Hacker News Reader

Comment by amacalac | Hacker News Reader

Low latency for Video Calls?

Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other.

Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this.

Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

View on HN

This is already theoretically an issue. I'm going to link to Alaska Air's FAQ[0] simply because it's the most available online who note that streaming services are OK, but they don't "allow guests to make voice or video calls". I imagine the latency would make it a poor experience _too_, but the point is that airlines know you don't want people making calls next to you.

[0] https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/flight-experie...

Is it the same Alaska Air which just 20 years ago tried to sell in-flight voice calls on their in-plane phones for few bucks a minute, as any other airline did? Remember handsets in the backrest of the seat in front of you with the credit card slot on the side?

Yes, they and others in fact have changed their mind as the accessibility of this service has grown and can be expected to be used by someone easily for longer durations than before

Probably. Allowing people to stay connected on a plane is likely important, but now that "connected" can be "able to send WhatsApp messages" then the need for a phone is much reduced.

Do note the latency issues don't apply to Starlink. That's only a problem with geostationary satellites that are used by all other providers. Starlink has roughly equivalent latency to a terrestrial commercial wifi/cell service.

For the low price is just $89, you can sit in a seat in the quiet section.

I've been on international flights booked by my comoany, where I cannot change or upgrade anything - except my meal selection to say I need a special meal.

This is actually a thing already, and AirAsia charges $25 to $55 for the privilege: https://www.budgetair.com/en_us/blog/quiet-zones-vs-family-z...

Airlines should def offer sections - party/drinkers, quiet, families, the rest come to mind.

I don't trust people to be polite. A set of earplugs and a mask can make plane rides a bit more comfortable, though.

I think technology itself is enabler here. Airlines have to figure how to price the convenience of video calls vs privacy/solitude/disturbances to the co-passengers. i think having dedicated video call booths priced per 5 min chunks can address the issue.

And somewhat immediately, my brain assumes that people will use the booths to join the mile-high club. Virtually, of course.

Given high value placed on every square inch of the passenger cabin if that booth isn't being used as much as they'd earn from the extra seat they could sell instead, it's never happening.

> Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other.

Well that's the target for this service. They don't even support larger commercial jets yet.

Which aircraft types are supported for Starlink Aviation?

Supplemental type certificate (STCs) are in development for the following aircraft: ERJ-135, ERJ-145, G650, G550, Falcon 2000, G450, Challenger 300, Challenger 350, Global Express, Global 5000, Global 6000, and Global 7500. The Starlink engineering team will update this list as development begins on additional aircraft.

I get this angle, but I just bring good headphones and random-ass strangers aren't the most uncomfortable part of flying. At least not the noise they make.

Most airlines I've traveled on have stated at the beginning of the flight that video calls aren't allowed, they could always just keep that rule.

How is this so much more annoying to you than two people who know each other sitting next to you and talking or possibly as weird as this is gonna sound like maybe they were not completely anti-social people and just met and started talking?

Because when strangers start chatting next to you, you can join the conversation and at least aren't relegated to listening to one side of it.

Talking to new people in public is social. Talking on the phone in public is antisocial.

So if airlines enforced callers to put their device on speaker that'd resolve the issue?

Not really, since casually joining someone else's speaker call is almost as rude as taking one in the first place.

The objective when designing any environment where people are forced together is to limit interpersonal friction and, where possible, encourage civility and cooperation. From that perspective, all verbalizations to or from people not interacting with the environment are detrimental.

> all verbalizations to or from people not interacting with the environment are detrimental

huh? connecting with someone you love over a video call is detrimental to the environment you're in?

At least for me, my brain distinguishes between the two situations.

If two people are sitting next to each talking I have the ability to easily tune them out. If one person is talking to a phone I can't. There's a study about it here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

"one-sided conversations still impacted participants’ self-reported distractibility and memory, thus showing people are more attentive to cell phone conversations than two-sided conversations"

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

> a problem left to etiquette

I fly regularly, and it will absolutely become a problem on day 1.

This seems so backwards to me, why would you want other people to behave the way you want them to when you can just put in earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, have self control and not get annoyed, etc etc. It seems crazy to me that people consider something so minor to be uncouth or whatever. I think in general the onus to take care of something should be on the person getting annoyed and only until you've exhausted your easy options should it shift to compromise.

Like I get why we have cultural norms and stuff for the most part, but if it's something that you can easily solve for yourself imposing on other people seems very selfish.

Just let people live their lives and don't be mad.

Talking about economy class flights - you aren't paying enough to avoid what is often extremely inconsiderate behaviour, you're stuck very close together, there's literally zero prospect of getting off it early if any bad behaviour occurs, and you often can't even change seats if there's bad behaviour.

While I generally agree with a live and let live attitude, someone who would listen to music out loud, or have a phone call in anything other than the most hushed tones in an airplane are inconsiderate sociopaths

>"This seems so backwards to me, why would you want other people to behave the way you want them to when you can just put in earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, have self control and not get annoyed, etc etc."

Because you are in a captive environment at increasingly close quarters on increasingly fuller flights. "Live and let live" is a great philosophy but flying coach today is not the same level of "shared public space" as say walking on a city sidewalk or sitting in a park.

Why ban smoking on the plane when you can just breathe through a mask and deal with it ?

Earplugs, noise cancelling headphones etc are imperfect just like masks are.

I really don't think these are at all the same class of thing. One is like, a basic human need? I think for most people? The other is a harmful vice that has a lot of documented negative effects.

> noise cancelling headphones

decent, working anc is still out of financial reach for many people flying in economy. there's no way not to be classist when talking about what flying economy is like today, but the average hn participator probably has more disposal income than the average american.

> I think in general the onus to take care of something should be on the person getting annoyed

i'd agree, except it takes one person to be magnificently annoying to 5 or 6 people at once. sometimes less, often more.

> it will absolutely become a problem on day 1

To the degree it's permitted by airline policy, it will almost certainly be on a premium Wi-fi tier and restricted to call booths.

> restricted to call booths

on an airplane? there is no way that could possibly work.

You can take a call in a restaurant, yet almost no one does.

Have you been around people in the last 10+ years?

Etiquette will fail.

If this ability is there, the airlines need rules. People will use it.

Etiquette can be enforced.

The problem with enforcement is that it is always uneven. And, when you can't get away from the person violating etiquette, it sucks real hard.

Do you similiarly object when they turn to the family member in the next seat over and hold a conversation?

Human ears have much better dynamic range than whatever crappy microphones are built into phones. Thus, when people are sitting next to each other in a public space, they can typically whisper, or talk just above the noise floor. This is as opposed to phones, which posses an uncanny ability to cause people to yell at the top of their lungs.

While that may be true about dynamic range, I don't think that's the reason.

There is no feedback whether they are talking too quietly or too loudly.

My phone will pick up my voice if I whisper as well as if I yell, and the person on the other end will be able to hear either just fine. People just have a hunk of metal that they hold up to the side of their face (not really in front of their mouth), so they think they need to compensate.

If the TV ads for phones showed people whispering into their phone and advertising how good the microphones and noise canceling is, then we might not have this problem, but they don't.

I feel like people have the good sense not to have loud conversations on flights. But if the option _is there_ and folks are expected to now join video calls from the sky, etiquette and sense might take a back seat.

I think it’s well documented how annoying hearing just one side of a conversation is.

Beyond this, yes it’s rude to talk at length on a plane to other people on a long haul flight, for example. I mean I get it but flying is by default a stressful experience as is.

Overhearing half a conversation is much worse worse than overhearing a full conversation. Overhearing conversations doesn't bother me but overhearing half of a telephone conversation drives me up a wall and makes me want to get out of wherever I am, which on a plane, isn't possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com