VoIP is Still Disruptive

There is one thing about VoIP fanatics that you can count on:  show them a "rule" and they will find a way to break it.  That's what Andy Abramson and Joanna Stern did last night.

American Airlines is launching a wireless Internet access service called Gogo, provided by Aircell, on some of their flights, providing unlimited Internet access for the duration of the flight for about $13 per flight. Unlimited, that is, except for this little gotcha from their terms of use:

"No Voice Applications.   You will not use any type of voice application (including, without limitation, voice over Internet protocol) without written permission from Aircell."

Various motives have been ascribed to Aircell for this restriction, including a desire to keep people from bothering other passengers by engaging in an interactive conversation with somebody not on the plane, or, more likely, a desire to preserve ridiculous profit margins on pre-existing in-flight telephone services.  Whatever the motive, Joanna and Andy were determined to break the rule.

Joanna Stern, News Editor for Laptop Magazine, was on an Aircell-equipped American Airlines flight last night, and decided to try a VoIP call, inviting Andy Abramson to join her using SightSpeed.  Well, Aircell blocked that call but it didn't stop Andy.  He kept trying, and guessed rightly that Aircell wouldn't be blocking Adobe Flash.  Knowing that Phweet's VoIP application used Flash audio, he invited Joanna into a Phweet conversation and they happily had an extended VoIP conversation for most of the remainder of the flight. 

This reminds me of those locked iPhones from last year...it wasn't long before there were a dozen or so work-arounds for unlocking an iPhone so that it could be used with a non-AT&T network.  Where there is a will, there is a way.

Kudos to Andy and Joanna for proving that you can't keep a good VoIP down.

Comments

[Walter Conolley]

I agree with Dutch that the reasons for Aircell's decision might in fact be based on something other (even much more important) than profits.

However, I don't agree with the assumption that the following statement is true:

"While it's true the Sept 11 attacks were carried out by cells sophisticated enough to coordinate essentially simultaneous attacks against 4 different targets..."

Forget the usual ignorant comments about conspiracy theories, there are gaping holes in the official story and it isn't just fringe wackos pointing out the problems with the official story or The 9/11 Commission Report.

For those serious about doing research/investigation, I would recommend checking out...

-> 911 in Plane Site (DVD) available at www.911inPlaneSite.com (and Amazon)

-> Loose Change Final Cut (DVD) available at www.LooseChange911.com (and Amazon)

-> 911: The Road to Tyranny (DVD) available at www.InfoWars.com

-> The Truth and Lies of 9-11 (no longer officially available since FromTheWilderness closed (long story)), but the VHS version is available on Google Video.

Most, if not all of these, can be seen on Google Video, You Tube, etc.

There is so much good inforation/research out there, but these videos are a good place to start, especially if you can buy/view the originals with good quality video.

[Dutch Brinkert]

Ike,

I agree that there may a strong profit-preservation motive behind not allowing air passengers to access voice applications hosted over internet sites. However, in today's hyper-security sensitive world that airlines operate, I seriously doubt this is the reason behind Aircell's blocking of these services.

Any application that enables real-time air-to-air communications (which a web-enabled site would allow) also provides an enhanced ability to coordinate attacks on multiple targets.

While it's true the Sept 11 attacks were carried out by cells sophisticated enough to coordinate essentially simultaneous attacks against 4 different targets without C3 (command, control, communications) capabilities; access to web based communications applications allowing flight-to-flight let alone passenger-to-passenger communications significantly lowers the threshold in terms of the level of organisation, planning and sophistication needed to stage a future attack.

Sure, there are ways to circumvent today's business model where a passenger can only initiate a voice call to a ground number and not a passenger on another flight but doing so requires a higher level of organisation and sophistication than would be required if passenger-to-passenger/flight-to-flight communications were possible. Can you imagine the liability accruing to Aircell and the airline if they were responsible for providing a service that actually enabled / increased a flight's vulnerability to this degree?

While it may be tempting to attribute a "darker motive" to actions...it may not always be the first one that comes to mind.

Dutch

[Peter Radizeski]

It's time for me to bring pepper spray. If I sit next to someone who decides to yak into his PC the whole flight, I will not be happy. Bad enough air travel is rife with headaches, add screaming kids, turbulence, and now talkers -- NO WAY!

I can't fault a screaming baby -- just the parents.

The non-stop talking can be politely stifled.

The talker - who is obviously breaking the TOS of No Voice Apps - maybe booting up and running bittorrent until I suck all the bandwidth may be the option - or spilling my coffee on his laptop.

[Stuart Henshall]

Ike,
The little snip "no voice applications" really made me smile. I'm with Andy talk sections and quiet sections. In the end I will just take the seat that has some legroom!
Cheers
Stuart

[DG Lewis]

I suspect the prohibition against VoIP is less to preserve the profit margins on in-flight telephone services, which are all but dead -- Airfone has been sold to JetBlue, which says it will use the assets for an email/messaging service -- and more due to the perception that voice is a bandwidth hog. Although given that a decent VoIP codec can run at 8-16 kb/s with significant quiet periods, I suspect VoIP is actually less of a bandwidth hog than, say, a Flash-heavy website.

[Andy Abramson]

Ike,

Thanks for the kind words.

One clarification. I didn't "keep trying." I knew what wouldn't work and figured Flash based audio would. It was then I decided to use Phweet, but I suspect any Flash based audio (or video) would have worked too.

It's time to create a "Talking Section" and a "Quite Section" on the plane. There's no difference between a screaming baby, a non-stop talker and someone on the phone? Until the airlines ban talking all together, the whole point of the "rule" is not balanced to all passengers, just those who are technically advanced, and can afford the $13 dollars.