I have been using Bgan for some time and I will say that it has real trouble supplying service of greater than 256K and latency between 900-1100ms.
Bonding is not practicle due to variable latency, and with latency as high as 800ms even without comples tcp/ip inercpetion to help slow/fast start window sizing, bandwidth per socket connection is limited to 64kbps, which makes some services very unhappy, and unpredicatble.
Multiple channels will not increase speeds, ( will increase usable bandwidth ) due to bonding issues on variable latent links and overall satelitte capacity.
Also without hogging the link "streaming class service" ( prohibitivly expensive ) , the standards used on the I4 inmarsat satelittes give very little chance of achieving the max throughput.
The standard used is the BGAN system, there is some online testing avaliable suggesting realworld throughput of around 256K and 800-1100 ms ping times, when the whole link is dedicated to a single user.
Remember all data figures are per plane, and thus will be divided equally throughout the users.
This will be a usefull service if the passenger understands this is not your 50ms 1.5mb/s DSL home link.
For those that bought a mac cause they needed a unified UI on LINUX "actually BSD" correct this is a macbook replacement.
For those of us whose laptop is the center of the universe, it does ot make any sense to limit your universe for the sake of $500, otherwise I would just buy a second hand PC.
With no players anymore in the US, At&T and (GTE) Verizon out and aircell now offering Wifi instead of phone calls, this is not an option reason.
Also the only phones still avaliable on international planes are run by ARINC and SITA, which both now have a GSM ( cell phone ) picocell installation under testing for installation this year.
There is no technical nor marketing reason you can't have a cell phone on board, if cell phones were a real danger then they would not be in carry on allowance anymore.
This is a technical reason for a regulatory body to ban a technology? Next... I hate the stupid people on the internet and so I think the internet should be banned too!
With no players anymore in the US, Verizon out and aircell now offering Wifi instead of phone calls, this is not a reason.
Also the only phones still avaliable on planes are run by ARINC and SITA, which both now have a picocell replacements under testing for installation this year.
There is no technical nor marketing reason you can't have a cell phone on board, if cell phones were a real danger then they would not be in carry on allowance anymore.
FAA is very conservative, and the FCC is a political body.
I was working for sony music during the DAT revolution, and i can tell you about some of the backroom conversations held at there sales conferences.
Sony have always had an issue, they are one of the worlds largest copyright holders, and produce technology that circumvents copy protection. This is most eveident by there refusal to produce an MP3 player, uptill very recently.
Basically at a conference with much fever pitched excitement dat was announced, and albums scheduled to be launched on this new digital format ( 48Khz , higher than CD ). Then one year latter at the same conference they just dropped it.
The DAT player remained the staple for pro-audio studios for some time after..
CD's only happened when sony released that Philips would have enough clout to get some market share, and sony wanted a peice. Of course at this stage CD-recordables were just a dream, where as DAT was re-recordable of the bat.
DAT was not a flop , but a sacrificial lamb, and a taste of things to come.
OK I agree it is anoying, but technology based groups do not make social comments.
There are loads that don't like the idea of people on cell phones everywhere, but banning them is not the answer.
The point is that, government don't ban cars because of bad drivers.
The ban by the FCC, a political body, is not a sound technical one.
Ultimatly the comsumer will decide , if no one uses on board cell then it will go, or if enough people choice to use an airline that doesn't have the technilogy it will die.
Sorry but that is not how they work, they use a technology called pico cells, a technology to have a dedicated mini-cell tower on the plane as a communications gateway, which most often does not even touch the normal terristrial cell network.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the FCC proposed lifting the ban on cell phones and other devices, as long as they operate under the control of a pico cell located on the aircraft. The pico cell would basically restrict the power of such devices, which would work through a cell base on the aircraft. The problem with the existing system is that when cell phones are unable to easily contact a ground station, they boost to high power in hope of finding one. One cell phone behaving this way is not a particularly high threat to aircraft systems, otherwise they would be banned as carry on?, but 200-plus cell phones do place onboard avionics at risk.
At present the major players supplying this technology this year on international carrriers are: OnAir and ARINC. Both of which do not operate terristrial networks and are hybriding GSM to the 3G based I4 or the older I3 Inmarsat satellites.
The FAA have no technical reason to ban the use of cell phones, ( any equipment that goes near a plane has a very strict transmitting guidlines for qualififaction ) and the FCC is a political body which in this case, has placed its rulling in the public arena, NOT TECHNICAL by voting based on very strong public backlash.
This is so ludacris, americans have been so brain washed over the years about cell phones being an élitist tool that they are living in a fools paradise.
All international airlines will have cell phone service within 5 years, and the USA carriers will be left, as the whole of the USA has been by the late 90's cell phone technology wilderness.
Have you ever wondered, how cell phones became such a nuscience to americans but not to any one else, and why countries like sweeden now control the cell phone market.
Between ignoring GSM , and AT&T's worries about the new product eroding there core business, Americans have been left in a third world country for cell phones awareness.
It is wierd that us bunch of technocrats, applaud banning of technology?
I am so unimpressed with the way everytime a subject of connetivity on planes we all start screaming about cell phones.
The choice of cell phones is upto an airline, not the FAA or FCC. Cell phones on planes is comming and it will be everywhere but the USA.
There will not be 100 shouting people using the phones the system will support 4 people, and call will be aorund $1 per minute.
I am a full time connectivity designer for satcom and aircraft, and hold several patents on the subject, and I have to say:-
I will not be using my phone on any flight, and I will love wifi..
Lets not confuse the two systems.
DRM is not an issue for iPOD just iTunes + ZUNE
on
Will the iPod Ever Die?
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I could not agree in more ways, I am not an iPOD fan, as such I don't even have one.
DRM is however an issue and I don't like the concept of buying music that is locked, it is against the grain, but that has nothing to do with iPOD that is purely an iTunes.
Thus as long as apple remains in the customer focuesed arena, of allowing you to choose, iPOD is safe.
Really for me management of DRM is the biggest blight on the ZUNE attempt, it scraes me to think that the unfocussed rapid change of M$DRM attempts to date scare me that I will buy some music that will never play again,
A think.... "solitaire" is the most popular game in history, it is on 90% of the worlds computers.
And look around on your next flight , all the business people are playing solitaire... Since they don't have access to install anything past the seven layers of anti-virus software.
I don't think wireless syncing would even make sense, not only is it insanly slow, it would suck your battery dry.
Speaking of which if you have to charge it you have to "cradle" it..
so sync and change at the same time, that is what you do with your mobile right or does it grab juice from the ether while it silently sycronizes the world via 100K BT?
They already have, I am aware of many business plans for text messaging, and I have even implemented a system for many airlines just for SMS, via there seat-back.
I absolutely agree about text, and I can tell you that I see around 1000 text messages a day from the airlines I have implemented, at the moment and passengers use the service extensively and are very happy with it.
I got to say that I have no respect for a technology driven decision amongst sellers of stories.
Problem I see is that technology companies had this idea to sell technology and movie houses saw it as a way of charging more for the same content.
And they collided instead of met in the middle.
It is a total conflict of interest to try and sell NEW* technology that does less and costs more, and then add the two rival formats, this is a weird place they are taking us.
If every kilogram of extra weight costs a tonne of fuel, and the entire US fleet added the 100 kilos of equipment required, that would be 30,000 gallons of fuel times by 1600 aircraft that is 48,000,000 gallons of fuel per year, CO2 straight into the stratosphere, so you can get wifi?
The service was based on leasing transponders ( around 8mb/s per transponder ), and they reportedly needed 20 to have footprint over the world. There were loads of other indirects costs too, but like cost was to compensate airlines for fuel burn, certification, 600 staff, multiple Ground earth stations.
Getting the cisco routers and 802.11b onboard was no technical challenge , it was the 30,000ft of rj45,
Well that is the challenge, really.
I am working on that very problem, at Tenzing the company that does this shit.
But the cell phone thing runs far deaper than you think..
1) Signal strength at the cell phone frequency
2) Billing, and cell phone systems ability to track you at 600mph.
3) The extenal effect of you being able to transmitt a high strength singal at possibly hundreds of towers.
Think about that one!
Slashdot Mirror
Specifications, sorry sales sheets are one thing.
I have been using Bgan for some time and I will say that it has real trouble supplying service of greater than 256K and latency between 900-1100ms.
Bonding is not practicle due to variable latency, and with latency as high as 800ms even without comples tcp/ip inercpetion to help slow/fast start window sizing, bandwidth per socket connection is limited to 64kbps, which makes some services very unhappy, and unpredicatble.
Multiple channels will not increase speeds, ( will increase usable bandwidth ) due to bonding issues on variable latent links and overall satelitte capacity.
Also without hogging the link "streaming class service" ( prohibitivly expensive ) , the standards used on the I4 inmarsat satelittes give very little chance of achieving the max throughput.
The standard used is the BGAN system, there is some online testing avaliable suggesting realworld throughput of around 256K and 800-1100 ms ping times, when the whole link is dedicated to a single user.
Remember all data figures are per plane, and thus will be divided equally throughout the users.
This will be a usefull service if the passenger understands this is not your 50ms 1.5mb/s DSL home link.
OK photo application mmm try video...
Try any commercial creative application.
For those that bought a mac cause they needed a unified UI on LINUX "actually BSD"
correct this is a macbook replacement.
For those of us whose laptop is the center of the universe, it does ot make any sense to limit your universe for the sake of $500, otherwise I would just buy a second hand PC.
Over the years FAA has documented numbers of interference with plane system with everything from laptops to cell phones.
GSM is a very clever low power system, and it is GSM that is being put on planes, using picocell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picocell.
Infact all the regulatory bodies for aircraft all like picocell as they can reduce GSM power output by stopping them seeking towers.
Then we need a ban on carry on for cell phones, laptops etc...
... This is more a factor.
FAA is conservative, FCC is a political
With no players anymore in the US, At&T and (GTE) Verizon out and aircell now offering Wifi instead of phone calls, this is not an option reason.
Also the only phones still avaliable on international planes are run by ARINC and SITA, which both now have a GSM ( cell phone ) picocell installation under testing for installation this year.
There is no technical nor marketing reason you can't have a cell phone on board, if cell phones were a real danger then they would not be in carry on allowance anymore.
So they should be banning carry on cell phone, not use on board?
This is a technical reason for a regulatory body to ban a technology? ... I hate the stupid people on the internet and so I think the internet should be banned too!
Next
With no players anymore in the US, Verizon out and aircell now offering Wifi instead of phone calls, this is not a reason.
Also the only phones still avaliable on planes are run by ARINC and SITA, which both now have a picocell replacements under testing for installation this year.
There is no technical nor marketing reason you can't have a cell phone on board, if cell phones were a real danger then they would not be in carry on allowance anymore.
FAA is very conservative, and the FCC is a political body.
That is all
I was working for sony music during the DAT revolution, and i can tell you about some of the backroom conversations held at there sales conferences.
Sony have always had an issue, they are one of the worlds largest copyright holders, and produce technology that circumvents copy protection.
This is most eveident by there refusal to produce an MP3 player, uptill very recently.
Basically at a conference with much fever pitched excitement dat was announced, and albums scheduled to be launched on this new digital format ( 48Khz , higher than CD ).
Then one year latter at the same conference they just dropped it.
The DAT player remained the staple for pro-audio studios for some time after..
CD's only happened when sony released that Philips would have enough clout to get some market share, and sony wanted a peice.
Of course at this stage CD-recordables were just a dream, where as DAT was re-recordable of the bat.
DAT was not a flop , but a sacrificial lamb, and a taste of things to come.
**ENTER RIAA**
OK I agree it is anoying, but technology based groups do not make social comments.
There are loads that don't like the idea of people on cell phones everywhere, but banning them is not the answer.
The point is that, government don't ban cars because of bad drivers.
The ban by the FCC, a political body, is not a sound technical one.
Ultimatly the comsumer will decide , if no one uses on board cell then it will go, or if enough people choice to use an airline that doesn't have the technilogy it will die.
Sorry but that is not how they work, they use a technology called pico cells, a technology to have a dedicated mini-cell tower on the plane as a communications gateway, which most often does not even touch the normal terristrial cell network.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the FCC proposed lifting the ban on cell phones and other devices, as long as they operate under the control of a pico cell located on the aircraft. The pico cell would basically restrict the power of such devices, which would work through a cell base on the aircraft. The problem with the existing system is that when cell phones are unable to easily contact a ground station, they boost to high power in hope of finding one. One cell phone behaving this way is not a particularly high threat to aircraft systems, otherwise they would be banned as carry on?, but 200-plus cell phones do place onboard avionics at risk.
At present the major players supplying this technology this year on international carrriers are: OnAir and ARINC. Both of which do not operate terristrial networks and are hybriding GSM to the 3G based I4 or the older I3 Inmarsat satellites.
The FAA have no technical reason to ban the use of cell phones, ( any equipment that goes near a plane has a very strict transmitting guidlines for qualififaction ) and the FCC is a political body which in this case, has placed its rulling in the public arena, NOT TECHNICAL by voting based on very strong public backlash.
This is so ludacris, americans have been so brain washed over the years about cell phones being an élitist tool that they are living in a fools paradise.
All international airlines will have cell phone service within 5 years, and the USA carriers will be left, as the whole of the USA has been by the late 90's cell phone technology wilderness.
Have you ever wondered, how cell phones became such a nuscience to americans but not to any one else, and why countries like sweeden now control the cell phone market.
Between ignoring GSM , and AT&T's worries about the new product eroding there core business, Americans have been left in a third world country for cell phones awareness.
It is wierd that us bunch of technocrats, applaud banning of technology?
I am so unimpressed with the way everytime a subject of connetivity on planes we all start screaming about cell phones.
The choice of cell phones is upto an airline, not the FAA or FCC. Cell phones on planes is comming and it will be everywhere but the USA.
There will not be 100 shouting people using the phones the system will support 4 people, and call will be aorund $1 per minute.
I am a full time connectivity designer for satcom and aircraft, and hold several patents on the subject, and I have to say:-
I will not be using my phone on any flight, and I will love wifi..
Lets not confuse the two systems.
I could not agree in more ways, I am not an iPOD fan, as such I don't even have one.
DRM is however an issue and I don't like the concept of buying music that is locked, it is against the grain,
but that has nothing to do with iPOD that is purely an iTunes.
Thus as long as apple remains in the customer focuesed arena, of allowing you to choose, iPOD is safe.
Really for me management of DRM is the biggest blight on the ZUNE attempt, it scraes me to think that the unfocussed rapid change of M$DRM attempts to date scare me that I will buy some music that will never play again,
?
A think .... "solitaire" is the most popular game in history, it is on 90% of the worlds computers.
And look around on your next flight , all the business people are playing solitaire... Since they don't have access to install anything past the seven layers of anti-virus software.
In vista's case..
"limitation is the sincerest form of flattery"
I don't think wireless syncing would even make sense,
..
not only is it insanly slow, it would suck your battery dry.
Speaking of which if you have to charge it you have to "cradle" it
so sync and change at the same time, that is what you do with your mobile right
or does it grab juice from the ether while it silently sycronizes the world via 100K BT?
They already have, I am aware of many business plans for text messaging, and I have even implemented a system for many airlines just for SMS, via there seat-back.
I absolutely agree about text, and I can tell you that I see around 1000 text messages a day from the airlines I have implemented, at the moment and passengers use the service extensively and are very happy with it.
Remember that it is shared across all planes in a spot beam maybe transponder even.
BGAN is great but at $6.95 retail per MB.
That is a "real" business model.
I got to say that I have no respect for a technology driven decision amongst sellers of stories.
Problem I see is that technology companies had this idea to sell technology and movie houses saw it as a way of charging more for the same content.
And they collided instead of met in the middle.
It is a total conflict of interest to try and sell NEW* technology that does less and costs more, and then add the two rival formats,
this is a weird place they are taking us.
Another cost to consider!!!!
If every kilogram of extra weight costs a tonne of fuel, and the entire US fleet added the 100 kilos of equipment required, that would be 30,000 gallons of fuel times by 1600 aircraft that is 48,000,000 gallons of fuel per year, CO2 straight into the stratosphere, so you can get wifi?
mmmmmm
Connectivity at any cost?
The service was based on leasing transponders ( around 8mb/s per transponder ), and they reportedly needed 20 to have footprint over the world.
There were loads of other indirects costs too, but like cost was to compensate airlines for fuel burn, certification, 600 staff, multiple Ground earth stations.
Getting the cisco routers and 802.11b onboard was no technical challenge , it was the 30,000ft of rj45,
Well that is the challenge, really.
I am working on that very problem, at Tenzing the company that does this shit.
But the cell phone thing runs far deaper than you think..
1) Signal strength at the cell phone frequency
2) Billing, and cell phone systems ability to track you at 600mph.
3) The extenal effect of you being able to transmitt a high strength singal at possibly hundreds of towers.
Think about that one!