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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications

Starlink Unveils Airplane Service (arstechnica.com) 79

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
SpaceX has introduced Starlink Aviation, promising 350Mbps broadband with unlimited data for each airplane it's installed in. From a report: "Starlink can deliver up to 350Mbps to each plane, enabling all passengers to access streaming-capable Internet at the same time," the company said. "With latency as low as 20 ms, passengers can engage in activities previously not functional in flight, including video calls, online gaming, virtual private networks and other high data rate activities." Starlink said the airplane service will use a "low-profile Aero Terminal" with "an electronically steered phased array antenna, which enables new levels of reliability, redundancy and performance."

It has a "simplified design" that "enables installations during minimal downtime and combines well with other routine maintenance checks," Starlink says. The service hardware also includes two wireless access points. There's a one-time hardware cost of $150,000, not including installation. "The installation can be performed by your current maintenance organization or Starlink can recommend experienced and qualified installers," Starlink says.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Starlink Unveils Airplane Service More

Starlink Unveils Airplane Service

Comments Filter:

  • Video calls (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MidSpeck ( 1516577 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @01:51PM (#62980833)

    Do we really want to encourage video calling on airplanes? I guess on private jets would be one thing, but on commercial flights seems tacky.

    • As long as they're wearing VR googles and earphones who cares?

      • Re:Video calls (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @02:17PM (#62980909) Journal

        You can still hear their (loud) side of the conversation where they are yelling because they're wearing headphones.

        • Maybe airlines will force you to wear one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          • Or they could just not participate in a fucking FaceTime call for a few hours while in the air.

            We can't even get people to wear face coverings to prevent the spread of deadly disease. There's literally no possible way they could compel people to wear a high-tech ball gag without "mah riiiights!" and belligerent behavior towards flight crew.

            • Or require all two-way video calls to be made from the last several rows of the plane, similar to what they did with smokers back in the 1970s. People that can't wait to chat while in flight would select those seats and all other passengers would avoid those seats as they already do.

              If someone realizes last minute they need to participate in a video meeting they can offer to swap seats with some poor passenger that got stuck in the back few rows. I know I would jump at the chance to move forward 20 rows i

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by mjwx ( 966435 )

                Or require all two-way video calls to be made from the last several rows of the plane, similar to what they did with smokers back in the 1970s. People that can't wait to chat while in flight would select those seats and all other passengers would avoid those seats as they already do.

                If someone realizes last minute they need to participate in a video meeting they can offer to swap seats with some poor passenger that got stuck in the back few rows. I know I would jump at the chance to move forward 20 rows if I were offered.

                Can they restrict it to the front couple of rows. I sit at the back of planes because cabins tend to fill up front to back (a better chance of getting an empty seat next to you). Also I don't mind sitting patiently for a line to start moving.

                Plus the suckers who pay more for nothing pay to sit at the front of the plane.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mjwx ( 966435 )

          You can still hear their (loud) side of the conversation where they are yelling because they're wearing headphones.

          There's three reasons I'm not worried about this.

          1. Latency is a bitch.
          2. Airlines already block video and VOIP calls (for more than just bandwidth availability).
          3. Bandwidth limits will be so low that it'll cut them off in short order.

          The problem we have are people "live flogging" their lives by recording it. Those twats are already a problem.

          • The whole thing SpaceX is advertising here is that latency is lower and bandwidth is higher, so #1 and #3 are already gone (in theory). Which means it's at the airline's discretion whether #2 is still a thing. I could easily see some airlines allowing it, while others would preserve cabin peace and quiet.

    • Re: Video calls (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ThoolooExpress ( 9311797 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @02:13PM (#62980895)
      I keep seeing this brought up in discussions on in-flight WiFi. The thing is, seatback phones used to be fairly common, back in a time when phone calls were a much more common way to communicate. As far as I can recall, people making long, loud phone calls on planes was fairly rare. Now that so much of our communication has moved to text-based formats, it's hard to imagine people would actually make that many calls on planes.
      • Maybe only people who were raised with manners could afford those calls?

        • Maybe only people who were raised with manners could afford those calls?

          No, more likely people who were raised with manners realise that the world will not end the few hours they are in flight and it'll be waiting for them when they land. I suspect these phones were mostly used by stupid people who wanted more credit card debt. Swipe swipe.

      • I keep seeing this brought up in discussions on in-flight WiFi. The thing is, seatback phones used to be fairly common, back in a time when phone calls were a much more common way to communicate. As far as I can recall, people making long, loud phone calls on planes was fairly rare. Now that so much of our communication has moved to text-based formats, it's hard to imagine people would actually make that many calls on planes.

        I remember them. The cost was astronomical per minute. I was on a flight where the CEO of Creative Labs was seated next to me and he spent most of a 3 hour flight on an Airphone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by uncqual ( 836337 )

        The price of those seatback phones was a strong deterrent to me even though usually the company would have been paying for it. I think I only used one once and that was when I was sent off on an unexpected business trip with just enough time to catch the plane and I needed to reschedule a first date planned for that night.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

        seatback phones used to be fairly common, back in a time when phone calls were a much more common way to communicate. As far as I can recall, people making long, loud phone calls on planes was fairly rare

        Those phones used to cost somewhere around $2-$5 per minute to use. Unless you had a shit-ton of money, you weren't going to use one of those to yack with your bestie for the entire flight. You only used one if it was absolutely essential.

    • Do we really want to encourage video calling on airplanes? I guess on private jets would be one thing, but on commercial flights seems tacky.

      Oh god no. That's all you need is hearing half the conversation of the idiot next to you and his or her partner. Information on a publicly traded company's financial performance, OTOH....

      • Have you heard it for the last 20 years? Planes, except for domestic / short haul flights, have had phones in them for you to use for decades now.

        • Have you heard it for the last 20 years? Planes, except for domestic / short haul flights, have had phones in them for you to use for decades now.

          I've been on a lot of flights short and long haul and haven't een the in-seat phones in a long while; nor anyone using any sort of non-cell phone. Airfone is long dead, given the lack of use and cost to airlines to carry the weight.

    • And being crammed in like a sardine isn't tacky? As for the noise, you won't be able to hear much over the engines. So I wouldn't worry.

  • Everything's fine until the 15th person (Score:4, Funny)

    by backbyter ( 896397 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @01:55PM (#62980849)

    decides they too want to stream 4k content.

    • Just set routers to limit individual band when connection is saturated.
      Or install more Starlinks antennas.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
        QOS those bitches!
        • Seriously, it is probably fast enough to locally buffer the entire movie in 10 minutes, and the next guy will buffer his too
      • They already do such with in-flight wifi. It's not as if they allow any one person to eat up the available bandwidth. QoS has been around for decades.
        • QoS should be set to take effect during congestion only, so that you can buffer your movie and get off the bandwidth so that you have the highest utilization of the available bandwidth.
          • Doesn't seem to work well with a connection like an airplane, where things are constantly in huge swings of throughput second to second.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I'd have thought that RF congestion would be a bigger issue. Last time I flew there were dozens of Bluetooth devices visible to my phone, and my own wireless headphones had connection issues. A few random personal wi-fi hotspots too.

  • I really wish the editor would learn to parse english. UP TO 350 mbps.

    God freaking knows they aren't going to get that if they hook up to any of the existing satellites. I get 10 on average, 50 on a good day.

    But I'm sure they'll just give the airlines priority and screw over the users who have been watching their bandwidth slowly diminish.

    • Maybe something else is wrong with your setup, or you are in an urban environment? They are several miles closer to the sky, with less atmosphere to absorb signals, in a quieter segment. So, they will probably do better than you. We have several clients running them in remote locations, and they work way better than that.
      • I would imagine the more remote the location, the better it works, unless no part of the orbit over your head is needed for other people.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          Yes, the service works best when users are less densely populated (not all on the same sat). It doesn't work well for urban environments and this is a known and communicated factor. Starlink is a last mile and mobile technology. Urban users already have a plethora of high speed low latency options.

    • Since the hardware is lots more advanced ($150k per unit says a lot) they are probably capable of much higher actual speeds...

      With the StarLink I helped set up for my mom, it's around 20 on average.

  • I don't understand this obsession with everyone shouting on voice calls on airplanes. On the ground everyone texts. Why would it be different in the air?

    ...and the people who do chat by voice make "phone calls" - Something you wouldn't be able to do on Starlink anyway.

    Sure, you can use Facetime or WhatsApp but that's a tiny percentage.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XanC ( 644172 )

      I would think WiFi calling would work perfectly well for phone calls.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
        Not unless your chosen mno/mvno and starlink cooperates regarding signalling, that is also why wifi calling does not work abroad ( i'm ofc referring to what apple ( and possibly android) brands as wifi calling ie receiving/ making normal phone calls but relayed via wifi ( in areas with bad mobile signal reception)). Call via skype out erval will probably work unless the airline blocks it, well sometimes that can be worked arround with the usage of a vpn. And before I'm called a shitbag for working arround
    • You can make a receive calls on Wifi with just about any carrier these days.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
      Ofcthey can, you just to have to adopt rytines ftom simplex radio ( ie se over when you have finished speaking to avoid confusion caused by the sat delay)

      • Ofcthey can, you just to have to adopt rytines ftom simplex radio ( ie se over when you have finished speaking to avoid confusion caused by the sat delay)

        Delay over Starlink is no worse than it is over terrestrial voice chat apps. Admittedly delay in those apps is bad enough that we should be adopting simplex radio habits for them too...

        • There is this one guy on my Team calls at work that ends every remark with, "over."

          I can't say he's wrong, but...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tragedy ( 27079 )

            Have you considered starting every conversation with him with "five by five"?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
              No because over indicates "your turn" 5 by 5 is a signal report and is only used upon request by the other party or on initial contact iirc

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tragedy ( 27079 )

                I know. It's normally considered inappropriate for a phone conversation, just like saying "over" at the end of what you're saying. That's why I said to say it. It's meant as a sort of wry, ironic commentary of their habit of saying "over". They're supposed to think "why are they saying that to me?" or even ask directly and the answer is supposed to shed light on the fact that saying "over" at the end of your part in a phone conversation is a bit unusual.

                I get that they're just trying, in their own way, to b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
          Huh I'm regularly on discord calks with people all around Europe, and unless we get very exited there is generally little need to use over and such, but again the US has the problem that data have to traverse 1000s of miles to get to an ix to get from ISP A to ISP B ( thus might be an extreme case but I've heard stories)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 )

      Voice calls? This is for teams/zoom meetings and for most users they'll be muted a good portion of the time. The majority of airline traffic is for work.

      "...and the people who do chat by voice make "phone calls" - Something you wouldn't be able to do on Starlink anyway."

      Wifi calling has been a standard feature on cell phones for quite some time now. But yes, that will probably mostly happen in messaging instead.

      For consumers I imagine the big advantages will be video streaming and gaming/vr or video streami

  • Good luck. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Åke Malmgren ( 3402337 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @02:34PM (#62980957)
    We're all counting on you.

  • Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @02:34PM (#62980961)

    You idiots are complaining 350 Mbps is not enough to support an airplane? How much do you get now? Last I checked, three weeks ago, WiFi on planes suck. There is no streaming possible, at any but rate. Even VPN is fucked. With 350 Mbps, around 200 people would be able to stream Netflix at 1 Mbps .. which is OK quality, get on their home/office VPN and do work etc. Furthermore, if too many people stream, and they will not, btw .. but I digress, they can automatically implement some sort of bandwidth restriction cap.

    • I wonder... if there ended up being that much demand from Netflix users, would they think about putting an edge cache in each plane...

      • There aren't all that many streaming services that are popular, but they have big catalogs. (Take youtube for example). I wonder how much of the total bandwidth is from people streaming the same, say, top 1000 programs across those providers.

      • That's how IFE already works.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The airline could work with Netflix to install a local cache on the aircraft for popular shows. They already have something like that for the in flight entertainment.

  • Man, that thing looks only a bit more aerodynamic than the AC on RV roof. Surely they could've done better with that housing.

    • Well they are retrofitting onto existing planes and I would imagine anything beyond drilling a few small holes is a major no-no.
    • You probably haven't seen today's installations for sattelite internet. It's way way worse and they still fly :D

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close