Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In-flight Broadband Internet Access Trial's Success

Posted by Hemos on from the making-the-connection dept.

flash_cube writes "Boeing Co.'s 'Connexion' business unit finally demoed its in-flight WiFi (802.11b) service this weekend ... even as (noted in this previous /. article) struggling U.S. carriers pull out of the joint venture. Still Boeing promises availability on other airlines in 'early 2003.'"

17 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. ... right now they're removing phone service by bunyip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Several carriers are removing / cutting off in-flight phone service. The systems are expensive, very few people use it, so it was a money loser. Having used it once or twice, I can also tell you that you can barely have a conversation over the noise of the engines.

    During boom times, airlines love to add all sorts of bells and whistles, just to have superior service. Then, at every downturn, they rip out the stuff that doesn't make them any money.

    Now is certainly not the time to put WiFi in planes.

    1. Re:... right now they're removing phone service by ViGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now is certainly not the time to put WiFi in planes.

      How come? How can they know that the stuff does not make them any money if they don't try it?

      --
      It has to work - rfc1925
    2. Re:... right now they're removing phone service by Bartmoss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not?
      Give one argument why it is not a good idea. The noise won't hinder you from typing emails, and the cost is reasonable (I think Lufthansa wants to charge something like $30 flat for a one-way trip). It is an EXTREMELY attractive feature for business travellers, who will be able to actually use those flights for productive work, and it also has good entertainment value for those people who are not gonna work. Add in maybe some sort of in-flight portal with information and a shop system, the possibilities are endless. I am also sure the crew itself will use this (for work purposes), so making money off of it may be an added benefit.

      That said of course there is always the chance that it will not be accepted by the majority of passengers, but I think you can hardly compare it to in-flight telephones.

      (disclaimer, I work for a major airline right now, but am not involved in this topic. Ohyeah and my views are my own bla bla etc)

    3. Re:... right now they're removing phone service by Kombat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Give one argument why it is not a good idea

      It will be used even less than the in-flight phone system. What do passengers need to have with them to take advantage of the phones? Nothing. EVERYONE on those flights were potential customers of those phones, and hardly anyone used them (mostly because everyone knows how prohibitively expensive they are, and there is usually nothing so urgent that it can't wait till you get on the ground). Now, how many of those passengers are potential customers of the Wi-Fi system? Those with laptops. That is, a very small subset of the passengers. How many of those would pay for this Wi-Fi service? I'd venture, "not very many." Thus, it is not worth it and will be a money-loser.

      The noise won't hinder you from typing emails

      Maybe not, but the price sure will. For 30 bucks, my trivial little email to you can wait till I hit the ground.

      It is an EXTREMELY attractive feature for business travellers, who will be able to actually use those flights for productive work

      They made that exact same argument for the in-flight phones, and now they're tearing those out, because they're money losers. Why should we now believe that it will work this time, for an even more exclusive service (i.e., you need to have a laptop)? Speaking as an occassional business traveler myself, those flights are a short-term haven; a chance to relax for a couple of hours inbetween hectic meetings. A chance to get some friggin' rest - not an opportunity to try and cram even more work into my 16-hour day.

      it also has good entertainment value for those people who are not gonna work

      ... assuming they have laptops and more money than brains. A $5 magazine will "entertain" me just as well for a couple of hours.

      Add in maybe some sort of in-flight portal with information and a shop system

      ...that costs mucho-$$$ to set up, and that again, will only be accessible to those passengers with laptops. How many of those people would actually bother visiting such an in-flight trash-shop? How many would spend enough money to make it worth the startup/maintenance capital? Can you honestly not see why this will be a money-loser? Sure, it's neat and all and has all this potential, but the bottom line is, it won't make money if people don't use it.

      I am also sure the crew itself will use this (for work purposes)

      Then you're clearly not very familiar with how these businesses work. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What the airlines have now for pre-/in-/ and post-flight procedures is working fine. Why would they change it, just to take advantage of some new tech that doesn't add any more value? Will using this system "for work purposes" save them any money? Think like a CFO. "Will using this system allow me to eliminate any staff?" That's the sad but true rationale for adopting new tech like this.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  2. Lufthansa already has it by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you don't care about WiFi and can live with a cable-connection in the plane, Lufthansa will provide you with internet access for transatlantic flights right now.

    The question remains: Why are cellphones forbidden while WiFi is obviously allowed in planes? Don't we all remember the englishman that got jailed for using his cell?

    1. Re:Lufthansa already has it by Effugas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Best I can tell, nobody seriously believes cell phones pose any genuine threat to aviation. We're not talking "Nobody believes marijuana is deadly"; I'd be surprised if there was any expert testimony claiming any risk at all outside that single courtroom. That being said, the decision was somewhat horrifying but necessary: When you've got hundreds of people in the air (and untold number on the ground depending on the plane flying, perhaps not landing on their head), you don't want individual passengers demanding the ultimate say over what is and isn't safe to do on the plane. Something as simple as, say, hairspray, a lighter, and a screwdriver can combine rather explosively, and they're all independently pretty safe. They're also all quite banned on carryon.

      If cell phones posed any threat at all, you'd be required to stow them in a faraday-caged box by the door.

      It's not entirely impossible that the ban originally arose out of a desire to make large amounts of money on the massively overpriced phones. Having begun the process of removing the ridiculously underused contraptions, maybe we'll see business travelers wooed back to flights by offering cell phone shielding, probably even on-plane base stations. Think about it.

      Yours Truly,

      Dan Kaminsky
      DoxPara Research
      http://www.doxpara.com

    2. Re:Lufthansa already has it by Jester99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cell phones in planes are a big problem.

      A cell phone operating in analog transmit mode can see for a few miles. Three or four. The problem is, when you're on the ground, that means that maybe you'll see five or so cell towers, max.

      This means you occupy one of a finite number of slots on each of five towers. No problem. But when you're way up in the air, you can see dozens of cell towers within a four mile as-the-crow-flies radius of yourself. Now you're using up about ten times more resources than you're supposed to, and effectively are DoSing the cell system. Furthermore, one of the most expensive parts of the cell phone network is the "handoff". (When one cell tower lets go of you, and another one picks you up.) When you are flying at 400 miles per hour, you cause handoffs to occur at a far higher rate, which racks up the costs to the cell phone companies far beyond what they'd planned on, too. (And there's no mechanism to pass the cost of those added handoffs back to you, so the cell company just loses out).

      As for jail time? I'm not sure why. During takeoff/landing, there's a lot of sensitive electronics that need calibrating, so you're definitely not allowed to use one then. During flight? Well, people are paranoid these days. *shrug*

    3. Re:Lufthansa already has it by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most digital cell phones nowadays actually transmit in the 2.4Ghz area

      GSM is 900Mhz, GSM-1800 is (amazingly) 1800Mhz. That covers everything in the world except US (GSM is 1900Mhz, don't know about others) and iMode in Japan. So where where are these "most" phones which run at 2.4Ghz?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  3. Too bad there's still so much lag. by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From Reuters:

    Connexion executives said data transmission speeds for the demo should be about five megabits per second coming into the plane and 128 thousand bits per second when sending data off the plane. The speed, they said, was similar to digital subscriber line service people have at home, but some users complained it seemed slower.

    My guess is that it's not slower, but has more lag (through a satelite link... bound to be laggy). If that is the case it's fine for browsing, but no good for games...

    Not that it matters, but how cool would it be to play Quake 10 Km up in the air? ;)

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  4. Yeah but... by PerryMason · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I cant understand is why it has to be Wi-fi in a plane? I mean aren't you supposed to sit down all the time?

    If the airline is handing out the laptops to people without them, wifi is just an added cost and for those with them, when did you last see a laptop with wireless but without ethernet? (handhelds aside) Seriously, where is the benefit to having it, over and above ethernet via your chair?

    Its pretty obvious why the American airlines (which one isn't going broke atm?) aren't too interested.

    --
    "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
    1. Re:Yeah but... by keller · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well I don't know, but i can come up with a few reasons:


      1. Weight of the cables, connecting every seat with regular ethernet cables is bound to add a lot of ekstra kilo's to the plane, thereby decreasing fuel-economy!


      2. Convenience! No cables means less hassle when the passenger in the window-seat wants to go to the bathroom in the middle of your Pr0n surfing ;-)


      3. Safety reasons, almost the same as above... No need to worry about tripping over a bunch of cables when trying to find the nearest exit!


      4. Coolness factor!!!


      I'm sure there are lots of other reasons out there, these were just the ones that popped in on me!

      --

      Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!

    2. Re:Yeah but... by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, one of the big concerns on aircraft is weight. I'd bet that all the Cat5 and the 200+ switch ports required for a 767-size airliner are going to weigh a heck of a lot more than 2 or 3 WAPs.

  5. Doesn't solve the basic problem... by stroudie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IM..(ever-so)..HO the airlines would be better served by extending the availability of in-seat power sockets.

    It would be nice to be able to work/surf/watch-DVDs on a long-haul flight without having to carry your body-weight in spare batteries. ...and now that I've got that off my chest, I feel better now :)

    1. Re:Doesn't solve the basic problem... by MoTec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely!

      I travel almost every week for business and it's rare to come across a plane that has power jacks. Most of the newer American Airlines planes I fly have them but I also fly Southwest, Delta, and Continental and I've yet to see a power jack in any of those planes. Even in AA's planes it's rare.

      Maybe this is mostly intended for longer trans-atlantic flights and such but I'm on lots of 2.5+ hour flights. That's long enough to need a power connection if you want to watch a DVD.

  6. Re:cost by roalt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Although I like on-line shooting myself, the problem with satellite-based internetting is that there is too much latency for games like Quake. The round-trip delay is much longer (400-500ms according to this website).

    So, if you want to frag in your Boeing, you'd better start a 30.000 feet high LAN party...

  7. Mobiles on planes. by goldcd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On the ground You can usually only pick up a signal from a few base stations, of which you lock onto the one with the best signal and has free time slots. Sitting in the air your phone can cover a much larger footprint, and uses a great deal more of the operators resources. Basically if everybody in the plane turned on their roaming GSM phone it would seriously screw up the networks they flew over. Combine this with flight paths where you have multiple planes, with passengers all carrying mobiles...

  8. WiFi is OK but not GPS? by demiller9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't understand how they can think GPS receivers might interfere with the plane's avionics but permit WiFi transmitters on board. Oh yes I do - the money they can charge for using it.