back to article More Wi-Fi in the sky: FCC to help keep US flyers tweeting

The US spectrum regulator wants to release 500MHz of radio spectrum for aircraft backhaul, creating cheaper connectivity for passengers taking their entertainment into their own hands. Seventy per cent of American flyers take electronic devices with them, making the screen-back displays increasingly redundant, but mid-air …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. MondoMan

    Er, life jackets on planes came in handy on the Hudson River in New York...

    Remember those photos of life-jacketed passengers after the US Airways ditching a few years ago?

    1. Robert Carnegie Silver badge


      Does landing unexpectedly in downtown New York count as having your life saved? It's scary there. You could stray into Wall Street and lose every penny you've got.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Fatman

        Re: You could stray into Wall Street and lose every penny you've got.

        Shit, you don't even need to travel to Wall Street, your local securities dealer Ponzi Scheme Marketer can see to that.

  2. Rampant Spaniel

    This is a good start, lets see this extended at least to Europe. Hopefully with a smidgen of commonsense we might see near global coverage in flight. I don't mind paying 15 bucks for 24 hours access, but it's a pain when it doesn't work over oceans or outside the US (as is the case with some airlines currently). I know it's not as important as issues like Syria, but I honestly thought they would have sorted this out long ago given the ability to make coin, something that normally gets them moving. Plus how long to actually roll this out? I still take flights that don't have wifi in the US. Some routes are a joke, lovely crts bolted on the roof with a variety of awesome colours, you think the fuel saving for lighter lcd's would pay for them to be upgraded.

  3. Herby


    I want my airplane time to be "Quiet Time" where NOBODY will disturb me. I can get one of those head covering pillows (I just saw it on TV) and get some (medically induced, or otherwise) shut-eye.

    The difference between doing it "in-flight" or on the ground is of little consequence to me. If people need my input, they know I'm on the plane, and they can WAIT! Besides, most of the time I'm on a plane I'm on VACATION!

    1. Rampant Spaniel

      Re: But...

      I feel your pain, and I think stuff like skype etc is a bit beyond the pale but planes are hardly quiet to begin with. I don't think me doing post processing on a shoot is worth it. Sure I could do it at home, or I could do it in the air and spend time at home with the family. Mouse clicks and emailing shouldn't cause much distraction, the problem lies with 'those people' who are barely aware that they share the world with others.

  4. Bob H

    I think 4G has a big advantage here, I realised that because 4G doesn't do voice by default you could just exclude the extensions. For London Underground or even planes we could have 4G hotspots which don't support voice capability and that way we can choose access or not!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Until VoLTE gets rolled out...

  5. Nameless Faceless Computer User

    No, phones in the air do not "confuse" the networks. Do you know how I know? I'm not an expert. I wrote and asked them.

    Apologies for injecting some facts into the debate.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022