Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

64kbps @ 40,000 ft.

Posted by Hemos on from the lucy-in-the-sky-with-diamonds dept.

jumpstop writes "The NYT Technology section reports that 64kbps is now available on business jets. Sure, you can read your email and surf the web, but can you blast away at Wolfenstein?"

7 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by Quixote · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hate to break it to you guys, but the dot-com days are over. How many of the slashdot crowd can afford to take a spin in a "business jet" ?

  2. Re:Flying business class? by edyu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think a lot of people like me either fly on business by free upgrade or mileage upgrade. It's always better for the service to be at least available so it may trickle down to the economy class in time. Although that is only when there is a business reason to do so.

  3. Re:And in other news... by BiggestPOS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And then again, you're an idiot. Cox is building QUITE the high speed network, and even before they were, I consistently max out my cable modem to the cap they put on it, no matter what time of day. 128Kilobytes per second isn't all THAT bad.

    --
    What, me worry?
  4. Already approaching from the wrong direction by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Communications experts say they could charge by the minute or the bit.

    Why not the flight? Or the day. I'd pay $15 to have a solid net connection on a 5 hour flight.

    I'm looking at this from a passenger point of view, but I think we're eventually going to see (and need) net connectivity in the air.

    And it should be cheaper then they think. Why go for a wired network in the plane at all? Pulling cables through a pre-existing airplane has to be expensive. A decent WAP which can handle 64 users at the same time and cover the entire cabin gives you a lan at ~$5-700 installed. Couple that with pre-existing antenneas, get a decent switch, and violla, you have internect connectivity in an average craft for a few thousand bucks.

    Wi-fi is already becomming the standard at airports (even though current coverage stinks). Why not partner with one of the many wi-fi providers popping up? I don't subscribe to any of them, but if I found out that my subscription to boingo would keep me connected at the airport, in the plane, and the hotel when I landed, I'd sign up in a second.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
    1. Re:Already approaching from the wrong direction by mhesseltine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The one thing that I'd be worried about with wi-fi is interference. With cable runs, you can handle shielding better. As it stands, they want you to turn off your laptop, portable CD player, cell phone, etc. during takeoff and landing.

      Then again, if those are fine to use during the flight, then maybe this would be OK too. Any electrical engineers (or IANAEE) care to comment?

      --
      Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
    2. Re:Already approaching from the wrong direction by lw54 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why go for a wired network in the plane at all?

      Because wireless networks can have spurious emissions that their wired counterparts do not have to contend with. Unfortunately, I'm guessing the FAA will never allow wireless radio transmissions in an aircraft.

  5. Airline Security? by plugger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How will the airlines deal with people using encrypted connections to communicate with a third party? It sounds like the ideal way for someone to coordinate, say, a large scale terrorist attack.

    Hell, anyone with a modern web browser has the software installed. Then again, GSM mobile phones encrypt their traffic (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe it isn't seen as a problem.