Slashdot Mirror
Panasonic May Relaunch In-flight Broadband
Glenn Fleishman writes "Panasonic's avionics division may relaunch Connexion by Boeing by using similar technology that's better, cheaper, and lighter. The company said today that they were looking to get airlines to commit to 500 planes within 60 days, and already had 150 aircraft committed. They'd still use Ku band, but have a cheaper and smaller set of leases. Connexion had at least $120m in yearly fixed expenses, a large part of which was transponder licenses. The new service would provide 12 Mbps down and 3 Mbps (versus Connexion's 5 Mbps/1 Mbps), and be priced conceivably as low as $10 per session wholesale, with airlines choosing to not mark up rates. With that higher rate, even with latency, in-flight VoIP seems more achievable at a reasonable cost, although some airlines may choose to block VoIP services.
I reported for The Economist magazine last week about mobile phones in flight (services coming in Europe in 2007). Three U.S. airlines told me that American passengers have very low interest or negative interest in allowing any voice (cell or otherwise) during flights. Europeans, with shorter flights and lower expectations of privacy perhaps, are more open to it." We covered the story back when Boeing decided to scrap Connexion.
I could really care less about making calls on a plane. In fact, I WOULD HATE IT. You know why? Because every annoying person in the world would converge on my airplane and make calls through-out the flight. This would result in me not being able to sleep or relax, and I would then arrive at my destination tired and strained.
Slippery slope? Not really, think about all the boring calls you have to listen to on a shorter transit system. Now put 300 bored people on a plane and see how they go about trying to relieve that boredome.
Now. I would certainly be happy to have internet access on the plane... and the slight tapping of keys I could deal with. Plus, give me something to do on my computer and I'd easily forget what else was going on.
So what do I say? Spare me having to listen to cell phones or VOIP for the whole plane trip. If you can limit it to 10 minutes of calling per passenger, then fine. Otherwise, stop trying to make my co-passengers even more annoying.
Justin - Don't be afraid of my blog, it won't bite.
I agree with the annoyingness of in flight phone calls. If I were a traveling business person I'd love the excuse to be out of contact with everyone for a while. Plus, who wants to sit there and listen to the person next to you talking about their job or girlfriend or worse, TO their girlfriend! I just want to sit there and eat those nuts in peace after all that hard work getting em open.
Is it just me or is it not going to upgrade to Vista in here?
Is it really conceivable for airlines to not mark up rates of something?
But when I do for business I enjoy the fact that myself and everyone else on the plane cannot talk and is not in contact with anyone.
Its like a few hours of peice and quiet where I actually don't need to think about work or listen to other people yack on about similar stuff.
I'd be happy to see planes without internet and phone access because then I wouldn't feel preassured into actually doing more work during a time where I should be relaxing.
... ...
Internet access on the plane - GOOD.... Gives me something to do rather than twiddle my thumbs for 2+ hours...
Cell phones on a plane - ICK! NO! It's already bad enough having to hear everyone else on the plane's stupid conversations during the boarding process and as soon as we touch down... Apparently people don't get the concept of "Keep it short and simple". Instead they have to have these marathon discussions over the phone and talk LOUDLY. And god forbid if they have one of those Nextel -type walkie talkie phones. I HATE THOSE THINGS!!!!
No... Give me internet, screw the cell phone users! They can wait till they get off the damn plane to make a call.
--Ledfoot
I don't know about you, but even on a 2 hour flight I wouldn't be in the mood to surf the internet or trying to make a VOIP call. And to pay $10-$20 for the luxury of internet access for such a short flight? Not likely. Maybe a longer flight, but probably not most people who aren't flying first class already. Besides, they already charge that $10 fee just to use the in airport wifi. So if you have one connecting flight and a wait at each airport thats: 10*5 = $50. Once while you're waiting for the first flight, on the first flight, at the next airport, on your next plain, and finally when you're waiting to get picked up.
Use a balloon?
I love flying. There's so much to look forward to on each flight..
Well... maybe I can steal a few industrial secrets, peek at the screen next to me or in front of me. Next up on ebay...
302785349102 Bifurcated Wombat Exhonorator, Includes Nebulousity Interrogator $120.00 Buy It Now
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The problem with access is if you hate phone, imagine webcams. Oh noes!!11!
"Europeans, with shorter flights and lower expectations of privacy"
It has nothing to do with privacy, and everything to do with the fact that nobody wants to sit in a tin can listening to some guy talk for 2 hours about his hemorrhoids and digestive problems.
"... Europeans, with shorter flights and lower expectations of privacy perhaps, are more open to it."
The last few times I've had to fly, I haven't been asked to have an anal probe inserted while answering ungodly questions about my personal life. That's because I fly in Europe.
In related news, the RIAA has announced the purchase of several F-22A raptors to pursue downloaders.
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
Well, someone has to provide internet on a plain.
How else are you suppose to email the pictures of the snakes?
I've travelled frequently - and here's my synopsis of phone useage and planes - if I may:
Australia: Phones are off all the way. When disembarking up the walkway, you'll start to hear SMS messages come in.
Hong-Kong: Touchdown, SMSs are in. Calls being made while disembarking.
USA: Calls made until the plane taxis, calls made the instant the plane lands.
Europe [Denmark, France]: SMS on disembark
UK: SMS the instant the plane hits
Japan: Not a peep. Those guys actually know how to use the vibrate setting.
Of course the above is far from conclusive - but everytime I travel to the US I am still amazed how attached Americans are to their last desperate phone call before the phone takes off..
"Europeans, with shorter flights and lower expectations of privacy perhaps"
No, Europeans have higher expectations of privacy, as reflected in their much stronger privacy protection laws. Maybe their openness just comes from their manners, which let them all talk on mobile phones quietly and discreetly already, though they're all jammed together in a little continent full of cities. Or maybe Americans are mostly just hundreds of millions of primitives who can't respect each other, dependent on an increasingly foreign tech workforce to keep our highly tech society running without getting in the way of American Idol.
--
make install -not war
When the 737s started terrorizing maintenance workers on the runway by taxing over to them and shouting "I'm a luxury cruise ship, play shuffleboard on me damn you!" we knew it was time for the padded hangars.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
We've discussed how unpleasant cell phone conversations on planes would be, and have hoped that perhaps if they become enabled and allowed that there would be planes for people who will use their cell phones on which there will also be all people with small children who have not been sedated.
> Three U.S. airlines told me that American passengers have very low interest or negative interest in allowing any voice (cell or otherwise) during flights.
Yeah, I go along with that, I've got a negative interest in allowing voices during flights, ie shut the hell up.
You don't really need to worry about using the phone, if you can't speak.
Perhaps it could be like Neo in the Matrix, "How can you use VOIP on a plane, if you can.. not.. speak".
This is a pretty poorly written story, other faults have already been pointed out.
Yeah, except my ear canals are sooo small, I can't wear those without extreme pain. And yes, I did use the smallest pair of plugs they provided. The foam ones were slightly less irritating, but still too painful to wear for more than an hour. I really liked them because I really couldn't hear anything around me, not even cranky infants. Now I use a Bose sound-cancelling headset to mitigate the engine noise, but they do little to cancel out voices.
cat
Ok, every person too stupid to bring ear plugs when they know they are going to be in a crowd and want silence, raise your hand!
But only if they let your Dell, Apple, or [perhaps] IBM laptop on the plane with a battery. Otherwise, I'd call this a good idea. Just make it available in Economy Plus, and include it as a courtisy feature...
I recall someone in Britain using a cell phone to collect data from a stratosphere balloon, so that certainly seems plausible. But that doesn't particularily endanger the plane.
I've suggested this before -- instead of opening up the voice channels, why not just let everyone use their phone's text messaging feature, and that's it? Satisfies the need for people to tell their friends/family/dog about where/when they are, delays, arrivals etc. and eliminates the voice chatter.
This seems just intuitive to me, why doesn't anyone pick up on it?
TGV carriages have this cute little logo of a sleeping mobile phone, with a logo of a smiling mobile phone bopping about at the ends of the carriages, by the doors/toilets. I don't know that there is any culture that enjoys listening to other people yapping on mobiles.
I assume they mean that it has 12 Mbps download speed. Which is actually 12 Mbps up from the ground to the plane.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
So, American airlines will probably never commit if people can't ever bring their laptops, PDAs, or phones on planes. Or has that changed?
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
Do what I do.
I travel a lot for business, mostly just trips around the Southeast US, with an occasional longer trip to New England or the West Coast. I had always been interested in flying and I finally bit the bullet and went and got my license.
I now fly my own airplane. I can beat the airlines time-wise on any trip under about 2000nm. It takes me 40 minutes to drive/take the train to Hartsfield, whereas I can drive to my local airport, pre-flight and load the airplane and be on my way in about 30 minutes. Flight planning I do at home (Internet is wonderful).
I know that not everyone can afford to fly themselves, but I think if most folks would look at the costs involved they would find the convenience very much worth it. Plus, it's lots of fun to spend every weekend with my wife in a different state seeing whatever. And oh yeah, fuel economy is not half bad. I burn about 8.0 gallons per hour @ 160kts which yields about 23 statute miles/gallon. This is far better than the efficiency of passenger/mile/gallon on the airlines. My plane is a little speedster that only carries two people, so my passenger/mile/gallon is about 46, whereas that airlines are around 46.8. These passenger/mile/gallon figures are for airlines in general. Airliners are extremely efficient at altitude at cruise settings -- they burn *lots* of fuel taking off, so the overall efficiency of the flight increases with the length of the flight. So these relatively short 500-1500nm trips I make are done more efficiently in my airplane.
It was originally the sarcastic expression: "As if I could care any less [than I do]!"
It was shortened to "I could care less!" with the same meaning.
The great-grandparent seems unaware of the literal meaning, since inserting the word "really" into a textual sarcastic expression without including "as if" can have the effect of negating the sarcasm to some readers.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."