6 ms·

Inmarsat's European short-haul wi-fi spacecraft launches

58 points by willvarfar 9y ago

tyingq 9y ago
"from calculations we see that the total capacity of the satellite component is, for Europe, 100 Megabits per second" That doesn't sound like it's going to improve inflight WiFi much. They do mention also downward connectivity to cell towers, so hopefully the satellite link isn't used much. There's not much info on how many spots over Europe won't be covered by the ground cell towers. Edit: I do find the grumbling about inflight WiFi performance funny. You're in a metal tube that twists and turns, 5+ miles high in the sky, going 500mph. Installing the system means cutting a huge hole in the plane and detailed certification testing down to every wire connector...and thus nothing can be upgraded at a normal pace. Isn't being able to check your email novel enough? Why are you surprised that YouTube doesn't work well?
- vidarh 9y ago
  > Isn't being able to check your email novel enough? It was novel a few years ago. It's not any more. At least not for regular travellers.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Perhaps. The physics and economics of these systems, and the regulatory barriers to keeping them current means they will never work as well as what you have at home though.
    - nolok 9y ago
      Maybe, but as someone who use them regularly we've moved far beyond "hopefully check my emails sometime in the next five minutes". It's still not good enough for something like youtube, or even javascript application with a need for low latency, but it's definitely good and reliable enough to "use the internet". I've used it on both Qatar Airways and Emirates, and would recommand it if you like to work during flight and your work needs the internet (eg emails, your task trackers to follow/answer your team, code reviews, ...), it's also been cheap enough that it fitted into my needs (paying it and getting myself up to date was worth more to me than not paying and then having to catch up after landing).
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Ahh, got it. I was including "regular web surfing" along with "check your email". Just saying that higher bandwidth things like videos, spotify, etc, weren't feasible.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only person who genuinely doesn't care if I'm disconnected for some number of hours while I'm in a plane. I have reading material, downloaded video, and various apps. I almost appreciate flying time as an opportunity to catch up on various things without distraction.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    You're not. The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers. That's part of the reason they aren't better.
    - kogepathic 9y ago
      > The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers. In-flight WiFi and cellular were available on my last Etihad flight (Europe -> Bangkok via Abu Dhabi). The charge was something like 25 EUR to share the 1MBit/128Kbit link with the rest of the plane. So no wonder the uptake on this service is slow low. Business passengers will probably take it because the company pays (or it's included in the cost of their ticket) and for economy passengers it's too much to pay for a handicapped internet connection where they can't even Skype friends or browse Facebook because it's so slow.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        They've all done experiments with different price points. The 25 EUR rate isn't likely an accident...it's what gains them the most revenue. The installation costs are very high (certification, aircraft downtime, etc), and for satellite based solutions, the bandwidth cost is high. I don't even think they are trying to make money, just offset as much cost as they can.
        gsnedders 9y ago
        As far as I'm aware, they make most of the money on business jets; the commercial side, as far as I'm aware, operates more or less at marginal cost with lower QoS guarantees than the business jets get as a marketing exercise.
willvarfar 9y ago
I know that the laptop bans are currently only on inter-continental routes, but investors in this kind of system must be watching the laptop ban in horror of things to come.
- krallja 9y ago
  Airlines can creatively work around this. They could provide a browser on seat-back touch screens, which would be satisfactory to most customers, who just want to watch HBO, Netflix, Hulu (maybe not in Europe), or YouTube. Also, smartphones have WiFi, so that's a way for the security-aware to control the device for typing your very important passwords into. Bring a Bluetooth keyboard and a phone mount with a built-in magnifying glass, and it's almost a laptop!
  - willvarfar 9y ago
    I don't think this system's price-point nor bandwidth is going to be suitable for having large numbers of passengers idling hours by watching movies? I think the target is more likely to be business users doing work during the flight?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Although a number of airlines have been moving toward streaming entertainment to user devices rather than having seat-back screens in economy. But those movies are supplied locally. I wouldn't expect in-flight WiFi to work with streaming video from external sources. In any case, broader laptop/tablet bans seem to be off the table for now.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I'm curious if the drop-off is that bad, since the passengers still have their phones.
  - amelius 9y ago
    But phones should be put in flight-mode before takeoff. Which means no wifi/bluetooth.
filleokus 9y ago
I guess it's never going to happen, but wouldn't it be pretty cool if Netflix/HBO/Spotify provided a content mirror on the aircraft? Could probably only carry a subset of all content, but pretty cool to just open your app and get some nice Silicon Valley episodes man-in-the-middle delivered to your device of choice.
- tyingq 9y ago
  It does (sort of) exist for things that aren't on-demand, but rather more like live TV, as the 1-to-many broadcast means less satellite bandwidth used. Some airlines use this today. They should use a local server on the aircraft to cache stuff for "on demand", though I don't think any are doing this today.
  - xur17 9y ago
    A lot of flights have a bunch of on-demand movies and tv shows that you can watch that are stored on the plane.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Yes...there's an older way of doing that with physical disks that someone swaps out. There's not many using a live network to trickle data onto the aircraft and store it for a small local "on demand" library.
- ghaff 9y ago
  United and, I'm sure, other airlines have a variety of TV shows and movies that you can stream to their app on your phone and tablet over WiFi. Also note that both Netflix and Amazon allow you to download content for offline viewing these days though HBO doesn't currently AFAIK. They have music stations as well although I've never used them as I keep a pretty large library on my phone.
  - duozerk 9y ago
    > both Netflix and Amazon allow you to download content for offline viewing these days In both cases sadly still with DRM; beyond the ideological stuff I'd love to be able to download a file and play it with the player I like, or to be able to reencode it. On some aspects pirate services are still better (though only if you care about that kind of things).
rb808 9y ago
Just when you thought flying couldn't get any worse, now you'll have some loudmouth chatterbox facetiming with their friends for hours talking inane b*t.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  They can already do that with their friend in the next seat. I'd prefer a kid facetiming with Grandma to a kid with nothing to do.
- tjohns 9y ago
  Most inflight WiFi services block VoIP and video chat, both to conserve bandwidth and to preserve sanity in the cabin.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    I VPN and have received (though not answered) FaceTime Audio calls in the air.
    - tjohns 9y ago
      Well, sure, there's workarounds. But most people aren't going to be running a VPN. And the documentation for in-flight WiFi explicitly instructs you not to take voice calls, out of consideration for other passengers. You wouldn't be out of line politely asking somebody to stop.
    - athenot 9y ago
      I also have a VPN and have been able to make calls. However, a latency hovering around 1,500ms and very heavy jitter mean that no matter what encoding you try to use, the connection will be crap. Text chat on the other hand is perfect. Low bandwidth, soft realtime.
funnyfacts365 9y ago
Nice to see cell phones don't cause interference with the systems aboard airplanes... SMH

58 points by willvarfar 9y ago

"from calculations we see that the total capacity of the satellite component is, for Europe, 100 Megabits per second" That doesn't sound like it's going to improve inflight WiFi much. They do mention also downward connectivity to cell towers, so hopefully the satellite link isn't used much. There's not much info on how many spots over Europe won't be covered by the ground cell towers. Edit: I do find the grumbling about inflight WiFi performance funny. You're in a metal tube that twists and turns, 5+ miles high in the sky, going 500mph. Installing the system means cutting a huge hole in the plane and detailed certification testing down to every wire connector...and thus nothing can be upgraded at a normal pace. Isn't being able to check your email novel enough? Why are you surprised that YouTube doesn't work well?

vidarh 9y ago
> Isn't being able to check your email novel enough? It was novel a few years ago. It's not any more. At least not for regular travellers.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Perhaps. The physics and economics of these systems, and the regulatory barriers to keeping them current means they will never work as well as what you have at home though.
  - nolok 9y ago
    Maybe, but as someone who use them regularly we've moved far beyond "hopefully check my emails sometime in the next five minutes". It's still not good enough for something like youtube, or even javascript application with a need for low latency, but it's definitely good and reliable enough to "use the internet". I've used it on both Qatar Airways and Emirates, and would recommand it if you like to work during flight and your work needs the internet (eg emails, your task trackers to follow/answer your team, code reviews, ...), it's also been cheap enough that it fitted into my needs (paying it and getting myself up to date was worth more to me than not paying and then having to catch up after landing).
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Ahh, got it. I was including "regular web surfing" along with "check your email". Just saying that higher bandwidth things like videos, spotify, etc, weren't feasible.
ghaff 9y ago
Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only person who genuinely doesn't care if I'm disconnected for some number of hours while I'm in a plane. I have reading material, downloaded video, and various apps. I almost appreciate flying time as an opportunity to catch up on various things without distraction.
- tyingq 9y ago
  You're not. The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers. That's part of the reason they aren't better.
  - kogepathic 9y ago
    > The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers. In-flight WiFi and cellular were available on my last Etihad flight (Europe -> Bangkok via Abu Dhabi). The charge was something like 25 EUR to share the 1MBit/128Kbit link with the rest of the plane. So no wonder the uptake on this service is slow low. Business passengers will probably take it because the company pays (or it's included in the cost of their ticket) and for economy passengers it's too much to pay for a handicapped internet connection where they can't even Skype friends or browse Facebook because it's so slow.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      They've all done experiments with different price points. The 25 EUR rate isn't likely an accident...it's what gains them the most revenue. The installation costs are very high (certification, aircraft downtime, etc), and for satellite based solutions, the bandwidth cost is high. I don't even think they are trying to make money, just offset as much cost as they can.
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        As far as I'm aware, they make most of the money on business jets; the commercial side, as far as I'm aware, operates more or less at marginal cost with lower QoS guarantees than the business jets get as a marketing exercise.

willvarfar 9y ago

I know that the laptop bans are currently only on inter-continental routes, but investors in this kind of system must be watching the laptop ban in horror of things to come.

krallja 9y ago
Airlines can creatively work around this. They could provide a browser on seat-back touch screens, which would be satisfactory to most customers, who just want to watch HBO, Netflix, Hulu (maybe not in Europe), or YouTube. Also, smartphones have WiFi, so that's a way for the security-aware to control the device for typing your very important passwords into. Bring a Bluetooth keyboard and a phone mount with a built-in magnifying glass, and it's almost a laptop!
- willvarfar 9y ago
  I don't think this system's price-point nor bandwidth is going to be suitable for having large numbers of passengers idling hours by watching movies? I think the target is more likely to be business users doing work during the flight?
- ghaff 9y ago
  Although a number of airlines have been moving toward streaming entertainment to user devices rather than having seat-back screens in economy. But those movies are supplied locally. I wouldn't expect in-flight WiFi to work with streaming video from external sources. In any case, broader laptop/tablet bans seem to be off the table for now.
tyingq 9y ago
I'm curious if the drop-off is that bad, since the passengers still have their phones.
- amelius 9y ago
  But phones should be put in flight-mode before takeoff. Which means no wifi/bluetooth.

filleokus 9y ago

I guess it's never going to happen, but wouldn't it be pretty cool if Netflix/HBO/Spotify provided a content mirror on the aircraft? Could probably only carry a subset of all content, but pretty cool to just open your app and get some nice Silicon Valley episodes man-in-the-middle delivered to your device of choice.

tyingq 9y ago
It does (sort of) exist for things that aren't on-demand, but rather more like live TV, as the 1-to-many broadcast means less satellite bandwidth used. Some airlines use this today. They should use a local server on the aircraft to cache stuff for "on demand", though I don't think any are doing this today.
- xur17 9y ago
  A lot of flights have a bunch of on-demand movies and tv shows that you can watch that are stored on the plane.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Yes...there's an older way of doing that with physical disks that someone swaps out. There's not many using a live network to trickle data onto the aircraft and store it for a small local "on demand" library.
ghaff 9y ago
United and, I'm sure, other airlines have a variety of TV shows and movies that you can stream to their app on your phone and tablet over WiFi. Also note that both Netflix and Amazon allow you to download content for offline viewing these days though HBO doesn't currently AFAIK. They have music stations as well although I've never used them as I keep a pretty large library on my phone.
- duozerk 9y ago
  > both Netflix and Amazon allow you to download content for offline viewing these days In both cases sadly still with DRM; beyond the ideological stuff I'd love to be able to download a file and play it with the player I like, or to be able to reencode it. On some aspects pirate services are still better (though only if you care about that kind of things).

rb808 9y ago

Just when you thought flying couldn't get any worse, now you'll have some loudmouth chatterbox facetiming with their friends for hours talking inane b*t.

ceejayoz 9y ago
They can already do that with their friend in the next seat. I'd prefer a kid facetiming with Grandma to a kid with nothing to do.
tjohns 9y ago
Most inflight WiFi services block VoIP and video chat, both to conserve bandwidth and to preserve sanity in the cabin.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  I VPN and have received (though not answered) FaceTime Audio calls in the air.
  - tjohns 9y ago
    Well, sure, there's workarounds. But most people aren't going to be running a VPN. And the documentation for in-flight WiFi explicitly instructs you not to take voice calls, out of consideration for other passengers. You wouldn't be out of line politely asking somebody to stop.
  - athenot 9y ago
    I also have a VPN and have been able to make calls. However, a latency hovering around 1,500ms and very heavy jitter mean that no matter what encoding you try to use, the connection will be crap. Text chat on the other hand is perfect. Low bandwidth, soft realtime.

funnyfacts365 9y ago

Nice to see cell phones don't cause interference with the systems aboard airplanes... SMH