Slashdot Mirror
Wi-Fi Coming on U.S. Domestic Flights
jvptoad writes "The NY Times is reporting that United Airlines has received approval to offer Wi-Fi Internet access on its planes. Although it will be over a year before the service is available, I wonder if this will impact the discussion on cell phone usage in planes (which seems to be centered around the annoyance of people talking loudly on the phone). Add a headset and Skype, and you don't need a cell phone to have loud, annoying phone conversations on an airplane."
People should use the non-reg links when posting about a NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06uni ted.html?ex=1275710400&en=022fb6cd810b1719&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
...has had wifi on its flights for a over a year now.
Sure the technology will be there (vonage, skype with 802.11 phones)...
but the jitter as your packet is relayed via satellite back to firma terra will be enough to discourage most calls (i have to imagine).
Still... real-time data connectivity while in the air will greatly increase my productivity while flying.
Now United needs to offer power injectors at each economy plus seat
I flew LuftHansa (the German partner of United) 3 weeks ago as they were starting offering this service, and i did try it for free. It works pretty well. Normal cost is 10 bucks for an hour or 30 for the whole flight. Unfortunately, i was travelling in Economy where you can't plug your laptop. And Wifi drains my battery pretty fast. still managed to send emails from above some really remote places...
Listening to ½ of a 2 way conversation is actually stressful
... this for a while, I catch the Seattle -> Copenhagen flight on a regular basis.
I'm pleased to say that it (Boeing Conexion) seems to work pretty well. I can browse the web at a reasonable speed, let Outlook sync mail and on occasion have been able to log in and play WoW for an hour or so with no noticeable interruptions.
SAS will even let you pay for service using your miles from their frequent flier program.
I'm glad it will finally be on Domestic flights as well, this gives me a reason to choose United. (I have to agree with the lack of desire to see people using Skype over it though).
Three things.
1. Many kinds of radio receivers create a local "intermediate
frequence" (IF) version of the received signal at a much lower
frequency because it is easier for circuitry to deal with those low
frequencies. Unfortunately, this IF signal leaks out, and those
frequencies are close to those used for navigation. The FAA,
reasonably, objects to that.
2. Cellphones are based on the idea of short range communications
(from your phone to the celltower you could likely see if you knew
where to look) allowing the bandwidth you are using to be reused
many times in one city. When you turn on your phone in a plane at
high altitude, your phone (being far from any cell site) turns up
to full transmit power, and blankets several *states* worth of
territory. A lot of frequency reuse can't happen when you do that.
The FCC, reasonably, objects to this. (How can cellphones inside a
plane soon be allowed? By having a small cellsite inside the
plane, instructing phones on the plane to turn their transmit power
to the lowest setting.)
3. General purpose conservatism. A powerful transmitter (ham radio
anyone?) can also mess with lots of nearby electronics. Given all
of the confusion over what kind of electronics some device might
be, and given how pissed off you would be if your plane were
plummeting to earth because a bad decision, being conservative
might be OK, even with you.
This doesn't mean silly things don't happen. I was once (long ago)
told I couldn't listen to my CD player on a plane. The airline
uniformed backhaul "expert" told me that the CD player had a "laser!",
and it could interfere with the plane. Nonsense. I expressed
disbelief, suggesting that the laser was safely inside...but the
expert didn't buy it and he had authority over me so I shut it off.
However, just because he was completely wrong in his argument doesn't
mean that every airline safety rule (air in the tires?, gas in the
tank?, sober pilot at the wheel?, no shootouts happening on the
plane?) is silly.
-kb
Actually people yell into cellphones because they think they have to in order for the person at the other end of the call to hear them on their miracle of miniaturised technology when, in reality, their extra-loud voice is attenuated back to a reasonable level by their phone anyway.
It really beats me why people on trains etc. can't grasp the three basic rules of mobile/cell phone etiquette ie:
1) Put your phone's incoming 'ring' on single beep or, better still, vibrate mode.
2) Disable keyboard beeps and tones.
3) The microphones in modern cell phones are very sensitive - speak at a volume level that will not annoy those around you.
AT&ROFLMAO
"phones dont do anything to planes"
Correct. And the FAA doesn't particularly object to your use of a
phone on a plane. However, the FCC objects because cell phones at
high altitude mess with the cell phone systems.
Cell phones work on the idea of frequency reuse as your phone talks to
one cell tower just a block or so away and many other people elsewhere
in the city can also be talking using the same bandwidth. However, if
you use your cell phone at 30,000 feet you will prevent cell systems
in several *states* from reusing that frequency. Why will the talked
about future cellphone use on planes work? By having a low powered
cell site *on* the plane, your cell phone will turn its transmit power
all the way down and it will not reach the ground. (And by charging
really high roaming fees.)
Yes, airlines do stupid things and have many stupid rules, but these
electronics rules are not completely stupid.
-kb, the Kent who is less worried about adhoc 802.11b networks on a
plane.
Don't forget to hook up with a VPN if you're using in-flight wi-fi.
www.publicvpn.com works, and it's cheap!
Oh, and if you ever see me on a plane, make sure you are sitting next to me - I will be the guy in the safest row of seats.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I was on a Lufthansa flight from Munich to Boston last week. Seemed to get about 270kb/s down & a not so good 40kb/s up. Latency was around 650ms to us and about 1.5% of packets were dropped.
I still managed to be productive, send somebody a bug fix 2 hours after take-off, IM, email etc. Definitely worth the $30 (and would have been worth $100 if the person in front didn't think he was at the dentist).
I guess I don't understand why you think latency would be a problem. The service is likely going to NOT rely on geo-stationary satelite links, so there's no speed of light issues to geo-stationary orbit 32,000 miles away. Communicating that far away requires pointing a parabolic satelite dish precicely at a single point in the sky. That would be rather difficult in an airplane moving side to side, up and down, etc.
What's far more likely is they'll use existing cellphone towers, and possibly the same LEO (low earth orbit) satelites that satelite phones use. Planes fly at only 40,0000 feet or so, so that's only about 8 miles up. LEO is only about 200-500 miles, so the lightspeed time is rather short at 500/186,0000 seconds. Really they'd only need to use LEO sats flying over remote parts of the US, or over the ocean.
AccountKiller
Lufthansa just rolled out their inflight wifi service and was providing free access for the first week. I just flew from Boston to Munich on Lufthansa.
I used Skype to call a friend, and it worked flawlessly. I didn't notice any significant delay, I'm sure it was there but I was so geeked out that I didn't notice.
The stewardess even said Hi to my friend over skype. She got a kick out of it (besides thinking I was a total loser).
I had about 600ms latency, and also downloaded some podcasts at about 40-60kbps.
You want to know if your plane has Connexion? Look on top for a square "bubble" about 3 feet on each side and purtruding about 6 inches. That's where the antenna is, and yes it tracks the satellite, not that hard, we've been doing it for years on military planes.
http://www.boeing.com/connexion/backgrounder.html
Posting anonymously so I don't get in trouble tomorrow when I go to work tomorrow ;-) :-) Any Connexion equipped plane has a few Linux machines running on it (no wonder I love my job).
The plane linked in the picture is CBB1, our test platform. This plane has 3 of our antennas on it: two phased array antennas and one mechanically steered dish antenna(the Melco antenna mentioned above). The first two (very flat) rectangular bumps towards the nose of the plane are the phased array antennas. These antennas are each capable of simulatenously tracking multiple satellites, which can be used to provide directTV as well as internet service. They can also be configured to use one antenna for receive, one for send. None of our customers has multiple phased arrays due to the cost (VERY expensive) and this antenna is only used for government and business jets. The rearmost (largest) hump is the Melco antenna that was mentioned above.
Connexion is actually far superior to what is offered by Verizon. We offer far more services than anybody here knows. We offer our service on planes, vehichles, and boats. We also offer much more bandwidth than Verizon. Our system has the capability to recieve at nearly 80Mb/sec (none of our customers has ever used this capability since it requires extra antennas that increase cost and drag (one antenna == 20Mb up and down)), and transmit at nearly 20Mb/sec. We also offer a number of other services that I don't think we have anounced yet, but are REALLY cool.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot to mention, Connexion is based on Linux