mrchris

According to this article in VoIP News http://www.voip-news.com/feature/inf...rlines-012208/

Alaska plans on filtering VoIP traffic to prevent people from using the internet to make voice calls inflight. However they have no plans to filter content.

Now I'm in agreement with filtering voice traffic, I dont want to sit next to some loudmouth yakking the whole flight. But lack of content filterign could be interesting, I've got to say I think the sounds of fake orgasms might be just as disturbing as some drunk on the way home from LAS talking on the phone the whole flight... Hopefully they would at least use headphones while surfing/watching their "entertainment"... I guess depending on their row-mates they'll either be disgusted or asking for extra headphones to plug in

tonei

Because travelers can't watch porn without being on the internet?

terrier

Yeah, not sure I register the complaint here. This has been an issue since the birth of the laptop computer. I expect it would be dealt with the same way as it always has - admonishments (or threats, or actions if the initial contact doesn't fix the behavior) by the FA's.

Content filtering isn't necessary or desirable. It won't catch everything, and will catch false positives. Better to address the behavior of the user than the data over the wire.

Eastbay1K

The standard should be the same as now - if you have a Hustler centerfold open and the surrounding pax have a problem, close it up. If you make noise when looking at it, sew it up. Filtering is just so troublesome. If you try to research the breast cancer charity that their water goes to, you could end up being filtered. Common sense. Too many rules is really troublesome. What about some chemist working on whatever and his research could be construed as something that could take down a plane? There's no good line for this one.

mrchris

Well not that I would necessarily support either porn or internet phone calls in-flight.... my point was that they ARE content filtering, by filtering VoIP, but not filtering other kinds of content... and I am surprised that they stopped at voice traffic and nothing more, especially with the rash of in-flight gropers recently.

terrier

Filtering ports or protocols is different than filtering content. It's not as though AS is blocking only certain conversations over VoIP or limiting the numbers you can call, for example.

They could just as easily block, say, HTTP as block VoIP. That wouldn't really be content filtering, though it wouldn't do much for making the service popular either.

CZBB

Given how the system will work, I suspect there will be high latency and occasional dropouts of connectivity, both killers for reliable VoIP. With that kind of connection, VoIP would be spotty at best, and the source of many potential complaints. By simply making sure it doesn't happen they're heading it off at the pass, so to speak.

As for what content people might surf, it's entirely possible that some people may find a recorded religious sermon more offensive than the sound of two people 'making the beast with two backs'. It's not like Alaska Air are including the sexual position of month card in with your dinner tray.

Eastbay1K

No, because it is always missionary on the card. They certainly aren't going to change that any more frequently than the Digeplayer content

SEA_Tigger

Bingo.

Anyone inconsiderate enough to watch pornographic - or just graphic - material now (be it a movie/video, a magazine, or whathaveyou) would not be stopped by not being able to stream it live over the on-board WiFi.

jddssc121

you can get around the filter if you really really want to....but without some sort of QoS going on, i'm guessing the call quality will stink

Points Scrounger

On my last flight, the fellow across the aisle was an Anglican minister busily writing a sermon (much consulatation of the Prayer Book) - he discussed it with his colleagues in the row behind mine.