Porn on a plane? Not if you're flying Delta Air Lines.
(Credit:
Delta Air Lines)
The airline, which plans to launch its in-flight Wi-Fi service later this year, has changed course on the controversial issue and now says it will block inappropriate Web sites from its Internet service, according to an article published Friday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Previously, Delta said its flight attendants would handle situations on a case-by-case basis if passengers were viewing pornography in-flight. But now the airline says it's taking a different approach after receiving feedback from customers and flight attendants. The company is currently working with wireless provider Aircell to come up with a filter to block the inappropriate content, the newspaper said.
The question of what to do about porn-viewing passengers has been brewing for months. In September, American Airlines flight attendants and their union asked the airline to consider blocking or filtering traffic on its in-flight service. But American's management has resisted requests for putting any restrictions in place.
American Airlines and Delta are two of several airlines testing in-flight Wi-Fi. American has been offering the service on a limited basis since August 20 on some flights between New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and between New York and Miami. Delta plans to have its entire domestic fleet of 330 aircraft outfitted with Wi-Fi by the middle of next year.
While Delta may be trying to appease the masses with its plan to filter traffic, that too is not without controversy. Earlier this year, the Denver International Airport took a lot flak for blocking access on its free Wi-Fi network to Web sites that officials deemed offensive. The filtering technology used there has been criticized for blocking nonporn sites such as Vanity Fair magazine and gossip site Perzhilton.com.
A Delta representative tried to reassure the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the technology it plans to use would "limited in scope."
I understand that people don't want to be subjected to unpleasant images on their neighbor's laptop while en route. Believe me, I'd be annoyed too if someone next to me was surfing for porn on a long trip. But the fact is that it's difficult to limit or filter access to the Internet when you're asking people to pay for the service, especially when that filtering traffic may block some very legitimate sites. The Aircell service costs $9.95 on flights of three hours or less, and $12.95 on flights of more than three hours.
What's more, I'm not sure that porn on planes is really a major problem. People have certainly had access to racy magazines and DVDs for years, and in all my years of flying I've never once sat next to someone who even pulled out a Playboy magazine.
My gut feeling is that most people would be too embarrassed to call up their favorite porn sites while sitting elbow to elbow with other people. Of course, there could be that one in a million guy who can't make it from New York City to San Francisco without checking his favorite site. But filtering everyone else's traffic just to prevent this rare instance seems like overkill.
Certainly, there are lots of people who get drunk on flights. And I'm not a big fan of sitting next to someone who smells like a brewery and pukes in the little baggy they put in the seatback. But you don't see airlines banning booze. Right?
Coffee, tea, or porn? "I don't think so," say American Airline flight attendants.
Leaders of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which represents some 19,000 workers including American Airlines flight attendants, asked American Airline's management this week to consider adding filters to its in-flight Wi-Fi access to prevent passengers from viewing porn and other inappropriate Web sites while in-flight.
A union representative told Bloomberg News that attendants and passengers have raised "a lot of complaints" over the issue.
(Credit:
American Airlines)
American Airlines is one of several airlines testing in-flight Internet access as a way to lure more passengers. American has been offering the service on a limited basis since August 20th on some flights between New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and between New York and Miami. The cost of the service on cross-country flights is $12.95, and it's $9.95 on the New York to Miami route.
The current program is in a 3- to 6-month trial period, and the airline plans to review usage and feedback on the service at the end of that period, an American Airlines spokesman told Bloomberg.
The controversy has stirred up an ongoing debate about whether Internet access in public places should be restricted. Earlier this year, the Denver International Airport took a lot flack for blocking access on its free Wi-Fi network to Web sites that officials deemed offensive.
The argument was made by Denver airport officials that users must abide by their rules because they are providing the service for free. But that case is harder to make for in-flight passengers, who are paying for Internet access.
Given that people are packed onto planes literally elbow to elbow, it's often hard not to at least glance at the laptop screen of the person sitting next to you. But airlines have not banned people from reading pornographic magazines or watching their own DVDs on flights. And it's just as easy for someone to view a DVD of an adult video on a laptop or flip through Hustler as it is to surf porn Web sites.
The truth is that it hasn't been a major problem on flights thus far. In fact, American Airline's spokesman Tim Smith told Bloomberg that the "vast majority" of customers already use good judgment in what's appropriate to look at while flying versus what's not.
And he added, "Customers viewing inappropriate material on board a flight is not a new scenario for our crews, who have always managed this issue with great success."
What do you think? Should airlines filter Internet access at 20,000 feet? Or should they just stay out of the censoring debate?
- prev
- 1
- next
