Internet Access 10 Kilometers High Up In The Air

Marton writes "Lufthansa started rolling out their Flynet service in 2004. It is now available on several long-haul flights such as 411D - the one I'm sitting on right now. It is not cheap ($30 for the duration of a flight) nor is it very fast (satellite-based technology can't deliver the snappy response you are used to on the ground) but it is really, really nice. It's great to be able to check my email, catch up with some work, or just surf the web - airplane time used to be about napping, paperbacks or crappy movies. Now if only they'd let me have a cigarette I could actually be productive too. " Marton also gave us a traceroute which is attached... I'm going to Tokyo in May and crying that Northwest won't have this.

Here's a traceroute from my laptop which is currently on an A-340 10,000 meters up in the air, doing about 800 kilometers per hour, somewhere over the Atlantic bound for Munich.

C:\Documents and Settings\Marton>tracert www.slashdot.org

Tracing route to www.slashdot.org [66.35.250.151]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 2 ms 3 ms 2 ms 172.16.64.1
2 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms cbb-cds-psn.by.boeing [172.16.0.18]
3 3 ms 4 ms 2 ms sbs.by.boeing [172.31.0.1]
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 568 ms 626 ms 576 ms 10.8.20.38
6 703 ms 567 ms 583 ms ltn02r03-vlan25.connexionbyboeing.net [10.8.20.2]
7 580 ms 705 ms 582 ms ltn02r21-fa2-9.connexionbyboeing.net [10.8.16.25]
8 627 ms 582 ms 632 ms 10.8.16.33
9 579 ms 581 ms 581 ms ltn02r01-fa3-3.connexionbyboeing.net [10.8.16.130]
10 619 ms 582 ms 582 ms ltn02r02-fa3-3.connexionbyboeing.net [10.8.16.131]
11 581 ms 582 ms 665 ms 12.125.155.5
12 655 ms 912 ms 1072 ms gbr1-a31s1.dvmco.ip.att.net [12.127.4.134]
13 1144 ms 1612 ms 1939 ms gbr1-p60.la2ca.ip.att.net [12.122.1.29]
14 1500 ms 712 ms 580 ms tbr2-p013301.sffca.ip.att.net [12.122.12.133]
15 613 ms 579 ms 582 ms 12.122.80.57
16 589 ms 608 ms 790 ms dcr1-so-3-0-0.sanfranciscosfo.savvis.net [192.205.32.110]
17 588 ms 605 ms 582 ms dcr2-loopback.SanFranciscosfo.savvis.net [206.24.210.100]
18 609 ms 1774 ms 1079 ms bhr1-pos-0-0.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net [208.172.156.198]
19 610 ms 968 ms 1108 ms csr1-ve243.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net [66.35.194.50]
20 1109 ms 886 ms 998 ms 66.35.212.174
21 630 ms 860 ms 994 ms star.slashdot.org [66.35.250.151]

Trace complete.

Comments

Re:NICE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The typical price of the ticket is $600 economy to $3000 business... does another $30 for internet access really matter.

Re:Mwuhahahahha

[raju1kabir]

ping -f -s1460 172.16.64.1

Um, you do know what network 172.16 is in, right? Next will you be launching a DOS against 127.0.0.1?

Re:NICE!!

[mqx]

if they made it a bit cheaper it would be better though?

Sure, and it be better if high-end computing servers were cheaper too, but really: a global plane based relatively high speed internetwork is not cheap to build and run: we're talking about fitting equipment into planes, trials and testing, satellite bandwidth, the cost of satellite services, etc. This is not inexpensive.

I actually think $30 is not too bad for what you're getting. It's not for everyone, but it's within the reach of many people, considering many of us think nothing about easily spending $30 on a restaurant meal.

Not only this, but international airlines are not actually loaded with revenue that they could absorb the cost of this service into existing price you pay, and really, I wouldn't want my mother (a non internet user) to pay higher trans-atlantic fares so that she can subsidise web browsers: user pays!

I'm sure we'll see the service expand and improve in the future, but for now, it's a fairly decent start. I'm not on a 6 figure salary, yet I'd have no problems paying for this service on the 2-3 12+ hour flights I make per year.

Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights?

[Richard_at_work]

I dont think the safety rules are over the top. You are at 37,000 feet, if you have any sort of emergancy at that altitude its going to take you time to get on the ground, and then evacuate the aircraft, so its a case of limit dangers to only those necessary. Why endanger the aircraft needlessly jsut to pander to someones personal addiction, because thats what it is?

The smokers forced the ban

[AtariAmarok]

I remember when it was allowed. Smokers routinely smoked in the non-smoking section, and threw burning trash on the floor of the plane.

Re:NICE!!

[rkv]

well if the mobile phone companies can convince the FCC that mobile phones can be used in the air then this 30$ service would'nt be necessary as high speed broadband connection would be available :D. so ya i still think its too much.

Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights?

[LnxAddct]

You have a problem and you need help. You are trying to justify smoking on a plane. You can't go a few hours without a smoke? People are doing a favor for your life, how many tmes has it been proven that smoking kills you, and kills you quickly. I'm so glad my city is banning smoking, you people contribute nothing but ill effects to the rest of society. Take a hint and try to quit, its a dirty disgusting habit that shortens your life. It doesn't even calm you until you've become addicted to it. Stop trying to jsutify your actions and instead correct them. Don't force your smoke on other passengers or employees of the airport. If you want to kill yourself, confine it to your house.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Will $30 more also get you smoking rights?

[rocketfairy]

Wow, smokers contribute nothing to society? Take that, Winston Churchill!