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?)

The filter could be smart enough to allow traffic on that port only to Apple.

1. Sniff wireless traffic

2. Hijack MAC address

(If you're gonna cheat the system, might as well go all the way)

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.

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

No net neutrality in the air at least...

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)?

Use of devices in airplane mode is okay. No data/4G connections allowed during flight (though that's hard to enforce, it is also damn hard to get a worthwhile signal and will quickly drain your battery as your phone searches for service).

Recent announcement allowed electronic devices but not yet phone functions that communicate with cellular base towers.

On recent flights with both United and Southwest, crews have emphasized devices must be in 'airplane mode' even if wifi is enabled later (for the inflight wifi service).

Cellular access is still controversial:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/disruptions-calling...

You can't get a cellphone signal 35,000 feet in the air.

Haha, thanks for the explanation.

My understanding of cell phone tower ranges is definitely limited, but I should've realized this. Now I feel stupid!

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.

Some flights on foreign airlines allow cell phone(assume through microcells). Just not on US domestic flights.

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

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.

You would have to connect to WiFi, which is $8 (honestly worth it if you would use internet at all on flights over 2 hours).

cell coverage is poor.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

I thought most airlines had free wi-fi nowadays.

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

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

Free Wifi is usually a benefit of being a frequent flyer. For Southwest, you need to be an A-List Preferred member (50 flights per year to qualify).

In the US maybe. In the rest of the world it's usually free.

I have never seen free wifi on an airline. Maybe in biz class?