Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Wireless LAN Onboard Passenger Aircraft 143

Posted by Hemos from the please-let-it-come-soon dept.
KjetilK writes "Scandinavian Airlines System announced today that they will start testing a wireless LAN based on IEEE 802.11b, onboard their aircrafts this year." It sounds like they have might have some restrictions in web sites available and such, but this is a darn cool idea. Of course, SAS isn't doing any domestic US flights but... *sigh*
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wireless LAN Onboard Passenger Aircraft More

Wireless LAN Onboard Passenger Aircraft

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Caution ! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The alleged source refers to Cell phone base masts, i.e. big base stations that cover a 3-mile cell and handle hundreds of calls.

    802.11b has a power of 2mW consequentially a range of ~ 100m, these amounts are tiny, if you walk pass your microwave which also operates at 2.4ghz, they'd be more than 2mW of radio waves floating about.

    The 2.4ghz spectrum is already crowded, so if your sentiment were true, we'd all have cancer due to our cordless (not cell) phones and microwave ovens.

  • Re:Not Just Transmitting Devices? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    >I know it's FAA regulation - but what is a laptop or a discman really going to do?

    Well, I don't know about a discman, but during some of those rough takeoffs and landings, I don't want loose laptops flying off seat back trays an onto me!!

  • Re:Wireless Lans come of age (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This was cut'n'pasted from Business Communications Review, March 2000. The writer credit goes to "L. David Passmore, Research Directory, The Burton Group."

    http://www.tbg.com/promo/Articles/BCR_3_2000.htm [tbg.com]

    In future, please link; don't steal others' copyrighted text.

  • Even the smaller airports in Sweden have internet terminals that range in price from free to the cost of a phonecall. It's quite nice when that plane you're waiting for is delayed.
  • And now you know the rest, of the story... Isaac (Not related, but we know each other)
  • We can't run cell phones, radio scanners or ham equipment because we might screw up the navigation equipment and crash.

    But 20 people running wireless network cards shouldn't be a problem?

  • WLANs and Bluetooth together have potential of providing a capability of phone-to-phone connectivity much the way we have cellular phone infrastructure today. I could walk into a room with a bluetooth enabled mobile, and use a unit connected to ethernet LAN of the building, and place a call. The building owner can get a small payment which will be automatically credited to him by the phone companies.

    What technologies need to be enabled for this to happen?

    • Bluetooth should become ubiquiotous
    • Wireless LANs would be required when multiple people would like to connect - say in airport lounge
    • IP telephony services will become distributed
    • Centralized directory (Phone to IP) will be deployed

    and couple of companies are working in all these technologies. And we can actually dream of great bandwidths on our handhelds.

    What other technology pieces are important?

    -Vinod

  • Transistor radios typically contain an RF-emmitting local oscillator circuit.

    Try and unpowered, crystal AM radio like the children's kits they sell at Radio Shaft. You might get some funny looks whipping it out on the plane to listen to Paul Harvey.

    -Isaac

  • When you put it that way, I think I'd rather have the leeches then my plane dropping out of the sky . . .
  • I've seen a lot of comments here along the lines of "How come this is OK, but cell phones aren't", along with replies "Cell phones are safe on 'planes".

    Anyways there was an article in new scientist [newscientist.com] a little while back about how aircraft electronics can quite easily be affected by cellphone, I figured I'd throw it in here.
  • My mother takes two 14+ hour flights (NYC to Pakistan, and back) every two months or so. (Retired).

    My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant).

    Some people it's relavant, eh? Plus, the internets a nice way to make a 14 hour flight seem a helluva lot less.
    ~jawad

  • When you use a cell phone at 25000 feet, your phone can connect to multiple cell towers at the same time
    This is not a problem if you think about it; if it were handover between adjacent cells of a cellular network would not be possible.

    There are problems with cellphone usage at high altitude and in aircraft. Some of them are:
    a) landbased cellphone technology may not be able to handle dopper of 500+ miles per hour
    b) Each cell of a ground based network is typically only 5-15miles across, handover events would occur pretty damn regularly.
    c) I also believe that when you phone from 25000' you effectively have a 25000' aerial on your phone, and your signal is out of range of what is normally expected.[dunno if this is true or not]

    There is an Aircraft cellular system (TFTS), which is what normal aircraft telephony uses, but the cells for these are 50-150 miles across.
  • Yes, I knew most of this, since I wrote avionics software for Airbus; the comments were meant to be semi-humorous.

    I didn't know the ILS frequencies though; 115MHz is uncomofortably close to a lot of the clock signals generated in a PC and other electronic equipment, which probably explains why airlines are more paranoid on take-off and landing.
  • ..the network uses traffic shaping to leave enough bandwidth for the flight control computers to talk amongst themselves!

    Also, firewalls are possibly a good idea, to prevent some haX0r breaking into the main flight control system.

    On a more serious note, there used to be a fair amount of paranoia about using laptops on aircraft, and a recent study found that the avionics bays of older aircraft weren't protected heavily enough against RF to allow you to operate your laptop safely. (URL anyone?), so I hope that this only applies to new SAS aircraft.

  • Apple has the Airport [apple.com] which can purchased for $299 at CompUsa, Circuit City and their own web site. I also think that DLink [dlink.com] might have an accesspoint for $299 (I might of seen this at circuit city also). Even though the Airport is an Apple product, it is configured through snmp. You can get a java application [drexel.edu] to configure it. I use the Airport at my house as a transparent bridge which allows me to use my laptop anywhere in my house.
  • The reason radios are banned in aircraft is because, inside the radio, particually FM ones, is generally an oscillator that is oscillating at the carrier frequency. Internally, this, and the incoming signal, are fed through a phase-locked loop which effectively cancels the carrier frequency out, and gives you the audio signal.

    They're worried that the carrier oscillator won't be shielded enough, and leak out.

    Personally, I think this is BS, but that's the line I've gotten from those in the know. (Note, I'm a private pilot, so while I'm not exactly authoratitive, I do have access to some pretty knowledgable people.)

  • just curious--by northern texas do you mean lubbock?--I have read several things about a particular flight school here--supposed to be great--and I am looking for confirmation, before I sign up!!!
    ;-}
  • Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?

    Laptops, devices that don't intentionally transmit signals, are allowed to be turned on 10 minutes after takeoff and must be shut down 10 minutes before landing.

    I know that anything the FAA says would apply only to the US but still.
  • Wouldn't it be cool to fly with a bunch of friends with laptops and spend the entire flight fragging? Now that'd be l33t! ;-)
  • It is pretty obvious who this "feature" is directed at, that is the business segment. I tend to fly with SAS every few months, and often the business class has more people than coach. As business class costs up to 3x the price of coach it is clear that keeping these high paying customers is very important for the airline.

    The best customers are of course the ones with gold cards, one such I had a meeting with a few months ago just paid for a one week vacation in the carribean (from Europe) for himself, his wife and two children, including the hotel, using just his airmiles on one of his gold cards. Now, you can imagine how much money the airlines has made on that guy alone the last couple of years!

    If wiring a single airplane for wireless internet attracts just one such customer it would be a goldmine for the airline..
  • > Then there's the claim that they have the right to search anything and anyone ... funny, that's not how I remember the Fourth Amendment!

    Well, _they_ (the AIRLINE) actually do. They're a private company, and can specify certain requirements and obligations you must conform to if you want to partake of their services.

    It's _government_ employees only who aren't allowed to search without a warrant and probable cause (despite Mr. Clinton's unconstitutional to increase gvt participation in airport security).

    Don't ask me to explain why US Customs feel they have the right to do random searches. The only explanation I can think of is that they are simply set up to take advantage of non-US citizens entering the country who aren't aware of their rights.

    --craig
  • 14 hour flights not business? Folks are flying around the world to the Far East or Middle East for business all the time. Especially when a country like Israel has so many hi tech companies. 'net access on the plane is a great idea but just give me a power source and I'd be just as happy.
  • A better example would be AM/FM radios. We've been told that years that radios shouldn't be used on airplanes, because they can cause problems with navigation equipment. I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.

    The problem is that an FM receiver is not a passive receiver. If I remember correctly, part of the FM receiver includes an RF modulator to generate the carrier frequency used for the FM broadcast, thus allowing it to be removed from the inbound signal. If noise from this leaked out of the unit, it could play havoc with inflight systems, since it's down in the 100 Mhz Range. 802.11b, on the other hand, is up in the 2.4 Ghz range, will above what I suspect is being used on most aircraft.
  • That, and you'd get some little BOFH in training stuffing the jacks full of gum or sticking their fork into it. Or building an adapter that runs power from their laptop batteries to rj-45 and then sticking it into the jack. (although, i have to admit that that would be rather cool.)
    ----------------------
  • The new wireless technology creates possibilities for our passengers to gain access to e-mail and Internet onboard and on the ground. Our customers already have access to wireless communications in our SAS lounges through Telia HomeRun...

    Hmmm.... I wonder what he access possibilities are like just _outside_ the lounge....
  • On the last couple of flights I've been on I've had a pair of WaveLAN cards. I've been tempted to try them out except I was worried that an active radio in the 2.4GHz band might really screw with the Avionics. I guess it's safe. Chris
  • Is it technically possible to build an FM crystal radio?
  • So an extremely simple transistor radio would be acceptable?

  • ridiculously funny realvideo encoded advertisements [telia.com]

    I especially like the part where they intermix english phrases with their swedish language. When the clay baseball figure is on the screen, listen for him saying "catch you later" at the end of that particular ad.

  • I agree....why bother with wireless on a plane where you probably won't move out of your seat any way!

    ----------------------------
  • A couple of years back I was working on some Bluetooth development (yes, it has taken that long to come to market) and I went to one of the standards group working meetings. There was a lot of discussion about airplanes there, but at that time it was "..we have to be able to disable the radio transmitter or the FAA will ban our devices."

    The threat was that if Bluetooth was built in to a laptop or PDA and there wasn't some way to completely power down the BT circuitry while the computer was in use, the FAA would ban BT-enabled devices from being used on board. If that's your starting point it's not hard to see why a non-American airline would do this first.
  • Nope. Ever seen an Iridium phone ? They're HUGE! Well, OK, huge in comparison to modern cell phones....but you wouldn't mix one up with your cell anyways.
  • Okay, so you're headed to the next big conference with your coworkers, and you decide to play Counter-Strike. Of course you start talking to each other:

    1: "Hey, go look behind that door.. I think he's over there"
    2: "I've got a flashbang.. open the door, I'll throw it in."
    3: "Okay, I'll run through the door first, my AK47 is full of ammo"
    1: "No! Don't shoot the hostages"

    About then they'll land at the nearest airport and escort you off the plane..
  • I usually use a CDPD modem with my notebook when I'm travelling. I still get irritated when my flights are delayed (which is far too often) but I would be even more upset if I was stuck in the airport with nothing to do. It would be nice if I wasn't relegated to a 19.2k CDPD connection, though. An 11Mbit (or even a 2Mbit) wireless connection would make the time go by much easier.
  • On a somewhat-related note, apparently Northwest Airlines currently has 802.11b running in their WorldClubs lounges at various airports around the world (Minneapolis/St. Paul being one of them). These lounges aren't sheilded and I guess they broadcast their SSID so a resourcesful geek with a notebook should be able to sit somewhere near the lounge and surf the net for free.
  • Using this technology onboard aircraft will only amount to cancer-in-a-can, and should be protested.

    Beg pardon, but bullshit. 802.11b devices only use 100mW of power. If that's "cancer-in-a-can", we should already be dead from cellphones, cop's radar, and a host of other devices.

  • Do you mean the Emily that is the hot babe at the tenzing.com reception?
  • I'd like to see this happen at coffee shops as well.

    Starbucks is working on this, and I'd assume they're going to use 802.11b though it's not specifically stated in the press release. The press release [starbucks.com] is on their web site (under About Us, Press Room) and is dated January 3, 2001.

    Here's a quote from it:

    The relationship combines Starbucks expertise in creating an inviting and relaxing coffeehouse experience with Microsoft's state-of-the-art technologies and MSN® content and services. MobileStar, a leading wireless broadband Internet service provider, will deploy the network infrastructure beginning in late spring, delivering an enhanced consumer experience for Starbucks customers. The planned technologies represent an early step in Microsoft's delivery on the .NET vision of software that empowers users any time, any place and on any device and Starbucks' desire to address the changing lifestyles of its customers.


    -- fencepost
  • What about as you move about the airport and into the plane? You could be waiting in the departure lounge and asked to board the plane. No need to unplug the laptop as you go.

    This sort of thing really comes into play when you want to fire off a quick email from your palm pilot (or watch?...)

  • How reliable is that article? It sounded like a couple of people blowing smoke.

    First, I'm assuming that everyone complaining about the "health risks" aren't using any kind of wireless devices. I'd hate for someone to be a hypocrate.

    Second, no solutions are presented. Just scare tactics.

    Third, they mentioned asbestos and breast implants. Any educated journalist who did a little research knows that breast implants were NEVER proven to cause cancer or any other ailments after extensive testing. Yet somehow Dow Corning went out of business even though their product didn't hurt anyone.

    We at /. complain about corporations, yet somehow we forget about the crazy negligent consumers (i.e. McDonalds Cup of coffee)
  • I don't like the fact that you will only have access to a select list of websites. It probably will come down to "you can visit our sponsor's websites..." I would assume that the high bandwidth of the web would be expensive in this case so they might restrict access to those sites giving them money. I guess it just makes web browsing pointless, but e-mail would still be useful.

  • You can't use laptops during take off and landing, ditto for CD Players. Mobile phones you're allowed to use until the plane leaves the gate (at least on one Airline I've used), then you have to turn them off for the duration of the flight until you reach the gate again.


    --

  • Atrowe, your link [bcentral.com] goes to the Denver Business Journal. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. As such, it is not written by scientific experts, and has not been peer-reviewed by other experts.

    By spreading sources like these around, you are only contributing to blind, public hysteria. If you want the sources that are taken seriously by physicians and the scientific community, you need to hit the medical library and search on Medline. Business journals are not good sources of scientific info.

  • Doesn't it scare you that cellphones are linked to plane crashes? I mean, COME ON...you've got a hermetically sealed tube designed to carry a couple hundred people thousands of miles at several hundred miles per hour at 50000 feet, and someone using a cellphone can cause it to crash?

    What's next? None of us are allowed to have metal fillings or steel plates in our head? How do the microwaves for those tasty in-flight meals work?

    And what's the deal with radio scanners? If I listen in to the top secret conversations between the pilot and the tower, I might cause the plane to crash?

    What gives?


    ----------------------------------------
    Yo soy El Fontosaurus Grande!
  • Actually, SAS is also a member of Star Alliance, so this may very well be a - more or less - joint operation.
  • Many receivers are not passive, but include in themselves local oscillators that operate very near the band of reception. These LOs are used to mix the RF signal down to an intermediate frequency for processing, and some radios use multiple LOs to provide better signal selectivity.

    The FCC considers these kinds of receivers to be "unintentional radiators," and they CAN cause interference.

  • A better example would be AM/FM radios. We've been told that years that radios shouldn't be used on airplanes, because they can cause problems with navigation equipment. I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.
    You AM/FM radio is not a passive receiver. It uses a superheterodyne amplifier, which emits RF.
  • Alright, I'll admit it that's an excellent point.
  • What good does wireless networking do on a plane? I guess it would be nice when I have started to download something and they make me change seats. I don't see that happening very often though. It would be interesting to have my palm contact my luggage to see if it made it on the plane. :)
  • Oh come on give me a link of a cell-phone causing a crash. Yup that is just real smart.
  • According to recent news pieces on TV I've seen, Air Canada plans on introducing this within the next six months. Boeing should be rolling out the planes for that within that time period.

    Whether or not those planes are modified specifically for Air Canada or for Boeing's larger plan, I don't know.

    Dark Nexus
  • I know that the reason cellular phones aren't allowed to be used in planes is that the radio signal emitted by the phone can interfere with the plane's navigation equipment.

    That's one of those things that varies from airline to airline. My boss routinely uses his cell phone on planes, and the flight crews only say to turn it off during takeoffs and landings. And there haven't been many crashes caused by cell phones, perhaps incidents where they say to turn off the cell phones, but not crashes

    Wouldn't it be easier to just add a RJ-45 jack next to the headphone jacks on all the seats?

    Then you have to take a plane out of service to add the godawful amount of wiring that would be required to add ethernet to even all of first class. It's a lot easier to just have a wireless hub sitting in the galley for the few people who do want networking type away.

  • Most aircraft (Including all Transport catagory craft) have a "Minnimum equipment list" that tells them what exactly can be inoprative for each type of operation. If 1 seat's interenet connection was busted it would not stop them from flying. They would just mark it as non fuctional till the next time the tech staff could look at it.

    Similarly it is often the case that 1 seat on the airplane may not be usable due to a busted seatbelt or something, not a huge deal they just leave it empty.
  • I fly a DA-20 Katana out of BED, Hanscome Field, Bedford Ma. Got my PPL 24 Dec 2000. (Baby Pilot)

    I expect to move to a PA-28 Warrior and do my IFR stuff in the next few months.
  • Yeah, but then he couldn't have converted each period to a goatsex link.
  • I love the Singapore airport. It's definitely one of the coolest around.
  • I know it's FAA regulation - but what is a laptop or a discman really going to do?

    Exactly what the root post of this thread said they will do - louse up the navigation equipment.

    While you're in the air, 30k feet above anything that might hit you, this isn't an issue. But when the plane is landing, it's following interference fringes of a couple of radio beacons by the runway. You do *NOT* want anything that even *might* be transmitting RF to be active during takeoff or landing. Airports have enough problems with noise from the local radio stations.
  • 1) Join the Mile High Club and live webcast it using your laptop WebCam!

    [other ideas?]
  • And you think SAS will use this in passenger flights if it causes interference with the flight instruments? It's obvious that SAS will make sure the wireless lan will work properly before shipping it. As for cell phones (in some other post).. The main difference between allowing an onboard LAN and disallowing cell phones is that the air lines cant control the phones and make sure it works correctly.

    So no, before we see this in production use RF interference wont be a problem.

    -henrik

  • a 747 of geeks playing quake and unreal tournament... wirelessly =)

    ---
  • SAS is also working to find a solution so that passengers can gain access to their own company's e-mail system behind a firewall.

    In related news, SAS is looking to hire some 133t h4x0rs who can penetrate company firewalls :-)

    This sounds more like establishing L2TP or PPTP or IPSec tunnels to corporate firewalls, allowing email to be picked up after authentication. Why SAS would be getting involved in that level of connection is a little beyond me, but they might make it a pay service for those who regularly use their lounges.

    I wonder what kind of link goes from the small router on the plane to the internet? Satellite most likely, although there are some terrestrial aircomm systems throughout Europe that could provide slow but cheap access. And would they really be filtering websites, or could I pass my own SSH/IPSec/SNMP/BGP traffic while at 35000 feet?

    the AC
  • I'd like to see this happen at coffee shops as well. A handful of coffee shops I know of have plenty of AC ports avaiable to plug into, but only 1 or 2 I know of have an ethernet port nearby to plug into. To narrow it down further, there's only 1 coffee shop that'll let you plug in(and pay the hourly fee) to surf the web and sip coffee on.

    I've been to one coffee shop where an unofficial Quake deathmatch took place, and we had cords all over the place. This could be greatly simplified with wireless, where you wouldn't run into restrictions of how far your network cables go nor how many ports you have in your battery-operated hub. You could have all the customers in the shop just join in on the fraggin'.
  • Its quite interesting that the big moves in the Wireless market all seem to come from Scandinavia. For a small bunch of people they really really really like keeping in touch.
  • I'm not saying the 'net' wouldn't be interesting to have access to in any place, just the same as it would be interesting to have the net accessable in a washroom. Interesting like, "Oh wow, what kind of person has to get their email while they're in the washroom".

    Hey, don't knock it 'till you've tried it man. Once you get over the "Oh, wow" reaction it's seems as normal as reading the newspaper while you do your thing.
    _____________

  • There are many people who take many flights longer than 3 hours. Have you ever traveled outside the United States? Do you have any idea how many flights fly out of this country every day and how many people fly on those flights?

    Further, I don't know where you came up with the 3 hour limit. YOU might want to catch a nap while you're on the plane but that doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants to do. I can't sleep on short flights so for me, personally, any flying time is a complete waste. I usually synch up my laptop before emplaning and spend my time replying to my email. Having network connectivity would be great for me!

    And how the hell did you conclude that these modifications would make the plane tickets any more expensive? If an airline has to raise prices to offer this service, consumers who don't care about the service won't take that airline any more!

    Anyway, this service will probably not be offered in Cattle^H^H^H^H^Hoach Class to begin with, anyway.

  • You mean like this [slashdot.org]?

  • Doesn't FAA require that any device that transmits a signal, such as a cell phone, be turned off during the entire flight? Wouldn't this restriction also apply to wireless ethernet?

    No, the restrictions on cellphones is from the FCC. A cellphone in the air, where it has direct line-of-sight to about 30 cellphone towers will play havoc with the cells because it will block out a channel band in each of those cells.

    I doubt the FAA cares about the intentions of the device - only whether or not it actually does transmit a signal. I guess the assumption is that the particular wireless protocol used is known to not cause interference with the airplanes navigation systems.

    The FAA regulations apply only to US registered carriers and flights operating in and out of the United States. However, the FAA regulations are considered the de facto standard in formulating regulations by other aviation authorities.

  • Yes, not only are they common, they're actively solicited. I can't tell you how many times after filing or opening my flight plan, Flight Service has come back in a cheerful voice and said "We'd appreciate any pilot reports you could provide while in flight."

    For non-pilots, a pilot report (or PIREP for short), is a weather report filed while in flight.
  • According to 14 CFR 91.21:

    No person may operate, nor may the operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft... except for... any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system on the aircraft on which it is to be used.

    So it only applies to U.S.-registered airplanes (although I bet the JARs have a similar section), and if the operator (air carrier) determines that there is no problem, that is allowed.
  • The MEL only applies to components of the aircraft that would otherwise render the aircraft unairworthy if they were to fail. A busted entertainment system would not render the aircraft unairworthy, so therefore it would not be included in the MEL.
  • Not to mention *weight*. You know how much it would weigh to wire each seat with cat5, and include the necessary jacks, hubs/switches, etc? It would weigh way too much to be feasable, unless it could somehow be integrated with the current wiring in place (which I seriously doubt). The weight that would be spent on cabling would be better spent hauling passengers or cargo... where the airline actually makes money.
  • Funny (slightly off-topic) story : I'm flying back from Germany a couple of months back. I'm coming out of the restrooms at the very back of the plane (big 747-400) and I pass this guy walking around with his cell-phone, jamming it to his ear and then checking the display. Of course my first thought is "moron, don't use a cell-phone in flight!"...then about 30 seconds later it hits me. We're about mid-way in a flight from Frankfurt to Toronto....there isn't a damned cell tower for hundreds of miles in any direction because we're over the mid-Atlantic. :) I didn't bother to tell him he had no hope of completing his call....I was too busy laughing. luser!

  • Let's just hope they give the flight controlls an IP.

    They don't need an IP. The smart money says the only two words you'll need to know are "public" and "private". ;)

    --
  • I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.

    You probably aren't an RF engineer (neither am I), but I figured I'd clean this up. In order to receive a signal, you must transmit it. To be precise, if you've got a radio station transmitting at 107.9MHz, your radio must generate a 107.9MHz signal inside it, align that with the phase of the incoming signal, and subtract one from the other. It's left with the raw modulation, which is what you want to end up with.

    Therefore, leaky electronics can and will spew RF even (especially!) if it's only a receiver.

    --
  • "My mother takes two 14+ hour flights (NYC to Pakistan, and back) every two months or so. (Retired).
    My brother takes 2-3 hour flights every Monday and every Friday. (Consultant).    "

    Ok, so the 14 hour flights aren't business flights. No Internet connection is required, though it might be fun to have one.

    The 2 - 3 hour flights fall into my 2 - 3 hour timeline; does he *need* an internet connection?

    I'm not saying the 'net' wouldn't be interesting to have access to in any place, just the same as it would be interesting to have the net accessable in a washroom. Interesting like, "Oh wow, what kind of person has to get their email while they're in the washroom".

    My point is only that we should re-evaluate how much time & money we want public transportation to invest in keeping us working round-the-clock.

    If I were on a plane with a laptop right now, I'd be playing a game, or reading some saved information. The fact that I *could* one day connect to the net and get new information is boring when i consider how much time I'm actually spending on most flights.

    It seems like the only practical reason to invest time and money in networking people in-flight, is to help their business interests; and what business can stand to spend so much for a flight and accomodations, but can't afford that 3 hours of luxury net-free time we would all enjoy if we weren't so hyped about the 'possibility' of connecting in the air.

  • You really think you could produce something as good as this [washington.edu] or the other pictures you can see here [washington.edu] with a webcam? The information that is hard to come from is pressure, tempature, dewpoint. That kind of stuff. Hint they take these pictures from space they can see the whole world. And a weather station already gets pretty good reports from the pilots. Trust me I did this for 4 years they don't need a crappy little webcam picture
  • Just out of my own experience, I just wanted to say that the standard itself rocks. I bought a base station and card from Dell with my new notebook and you can roam with these things everywhere. And since my cable modem only supports speeds up to around 3 Mbps, the 11Mbps standard more than covers it.


  • There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight

    No, there havent.

    I believe there was a Dateline NBC story a few months ago about just this (if not Dateline, it was another comperable show). Of all the studies conducted on this, not a single one has concluded that cel phone signals (or usage of laptops for that matter) interfere with anything on an aircraft. If you know of any, please direct us there, or if you can back up your claim, give us an NTSB official report of a crash caused by cel phone usage.

    The real reason is that the airlines have struck a deal with cel phone service providers. When you use a cel phone on the ground, your signal goes to the nearest tower and is relayed along the network. When you are in a plane, the nearest tower changes very quickly -- so quickly, in fact, that the cel phone company is not able to track your call, and thus cannot bill you. Airline airphone towers work on the same general principles but the ground towers are much farther apart.. and youve never heard complaints there. Why? Because the airlines can charge $9/min for the monopoly.

    Note: yes, I did hear about the plane that was forced to land a couple weeks ago because of what they claim was a cellular phone apparently ringing in the cargo hold. If this were proven to be the actual cause, it would be a first, but Im pretty confident they will find something else.

  • Man, this would rock if they had it in the UAL Red Carpet Clubs. And on the planes. And on those annoying moving sidewalks you have to take to the terminal. And in the taxis to the airport. And...

    Seriously, this is a great development and one that will make travel much easier - much in the way that national roaming on cellphones freed us from all those damn payphones and 25-digit dialing. Bring it on!

  • Large aircraft, such as the Boeing 747 require dozens of man-hours of maintenance for each hour they're in the air anyway. Replacing an ethernet port every couple of years would not be a big deal. The same argument could be given for the headphones offered on planes. Why doesn't the plane just take the headphone jacks out of the seat and provide wireless headphones to passengers?
  • How would wireless ethernet signals affect the plane's electronic systems. I know that the reason cellular phones aren't allowed to be used in planes is that the radio signal emitted by the phone can interfere with the plane's navigation equipment. There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight. Wouldn't it be easier to just add a RJ-45 jack next to the headphone jacks on all the seats?
  • HERE [bcentral.com]
  • But it's the cost of wiring the whole pan in the first place, besides I don't imagine that an RJ-45 jack would last very long in an enviroment where it's plugged and unplugged numerous times a day (not only between flights but during). Plus some snot-nosed brat could shove peanuts in it.

    I like the wireless solution, how pissed would I be if I paid for the access only to find my jack, the only jack on the plane that was down. Oh, there better be lots of alcohol onboard.

  • They are even going so far as implementing policies of "asking" people carrying laptops with sensitive information to not work on/with that info in such a public place as an airport due to shoulder surfers and laptop thieves.

    This should tons of fun for casual users but I imagine corps getting scared shitless over this. Even I would be a little nervous checking my yah00 mail.
    "Me Ted"

  • Re:Money maker (Score:3)

    by Zachary Kessin ( 1372 ) <zkessin@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @08:14AM (#484265) Homepage Journal
    For an aircraft to file a weather report while in flight is common. Even as a student pilot my flight instructor had me file PIREP's with the flight service whenever I ran into weather that was not exactly as the forcast said it should be.

    There are some things like cloud tops which can only be seen from above.

  • Security, Reliability, and Speed (Score:3)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @08:21AM (#484266) Journal
    During the test, passengers will be able to send and receive e-mail and have access to the Internet via an Internet server onboard the aircraft. A LAN (Local Area Network) based on IEEE 802.11b technology, the first standard developed for wireless networks, will be installed in the cabin

    Which, judging from the comments, many of us are quite familiar with.

    The concerns I have are mostly practical. Philosophically there is no problem for me.

    Things like security, reliability, speed.

    Security, of course, depends on the encryption standards they use, if any. There could be a couple of good spy movies based on this somehow. [Insert plotline here]

    Reliability. This is partly a simple hardware issue, the solution to which is 'trivial', because it is "merely" a matter of getting the right equipment. Some of it is not so trivial in terms of enviromental interference. Remember, this is in Sweden. For instance, there are reports in the far north of the Northern Lights being very intense and coming quite low into the atmosphere. As seen here [fairbanks-alaska.com], for example:

    An intense auroral display can cause many problems on the ground, such as intense electric currents along electric power lines (causing blackouts) and oil pipelines (enhancing corrosion). The aurora can disturb the ionosphere and disrupt short wave communication. Auroral discharge electrons have even damaged the electronics and solar panels of communications and meteorological satellites, rendering them inoperable.
    There is also this page [alaska.edu], with many interesting articles.

    There is this article [alaska.edu] about auroral effect at ground level. I even recall reading about aurora being *visible* at ground level, but that was long ago, and I cannot find the link. There is even this article [alaska.edu] about aurora being *audible*, however. So the effects of such enviromental factors on an aircraft at six miles up can be important.

    Speed is not so much an issue internal to the aircraft, but again is a problem of interferance with the ground stations. Enviromental factors are again in play

    Needless to say, I am going to be very interested with the results of these trials

  • Re:Possible Problems (Score:3)

    by Qoud ( 202153 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:49AM (#484267)

    There have been several crashes linked to cell phone usage in-flight

    That's only because the pilot wasn't using a hands-free kit and took his hands off the stick to take the call.

  • Singapore's airport provides free internet access to anyone carrying one of these cards. Works great. There are signs scattered around the terminal indicating the areas in which it works, usually with nice comfy chairs nearby. They'll even lend you a card for your laptop if you don't have one. (Unfortunately people without computers are stuck paying about US$6/hour to use the airport's machines)

    This is definitely the sort of thing more airports should do - maybe I wouldn't always be so late for flights because I need to finish my work, if I knew I could take care of it in the departure lounge after checking in.

  • Re:Possible Problems (Score:4)

    by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @08:57AM (#484269) Homepage Journal
    Actually, the big reason (besides the fact that you are sitting in a big metal tube) is that cell phone antennas are pointed down towards the earth. Remember that most people on cell phones are on the ground level, and to improve the signal strength cell towers actually have three different antennas, each one directional and covering 120 degress of the sky (actually more, there is some overlap) horizontally and only a few degrees vertically.
    On a plane, your cell phone would be constantly out of range anyway.

    Plus the 802.11b standard can be tested on the planes first to be sure it doesn't interfere with the controls.

  • And a new question at airline ticket counters... (Score:4)

    by Samrobb ( 12731 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:40AM (#484270) Journal
    "Have your bags been in your control since you left your home?"
    "Has anyone given you a package to carry on to the airplane?"
    "Are you a l33t h@x0r?"

  • Re:Possible Problems (Score:4)

    by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @08:06AM (#484271) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be easier to just add a RJ-45 jack next to the headphone jacks on all the seats?

    The problem with RJ-45 sockets (or any physical connection for that matter) is that they wear, get damaged and require maintenance/ replacement constantly; especially in a location where constant insertion/ removal is envisaged. Imagine having a 747 with 300-500 such RJ45 sockets, each connected to a hub by an 8-core wire, and the potential for problems is immense. They have enough problems with the current wiring on an aircraft.

    Wireless LANs on the other hand, have no parts subject to wear and abuse, only have a small number of components and the standard LRU/SRU repair procedure easy to implement.

  • They aren't the only ones. (Score:4)

    by Dissenter ( 16782 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:46AM (#484272)

    This is not the first time this has happened. If you read Telia's press release [telia.se] they state "SAS will be the first European airline to implement this wireless technology on board their planes." If you read on a bit into the Tenzing site, Air Canada is starting a free Beta test of this technology here [tenzing.com].

    Now I fly a lot and this sounds like it's really going to take off, pardon the pun, but why are Air Canada and SAS the first? I would have expected this from one of the bigger airlines like United or something. Air Canada is a member or United's Star Aliance though. I guess if this works well, we may see this everywhere!

    Dissenter

  • Money maker (Score:4)

    by rw2 ( 17419 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:33AM (#484273) Homepage
    Hmmm,

    I wonder how much the NWS would pay me for a web cam uplink with GPS from my coach seat across the atlantic. The oceans are a bitch to get data from, maybe this announcement is the first step to more accurate forecasts! :-)

    --

  • I just wonder... (Score:4)

    by ForceOfWill ( 79529 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:43AM (#484274) Homepage
    ...how long it will take Apple to sue them for the use of their "Airport" TM :)

  • Now if only... (Score:4)

    by Geeko Roman ( 304803 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:41AM (#484275)
    Now if only you could log on to a Quake Arena or Half-Life server on-board and play coach section against business class.
    Die, CEO of so and so, die!

    Signatures? ÒöÈon't need no stinking signatures!
  • 802.11b is showing up everywhere. Think about this for a couple of minutes and you might feel inclined to breathe a sigh of relief. This is an area where a number of players would have liked to establish a de-facto standard, potentially a closed and monopolistic one. It didn't happen. 802.11b happened, with ordinary TCP/IP and DHCP running over it. Do you realize what an impediment to Linux users it would have been, if "the standard" ended up being a closed one? I'm thankful for this. I'm looking forward to a time in the not-too-distant future where I'll be able to boot my Linux-based laptop in lots of different places -- coffee shops, airplanes, offices, perhaps even my home if I feel so inclined -- and just be on the net without any further consideration. This is one of those futuristic things that really looks like it's going to pan out just the way the dreamers imagined it. My hearty congratulations go out to the people who made it happen.
    --

  • this isn't really access (Score:5)

    by cornjones ( 33009 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:59AM (#484277) Homepage
    from the article: Passengers will gain access to the SAS website and other travel-related Internet portals. The onboard server is linked to a ground station when the aircraft is airborne and the content is transmitted and updated at regular intervals

    this isn't really access. it sounds like they will have a couple of sites that are uploaded to the plane. the plane will sync w/ the groundstation "at regular intervals". you can probably send email to anywhere (message size restricted???) but you won't be able to "surf"

  • More money for the normal user. (Score:5)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @09:09AM (#484278) Homepage
    Am I the only person posting in this group who thinks this idea is a waste of money?

    I mean, I'm as nerdy as the next guy; I really am. But cummon, who really takes that many flights longer than 2 - 3 hours. Isn't it enough that you can sit there and use your computer and get work done, do you have to be able to do real-time research and communicate with people for that whole three hours? Stuff like this can't wait until you land and take 4 minutes to get inside the airport, "Our customers already have access to wireless communications in our SAS lounges through Telia HomeRun"

    In the end, any modifications the airline makes to the plane are going to raise the price of airline tickets. I don't want to pay more money for my flights so joe-asshole on his $8.00/min cell-phone can also type while I'm trying to get an hour or two of sleep.

    Is there such thing as a business job that requires you to travel *and* get so much work done that you can't take a 3 hour break from being connected to the outside world? Not even a break from working, just a break from being connected... it sounds like 'too much hype' to me.

    It reminds me of all the "business men" I used to sell Palm Pilots too back in my hay-day as a fledgling guru. "Whoa! I can connect to the internet with that!? anywhere?!". Guess how many of them actually do that 3 weeks after they get one... I think 90% of the guys running with leading-edge technology are actually wasting their time (and often other peoples time) figuring out how to be more efficient with their new technology.

    ie: Hey, this palm pilot lets me get my email anytime i want, now I can check it on my way to work instead of when I get there. They then spend 4 hours setting it up, and save 5 minutes in their work day for a month or two until something new comes out.

  • I can see it now... (Score:5)

    by jonfromspace ( 179394 ) <jonwilkins@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @07:57AM (#484279)
    "Cockpit Hacked, Plane Diverted To Amsterdam"

    Let's just hope they give the flight controlls an IP.

  • Re:Possible Problems (Score:5)

    by SVDave ( 231875 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2001 @08:13AM (#484280)
    I know that the reason cellular phones aren't allowed to be used in planes is that the radio signal emitted by the phone can interfere with the plane's navigation equipment.

    That may be one reason, but the reason I've always heard was that, on the ground, cell phones can only "see" a few cell towers at a time. At 35,000 feet, it can see hundreds, and will switch cells every few seconds (given how fast the airplane is moving). This tends to play havoc with cellular systems as a whole. The ban on cell phone use in airplanes originated from the FCC, not the FAA.

    A better example would be AM/FM radios. We've been told that years that radios shouldn't be used on airplanes, because they can cause problems with navigation equipment. I find it hard to believe that a passive receiver can cause more problems than an active 802.11b transmitter.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close