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."

10 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. non-reg by compm375 · · Score: 4, Informative
  2. Lufthansa... by choongiri · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...has had wifi on its flights for a over a year now.

  3. VoIP on planes by scseth · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  4. LuftHansa has it already by HarveyTheWonderBug · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  5. Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go by kentborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  6. Re:Okay, I give up by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  7. Re:Interference with nav system all of a sudden go by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I am a test pilot and one of the things we have to do with each new test article is perform an EMC/EMI/EMV test(the so called E-cubed testing) before the item ever flies (incidently this includes firmware upgrades to avionics). I can tell you that probably about 10% of the hardware we put into or most modern military aircraft do indeed have problems passing these tests - and these are items that are specificaly designed to meet the military's strict E-3 requirements. These components must be redsigned before testing can continue. Somehow I doubt that the makers of every electronic gadget out there, (music players, portable games, etc where profit margins can be razor this) are so diligent in their designs. Let me say this very clearly - I do this for a living and when it is my ass in coach and the flight attendant tells me to turn off my palm pilot, you better believe I do.

    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
  8. Re:Uh, latency? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  9. Re:Uh, latency? by twostar · · Score: 3, Informative
    Doesn't anyone do their homework anymore? Connexion By Boeing is via geostationary satellite. Why waste putting a bird up that is only visible to the ground for a few minutes each pass when you can buy time on a couple of geo birds?

    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

    The Enabling Technology
    Connexion by Boeing uses a worldwide network of geostationary satellites and ground-based receiving stations to relay data between aircraft and the global information network. An advanced-technology antenna designed and built by Mitsubishi Electric Co. enables aircraft to maintain high-quality connectivity, even at high latitudes.
  10. Re:Uh, latency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Posting anonymously so I don't get in trouble tomorrow when I go to work tomorrow ;-)
    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 :-) Any Connexion equipped plane has a few Linux machines running on it (no wonder I love my job).