Slashdot Mirror


Boeing Scraps In-flight Internet Access

Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the BBC, Boeing has recently announced that it has abandoned Connexion, its in-flight broadband service. Said Boeing CEO Jim McNerney: 'Regrettably, the market for this service has not materialized as had been expected. We believe this decision best balances the long-term interests of all parties with a stake in Connexion by Boeing.'"

23 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Not a problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seeing as we won't be able to take our laptops or other gadgets on board aircraft for much longer.

    1. Re:Not a problem... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look on the bright side - laptops & gadgets are pretty ineffective against snakes anyway (unless you open the laptop flat & use it as a bite shield, I suppose). A pillow or blanket would make a more agile of an implement, IMO.

  2. Well DUH by abscissa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can't bring your laptop on the flight, what did they expect!!? Psy Internet?.... Good going guys!! There is also no market for golf lessons on the flight either.

    1. Re:Well DUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The restrictions on flights have been lifted, and have for days. Laptops along with everything else are perfectly fine.

      The only restriction is on drinks and liquids not purchased within the terminal.

    2. Re:Well DUH by morie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just bring some liquid fuel cell fuel...

      Oh, wait..

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    3. Re:Well DUH by bangenge · · Score: 5, Funny

      does that include dell laptops?

      --
      . o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
  3. where's the market by annakin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As evidenced by Sept. 11's Flight 93, cell phones work perfectly well at high altitudes. So as the broadband capability of these phones increases, it's obvious that dedicated services such as Connexion are targeting a redundant market.

    1. Re:where's the market by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

      False. Cell phones DO work at high altitudes. High altitudes gives them good LOS to multiple cell towers.

      What IS true and a scientifically proven fact is that cell phones at high altitudes create unusually high loads on the cellular network. See what I said earlier about good LOS to *multiple* towers? The end result is that instead of appearing as a user on one tower on a given frequency and nowhere else, it appears as a user or a strong interferer on many towers.

      The end result is that while a cell network may have the capacity to server N users on the ground per cell, it can only support a total of around N users in the air for ALL cells within LOS of the aircraft. This is why the ban on airborne cell phones was originally an FCC rule, not an FAA one.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:where's the market by daranz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cellphones don't work when you're over the middle of an ocean. Satellites, on the other hand, can. Plus, I suspect it's easier to use a satellite connection for live TV, than to try and and pipe it over a cellphone network.

      Besides, if you're flying over multiple countries, you need to get on several different cellphone networks, which means having to sign contracts with multiple providers if you wanna connect the entire plane, or having to worry about huge roaming charges. Not to mention cellphones don't work everywhere over land either, and in some regions, networks might be incapable of handling anything besides voice traffic.

      Connexion probably didn't take off (pun intended) because of the costs invovled. You could pay for a landline connection for a month with what you had to pay for an entire flight of Internet access

      --
      This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
    3. Re:where's the market by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...cell phones work perfectly well at high altitudes..

      They do. It is a common misconception that the authorities want cell phones off in flight because of safety. The reason is simple, because the plane is travelling so fast, and the ground system is more or less designed for automobile speeds, the cell system hands off to the next cell very rapidly causing grief for the cell system owners.

      It likely will not work when over an unpopulated area, but near cities and main hiways it should. This isn't to say the connection will be stable, it likely will not be. 9/11 worked because they were in a populated area flying relatively low.

  4. pricing by pr0nbot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pricing seems to have been not unreasonable

    http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/index.cfm?p=cbb.p ricing&lang=en

    Internet Flight
    Get flat-rate access for your entire flight.

    $26.95 for entire flight, including connecting flights within 24 hours of signing in.*

    Internet Time
    Get 1, 2, or 3 hours of access. Internet Time begins when you sign in and counts down whether you are signed in or not.
    Access Price
    1 hour $9.95
    2 hours $14.95
    3 hours $17.95

    *Price shown in US dollars. No taxes or duties will be added. Prices are reduced during maintenance periods.

    1. Re:pricing by frisket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think they were overoptimistic at that price. There isn't a "market" for this service: rightly or wrongly, people expect it to be free of charge, like a seat, or in-flight meals on long-haul.

    2. Re:pricing by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not so sure... Previously, the only way to communicate with anyone on a 14 hour flight was voice calls which are quite expensive as well. At least this way business travellers could get some extra work done, and not be completely out of touch with the world for a whole 14-hour period. Even hotels charge you for internet access (especially business-oriented ones).

    3. Re:pricing by VoiceOfSanity · · Score: 5, Informative

      Understand that Connexion was primarily used by long haul (read overseas) airlines. Companies such as Luftansa provided the service for use on many of their flights. The problem was that almost every US airline company did not want to provide the service, even on coast to coast flights. It was a very hard sell, considering that there was (and still is) a very hard push to get cellphone usage approved for use in flight. Why use a guaranteed connection through Connexion when you could simply fire up your wireless adapter from Sprint and hope that you can get a decent enough connection while flying over western Texas, or the Rockies?

      Cost certainly was another reason why it wasn't more widely used, but that excuse doesn't fly (pardon the pun) when you consider most corporate flyers are running on expense accounts, and certainly the cost of connecting up can be covered by those accounts. After all, go to Las Vegas and try to find a free wi-fi spot along the Strip, or stay in the hotel and use their Internet services. You'll pay $9.95 a day (or $49.95 a week) for access (and most places are through the television, not wireless). Yes, I know Las Vegas has a wi-fi grid being developed (such as the free access at the airport), but where the hotels are, they have worked hard to keep those free services from being available to the public.

    4. Re:pricing by Chaffar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A more intelligent thing to do would be to add 5$ surcharge per ticket on business/first class tickets and then propose FREE UNLIMITED BROADBAND CONNECTION on flights. They're paying shitloads of money for those tickets anyway, so the surcharge would pass unnoticed, allowing the company to one-up other airlines in terms of service :)

      Oh yeah, I forgot 4- Profit !!

    5. Re:pricing by morie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah... 27$ for a few hour flight is so ultra cheap.
      Considering that most people pay about that much at home for a MONTH of broadband


      And what about flight itself! It is so expensive! I can ride my bike for three hours almost for free, but for a flight I have to pay hundreds of euros. Why would anyone want that?

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  5. Re:Well duh.... by DrXym · · Score: 4, Funny

    Terrorists can coordinate their attacks using something called a wristwatch. Perhaps these should be banned from flights too.

  6. No! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who will I email for help when deadly snakes are released on my flight?

    --
    In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  7. Health Issues by owlnation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Using a cell phone on a plane would be incredibly dangerous to your health.

    If you were sitting near me on a plane spouting corporate buzzwords or telling your hard of hearing relatives that "...yes! We're on the plane...", for hours on end, and if I have to hear the latest (and always truly inane and über-irritating) ring tone over and over, then trust me, you would be in terrible terrible terrible danger...

  8. Flight times by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speaking personally, if i'm on a flight under 3 hours then by the time you've gone up, had a drink and got your food out of the way, you're getting ready to land again.

    Flights that are 4-5 hours, I usually watch the film, read the book or (if i'm really inclined to do some work) I'll fire up my laptop and work on something offline.

    Flights that are over 5 hours, I'll generally try and catch some sleep so that I'm refreshed when I get there.

    As such, there is only small chance that i'll even think about using a laptop and, even then, the requirement for internet is limited. It doesn't surprise me that this venture is not particually sucessful.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  9. The real reason this won't fly by Inode+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real reason? I couldn't use it very well even if I wanted to pay.

    Given how US airlines pack you in like sardines, I can't open up my notebook larger than 60 degrees. That's not enough to see the display properly. The last thing I'm gonna do in this configuration is connect to the Internet.

  10. A common misconception by kahei · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Cellphones, of course, don't work on flights as a general rule. They only work on flights THAT PASS OVER LOTS OF CELL PHONE CELLS. The Pacific, the Gobi, the Sahara, and Greenland are all good examples of places not rich in cell phone cells.

    Of course, if by 'plane travel' you unconsciously mean 'plane travel within the continental United States', then sure, you can just use your cell phone.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  11. FedEx it all by maggard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...
    will have to fed-ex our luggage to our destination.

    Actually, I've been doing that for over a decade.

    I used to oversee nationial rollouts of systems, which meant I was on the road 95% of the time, often spending only a day or two in each site before moving on. I had enough to worry about without babysitting a suitcase which may or may not arrive on my flight, but was on the road long enough and in different enough climates every week that a roll-on wasn't sufficient.

    Enter FedEx.

    Every few weeks I'd pack up a load of freshly cleaned/laundered clothes and send them to my major destinations over the next month. Coats & thick socks to cold places, extra shirts & undershirts to hot ones, replacement underwear, etc. I'd put each cache in a cheap collapsable nylon duffel, then into the office for shipping to jobsites with strict instructions to hold for my arrival (there were usually a couple of other boxes full of gear)

    Sure I had to pop by a store every so often, but at least I wasn't inconveniently buying a couple of new dress shirts at top dollar every week, and these were already laundered, pressed, etc. Plus when you're from out of town finding a store that sells decent dress shirts or whatever, getting to it, etc. is just another hassle one can do without. My concerns were the job, finding my way back to tonight's hotel, getting fed decently, and getting to the airport; not haberdashery.

    Even if I'm paying I still often ship clothes ahead. It is a small expense compared to much of the trip, and frankly skipping the joy of dragging the suitcase to the airport, then the thrill of the lugguage carrousel at the other end (wheel... of... mangled... lugguage! Did mine arrive today or is it on it's way to Guam? Let's wait an hour surrounded by annoying people to find out!), makes it worth every penny. Check in to my hotel, have them send the box to my room, ahh, properly packed clothes, nothing crushed, all ready for wearing during my stay.

    Seriously, career advice? Show up every day looking neat & fresh when everyone else is rumpled and worn. Especially true with suits, they can only be worn so many days in a row before getting nasty, no matter how often they're sent out for overnight abuse at outragous rates by the hotel dryclean service. Shipping costs are just a sound investment then.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.