United puts the kibosh on in-flight video chat, one family seriously 'bummed'
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted March 12th 2010 12:17PM
posted March 12th 2010 12:17PM
It may not be illegal to tuck your kids into bed via iChat while taking advantage of United's in-flight WiFi, but that didn't stop a flight attendant from ending John Battelle's (admittedly precious) use of the service during a flight two days ago. It seems that the airline has a policy that prohibits "two-way devices" from communicating with the ground -- you know, in case some terrorists board the plane and try some shenanigans. Apparently a laptop with WiFi isn't considered a "two-way device," until you throw videoconferencing apps like Skype into the mix. Somehow, it seems, the company missed Apple iChat when blocking ports, thus enabling the whole affair. Let this be a lesson to those of you with children: save the chats for the hotel room or the airport lobby, eh?
@asteffey
that makes no sense at all. This is communication over TCP/IP that they put on the planes for customers to use.
[facepalm]
@TheOriginalJared
I can imagine all the sensitive information this guy can give out . . .
"well Im in a plane . . . yeah its in the air, we're going to land at some point."
@TheOriginalJared yep. actually double face palm. all these games aren't going to stop anything, just change the rules
you can't get up during the last hour, so you go get your stuff before then
you can't have access to gps, well anyone with a little math skills can guess when you'll be flying over a good spot based on takeoff time, speed etc
you can't talk to the ground via chat. but hey text and email seems to be fine.
and so on.
@bolezhinkov
I literally do this every time I fly (which is often, weather permitting).
Ridiculous. The FAA, and some airlines, really have their heads buried in the dirt.
@bolezhinkov
That's every overheard cellphone call on a flight.
@masse
Yup, these people only think unilaterally.
They prohibit communication because of a risk of terrorists communication. But that also prohibit normal folks to communicate with authorities when something bad happens.
@TheOriginalJared Pretty much. Isn't any internet use going to be two way communication? What about Gmail chat? What about email? Posting updates?
Transferring info from your machine to a server and vice versa is the whole point of even having Wifi.
In FlighT.
T T ttttt TTTTTtttttttTtttttt
figure it out.
Great way to prevent terrorism. Blocking ports is so hard to get around.
@Dreamwell exactly what I was going to say...
@Dreamwell
Yes, if terrorists really wanted to they could probably by-pass proxy's, ports, all that jazz. Everything is hackable, but just think how badly it would look for the airline companies if they werent at least trying.
@getnormal84
But you see, that would require thinking, and if you're going to blow yourself up, I just don't see that happening....
@Dreamwell Yeah like running something through port 80 or 443 isn't a easy way to get around that? As long as everybody involved is briefed on the ports to use during the flight you can go through about any unblocked port to use about any service.
@Dreamwell
Why is everyone assuming terrorists are attempting to communicate with a person. I'd be more concerned about remote detonation. Any connectivity to the ground is a huge risk and not really worth the perk of people checking their youface profiles.
@moneymark
If terrorists manage to smuggle explosives onto a plane, you've got a bigger security hole than a few open ports.
And there are simpler and more reliable ways to detonate explosives than remote detonation over the intertubes.
@MattL
So what, eff it? Why bother since there are other ways? The more ways there are to exploit security holes, the higher the risk. Increase the amount of ways to detonate a device and you increase the chances of creating an even less detectable exploit. Using your logic we might as well stop screening entirely cause hell, you probably can get something by if you want to.
@moneymark
Or we could you know....
...screen for the explosives instead of the many ways they might be detonated.
@MattL
What is the point of not doing both? Anything considered mission critical always has redundant backup systems. I personally consider my life mission critical, you can deem yours however appropriate.
@moneymark Mission critical? We're talking about iChat here Chuck Norris. You can sit back and relax knowing that 98% of jihadists go with a windows based notebook. That is according to a recent engadget poll that you weren't informed of.
Oh dear. I can understand the thought process behind this but the futility of it is immense!
And Skype over port 80 doesn't work because...? Deep packet filtering?
@techlife
I think they are doing deep packet inspection. For example if you try Skype via WiFi you'll actually find it works for the first 3 seconds then it gets really quiet and garbled, you can tell it's intentional.
If they were doing this per-port it would just be blocked altogether, or scrambled from the instant you started a call. Instead it takes a few seconds to recognize the voice data and mess with it.
Yes of course a terrorist could signal his team of flying monkeys over Skype then they could force their way aboard.
Obviously terrorists don't use Macs eh?
Since when did united have wifi?
@shadenfreud88 Only on their transcon "P.S." flights.
No, i think he was just too Fat to Video Chat and the airline is covering it up!
Jeez, they're really begging us to not fly. I checked AmTrack rates recently, and my next few trips may be by train.
@joelaf Obviously you've never spent much time on Amtrak.
@tamayoduck
One of the best trips I ever had was in a sleeper from ATL to DC. Like a second honeymoon.
@joelaf You must be taking very short trips or flying first class for it to come anywhere close in price. I checked into talking a train to California from Missouri and it was over $1000 and would take 3 days. Flight was under $200 and took hours.
@KAL326
ATL to NewOrleans is $54. The Fertile Crescent loop, that runs the eastern seaboard and down along the Gulf is beautiful, and cheap.
@joelaf
I may be Engadget's only AmTrack fanboy~
@tamayoduck
Amtrak is a fantastic way to travel. The on train service is competent and old school friendly, despite the black cloud of underfunding. But their longer routes are very pricey, getting from ATL to Chicago is easily double the cost of flying. taking the train from Seattle to Montana is a great ride.
Even Amtrak commuter rail, at least between Baltimore and DC, was pretty good (if not always on time).
@VIRGINA
The expense jumps when you cross lines. Traveling on a route that is uninterrupted is faster and cheaper.
@joelaf
No, there are others. Train travel makes sense for trips under 400 miles, unless you're just going for a pleasure trip to look at the scenery.
There are literally hundreds of flights out of Chicago to nearby midwestern cities (e.g. Cleveland, St. Louis, Louisville) that would be cheaper and faster by train. Hell, there are flights from Chicago to Milwaukee!
Multi-day cross country trips are fun, but they're really geared towards tourists, and with the lack of equipment, fairly expensive during peak months (for a sleeper car).
Frankly, I'm getting close to calling it quits with the hassle and discomfort of air travel. I'll take the first-class legroom, dining car, observation car, electrical outlets, and casual atmosphere of the train over the cramped, hectic, peanut-munching, $100 checked-luggage experience of flying.
@KAL326
I don't doubt your numbers. You don't take the train long distances if you're interested in fast and cheap. The long routes are all about the scenery. The California Zephyr travels through the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains, not to mention the red rocks of southern Utah. 'Very nice.
@joelaf
They just need to look at their service. I want to be able to go from Indianapolis to Chicago with only two or three stops in between. It takes 3 hours by car, yet 5+ hours by train. At least once a day there should be a high speed train that cost $20.
@Spiny Norman
One of the best parts about train trips is the feeling of community. People move about, to the dining car, bar, etc. Get up on a plane, you better have a real good reason.
@rcappo Part of the problem is AmTrack has to lease rails from commercial freight lines. They're tied into the freight lines schedules and rules.
@rcappo
We'll get there eventually. Check out the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. We're way behind the Europeans, and even the Chinese now, but we have to start somewhere. There are a number of "higher" speed projects in the works, but it'll be a looong time before we have truely high speed trains, if ever. That's OK, though. We don't need 200 mph. As you point out, we need trains that compete on the same level as automobiles, and better than planes for short trips.
Look, what we need is a transportation *system*. No one mode will be sufficient. We've poured thousands of miles of concrete for roads and runways, but we don't have the money to maintain them properly, never mind expand them.
Look at Chicago. We're spending billions to expand O'Hare, when several hundred flights a day are flying to cities as close as 100 miles away. Get those people on to trains, and we eliminate the need to expand the airport.
It's estimated that California alone will require billions of $$$ just to keep the roads at their current capacity, never mind expand capacity for expected future population growth. In many areas, there's simply no room to widen the roads, and when they do, they're at max capacity in a matter of a few years.
Trains are the most efficient means of moving people short distances. However, as you point out, it's a chicken and egg problem. People are going to use trains if they aren't convenient, and they won't build the trains if there are no passengers. However, if you look at the states that expanded service, e.g. Chicago to St. Louis, the numbers went way up. If you run ever hour or two, people will use the service.
@joelaf
Yes, that's true. However, I think the Class I railroads are starting to realize that they can expand their capacity at a discount if they work with Amtrak. One way is to improve track condition and signaling systems. Amtrak pays for the improvements, and the railroads benefit from increased capacity and more efficient operations. It's a win-win.
Another option is to build a second or third track on the railroad right-of-way dedicated for passenger trains. This gets the passenger trains out of the way completely, and again, it's a win-win. However, this is much more expensive than improved signaling, so we won't see it in too many places. One place it is being proposed is the southeast link out of Chicago on the Norfolk Southern. This is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the Amtrak system, affecting almost all east-bound trains.
@Spiny Norman If a dedicated 2-track high speed rail link (and I mean high speed as in TGV/bullet train/ICE/etc type speeds, not what passes for "high speed" now) was built between Grand Central in New York and Union Station in Washington DC and tickets on this train were offered at prices that were competitive to the airlines (i.e. a ticket on the train cost no more than a ticket on the plane) it would be a major hit. Total time from origin to destination on such a service would be faster than an airplane (no need to deal with check-in, security checks, baggage claim etc) plus you wouldn't have to worry about what to do with your Swiss Army Computer Repair Toolkit knife you always carry in your laptop bag.
Terrorists use video chat, we can't have that on the flight. In other news it has been discovered that terrorists are known to use airplanes so all flights have been cancelled.
@Fuzzybunnyfeet
am i really the only person who's terrified by the idea of having to listen to this family's nighty-nights? not to mention business meetings and yahtzee chatroom video three-ways? as far as i'm concerned, united can use whatever whatever lame excuse they want!
>prohibits "two-way devices"
So, pretty much anything that can connect to the internet?
@Wallyum
Or all communications. Even accessing a web page can be used as a way to communicate.
@Wallyum The last thing we need is to turn a plane into a flying phonebooth or videophone booth. I don't need to hear some chatty person next to me or god help us, chatroulette.com.
What's to stop terrorists using private forums or that for communication?