I thought the matter was dead after Boeing shut down their much hyped in-flight WiFi plans (yep), but Engadget got a seat on JetBlue’s private introductory flight for their WiFi service. The good news is that it’s free, the not surprising news is that Yahoo! is partnering in it (and it requires a Yahoo! account), the bad news is that all you get is Yahoo! IM and email. No web browsing, or anything else useful. Well, that and there’s no power outlets.

If I didn’t like flying, or at least if I couldn’t tolerate it, I wouldn’t making my third distant trip in as many months. And though I know many others spend a whole lot more time in planes than I do, I still think Vasken has a bit of a point in the following:

I couldnt help thinking about the horrid dichotomy that is airline travel… on one hand, my flight from Philly to Manchester takes 50 minutes, or 6+ hours less than the trip takes in a car–on the other hand, it took me 5 hours to get from my house to the place I was staying in PA, a savings of a mere 2 hours. Looking back, the stinking train ride took a full hour to transport me a whole 10 miles, the drive home was another hour (45 miles), and the security line comes in dead last (a full 15 minutes for 20 feet). The 50 minutes in the air? 350 miles, and they bring you drinks. What a marvelous technology, rendered almost useless by the inadequacies of American public transit and the paranoia of its citizens.

Anyway, see you in Corvallis.

travel, airlines, air travel, flight, flying, time, security, wasted time, vasken hauri, flying time, trasnportation

I do a lot of flying in and out of Boston’s Logan Airport, so I’ve been following the controversy about WiFi there with some interest.

The story is that Massport, the government agency that runs the airport, is trying to tell tennents — like the airlines — that they can’t operate their own WiFi networks. But the FCC previously ruled that landowners had no authority can control use of the WiFi spectrum on their premises.

Glenn Fleishman pointed out a November 25 editorial about the matter. The editorial calls Massports action a “frequency grab” and suggests a likely reason for Massports unusual interest in the matter:

[T]he airport has granted a monopoly to one provider that charges $7.95 a day, part of which comes back to the airport.

Massport’s complaint is about potential interference or use by terrorists, but Fleishman notes that

If Wi-Fi interferes with airport purposes than the airport is not operating itself correctly, and the TSA, FAA, and FCC should assert control over their use of spectrum until it’s sorted out.

The editorial remarks that the airport’s complaints don’t pass the “common sense test”

The airwaves in and around airports are used for hundreds of purposes, including cellphones, taxicab radios and local law enforcement. Yet Massport would have us believe that only Wi-Fi poses a problem.

Meanwhile, Atlanta has gone wireless, and Fleishman can’t help buy point out:

[N]ote that Atlanta is not whining, like Boston, about several existing Wi-Fi networks operated by airlines and others interfering with critical systems and emergency response.

tags: airlines, airwaves, atlanta, boston, cellphones, common sense test, editorial remarks, emergency response, faa, fcc, glenn fleishman, government agency, logan airport, massport, spectrum, taxicab, tsa, wifi