5 ms·

Not sure who this is aimed at, the existing inflight wifi solutions powered by two satellites (viasat) are sufficient for tasks that don't require low latency.

reustle 4y ago
But how much do they charge airlines?
- kelp 4y ago
  It says right on the front page: "High-speed, low-latency, in-flight internet with connectivity across the globe. $12,500/mo-$25,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $150,000. Reserve now with deliveries starting in 2023."
  - thrdbndndn 4y ago
    Pretty sure they meant how much viasat charges.
    - kelp 4y ago
      Yeah, you could be right. And from a very quick look, Viasat doesn't just have their prices right on the front page.
      - gruez 4y ago
        They have a pricing table in their brochure: https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviation_ds_brochure_web-3 https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat...
  - carl_dr 4y ago
    Vs “from $2795 per month” for Viasat. https://go.viasat.com/BAV-Viasat-Select-Business-Jet-WiFi.html https://go.viasat.com/BAV-Viasat-Select-Business-Jet-WiFi.ht...
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > Vs “from $2795 per month” for Viasat. ... if you're ok being limited to 15 GB per month. Practically, the offerings are $10k for regional or $14k for global for the no cap plans.
    - kjksf 4y ago
      Per https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviation_ds_brochure_web-3 https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat... $2795 is for 15GB data cap which is nothing. Their unlimited local service is $10k, unlimited global service is $14k $14k is more expensive than the cheapest $12.5k from Starlink and less expensive than $25k most expensive plan. Except Starlink is 350 MB/s vs. 30 MB/s from ViaSat. Starlink is 5x-10x cheaper per speed.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        Well, and ViaSat is actually available now. "Available in 2023". We'll see. I mean FSD has been "coming this year" since 2016. And I regularly see people here complaining that they're still waitlisted for their terrestrial Starlink service. Who knows what ViaSat will have by whenever Starlink actually makes this happen (you know, with the mobile RV service that's "coming soon", and the maritime service, also "coming soon", and now this...).
        shaklee3 4y ago
        viasat will have viasat-3 by then, which is about 5x their total current capacity.
        schappim 4y ago
        Yeah, but latency will be suboptimal as viasat's satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. Many laws a optional, but I'm afraid they can't get around the speed of light...
        shaklee3 4y ago
fastball 4y ago
Yep, also not sure who fiber internet is aimed at – coax does the job just fine. (sorry, couldn't help myself) Obviously this is aimed at people that want: higher bandwidth / lower latency internet connectivity on airplanes?
noitpmeder 4y ago
I imagine they are directly targeting the inflight wifi market.
h12nz 4y ago
Airlines that want to let people watch Netflix.
- bawolff 4y ago
  I wonder why netflix doesn't just put a server on the plane for that usecase. Hard drives are cheap.
  - seabrookmx 4y ago
    And heavy.
    - ultrarunner 4y ago
      If they can fly the dude who stole my armrest last time for $500 they can fly a lot of hard drives for $25k/mo
    - bawolff 4y ago
      I don't really think they are. Especially if you are optimizing for weight. Laptops manage to be pretty light after all
  - notahacker 4y ago
    Other inflight entertainment providers do.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
https://www.netjets.com/en-gb/on-board-wi-fi-netjets-fleet https://www.netjets.com/en-gb/on-board-wi-fi-netjets-fleet Compare to what’s currently available to jet charter. StarLink’s product is currently priced (monthly) around an hour or two of flight time, depending on airframe class. > Wi-Fi is currently available in the Phenom 300, Citation Latitude, Challenger 350 and Global 6000. > The first three models have a satellite-based connectivity with a shared bandwidth going up to max speeds of up to 0.43Mb per second (depending on the aircraft type) while the Global 6000 is equipped with a new satellite solution called Ka-Band. Ka-Band allows for internet speeds that are ten times faster than the previous solution, going up to 4Mbp/s. It allows good internet browsing, including streaming or file download, and provides better coverage than SwiftBroadBand, specifically over Greenland. This is a very positive development as this area is mainly flown over during international flights on long range cabins. Due to the size and weight of the equipment, this solution is only available on large cabin aircraft like the G6000.
- selectodude 4y ago
  Viasat Global Unlimited is $14,000/mo. I'm sure Starlink will be better in some way, but it's almost double...
  - wolrah 4y ago
    > I'm sure Starlink will be better in some way, but it's almost double... The most important difference is that Viasat uses a couple of GEO satellites where Starlink uses a massive swarm of LEO satellites. Viasat's satellites are flying just short of 35,800 kilometers over the equator, which means that your absolute best case scenario user standing right next to a gateway, both directly under the satellite, bare minimum latency connecting to an internet server is almost a full 500 milliseconds. Users not close to the equator can add a fair bit more. Starlink's satellites are flying around 550 kilometers over basically everywhere with 53 degrees of the equator, so anyone who has a gateway close enough to not need to use the inter-satellite link can get 20-40 millisecond latency to the internet in real world usage. They only recently enabled end user access to inter-satellite links so I haven't seen any real world tests on that but it could be a lot worse than single-hop while still beating GEO.
datalopers 4y ago
> Not sure who this is aimed at owners of airplanes
ceejayoz 4y ago
I got maybe half a megabit on my last cross-USA flight. Latency isn't the only problem for a plane full of a couple hundred people; 350 megabit would go a long way here.
fasteddie31003 4y ago
I've been waiting to flex doing my Zoom calls from my G6
- sneak 4y ago
  Joking aside, the OpEx of a private jet is huge, and if you can use it 2x as often because you can take your Friday meetings while traveling somewhere for the weekend, this easily pays for itself in the saving on cost-per-trip.
colordrops 4y ago
Perhaps they are directed at those who want low latency and higher bandwidth? Seems like a pretty obvious advantage to existing solutions.
adolph 4y ago
Plus I'm not certain if the batteries you'd need to run it are small enough to count as carry-on. I wonder if they include some suction cups to keep the transciever flat against the window.
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  Let's hope the pilots aren't bringing these on the planes with them and installing the hardware during the flight.
aerovistae 4y ago
In my personal experience flight wifi is consistently terrible and barely works...it's been a few years since last I wasted the money though.
BluSyn 4y ago
Being able to do real remote work, including real time video calls, while on a plane is actually game changing. I'm sure this will eventually become standard on most airlines, especially for Business Class.
- sneak 4y ago
  I can't wait to fly business class on a Friday morning out of SFO and be surrounded by a dozen corporate salarymen simultaneously addressing their standups via their AirPods. Normal airlines are promptly going to need some no-phone-calls rules. (TBH I think they already have them.)
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    So inconsiderate. If someone needs to take important call - let them. Phone calls are possible in restaurants, yet you almost never see anyone.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  I hope not, I do not want to overhear obnoxious phone or video calls.
oliwary 4y ago
Presumably it is aimed at people who want to do task that do require low latency on planes
bastawhiz 4y ago
I have about a thirty percent success rate with in-flight WiFi. I'm not sure what you're using, but just being able to transfer more than a few megabytes uninterrupted (let alone quickly) would be a world of difference.
walrus01 4y ago
a flying geostationary VSAT terminal in some set of geographically restricted ku and ka-band spot beams for regional broadband connectivity are a very different thing than true global coverage. this is trying to compete with the very high $ per MB and slow speed products that already exist from iridium and inmarsat.
dathinab 4y ago
but how else can billionaires watch life porn shows in their private jets when they are flying the 10th time a week between continents? Okay maybe that was too snarky. It's for more low latency solution's and/or more bandwidth. It also competes with existing solutions because why shouldn't they compete in a field where they can compete and make money.

reustle 4y ago

But how much do they charge airlines?

kelp 4y ago
It says right on the front page: "High-speed, low-latency, in-flight internet with connectivity across the globe. $12,500/mo-$25,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $150,000. Reserve now with deliveries starting in 2023."
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  Pretty sure they meant how much viasat charges.
  - kelp 4y ago
    Yeah, you could be right. And from a very quick look, Viasat doesn't just have their prices right on the front page.
    - gruez 4y ago
      They have a pricing table in their brochure: https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviation_ds_brochure_web-3 https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat...
- carl_dr 4y ago
  Vs “from $2795 per month” for Viasat. https://go.viasat.com/BAV-Viasat-Select-Business-Jet-WiFi.html https://go.viasat.com/BAV-Viasat-Select-Business-Jet-WiFi.ht...
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > Vs “from $2795 per month” for Viasat. ... if you're ok being limited to 15 GB per month. Practically, the offerings are $10k for regional or $14k for global for the no cap plans.
  - kjksf 4y ago
    Per https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviation_ds_brochure_web-3 https://viasat.widen.net/s/clgfbt6sdz/1487977_business_aviat... $2795 is for 15GB data cap which is nothing. Their unlimited local service is $10k, unlimited global service is $14k $14k is more expensive than the cheapest $12.5k from Starlink and less expensive than $25k most expensive plan. Except Starlink is 350 MB/s vs. 30 MB/s from ViaSat. Starlink is 5x-10x cheaper per speed.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      Well, and ViaSat is actually available now. "Available in 2023". We'll see. I mean FSD has been "coming this year" since 2016. And I regularly see people here complaining that they're still waitlisted for their terrestrial Starlink service. Who knows what ViaSat will have by whenever Starlink actually makes this happen (you know, with the mobile RV service that's "coming soon", and the maritime service, also "coming soon", and now this...).
      - shaklee3 4y ago
        viasat will have viasat-3 by then, which is about 5x their total current capacity.
        schappim 4y ago
        Yeah, but latency will be suboptimal as viasat's satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. Many laws a optional, but I'm afraid they can't get around the speed of light...
        shaklee3 4y ago

fastball 4y ago

Yep, also not sure who fiber internet is aimed at – coax does the job just fine. (sorry, couldn't help myself) Obviously this is aimed at people that want: higher bandwidth / lower latency internet connectivity on airplanes?

noitpmeder 4y ago

I imagine they are directly targeting the inflight wifi market.

h12nz 4y ago

Airlines that want to let people watch Netflix.

bawolff 4y ago
I wonder why netflix doesn't just put a server on the plane for that usecase. Hard drives are cheap.
- seabrookmx 4y ago
  And heavy.
  - ultrarunner 4y ago
    If they can fly the dude who stole my armrest last time for $500 they can fly a lot of hard drives for $25k/mo
  - bawolff 4y ago
    I don't really think they are. Especially if you are optimizing for weight. Laptops manage to be pretty light after all
- notahacker 4y ago
  Other inflight entertainment providers do.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

https://www.netjets.com/en-gb/on-board-wi-fi-netjets-fleet https://www.netjets.com/en-gb/on-board-wi-fi-netjets-fleet Compare to what’s currently available to jet charter. StarLink’s product is currently priced (monthly) around an hour or two of flight time, depending on airframe class. > Wi-Fi is currently available in the Phenom 300, Citation Latitude, Challenger 350 and Global 6000. > The first three models have a satellite-based connectivity with a shared bandwidth going up to max speeds of up to 0.43Mb per second (depending on the aircraft type) while the Global 6000 is equipped with a new satellite solution called Ka-Band. Ka-Band allows for internet speeds that are ten times faster than the previous solution, going up to 4Mbp/s. It allows good internet browsing, including streaming or file download, and provides better coverage than SwiftBroadBand, specifically over Greenland. This is a very positive development as this area is mainly flown over during international flights on long range cabins. Due to the size and weight of the equipment, this solution is only available on large cabin aircraft like the G6000.

selectodude 4y ago
Viasat Global Unlimited is $14,000/mo. I'm sure Starlink will be better in some way, but it's almost double...
- wolrah 4y ago
  > I'm sure Starlink will be better in some way, but it's almost double... The most important difference is that Viasat uses a couple of GEO satellites where Starlink uses a massive swarm of LEO satellites. Viasat's satellites are flying just short of 35,800 kilometers over the equator, which means that your absolute best case scenario user standing right next to a gateway, both directly under the satellite, bare minimum latency connecting to an internet server is almost a full 500 milliseconds. Users not close to the equator can add a fair bit more. Starlink's satellites are flying around 550 kilometers over basically everywhere with 53 degrees of the equator, so anyone who has a gateway close enough to not need to use the inter-satellite link can get 20-40 millisecond latency to the internet in real world usage. They only recently enabled end user access to inter-satellite links so I haven't seen any real world tests on that but it could be a lot worse than single-hop while still beating GEO.

datalopers 4y ago

> Not sure who this is aimed at owners of airplanes

ceejayoz 4y ago

I got maybe half a megabit on my last cross-USA flight. Latency isn't the only problem for a plane full of a couple hundred people; 350 megabit would go a long way here.

fasteddie31003 4y ago

I've been waiting to flex doing my Zoom calls from my G6

sneak 4y ago
Joking aside, the OpEx of a private jet is huge, and if you can use it 2x as often because you can take your Friday meetings while traveling somewhere for the weekend, this easily pays for itself in the saving on cost-per-trip.

colordrops 4y ago

Perhaps they are directed at those who want low latency and higher bandwidth? Seems like a pretty obvious advantage to existing solutions.

adolph 4y ago

Plus I'm not certain if the batteries you'd need to run it are small enough to count as carry-on. I wonder if they include some suction cups to keep the transciever flat against the window.

bastawhiz 4y ago
Let's hope the pilots aren't bringing these on the planes with them and installing the hardware during the flight.

aerovistae 4y ago

In my personal experience flight wifi is consistently terrible and barely works...it's been a few years since last I wasted the money though.

BluSyn 4y ago

Being able to do real remote work, including real time video calls, while on a plane is actually game changing. I'm sure this will eventually become standard on most airlines, especially for Business Class.

sneak 4y ago
I can't wait to fly business class on a Friday morning out of SFO and be surrounded by a dozen corporate salarymen simultaneously addressing their standups via their AirPods. Normal airlines are promptly going to need some no-phone-calls rules. (TBH I think they already have them.)
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  So inconsiderate. If someone needs to take important call - let them. Phone calls are possible in restaurants, yet you almost never see anyone.
dijonman2 4y ago
I hope not, I do not want to overhear obnoxious phone or video calls.

oliwary 4y ago

Presumably it is aimed at people who want to do task that do require low latency on planes

bastawhiz 4y ago

I have about a thirty percent success rate with in-flight WiFi. I'm not sure what you're using, but just being able to transfer more than a few megabytes uninterrupted (let alone quickly) would be a world of difference.

walrus01 4y ago

a flying geostationary VSAT terminal in some set of geographically restricted ku and ka-band spot beams for regional broadband connectivity are a very different thing than true global coverage. this is trying to compete with the very high $ per MB and slow speed products that already exist from iridium and inmarsat.

dathinab 4y ago

but how else can billionaires watch life porn shows in their private jets when they are flying the 10th time a week between continents? Okay maybe that was too snarky. It's for more low latency solution's and/or more bandwidth. It also competes with existing solutions because why shouldn't they compete in a field where they can compete and make money.