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.'"

46 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. SPAM at 35000 feet! by LibertineR · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great! Now my hotmail spam can reach me ANYWHERE!

  2. cost by odyrithm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    was'nt 56k dial up access about 50quid a minute or somthing? I dont want to even think what the cost of this will be.. :(

    --
    moo
    1. Re:cost by drfishy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, but it'd be worth it to frag someone from 35,000 feet!

    2. 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...

  3. ... 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.
    4. Re:... right now they're removing phone service by matthew.thompson · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ... assuming they have laptops and more money than brains. A $5 magazine will "entertain" me just as well for a couple of hours.
      Last I've been sent to three countries for business in the last couple of years and I've clocked up 56.5 hours of flying time. I always carry a laptop and I'm not a big business traveller.

      To fill this with entertainment from magazines would cost $140 at your rate of $5 per magazine every two hours.

      If the 3 long haul trips cost $25 each way to get internet access I'd have paid around $150 - throw in two magazines for the recent European trip and you've got $160 worth of entertainment.

      Personally I think I'd prefer the Internet based entertainment as it enables me to keep up to date with the news (More and more important these days) and would enable me to get on with more work.

      Compared to in-flight phones which can be used once or twice by a few people throughout a flight to get across important information (I had to cancel a mobile phone from a flight once as I had it stolen in the Airport) Internet access is a feature that offers long term benefits throught the entire length of a flight.

      I welcome it. And thankfully B.A. and Lufthansa - my favourite airlines - are rolling it out :)
      --
      Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
  4. 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 Talez · · Score: 3, Informative

      The question remains: Why are cellphones forbidden while WiFi is obviously allowed in planes?

      Possibly because cell phones operate on completely different frequencies and can reach much higher power levels than Wi-Fi?

    2. Re:Lufthansa already has it by Xacid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I think it's because the cellphones were trying to access towers on the ground directly while the wi-fi may be linking to some sort of bridge on the plane and then to the towers or satellites. That branch off might be a factor.

    3. Re:Lufthansa already has it by kc0dby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Possibly because cell phones operate on completely different frequencies and can reach much higher power levels than Wi-Fi?

      As far as general interference is concerned, a slight frequency shift is not going to make any difference. Most digital cell phones nowadays actually transmit in the 2.4Ghz area, and while the frequencies are distinct, they are not significantly different from WiFi to create a different interference problem.

      And as far as the power difference, cell phones automatically trim back their power when they are in favorable transmission conditions, such as, say, when you have direct line of sight with hundreds of towers from FL380. And on top of that- power/distance formula for electromagnetic waves will help you deduce that a 2.4872 Ghz carrier at 500mW (full power for every handheld phone I've owned in the past 5 years) will cause nearly identical interference to that of a 2.4025 Ghz carrier at 100mW. (common power for Wifi)

      I've worked at quite a few companies that had radio controlled locomotives or overhead cranes, and many of them had a 'no cell phone on site' policy when cell phones first became popular. The claim was that they could interfere with equipment, creating a safety hazard (much like the airlines claim) After my supervisor asked me to research actual safety issues involved, and finding the protocols used for these digital radio control devices to be quite failsafe, it was determined by higher-ups that safety, in fact, wasn't an issue.

      However, the no cell phone policy was redefined as 'except for business purposes' and the actual reasoning behind the original policy became obvious- they didn't want employees making personal calls during business hours. The policy was profit motivated, much as the airlines policy is. Yeah, they don't have in-seat phones on the little puddle jumpers- but they don't really want the customers to know what the motivation behind the policy is.

      And before I get any responses about the FAA being the problem, not the airlines- remember, the government is a puppet of the corporations, and the FAA is definately NOT an exception.

      --
      I apparently forgot that sig != uptime...
    4. 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

    5. 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*

    6. 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"

    7. Re:Lufthansa already has it by transient · · Score: 2, Informative
      The question remains: Why are cellphones forbidden while WiFi is obviously allowed in planes?

      The notion that this is a safety concern is a popular misconception. The law that forbids cell phone use aboard aircraft was created by the FCC, not the FAA.

      The following information is second-hand; I can't promise its accuracy, and unfortunately, I can't track down the source anymore. I do know that it's from a private pilot who tried to use his phone while airborne and ended up with some insane roaming charges.

      Cell phones are designed to be used on the ground, and really bizarre things can happen to them in the air. Cell towers radiate RF mostly horizontally and very little vertically. This means that in the air, your phone can't see the tower directly beneath you, but it can see towers hundreds of miles away. And it can see lots of them. Imagine your cell network doing a handoff from a tower in Chicago to one in Louisville, then to Dayton, Detroit, St. Louis, and Nashville. Now imagine it doing that over and over again, and it's easy to see why using a cell phone on a plane is a bad idea.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
  5. Can't wait to try it... by vwpau227 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember trying to send a few e-mails from the in-seat phone on a plane once (it was a long trip, from Toronto to Vancouver, a few years ago, and I was bored). The message took forever to send, the connection was so slow, and it was such a pain to set up. And the phone bill was huge at the end of it! I remember writing that it was costing me more per minute to send this e-mail message than it was to talk on one of those "Telephone Psychic" lines.

    This sounds like a great idea... I'd love ot try it. This sure would make flights (especially long flights) more productive for me and less boring.

    --
    These are the good old days you'll be telling your children about. Make them worthwhile.
  6. porn on the plane by solidox · · Score: 4, Funny

    you could join the half-mile high club. ;)

    --
  7. Mile High for Geeks? by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 3, Funny

    This means I can download pr0n while in flight! The closest I'll ever come to the Mile High Club...it *does* count, right? RIGHT?

    *sob*

    --
    Vote for global prefs bug
  8. 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/
    1. Re:Too bad there's still so much lag. by samael · · Score: 2, Funny

      could it be that it's slower because you're sharing with 300 other passengers, half of whom are downloading from Kazaa?

      --
      My Journal
  9. Re: Mobile phones vs 802.11b (Wi-Fi) or Bluetooth by vwpau227 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think there is a big difference in the transmitting power of Mobile phones vs. 802.1b (Wi-Fi) or Bluetooth. Mobile phones transmit at a much higher power (600 mW to 3000 mW) compared with 802.11b (Wi-Fi) at 100mW, and Bluetooth, which with a lower-powered radio, transmits at only 10mW. These lower-powered wireles data transmissions have a reduced ability to wreak havoc with other wireless data transmissions. This is one of the key difference between Mobile phone technologies and Wireless LAN or Wireless PAN technologies.

    Also, unlike mobile phones, both 802.11b (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth technologies are operating in the unlicensed (ISM band) frequencies. These frequencies are free for everyone, even consumers, to use for wireless communication, without licenses. Mobile phones, on the other hand, use the frequency spectrum licensed by the mobile phone network (carrier).

    --
    These are the good old days you'll be telling your children about. Make them worthwhile.
  10. Thanks to the Patriot Act by borgdows · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA has the right to shot down planes whose internet connection is used to download copyrighted music!

  11. 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 kakos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Think about it this way. In order to cover an entire airplane, you'll need one or two access points for 802.11b access. In order for ethernet to work, you'd have to put jacks on every seat, which may mean replacing the entire seat. So, the difference is a couple of hundred bucks for two APs, or replacing every seat in the plane with seats with ethernet jacks.

    2. 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!

    3. Re:Yeah but... by mlush · · Score: 4, Informative
      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?

      On an airliner WiFi wins over wired because:

      Wires are heavy the few hundred meters of cable required hubs etc would weigh much more than a WiFi rig, every extra kilo costs fuel every time the plane flys. After fitting the WiFi hubs only users add weight (ie the adaptor cards)

      WiFi is cheap to fit, just lob the boxes in and configure, wired installation would need to be done during a big refit and would require skilled fitters to string the wires (more cost!)

      WiFi is cheap to remove (you really don't want deadweight on a airliner!)

      I recall hearing that an 'airline' was playing with fuel numbers and found that if the crew did not wear shoes on their flights they could save $200,000/year in fuel, can anyone provide a source for that?

    4. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Yeah but... by mikeophile · · Score: 3, Funny

    How the hell do you warchalk at 35,000 feet?

  14. Sweet! by mschoolbus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long do we have to wait until we have DNS servers flying above the country?

  15. $25-35 for long-haul flights by jpatokal · · Score: 2, Informative
    was'nt 56k dial up access about 50quid a minute or somthing? I dont want to even think what the cost of this will be.. :(

    Didn't think to read the article either, now did you?

    Connexion in turn will share a percentage of the revenue it gets from passengers, who could expect to pay $25 to $35 for Internet connection for each international flight and less for trips of shorter distance.
    Not cheap, but just might be worth it for a 12-hour stretch of terminal (har!) boredom... at least if there's AC power for the laptop as well. And the target audience is not ./, it's people in suits who can call this a business expense.

    Cheers,
    -j.

  16. Cost is reasonable - $25 to $35 by monkey_tennis · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to this ZDNet article costs are £15 - £21 ($25 to $35), which I'd pay for an 8 to 12 hour journey.

    Only downside is that the article reports the service as being a bit slow and patchy - I guess they'll nail that in time.

  17. In the future... by DaPhoenix · · Score: 4, Funny

    What will be really funny is the new type of black hat hacker who, from the comfort of a transatlantic flight, not only figure out how to get the connection for free, but exploit international waters...
    We'll have a new breed of webpage defacements that will come from groups with names like j4l, s4s, 44 and b031ng.

    great

    --
    -- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
  18. hmmm by djupedal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, if I connect using my Airport equipped iBook, and share that connection with my friend back in coach who has a similar setup, we can split the cost, etc.

    All it takes is one wisegeek per flight, and they'll find less paying customers than they expected. Oh well, nice while it lasted. My big worry is finding a way to keep running for those 12 hr. flights back to Asia.

  19. Another perspective. by FreeLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This AP story has a different take on the matter. Seems that the broadband access isn't without significant issues. Excuse the pun but, I don't think that this service is going to fly.

    Also, on a slightly different topic, has anyone tried using a laptop on a plane lately? While it is fine in a First Class seat, using a laptop in coach seats is a royal pain. Unless you have a really small laptop, there simply isn't enough room. With the new bigger screens that laptops have today, it is virtually impossible to open the laptop to a position that it can be comfortably viewed, while in a coach seat. And, if the seat in front of you is reclined you can completely forget it. Inspite of this we are still force fed this marketing about the use of laptops on aircraft. Most recently is Yao and Mini-Me using an Apple laptop with a 17" screen. Great for first class front row, impossible in the majority of seats.

    1. Re:Another perspective. by Moofie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, according to Apple, the 12" TiBook is 8.6" deep, and the 17" TiBook is 10" deep (measured when folded). So, the big 'un is much wider, but not dramtically taller. It is, for instance, shorter than the various 15" screen PC laptops, which are also much thicker in the base.

      And, while we're on the subject, Yao Ming wouldn't fit very well in coach class anyway, would he?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. Dangers of In-Flight WiFi by MatthewB79 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sexxxychica: hey cutie wanna cyber?

    BigMan69 I'm horny as hell and I'd love to get freaky with you but I'm on a flight right now :-(

    Sexxxychica: really? me too! I'm flying to Sydney. you?

    BigMan69 Wow I'm on Qantas flight 609 from Honolulu to Sydney.

    Sexxxychica: No joke? I'm in seat 15B! where are you??

    Sexxxychica: You still there?

    Previous message was not received by BigMan69 because of error: User BigMan69 is not available.


    Airline Tickets: $800
    In-Flight WiFi : $30
    Being trapped on a long-ass flight sitting next to a man who knows you were pretending to be a woman and whom you just tried to have cybersex with: Priceless

  21. Some info by PygmyTrojan · · Score: 2, Informative
    Firstly, this service has been available since Jan 15th. They're trial running it on 2 flights a day until April 15th:

    LH418 - Frankfurt to Dulles (departs 1:10pm local time)
    LH419 - Dulles to Frankfurt (departs 5:55pm local time)

    Also, starting tomorrow, British Air will have a 90-day demo on 2 flights between Heathrow and JFK:

    BA175 - London to JFK (departs 11:00am local time)
    BA112 - JFK to London (departs 6:30pm local time)

    --

    Trying is the first step towards failure.

  22. 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...

  23. even creepier... by ianjk · · Score: 2, Funny

    the guy who just spent the last hour in the bathroom with his laptop... (different mile high club)

  24. Better article with more technical details by anon7864 · · Score: 2, Informative

    is available on commsdesign.com

  25. 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.

  26. Also, you can move the seats in passenger planes by alispguru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I assmue you've noticed that the seats in ariplanes and the windows don't match up. That's because the spacing for the seats is variable, as is the placement of the first-class/cattle-car divider. If the seats each had a 10*baseT jack, all those wires would have to be moveable. WiFi just hurts a lot less as far as installation and maintenance goes.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.