that node / supernode.
I am not sure how other VOIPs work.

[Julio @ Jan 23rd 2008 7:55AM]

I'm flying this September with AA from US to Brazil... I hope they get this doesn't get delayed

[foxfire235 @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:05AM]

So will this be satellite or what? I'm on satellite and it sucks for one user, not to mention a plane full of people. I'm sure they block the ports for VOIP.

[nikster @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:40PM]

What do you mean by "it sucks for one user"? Are you saying your rented the entire Sat all for yourself?

If not, there's about 10,000 or more other users that use it at the same time as you are.
Sat has high latency but bandwidth should not be a problem.

[Brian Tankersley @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:04AM]

I'd assume that this is satellite based internet, which has too much latency for two-way telephone conversations usually. Since it has the same 2 second delay that you used to have with international calling, the additional lag with VOIP would make the call too slow for most.

That having been said, this is really something special in the air.

[Rboyett @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:09AM]

They need to roll that out on my Dallas to Narita flights. It sure would make those 13 hours go a lot faster...

[Itchy Pajamas @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:36AM]

I'd pay that for it. Now how much for a power port at my cattle-class seat?

[nikster @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:41PM]

The toilet has a power outlet. I know, I know - only for the true internet addicts...

[Jason @ Jan 23rd 2008 8:38AM]

First, I seriously doubt any p2p protocols, or voice protocols will be permitted, and probably a crapton of other stuff will be filtered out too. I suspect it will be cached web surfing, and if your lucky, some IM protocols.

The above is of course speculation. If they allow tunneling, then regardless of what they filter, it will be a moot point. Setup openvpn and route all the traffic through that, depending on the latency, and the tunnel overhead, you might be able to bypass any protections in place, and use what you want, but I doubt it, since they will probably also be using bandwidth throttling...

[Bryan @ Jan 23rd 2008 9:59AM]

1. Internet in planes is not new. It's been around for years. Internet in domestic flights is new.
2. Phone calls in flight are not new. It's been around for even longer.
3. I tested voip over airplane internet about two years ago. The connection quality was poor, latency was bad. I doubt that people will be using this to jabber for entire flights.
4. I don't understand why this hasn't caught on sooner on domestic flights.

For those of you who are interested, I was getting ping times of around 500ms to 1s and I was able to stream video from a home server at 80kbps.

[julkruk @ Jan 23rd 2008 10:00AM]

I could care less about making calls via voip on the plane, I would be extremely happy with IM and Email. That is the real winnar for the wifi on the plane, also my iPod touch would be extremely useful.