
Southwest Airlines Offering In-Flight iMessaging for $2 Per Day - jkupferman
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/12/11/southwest-airlines-offering-in-flight-imessaging-for-2-per-day/
======
lukeqsee

        1. Pay $2.
        2. SSH/DNS/whatever tunnel out through iMessage port.
        3. Gloat? Profit?
    

Seriously, we probably all thought it. Just don't. It'll make life really
rough for all of our fellow iPhone addicts who will end up having to pay $8
again. (Also, you'd be breaking contract, but I imagine that doesn't matter
nearly as much to you, now does it?)

~~~
superuser2
The filter could be smart enough to allow traffic on that port _only to
Apple_.

------
sureshv
Flew out and into SJC yesterday on SW and all day wifi was $8 (covered both
trips). With roundtrip fair costing anywhere from $200-$300, I'd rather pay
for wifi than send some texts to iOS only users for $2. Sounds kind of lame.

------
reinhardt
Misread it as in-flight _massaging_ for $2/day.. Oh well.

------
kalleboo
No net neutrality in the air at least...

------
Zombieball
Perhaps I am missing something as I have not been following the issue very
closely.

Didn't the FAA recently announce that use of mobile devices during flight, or
gate-to-gate, is now allowed?

What is the incentive to pay $2 to send iMessages vs. simply turning on your
data connection & sending iMessage as you would regularly?

Is the issue that Southwest Airlines has not opted into the new FAA
regulations? Is cellular coverage poor during most flights (I admittedly
haven't tried using my cellphone during flights)?

~~~
smackfu
It's not poor, it just doesn't work. The recent talk about allowing in-flight
cell phone use was in relation to the airlines installing an in-plane
microcell of some sort for your phone to connect though.

~~~
baddox
Except for the calls that made it through from United 93, or was it at lower
altitude at the time?

~~~
encoderer
Certainly it was below the 30k' cruising altitude. And over a heavily
populated area. And voice connections are easier to get than data in my
experience doing, uhh, "research" of this sort.

------
knodi
Fuck you airlines!! You charge us more for tickets, you take away services and
now you're nickel and dimeing us.

~~~
AH4oFVbPT4f8
It won't be much longer until the airlines say, fly NY->LA for only $1500
including all fees such as being able to board the plane, bring a carry on,
check a bag, get in flight meal, free wifi, etc etc.

Once we all fed up with nickel and dimeing they'll go back to flat rate to
"save us money" only to then go back to al la carte.

------
MichaelGG
I wonder how hard it is to pretend to be an iOS device and use iMessage as a
tunnel. Probably not worth it at all.

~~~
nwh
Emulating iMessage is an awful job that only a select few seem to have
managed. The protocol is confused and complicated, the binaries are heavily
obfuscated, and Apple's servers ban quickly and with little warning. Even
those that have succeeded don't seem to have emulated it correctly.

~~~
jacalata
Yea, but that's if you want to emulate iMessage to the Apple servers in order
to send actual iMessages. I think the OP was asking about emulating it to the
airplane firewall in order to tunnel through, which could be a lot easier and
more useful.

~~~
evan_
It's unlikely that they're inspecting the packets at a level deep enough to
tell what they actually are. More likely that they're just letting you access
certain servers for $2.

------
nwh
[http://code.kryo.se/iodine/](http://code.kryo.se/iodine/)

------
zinssmeister
We can argue about the price point, but charging a la carte is a great idea.

~~~
jimktrains2
Missing an /s tag? Perhaps they, or your home ISP should charge access to
hacker news?

~~~
RKearney
They're not "charging" you to use different services. They're taking their
$8/day WiFi access charge, and reducing it by 75% if all you need it for is to
send iMessages.

What you just said makes it seem like you think Southwest is charging people
$2 on top of their $8 fee to use WiFi, which they are most certainly not
doing.

~~~
superuser2
Easy: Make sure "economy" internet includes enough to cover most people's
needs, most of the time. Price and market "full-service" internet like a
luxury so most users will select the "economy" plan.

Sell inclusion in the economy plan's whitelist for a private, negotiable fee
(measured in millions). Sell exclusivity per category (not outright, but by
offering reasonable fees to only the highest bidder). Big players don't have
to worry about competition, so their R&D costs are lower and their stocks are
safer (and more attractive) investments. ISPs win, large internet companies
win, small-government and pro-business voters win, the market wins. Large
companies which are in themselves platforms (Google, Amazon, Apple) become the
_only_ option to reach consumers, so they can take as large of a percentage as
they want. Consumers lose.

This is _precisely_ the nightmare scenario motivating internet neutrality
protections.

------
knodi
Free god damn wifi, its fucking 2013 and tickets cost like $300!!

~~~
encoderer
I believe there is some technical merit here. Bandwidth to an airplane is
limited and charging a small fee keeps it from being inundated.

When it's free -- like when Google sponsors it at Christmas -- it's not usable
it's so slow.

------
Kiro
I thought most airlines had free wi-fi nowadays.

~~~
Scriptor
Free? All the airlines I've been on had wifi but usually charged for it.

~~~
Kiro
Never seen anyone charge for it. Are you in the US?

