In-Flight Connectivity and Streaming Rights: Why Altitude Shouldn't Change How the Internet Works
Note: This analysis is based on reporting from APEX and Runway Girl Network covering the APEX EXPO 2025 session featuring executives from Disney, BBC Studios, Paramount Pictures, and Sony. IFECtiv did not attend the event.
Studios and trade groups are suggesting airlines avoid promoting unrestricted streaming onboard. This position is difficult to reconcile given that airlines are neither procuring nor distributing the content. Passengers are accessing content they already paid for through their subscriptions, whether at home, by the pool, on a train, or at sea. In each case, the content travels through an internet service provider (ISP), sometimes using satellite links, sometimes cellular networks. Is there a meaningful distinction between streaming on an aircraft? And if so, why aren't cruise ships facing the same scrutiny over content rights, given that they operate in international waters and technically not on terra firma?
Protecting content rights remains essential, but airlines that function mainly as internet providers appear to be drawn into enforcement considerations that would more logically rest with rights holders.
Is It Really a "Consumer Misconception"?
As quoted on the APEX website, APEX CEO Dr. Joe Leader stated, “The consumer misconception is, ‘If I can stream it at home, I can stream it in the air’. Yet it is worth asking whether that is truly a misconception. For years, the industry has promoted in-flight connectivity (IFC) with the ability to stream content if the IFC provider supports it. Many airlines have marketed connectivity in exactly those terms, and a review of airline websites today shows many still use that narrative. So it’s not surprising that the consumer would expect their streaming app to work wherever there is connectivity even if inflight.
Passengers subscribe directly to services such as Netflix, Disney+, and Spotify. Their relationship is with those providers, not with the airline. When passengers use IFC, they are simply accessing services they already paid for, just as they would anywhere else they may stream from like home, work, trains, waiting rooms.
The ISP Question Nobody's Answering
Traditionally, in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems featured content that airlines licensed and stored on the aircraft. This content was then distributed either through seatback screens or wirelessly to passengers’ personal devices via an onboard server. In that model, airlines were clearly acting as distributors.
However, when an airline provides in-flight connectivity and passengers stream content from their personal subscriptions, the situation changes entirely. The airline functions as an internet service provider (ISP), not as a content licensee or broadcaster.
Put simply:
Broadcasting means sharing content one-to-many, as with traditional IFE systems.
Streaming is a one-to-one connection between a user and their own account.
The airline is not rebroadcasting; it is simply providing the conduit for connectivity.
To illustrate the distinction further:
A home ISP is not liable for what its customers stream.
Coffee shops offering internet access are not treated as broadcasters.
Hotels providing internet access do not license content.
So why then, are airlines being drawn into a rights conversation that others in the connectivity chain are not?
The Geo-Fencing Solution That Already Exists
Studios already employ geo-fencing technology worldwide to enforce licensing territories, controlling which content is available in specific regions and adjusting each subscriber's library accordingly. The same principle could easily apply to aircraft networks.
Aircraft IP addresses can be treated like any other geographic location. The technology exists, and the solution is proven. If studios can restrict access based on location across the globe, applying that logic to in-flight connectivity should be straightforward.
This approach reinforces the ISP model, allowing studios to manage access for their own subscribers regardless of where they connect. However, if studios chose to restrict in-flight access beyond what passengers currently enjoy, it would likely frustrate frequent flyers who already subscribe to streaming services and have successfully accessed them via in-flight connectivity. Similarly, introducing an "in-flight add-on" fee for their streaming services would likely fail to offset implementation costs while creating unnecessary customer dissatisfaction.
Whose Law Applies at 30,000 Feet?
In fairness, there is one legitimate complication involving the legal uncertainty surrounding international airspace. Content rights are built on terrestrial frameworks that rely on geo-restrictions and regional licensing. When an aircraft crosses multiple borders at 30,000 feet, which jurisdiction applies, and does that vary depending on how the content is being consumed?
As reported by Runway Girl Network, Dr. Joe Leader cautioned that this uncertainty creates "risk across the entire value chain," while Richard Ashton, Vice President of Sales and Marketing at Sony, observed that penalties for unauthorized streaming could reach "millions." This raises an important question about who would actually incur such penalties. It seems unlikely that airlines, who neither procure nor distribute the content, should bear responsibility for how passengers use their own subscriptions. It may be that airlines are simply easier to penalize than individual users, but even then, the notion of "unauthorized streaming" in this context remains legally ambiguous.
Until this ambiguity is resolved, it seems premature to classify airlines as broadcasters simply because jurisdictional lines blur at altitude.
Examining APEX’s Role in the Debate
The APEX EXPO 2025: Studios Address In-Flight Streaming Rights Challenge article on the APEX website raises questions about how any trade association manages the inherent tension between facilitation and representation, given typical industry relationships through board participation, sponsorships, and partnerships.
Engaging antitrust counsel is a sensible step, yet this issue extends well beyond commercial aviation. It is likely to affect private aviation and other connected mobility sectors as well who should be at the table and represented by the relevant associations. A broader and more inclusive framework is needed to address the full scope of implications.
APEX’s historical success with Region 8 DVD codes is often cited as proof they can facilitate industry-wide solutions. APEX created a system where DVDs authorized for in-flight use would only work on aircraft DVD players. However, it's worth noting this applied to airline-controlled IFE systems, not to passengers watching their own DVDs on their personal devices. The precedent, while relevant, isn't quite apples-to-apples when comparing airline-licensed content systems to passengers accessing their own streaming subscriptions over IFC.
APEX's success with Region 8 DVDs, while noteworthy, addressed a fundamentally different problem, that is, how airlines distribute licensed content through their own systems. The current debate about passengers streaming their own subscriptions over IFC requires a fresh framework, not simply an adaptation of the old model, if one is needed at all because the airline is not the broadcaster of streaming over IFC.
Dr. Leader's recommendation that airlines avoid promoting streaming "until consensus develops" seems prudent given the legal uncertainty. But is there really any uncertainty? The technical distinction is clear: airlines providing IFC are not distributing content. The legal ambiguity stems from applying terrestrial content frameworks to international airspace, not from any confusion about the airline's role.
If APEX's role is neutral mediation, then the outcome should reflect the technical reality: providing IFC is fundamentally different from curating, processing, storing, and distributing content through airline-controlled systems.
What Passengers Actually Expect
Passengers aren't asking airlines to provide them with free access to streaming services. They're asking for reliable internet connectivity so they can use the subscriptions they already pay for. The expectation isn't that IFC equals free content, it's that IFC equals access to their own content.
Perhaps the real issue is that licensing frameworks haven't evolved to match how connectivity works in every other context. When passengers can stream aboard cruise ships, in international hotels, and through any other ISP without those entities being treated as broadcasters, the airline exception seems arbitrary.
Can Protection Become Overreach?
Protecting content rights is essential, but there must be a limit to how far enforcement can be stretched. Perhaps the current model has reached a point of maturity. If the scope of rights protection keeps expanding, the costs to implement, monitor, enforce, and litigate rights could soon outweigh the benefits.
Rather than forcing airlines into a broadcasting framework that does not match their technical role, several more practical paths exist.
Streaming platform responsibility
Streaming platforms could introduce aviation-specific terms within their standard subscriptions, or more simply, apply existing geo-fencing technology to aircraft IP addresses, just as they already do for every other location worldwide.Technical solutions with clear boundaries
Edge-caching hybrid models, as mentioned by Christopher Hill of Disney during the APEX EXPO 2025 panel, have been proposed as a compromise. However, edge caching, where content is stored on the aircraft’s onboard equipment, places that content under airline control and could draw carriers into the content rights debate by making them de facto distributors. This approach risks blurring the ISP distinction and increasing costs. With IFC technology and reliability improving rapidly, airlines should question whether edge caching remains necessary at all.New licensing frameworks
Instead of treating all airline connectivity as broadcasting, rights holders and industry associations could establish distinct terms that clarify the differences between:Airlines storing or caching content (requires licensing; they are distributors)
Airlines providing pass-through internet access (functions as ISPs; studios manage access through geo-fencing)
Hybrid models, which should be precisely defined so airlines understand their legal and commercial implications.
The Business Model Question
It's worth examining what studios are seeking in this context. Passengers have already licensed the content through their subscriptions. When they stream via IFC, no new content consumption is occurring, only the method of internet delivery changes. Yet the framework being discussed would position this as requiring separate airline licensing.
This raises an important question: if passengers have already paid for content access through their subscriptions, should airlines also pay for providing the internet connection that enables that access? The only variable is altitude.
Back to Basics: What Problem Are We Really Solving?
The question isn't whether content rights matter because they absolutely do. The question is whether treating airlines as broadcasters makes sense when they're providing internet access.
One more time, if an airline offers IFC and passengers stream their own subscriptions on their personal devices, the airline is only acting as an ISP. If it's being argued that this is not the case, then a clear explanation is needed for why altitude changes the fundamental nature of internet connectivity.
As the commercial aviation industry works toward clarity through APEX STREAM, making sure we're prioritizing the right problems and bringing all stakeholders to the table should be the first items on the agenda. Whatever framework emerges will likely set the precedent for how streaming rights are handled across all transportation modes offering connectivity: private jets, cruise ships, trains, buses, and beyond. The implications extend far beyond APEX's traditional commercial aviation focus.
Disclaimer: This commentary reflects the independent professional analysis of IFECtiv LLC, an in-flight entertainment and connectivity consulting company. It is based on publicly available information and industry expertise. It is provided for general informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as professional advice, as specific circumstances may vary for each organization. This commentary does not allege any unlawful conduct by any party and is not intended to interfere with any business relationships.