Economics 101 - Because they can charge for it and earn money. You got the first half right - they can't viably charge for TV. Why was it so difficult to draw the second half of this conclusion?

Posted by: Paul Kafasis at June 21, 2004 09:27 AM

Airports used to charge for TV. There used to be these special chairs with small screens that only the one person sitting in the chair could see. They were coin-operated.

Now, they don't charge any more. Probably because the TV-chairs no longer bring in any revenue.

Someday wi-fi will be free in the airport, as well.

Posted by: Chaz Larson at June 21, 2004 10:28 AM

Because, Paul, just like TV, the cost of charging for wifi is actually more than the benefit they'd get for giving it away. If it were free, far more people would use it (like TV), and they wouldn't have to pay for a third party to collect the money.

if we start with the assumption that an airport is a public good, somethign that exists for the benfit of the taxpayers, then the rules of a public good should apply.

There are plenty of things in our life that we COULD easily charge for (like billing you when the firemen come to your house to put out a fire) but we've decided as a society that a. it's not worth it and b. it's not in our interests.

I think this is another example.

When they decide to have a TV room that costs money to enter, I'm all for rethinking the analysis.

Posted by: seth godin at June 21, 2004 10:29 AM

I suspect it's because the advertisers pay for the TV's. Captive audience... sign them up! CNN has their own airport channel that you can't get on regular cable; they wouldn't have done that out of the kindness of their hearts. The airports probably even get a cut of the money, just like Channel 1 was offering free stuff to schools that forced their students to watch the channel (with ads)

The pay-tvs don't have a back-end connection with the advertisers; you get to select the channel from local broadcasters, so it's a lot more valuable than being forced onto one channel. (and I've walked very far to escape that channel and find some peace and quiet in an airport!)

Unless they can subsidies WiFi with advertising, I doubt it'll be free. But, then again, Muzak is free, so maybe there's a chance that airports will see the benefit of giving it away.

Posted by: morcheeba at June 21, 2004 04:48 PM

What's broken?

It says "Draft" on the TV?

Posted by: The one who doesn't get it at June 22, 2004 12:30 AM

my gosh, how stupid can you get? just because the picture shows something doesn't necessarily mean that particular thing is broken. if you can, take some time to actually read about the broken thing

Posted by: lane at June 22, 2004 11:23 AM

my gosh, how stupid can you get? just because the picture shows something doesn't necessarily mean that particular thing is broken. if you can, take some time to actually read about the broken thing

Posted by: lane at June 22, 2004 11:23 AM

my gosh, how stupid can you get? just because the picture shows something doesn't necessarily mean that particular thing is broken. if you can, take some time to actually read about the broken thing

Posted by: lane at June 22, 2004 11:23 AM

"Because, Paul, just like TV, the cost of charging for wifi is actually more than the benefit they'd get for giving it away. If it were free, far more people would use it (like TV), and they wouldn't have to pay for a third party to collect the money."

Are you sure that charging for wifi isn't making money for someone? If it were free, more people would use it; that would mean that the wifi provider would need to increase capacity, which means it would cost them even *more* to provide free wifi.

They're not interested in being cutting-edge; they're interested in making money on wifi. The point of offering wifi is not to attract you to their airport instead of their competitor's airport. It's a reaction to a demand: a lot of people with laptops and time to kill.

On the TV side, they realized at some point that they can make more money from the TV networks than they could from individual consumers, so TVs in airports are advertiser- or network-funded.

I mean, I can't get free coffee or magazines at airports either, even though most air travellers want a coffee and might read a magazine on a layover. Wifi is just coffee or magazines that doesn't need a store to sell it; a product for which there is demand from airport users. The contractor that puts in the infrastructure does so to get a return on his investment, and more people wanting coffee or wifi means more costs and better mean more profit, else the contractor is going to find another business where he can make money.

(The alternatives are local subsidization of wifi -- everyone in the airport pays for wifi for those that have laptops -- or outright government subsidization, where everyone, in the airport or otherwise, pays in taxes for wifi for those in the airport that have laptops. One way or another someone has to pay for providing the service, because the companies providing the equipment and the uplink and the maintenance need to be paid. If a hotel offers "free wifi", they mean "wifi included in room rate". If a coffee shop does, they mean "wifi included in coffee price". If a library does, they mean "wifi included in the library privileges your taxes support". The airport is just not bundling the service with another product.)

Posted by: mendel at June 22, 2004 01:16 PM

I can't see that being upset about not being given free wi-fi access qualifies as relevant to a blog about poor interface design.

Posted by: Steve at June 22, 2004 09:21 PM

Quote:

my gosh, how stupid can you get? just because the picture shows something doesn't necessarily mean that particular thing is broken. if you can, take some time to actually read about the broken thing

Well, since I don't get it, I guess "This is Broken" is broken ;)

Posted by: TheDummy at June 23, 2004 02:04 AM

"Because, Paul, just like TV, the cost of charging for wifi is actually more than the benefit they'd get for giving it away. If it were free, far more people would use it (like TV), and they wouldn't have to pay for a third party to collect the money."

Do you have statistics or information to back this up Seth? I've seen information that indicates that the cost of giving away wireless in something like a coffee shop is lower, and generates more revenue, than the cost of charging for it. But in an airport? They're not trying to draw people to their airport by offering wireless. More people would use it the wireless? How is that helpful to anyone involved? More people would drive BMWs if they were free - it wouldn't help BMW stay in business. They don't want more people to use it, they want more dollars to come to them. Do you think more people are likely to use a specific airport because it has free wireless? I sure don't.

Also, who is the "They" who wouldn't have to pay for a third party to collect money? My guess is the wireless network is created by a company who pays the airport, in the same way the Cinnabon stand pays to have a location at the airport. The airport makes money because someone is paying them to provide wireless. The company providing wireless is making money because they charge for it.

If you want to argue that wireless should be free because it's a public good, fine, but I don't see this as an example of something being -broken- unless you can point to the economics of charging for wireless in airports not working out. I think the fact that the system is still in place indicates that the economics of it make sense, until proven otherwise. Also, as someone indicated, we don't get free coffee, or free newspapers at the airport, even though that would be nice and "for the public good". Why? Because someone can make money charging for it. The same seems to apply for wireless.

Posted by: Paul Kafasis at June 23, 2004 10:09 AM

Everyone in the airport can watch TV, yet it doesn't cost any more; however, the more people use WiFi, the more bandwidth must be paid for. Places such as Starbucks can put up a free WiFi spot (though it's generally a pay system there too) because it could draw in customers that'll purchase their other wares -- more computer surfing, more coffee drinking (potentially). However, people aren't going to spend more time and money in the airport if they can get free WiFi; they're there only as long as necessary to deal with their plane (or picking up someone, etc), then they're outta there. I shudder to think what would happen if something like this actually encouraged more folks to go to the airport, to make the airport more crowded...

Firefighting isn't free, it's paid for out of our taxes. For airports to provide free WiFi, they'd need to up what they charge the airlines, which would increase the cost of tickets... either way, we pay.

It'd be a convenience to have an airport-wide WiFi system that we could tap into more conveniently (even if it wasn't free), but I can't agree that the lack is a broken experience.

Posted by: yada at September 1, 2004 01:11 AM

Many airports do offer free Wi-Fi. However, some things like network reliability (can you depend on their service), throughput (is there enough bandwidth for you to use the service), and customer service (who do you call when you have a problem) may not be there.

Furthermore, how does an airport pay for this infrastructure when the cities don't have any money? It costs a lot of money to put hotspots into airports - lots of access points and a whole network to connect them all. The t1 OR ds3 can't be cheap either. They can't get the money from airlines - they're broke.

Why not get a carrier to supply the service (all the equipment, advertizing, customer service, maintenance, the Internet service...) and make some money at the same time? Pay phones are not making any money since the cell phone was invented.

Posted by: HighTechVagabond at May 19, 2005 04:02 PM

Welcome to my world. I went to an airport boasting free Wi-Fi throughout. I used my Nintendo DS to try to connect thru Mario Kart DS, and I was baffled when I was blocked and given an error saying I couldn't log in to Wi-Fi because of a password-enabled Wi-Fi firewall. I asked the flight attendant for help, and all she could tell me to do was to walk about 10 feet over to the Burger King and try it over there, even though I was already connecting to the same router... Who offers Free Wi-Fi and puts a stupid password on it? Idiots. This Is Broken.

Posted by: Eric at January 23, 2006 09:47 PM

I just sat in Oakland airport waiting for a delayed flight and would have liked to check my email with my PDA. No luck. I don't visit Oakland very often and do not want to pay for a subscription. Has anyone developed a list of airports with wireless details (costs, etc). If you travel to Boise, ID the airport wifi is free, fast,and connects instantly.

Posted by: Tim at March 20, 2006 07:58 PM