Slashdot Mirror
Why In-Flight Wi-Fi Is Still Slow and Expensive
An anonymous reader writes: Let's grant that having access to the internet while on an airplane is pretty amazing. When airlines first began offering it several years ago, it was agonizingly slow and somewhat pricey as well. Unfortunately, it's only gotten more expensive over the years, and the speeds are still frustrating. This is in part because the main provider of in-flight internet, Gogo, knows most of its regular customers will pay for it, regardless of cost. Business travelers with expense accounts don't care if it's $1 or $10 or $50 — they need to stay connected. Data speeds haven't improved because Gogo says the scale isn't big enough to do much infrastructure investment, and most of the hardware is custom-made. A third of Gogo-equipped planes can manage 10 Mbps, while the rest top out at 3 Mbps. There's hope on the horizon — the company says a new satellite service should enable 70 Mbps per plane by the end of the year — but who knows how much they'll charge for an actual useful connection.
70 Mbps per plane sounds good on the face of it, but if that's being delivered via satellite then I would expect that latency becomes much more of an issue. Is this just replacing one problem with another?
All true with the exception of JetBlue who provides some of the fastest in-flight WiFi for FREE. I've streamed Netflix on JetBlue flights without any problem.
In french un gogo means an easily fooled person ...
Just one issue - why is it so slow. Simple law of supply and demand. When the supply is small (relative to demand), you keep the price high. When the supply goes up, the price drops.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
But I still can't use my phone.
Right.
... who still thinks being able to get a wireless internet link in an aircraft doing 600mph at 35K feet is pretty fucking amazing. I can't believe people complain about the bandwidth - they should be grateful this tech exists at all.
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." If your application is latency sensitive, adding bandwidth isn't going to help. The main issue with latency and satellite is that pesky limit on the speed of light.
I regularly fly with Virgin Atlantic, and their new 787s have a fantastic wifi service courtesy of T-Mobile. I worked a problem during a recent flight from London to DC spending the entire flight remotely logged-in to remote applications over Citrix XenApp. Latency was poor (you cannae change the laws of physics) but consistent and throughput was perfectly fine.
The cost? £15 for unlimited data for whole the flight. Even better, on my second trip I discovered the service is included in my monthly iPass Mobile Connect subscription, so my incremental cost was zero!
I understand they're using ka-band satellites with approximately 70Mbps per channel. I guess they can always run multiple links if usage takes-off.
When setting up an access point, it should be possible to designate it as "expensive", and by default devices should adhere to this and try to limit unnecessary data usage. I get annoyed when I use my phone as a hot spot and discover that my computer has fetched upgrades, my other phone has downloaded a bunch of podcasts, and so on. It would also allow me to keep a backup wireless SSID running permanently, knowing that the devices will go for the cheap SSID first.
I bet that quite a bit of bandwidth usage on planes is due to phones thinking they are switching from expensive (but actually dirt cheap) 3G/4G to cheap (but actually really expensive) wifi.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Southwest offers a discount "messaging only" access plan on flights. I'm not sure exactly what is included or how they determine what traffic to let through. If they dedicated a portion of bandwidth for the things that business users care about (email), it would be a higher value offering. Right now that traffic gets mixed in with people wanting to do things like Youtube and Skype on the plane. I pointed this out in another post, but I don't know of any employers who reimburse WiFi on the plane. However, it's also not expensive. If you fly once every few months, maybe you think $8-$10 is expensive for this amazing technology. There are monthly plans available, though, that seem pretty reasonable.
Emirates uses OnAir. The speed is fantastic and the cost at $1 for 500mb is very reasonable. And AKAIK it's world wide.
Latency is only really an issue with certain applications like on-line gaming or VOIP. For web browsing, file downloading, even video/audio streaming, latency isn't a big deal.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I am so fucking sick of this type of argument. "People making minimum wage shouldn't complain because people in the third world are earning a lot less." Just because things aren't as shitty as they possibly could be, doesn't mean I can't complain about how shitty they are.
3mbps is by no means slow. Especially when you're in a big metal tube hurtling through the sky. My ADSL runs at about that speed. That being said, I'm sure the latency is egregious.
Data speeds haven't improved because Gogo says the scale isn't big enough to do much infrastructure investment, and most of the hardware is custom-made.
The reason the "scale isn't big enough" is because they're charging so damn much for it. I'm perhaps not a great test-case, because I refuse to pay for wifi anywhere and everywhere, but last time I was on a delta flight they wanted $8 for an hour. ONE hour. They wanted some outrageous price for the entire flight ($20 or more, I don't remember the exact number). For those of us who only fly a couple of times a year, the monthly and yearly passes don't make any sense either.
The only argument that I would buy for pricing this high is that there is currently NO existing infrastructure that could support a plane full of folks using wifi and they need to discourage all but those willing to pay the highest prices from using it... but I don't believe that's the case.
Let's face it, if they wanted to bring wifi to everyone, they would figure it out. It must just not make sense for their bottom line right now to do so.
Let's just cherish the last few years before we have to listen to dickheads facetime throughout the entire flight.
... who still thinks being able to get a wireless internet link in an aircraft doing 600mph at 35K feet is pretty fucking amazing. I can't believe people complain about the bandwidth - they should be grateful this tech exists at all.
Of course it is amazing. That doesn't mean it can't be better and we all know it can be better. I remember being amazed at how fast a 9600 baud modem was. But technology progresses and our expectations along with it. I don't doubt for a moment that they can make it faster and more reliable.
As for being "grateful", they are charging a lot of money to use this tech. If they were providing it for free you might have an argument but they aren't. Is it technically difficult? Sure but I don't really care. They want to make a business of it then my expectations are probably going to be pretty high, especially given that the rest of the "airline experience" isn't exactly amazing.
Commercial, passenger, aviation has cost issues for just about everything. WiFi might be easier to cost control than most other items but maybe the real answer is to have a lot less passenger aviation. Companies paying to fly people all about on business does not bode well for the cost of the product to the buyer.
...is slow and expensive?
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport. Since I've never owned or operated a retail outlet of any kind, though, I can imagine there's some sort of prohibition to the idea that I haven't thought of yet. But by and large, the reason we don't see this is it would probably piss in someone's corn flakes that someone, in some airport somewhere, would get something for cheap.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Latency is only really an issue with certain applications like on-line gaming or VOIP.
Or remote desktop solutions such as VNC, RDP, or X11.
I thought the bandwidth was fine for basic web browsing. Not for streaming or watching videos. The latency was bad. I'd rather hold bandwidth constant and drive down latency, and, more importantly, make latency more consistent.
If they lowered the price, you'd bet your ass more people would pay it. They'd make the same money per flight if 10 people paid $1 or if 1 person paid $10.
You're assuming that demand is unit elastic. The featured article states that demand is less elastic than what you imply. This allows Gogo to increase revenue by raising the price level, as it doesn't cause a proportional number of people to not buy.
Imagine if computers had the same capabilities, the same CPU speed, the same RAM, the same form factor, the same monitor resolutions, as they did in 2008
CPU speed hasn't improved much since the 3 GHz wall, and PC monitor resolutions have flattened out with the economies of scale of 1366x768 and 1920x1080 panels. And the form factor for a PC with a preinstalled multi-window OS hasn't changed much because adult human hands haven't changed much. There were 9 to 10 inch netbooks in 2008, and there are 10 inch detachable laptops in 2015.
but cost a lot more
An industry-wide move toward Secure Boot could easily lead to exactly this. As of Windows 10, PC makers are allowed to lock down the UEFI's Secure Boot feature to run only Microsoft operating systems. If most major manufacturers of Windows laptops take this option, the only way to run a multi-window Linux OS will be a more expensive System76 or Apple laptop.
Wifi and ethernet between the passengers and maybe a quake server would be an excellent thing on a plane.
External comms is nice, but a LAN party on a plane is awesome.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Few things outside of internet gaming and VOIP require low latency, neither of which should be done on a plane.
Examples of these few things include X11 to your applications at work, RDP to your applications at work, and VNC to your applications at work. Is there a good reason why none of these "should be done on a plane"?
I believe some Android devices have a similar option but I don't think it is in the core OS but rather something that a few OEMs have added.
It's in Android 4.4 and 5.1 on my first-generation Nexus 7 (grouper) tablet, so I'm pretty sure it's part of the core OS. Android on Nexus devices is pretty much just the core OS and Google Play. You need to go to the list of SSIDs (can't give exact wording; my tablet isn't in front of me right now) and mark one of them as metered (may be called "Mobile hotspot" in Android 4).
the last thing anyone on a plane wants is some asshole nearby using Skype.
Even in text mode? The vast majority of my Skype time over the past three months has been with text, not voice, and definitely not video. I'm mostly using it as a successor to MSN Messenger.
Of course this is getting more expensive... GoGo needs to make money and the flying public is willing to pay for network access.
Truth be told, the actual *cost* of what GoGo provides is going up too as they expand into higher bandwidth and international coverage. That kind of system development is *expensive* and as long as GoGo can keep upping the price and turning a profit, you can bet they will.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Please. Gogo has not had many competitors historically but that is changing. You however want to contribute that all to bribes and kickbacks rather than the simple truth that is is freakishly expensive to create the infrastructure to supply wifi to passenger jet where maybe 10% of the passengers are willing to pay for the service. They are now getting competition because it takes time and money to build a competing infrastructure.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The fact that just sitting in a fucking chair 30,000 ft in the sky is not amazing enough the complaint is "the wifi is shit, i get buffering on youtube"
4kbs is dialup, anything above that is progress
#facepalm
#firstworldproblems
Honestly, that's the last place I care about internet service.
But then I sleep through all my flights. I'm really really good at it.
I get on the plane... sit with a crying baby on one side, a smelly fat guy on the other... and I flip the switch in my head that keeps me awake... and I'm out. I wake up when the landing gear touches down and groggly get off the plane.
This is literally how I fly. How do I pull off this witchcraft? I don't go to sleep the night before a flight. so when I get to the plane... I'm pretty tired... and I can reliably sleep whenever and where ever I want to sleep.
So I get on the plane... stow luggage, sit down, lights out. I'm typically asleep long before the plane even takes off.
It's marvelous. I generally wake up and have this pile of peanuts that the stewardesses gave to me when I was asleep... gives me something to munch on while the planet taxis to the gate. :D
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What relevancy does the "rest of the airline experience" have?
I should think that would be obvious if you've been on a plane in the last 10 years. Do you enjoy sitting in a cramped seat after being fondled by TSA? Do you really think $15 for a few hours of (usually) bad laggy internet access is a good deal? I'm paying a lot of money to get on that airplane so yeah I have an opinion about what I'm getting for my money.
You aren't going to get on a flight just because your internet connection experience is sooooo wonderful, are you?
I'm not going to pretend that paying $15 for 3 hours of slow internet access is a good deal or that it makes the flight somehow into a lovely experience.
No one is forcing you to pay for it.
Who said anyone was? The post I responded to said I "should be grateful" to have it. I disagree. I would be grateful if it were provided gratis. But since they are charging money I have an opinion about the value for money and I'm not terribly impressed and certainly not "grateful".
I've purchased wifi service on a round trip flight with four legs, partly out of curiosity and partly because it was a long flight. It worked very slowly on two of the legs with periodic dropouts. It worked sort of ok on one leg and not at all on the last leg. Cost =$60 for approximately 3 hours of vaguely usable wifi over 14 hours of flying. I don't care if it is on a plane traveling hundreds of miles per hour, that's just terrible value for money.
The Departmental Requirement
I'm sure I'm not the first person in the world to have come up with the idea of putting a Dollar Store in an airport
The airport doesn't want you and the rent will break you.
Instead of setting rental prices by square foot, the entities that control airport retail --- which include the Port Authority, the airlines and management firms like Hudson that act on behalf of owners --- set a base rent monthly and then increase it once retailers hit specified sales figures. Sources declined to give those base rents.
One analyst told The Real Deal that a general rule of thumb for airport-retail pricing is to add $10 to the average per-square-foot asking rent of ground-floor retail in a particular city.
High-end airport retailers bring in big bucks for owners
Price controls.
There are a few exceptions, but the majority of airports across the country have instituted pricing regulations. Operators are required to adhere to a fair-pricing policy to ensure that the traveling public, airport and airline employees, as well as visitors to the airport will not encounter prices that are higher than those for similar products and services outside the airport.
Background checks, employee compensation, and related issues.
Hiring employees for an airport RMU or kiosk will take longer than it would for a mall location.
Considerations include: Security badging and TSA background checks. Processing times vary by airport, but it typically takes about two weeks for each employee to be processed.
Compensation rates for airport retail employees are traditionally higher than those of mall employees.
Retailers' operating hours are based on flight activity to best service the traveling public (may be open longer than traditional malls; scheduling flexibility is key for employers and employees)
Airport retailers operate 365 days a year.
Many airports have limited on-site parking facilities for employees, so additional commuting time may be required by employees.
Demographics.
Shopping is at best a secondary consideration for airport visitors.
Airport shoppers may have higher stress levels due to travel anxieties and an unfamiliarity with the airport.
The customer demographic in the airport is more affluent than at malls due to the influx of business and international travelers.
Due to the fast-paced environment of the airport, many shoppers are not in the proper mindset to browse
Product sizes and quantities are major concerns for airport shoppers
Airport shoppers frequently buy gifts for those at home, so the gift market is the primary product category they seek.
Airport Retail 101: Your Top 15 FAQs Answered
I could go on and on like this, but you get the general idea.
70 mbit is barely enough to support background traffic of everyone's devices calling home to rat out their "owners". Going to need at least 700mbit per plane to support Windows 10.
The Airline has the absolute monopoly on their plane - pay their prices or get stuffed...
For someone switching from VNC to RDP to access Linux boxes, is xrdp any good?
For someone switching from VNC to RDP to access OS X boxes, is iRAPP worth $79?
X11 and VNC aren't bastions of internet security at the best of times
Even when IP-restricted to allow connections only over an SSH or VPN tunnel?
A couple of years ago I flew transatlantic on a very nice Turkish Air flight with free wifi. They turned it on just about as soon as we were boarded and at the time it was completely free. Not sure how many access points they have, but it worked great on this flight. Maybe few people were using it, or maybe it was offered to business class only. Had it not been free I'd have not bothered with it at all. But it was convenient for downloading some maps I had forgotten for OSMAND+, and I sent a few voice messages on Voxer. The speeds weren't crazy fast, but they were faster than anything I could get in the airport terminal by a wide margin. Latencies were high of course.
If you remove the cost of fuel, air travel costs similar to high speed rail per seat mile. The ruthless efficiency of the airline industry has made this possible. It is no surprise they charge for every single extra.
"All"? Did you look that up
I was stating my interpretation of the featured article.
Based on the fact that not all airlines use Gogo
An airline that has already deployed a particular provider's service is a "client", not a "potential client". This means a "potential client" for ViaSat is an airline that 1. isn't already a ViaSat client and 2. isn't already in an exclusive contract with Gogo.
They also, due to the infrastructure costs, demanded long contracts from the airlines. But competition won't necessarily lower prices. If somebody new comes along and agrees to charge the airlines less, that doesn't mean that consumers will see lower prices. Just changes how the profits are sliced up. For as long as you are on the plane, the internet provider has a monopoly and will set monopoly prices.
I'm very upset, I'm one of the 5% of humanity who has ever flown on an airplane, and I'm just flustered that I have to pay a too much to be able to reach some of the 200 Terabytes of data and 3 billion users on the Internet from six miles above the ground while moving at 550 MPH.
I have no experience with WiFi on North American airlines, but I've flown on Emirates flights and the WiFi was fast and cheap. The first 50 MB was free, and the next 500 MB was only $1. When flying over certain countries (most notably China) it's turned off due to legal reasons, but when it was on I was quite satisfied with it.
Got WIFI last february for my 6 hours flight for 1$ with good banwich on an Emirates Airbus A380. I don't call that expensive !
how do I know?
I don't go to sleep the night before a flight. so when I get to the plane... I'm pretty tired...
you wouldn't make it through airport security. or traffic to the airport for that matter. you'd be too tired and irritable to get through either of those hurdles and you'd likely forget something important that you need in order to get your ticket or through security; or you would forget to leave something contraband behind.
I generally wake up and have this pile of peanuts that the stewardesses gave to me when I was asleep
nope, nope, nope. they can't do that. they would risk being sued. leaving a "pile of peanuts" on a sleeping person with a food allergy could be catastrophically bad. the flight attendants (which is what we have called them for decades now) won't dare leave food with a sleeping person, they know to not disturb them at all.
and we haven't had peanuts on flights for many years either.
Gogo's air to ground network is not scalable, and thus it must target high prices with lower bandwidth. Other KU providers, Row44/Global Eagle (southwest) use low-bandwidth KU which also is not scalable (lack of inherent spectrum), and must do the same. Viasat, however, which provides FAST & FREE service to jetblue is extremely scalable (by building bigger, KA satellites with a diverse business model - Air and Home) and can provide much more bandwidth for the same cost to the airlines is changing the industry. Using a technology that has a scalable business model is changing the market. If you have used wifi on jetblue you will notice this. KA technology is economically scalable and there are a few companies harnessing it to develop a multi-use business model that will enable airlines to provide a great service for low to no cost. The adoption rate and somewhat antiquated businesses minds of the gatekeepers, the major airlines, however, will slow this process unless we give them the feedback that state that not only is wifi important, but HIGH-BANDWIDTH, CHEAP/FREE wifi is the the game changer for a great service.
That's like saying Comcast could potentially look all my neighbors into contracts. Except that it is a fact that they haven't and can't.
That's because phone companies offering DSL or fiber are more likely to use a contract with an ETF. Look at it this way: If Comcast wants to expand its Xfinity subscriber base in a particular area, and a lot of Internet users in that area are already locked into contracts with the phone company and the satellite TV company, it'll have a hard time selling Xfinity subscriptions unless it can afford to buy out the ETFs of the competitor's subscribers. Now replace "Comcast" brands with ViaSat, its competitor with Gogo, and "Internet users" with airlines.