Boeing Scraps In-flight Internet Access 215
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.'"
Not a problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Well DUH (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well DUH (Score:5, Informative)
The only restriction is on drinks and liquids not purchased within the terminal.
Re:Well DUH (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If this happens, then JetBlue will probably build a keyboard into the seat tray. Maybe you'd VPN into your corporate network.
Enough ubiquitous Internet and terminal access and you end up with laptops and PDAs being obsolete.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wow - that seems like a big investment to get people to flock to your airline. I'd think free booze might cost about the same, and people (everyone I know) would definetly fly such an airline. Plus, it would be easier to spot terrorists - they'd be the sober ones.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, this harkens back to the days when "Jet Set" implied a sybaritic life of privilege and pleasure, not an endless grid of boarding and trying catch a few winks of sleep on red eyes. Back in the day before laptops, you took a book on a flight just in case your seatmate was a bore (if you were a bore that was his or hopefully, her problem).
However, it is almost certainly not the case that free
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a job for bar monkey [barmonkey.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait....
Re: (Score:2)
Socially speaking, it's an interesting situation because agency costs abound. The barender, for example, doesn't pay the liquor; he makes most of his money from tips. If he thinks the cus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well DUH (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait..
where's the market (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:where's the market (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:where's the market (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cell phones ... (Score:2)
- distance from tower
- rate of movement of plane
For the first point, because the cell phone is so far from the tower it is actually boosting its signal output to maximum. As for the second point, the plane is moving so fast that they phone is consistently trying to shift to different towers. The solutions for in flight phone usage, I believe, work on the basis of having an in-plane base-station and then the plane communicating
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now back to reality: The stress of being in a hostage situation might make people act a wee-bit differently, and one person who thinks "it was not my son" doesn't explain the other 15 or so people who *did* hear from their loved ones. 14 out of 15 witnesses would be enough do get you convicted of most crimes, especially when the 15th is unsure more than they have any proof. The government could not possibly pull off a stunt
Re:where's the market (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:where's the market (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind that the metal fuselage of the aircraft provides quite a bit of RF shielding and radiation pattern distortion, I would not be surprised if you could use a cell phone near a window but not from an aisle.
It's a fact that people HAVE used cell phones on airplanes before, and back in the old AMPS analog days, the problem of hitting multiple cells was much worse. Not only did it cause interference problems at the additional cells, it often cause people to be billed multiple times for the same call and other such oddities because the network was designed with the assumption that a phone could NEVER be heard from a distance greater than a certain amount.
In the case of GSM, there is an inherent limit on the distance of a phone from a tower, I forget the exact limit. It could potentially cause GSM phones to completely fail above a certain altitiude, but you only need 1000-2000 feet of altitude (extremely low for an airliner) for the assumptions used in designing cellular networks to all go out the window.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A common misconception (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also with regards to 93, I thought they were using the phones embedded in the seat ahead that usually cost $10 a minute.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:where's the market (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Inside a typical commercial jet, you fly at about 30K feet, the RF has to find its way out through the portholes so the mobile's transmitter automatically ramps up to maximum. You have line of sight to the ground stations but at full cruising altitude, they have antennas tweaked to send out mostly sideways.
It will work, but not very w
Re: (Score:2)
wasm't their a gadget they were putting in planes that would tell cell phones to go to minimum power only? I know that I forgot to turn off my cell phone until we started taxing to the runway, grabbed it, and it had dropped to minimum coverage, while having full coverage at the terminal.
this would apply only to comercial flights of course. basically both sides could be right. cell phones could work only on some flights.
a quick search only turned
Re: (Score:2)
It was more about fear of the RF screwing up the plane's navigation system, and the load on the cell towers below.
abandoned because of security issues? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
pricing (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/index.cfm?p=cbb.
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.
Re:pricing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pricing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
to dial into your ISP. Sure, it's not high-speed, but it did work at least half-assedly. Now, as for Connexion, I
suspect that it was a nifty idea, but since 9/11 we're not flying anywhere near as much- not even businesses.
Honestly, I would have shelled out for the service, but I'm the exception, not the norm. So, why carry forward an
expensive service that won't at least break-even? In real
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. I just travelled around California looking at colleges, and all of the hotels--from the Country Inns & Suites down to the crappy Days Inn that the Residence Inn by Marriott sent us to after they were "overbooked by central reservations" (read: three guests decided not to leave, and instead of kicking them out, they denied a few customers their reservations) had free wireless internet. (The first one, in Claremont
Re:pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:pricing (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
actually, most motels and hotels have free broadband internet access these days, atleast in the states
Actually it varies a *lot*, depending on where you're going and what class of hotel you're staying in. If you're traveling to silicon valley and a few other tech hot spots, it's nearly always free. Some hotel chains, particularly those in the lower tier like Hampton Inn that are trying to attract business travelers, provide it free everywhere. Outside of that, it's a mixed bag. Few places don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For flights shorter than about 4-5hrs, I can't see it being useful but on intercontinental flights it is a true godsend.
Re: (Score:2)
unrealistic expectations (Score:2)
This is like the idiot manager who figures if he can write a word document about a process in a day it should not take that long for me to code it. After all, he had to add bullet points and color too.
Combine "anything" with the word "airplane" and suddenly the complexity level goes up. Its like movies and water. There are so many
Re:pricing (Score:4, Informative)
Considering that most people pay about that much at home for a MONTH of broadband
I'd say pricing was a major sticking point and contributed in no small part to the demise of the service pilot.
Re:pricing (Score:4, Interesting)
And for a few hour flight, yeah, it does add up a bit. But when I fly from Melbourne to Glasgow, 9 hours to Hong Kong, 13 hours to London, and 90 minutes to Glasgow, it ends up costing about a dollar an hour.
Re:pricing (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Pricing was not the issue - access was... (Score:2)
I believe lack of access was the issue. Most people don't have a notebook computer. If they had free wireless portable tablets they could hand out to
Re:pricing (Score:5, Informative)
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 $49.95 a week) for access (and most places are through the television, not wireless). Yes, I know Las Vegas has a wi-fi grid being developed (such as the free access at the airport), but where the hotels are, they have worked hard to keep those free services from being available to the public.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On the plus side, your phone would be so close to
It wasn't the expense to the consumer... (Score:3, Informative)
priceless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pricing (Score:5, Interesting)
A more intelligent thing to do would be to add 5$ 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 !!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The airlines aren't making shitloads of money these days and the infrastructure for sattelite broadband is expensive. It isn't difficult to imagine a more or less permanent ban on carry-on laptops on the northeast coriddor and North Atlantic runs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, compared to that, the prices aren't that bad.
pricing versus performance (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect the real reason they weren't doing business was because of the performance, not the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real reason was money. (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to remember that anything in or around an airport costs as much as 2000 times its actual value. What made you think they wouldn't try this with broadband?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, I ranted about all these various problems in my blog [blogspot.com] not too long ago. It basically comes down to everyone wanting to act like they support laptop users, but no one actually doing so in a convenient/usable way. (that
No! (Score:5, Funny)
Insert Plane and/or Snake joke here. (Score:3, Funny)
Health Issues (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Hich costs (Score:3, Informative)
Flight times (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not fly coach.
Either that, or you're a better man than I. I can't sleep with my knee jammed into my ass and my testicles pressing against the back of my neck.
Re: (Score:2)
I am much like you, I haven't used my laptop on the plane in over 10 years. I carry it as I don't trust the airline staff not to steal or break it. I wonder if the creators and sponsoring execs of the business venture with on Boeing got fired for not thinking and testing this through before spending that much? My guess is they just moved to another part of Boeing at the first sight of a problem. Now everyone at Boeing get
imagine that (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: not nearly as many people are willing to get jacked for $35/hr for internet access as we had believed.
Though on a completely different angle, at the rate things are going now, soon we won't be able to get on a plane with anything short of our underwear, and will have to fed-ex our luggage to our destination. What happened to the good 'ol days when the people were more scared of the public than the government was?
Re: (Score:2)
They went the way of the dodo when the psychoanalysts took over society. Next question.
FedEx it all (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
interesting but way too expensive (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My posting began with:
so yes, national usually does mean domestic.The real reason this won't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I hope Lufthansa will take over this service (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention... (Score:2)
My own personal belief is that 'Net access should start to become like electricity, gas, water, and other utilities and just as ubiquitous and accessible. If I go to a hotel, it should be free access, wired or wireless. The hotels that want to rape you for $10 a day or
Re: (Score:2)
What were they charging? $5/minute or something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What were they charging? $5/minute or something (Score:2)
Yeah, BillyJoeBob was annoying, as is "I'M UP HIGH SO I MUST SHOUT" but as you
That sucks. (Score:2)
I helped a customer out over Messenger while flying over the ocean.
These days, a lot of an IT persons work involves frequent internet access, to send mails, check things on the web etc. It's worth paying a few dollars more on your thousand dollar flight in order to make that time productive.
I guess they must have budgeted for domestic airlines using it though, and I guess they are not keen to do so
Re:Well duh.... (Score:5, Funny)
Shhh...Re:Well duh.... (Score:3, Funny)
Next they will ban passengers from flights.
Homeland.Sec: "People are responsible for causing all these crashes. After exhaustive investigation by FAA, we have concluded that presence of passengers on flights is 100% responsible for all these h1jackings. Henceforth, all passengers are banned from flights
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Deibold. They are the ones who made the machines, right? And their chief promised to "deliver" Florida to Bush, right?
Also refer to the recent interview by the programmer who stated he was asked to write a software which could "manipulate" the voting software by using invisible buttons on screens...
Burn baby !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this [wikipedia.org], from an affidavit [rawstory.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
If battery power matters, perhaps a 17" screen and the latest high-GHz power-hungry CPU aren't the best choices.
Re: (Score:2)
100% Flamebait
When I post comments like that one, pointing out the bad things Bush's policies lead to, I don't really get flamed. I just get these TrollMods mod'ing me "Flamebait". It's like a rapist blaming their victim for "asking for it". Except these fuckers can't penetrate.