Boeing to Have Net Access on Airliners in 2002 167
wowbagger writes: "According to Yahoo,
Boeing is going to have Internet access on airliners in 2002. The stated cost will be about $20/hour, and it will be strictly BYOC - it sounds like they'll be loaning you a wireless card. I wonder how this will stack up with the FAA regs against using "anything that sends or receives a signal", how many clueless users will not be able to configure their systems to use the card, and how many 1337 h@><0r doods will be 0w3n1ng other passenger's machines. Think I'll review my iptables setup before I fly..."
something (Score:1)
Re:No GPS? (Score:1)
Am I the only one... (Score:1)
In flight entertainment technology & Markets (Score:1)
There is a small set top box computer under each seat (or more correctly several CPU cards in a box under a seat for that row). These set top box like sysem support VoD, user interface, etc. On many system games are avalible. These system range from 286 class to low end P-Is with about 100 MHz 486 class systems becoming the norm. Remember that heat and power are big problems on aircraft. (The entertainment system was suspected for a while as the cause of the fire on the Swiss Air 747 ooff Canada a few years back). You can expect to start seeing browsing to become the norm on these in-seat system. This eliminates most of the tech support.
Re:Wireless?? (Score:1)
Re:UT/Q3/HL anyone? (Score:1)
Re:Clarification of cellphone rules... (Score:2)
I think you'll find, with the exception of certain "ultralight" class hot air balloons, that the FAA does regulate hot air balloons. You need a pilots license to fly them, and the balloon itself requires regular Airworthiness certification inspections.
The frequencies that cellphones work at basically travel straight, no bouncing of the atmosphere. So a cell phone in plane at 30,000 feet can be seen by cell phone towers up to roughly 250 miles away. Approximately a 200,000 square mile area. That's alot of cellphone towers.
Re:Doesn't say a damn thing about onboard wireless (Score:2)
Give us a nice updating page with current location, altitude, speed, and an updating map like some of the newer planes I've been on.
(Not that I've been on many new planes as Northwest doesn't believe in them.)
What FAA regs? (Score:2)
Where do you guys get this stuff?
Re:No GPS? (Score:1)
No GPS? (Score:2)
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Not wireless but probably fiber (Score:2)
Just what we need: Sandra Bullock flying by laptop (Score:2)
You know some towelhead'll be kicking down the door and poor Sandra has to put the plane into a roll and stand it on one wing to knock the towelhead down then she bursts out the head door and chick-fu's his ass.
You know it'll be a titanium G4 that's bulletproof.
As we begin our final descent.. (Score:3)
in the logged out positions, and put on their seat
belts. It has been a pleasure carrying you on
AOL-Time-Warner-American-Airlines, and I hope
you'll choose to fly with us again.
Re:Satellite uplink? (Score:1)
The article does not mention a wireless LAN. (Score:2)
It says the airplane's net connection will be satellite-based (for obvious reasons), but the article says nothing about the makeup of the internal LAN. I'm betting they just provide Ethernet sockets, since it's way more standard than wireless.
There's no way in hell they'll loan out wireless cards. Firstly, they'll lose them to absent-mindedness if not actual criminal activity. Secondly, your stewardress is NOT going to help you install it. Remember that your average travelling businessperson is a sales droid and would not be able to install the drivers themselves. Thirdly, there is a major issue with the emissions of wireless cards possibly interfering with the plane, which the FAA is not about to overlook.
Jon Acheson
Re:Your last words. (Score:1)
--
They're not suggesting wireless for passengers (Score:1)
Read what you see, not what you think you see. :)
Isn't "Connexion" already trademarked? (Score:1)
--
Re:in-flight hacking/cracking? (Score:1)
Re:Satellite uplink? (Score:1)
Re:No GPS? (Score:2)
Re:Wireless?? (Score:2)
Wireless means no wires hanging out. It means they can hand you can grab a card from them when you get on the plane and turn it in when you get off....
Re:No GPS? (Score:2)
linux support (Score:1)
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:3)
The planes you get on are much, much older than you think. They don't predate bag phones, but they definitely predate your spiffy handheld Nokia that plays games. (Think about the DC-10's - those bad boys are older than I am, and I'm not that young.) Furthermore, the planes were designed long before they were built. These planes just weren't designed to handle dozens of people holding battery-operated microcomputers, let alone 2-way radios (which is essentially what a cell phone is.)
These Boeings that are coming out are the first generation of planes that are specifically designed with today's wired user in mind, and as such, you're seeing wireless access on board.
2.4GHz is already polluted by wideband radiation in planes, since they use microwave ovens to heat the food. So there can be some level of confidence that you 802.11 tranciever isn't going to bring the plane down.
No, they don't use microwaves to heat ALL the food, only a few small things. I mean really, can you imagine them heating up meals for 120 people in microwaves? Even if they had half a dozen microwaves, and each meal only took 30 seconds, that's a long time. They get the meals pre-heated from the ground crew - those meal trucks that pull up to the plane, and then rise up to the back door.
However being charged money to get on the net is not really a necessity is it? One person sets his laptop up as a gateway/NAT router and everyone else sets up as an ad-hoc 802.11 network. That would save people a bit of cash.
I'm going to shell out my money for internet access on the plane, which isn't going to be fast by any means, and then I'm going to share it with other people for free? And furthermore, I'm going to waste time on my flight to run up and down the aisles asking if anybody wants to set up a quick network? Riiight. For that matter, we could do this today - the GTE Airfones have 9600 (woohoo) data access, and we could easily set up connection sharing using one of those bad boys. But we don't, because in an airplane, the last thing you want to do is get to know people up and down the plane, especially the ones who are trying to mooch internet access.
So lobby lobby your MP/Senator/FAA rep/garage mechanic/EU minister to change the rules. It will improve the quality of your traveling life.
No, not until the current fleet of planes is replaced. And not just replaced at one airline, but replaced at all of them - remember that "value" airlines usually buy their planes used from other airlines, so even today's planes will be in service for 20-30 years.
How the parent post got modded up to 5 Insightful is disgusting, either that or
Re:Your last words. - You can do that now! (Score:3)
Have you flown in the last ten years? GTE has Airfones in the back of the seats. For $2-$5 a minute, you can call anybody you want, get stock quotes, get the weather, and more.
With the 'net though, you could discuss the entire situation much sooner. Write entire emails.
Again, you can do that now too. The Airfones have modem jacks.
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:1)
HA! HAHAHAHAHA! WOOOOOOO! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAHAHHAHHAAAAA!
ANd you've never worked for a major airline, have you? Obviously not! I DO and I can assure you we have some goddamned STOCK avionics (well, stuff built to original spec) and those damn things were built in the 50's and 60's.
Get a clue.
Re:Connexion (Score:2)
Anyways, just poking around here at work (and yes I haven't read the article so I don't know if it already says this, mark me redundant as appropriate) I've discovered that Connexion is likely to be using DHCP for the IP address assignment and that it will actually be using Linux servers. So anything that's standards compliant (i.e. can talk DHCP and TCP) should work.
Re:Clarification of cellphone rules... (Score:2)
Re:linux support (Score:1)
1. I would bet that the average number of passengers on a flight that want to have internet access will be less than 25%. 30 people is probably going to be worst case.
2. Anyone who is using excessive bandwidth can be made known since they know where you are sitting
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Notice that (b)(5) allows the operator to exempt any device if they can determine that it won't interfere with the avionics. They may certainly exempt wireless ethernet if they so choose.
The only devices they cannot exempt are cellphones, as the FCC regulations prohibit using them while airborne. The FCC reason for this is that an airborne cellphone can communicate with a vast number of cells and clog up the network. The consipiracy theorists contend that the providers of the rather expensive sky-phone services lobbied the FCC to ban cellphones thus removing competition.
UT/Q3/HL anyone? (Score:1)
Re:UT/Q3/HL anyone? (Score:1)
Clarification of cellphone rules... (Score:3)
It's actually not an FAA rule. It's FCC. The FCC forbids using a cellphone from any platform not attached to the ground.
It's against FCC rules to use a phone from a hot-air baloon, and from parachutes - both of which are not regulated by the FAA.
Both the FCC and FAA websites suck, but here's [ainonline.com] a pretty interesting article. The rule is in FCC reg 22.925 - maybe somebody else will have better luck finding the text.
The nutshell is that the problem hasn't got anything do to with interference with navigation, but rather interference with ground systems. Cellphone just weren't designed to be able to "see" so many different cell towers.
_Am
Re:The Problem (Score:1)
Re:Clarification of cellphone rules... (Score:2)
The handoff assumes adjacent cells. The cells in question wouldn't be configured as adjacent. Also the frequencies used depend on the normal pattern of adjacent cells...
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
Commercial aircraft already have radio transmitters on board. Plenty have telephone systems, for the passengers, which play no part in helping fly the plane.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
They had better be otherwise RADAR would be a non starter for air traffic control. Let alone all those RADAR systems and other radio transmitters actually on board planes.
Once when we were landing someone actually had their cellphone ring. They'd forgot to turn it off for the whole flight.
The real issue with cellphones is that having them operating of aircraft can confuse the base stations. (Even if it's an unworkable situation radio frequences and processor time is being used attempting to keep the handset registered.) Also there may be issues of commercial lobbying by the satillite phone industry.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
They may be from tape or CD or HDD. There is nothing to stop an aircraft picking up radio or TV broadcasts. Just that they either need to do a frequency handover with ground based transmitters or only fly within the "footprint" of a satellite.
Airbus to invest in (Score:1)
Re:Your last words. (Score:1)
This may be a good idea during a terrorist incident -- although I suspect the motives are to control the PR spin that people get and to reduce the damages for emotional distress that next-of-kin can claim.
What I want to know.. (Score:1)
What service _is_ that (mobile wireless 5Mb?!) and where else can I buy it from?
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
um... did anyone notice the cost? (Score:1)
a little better (Score:1)
You are in an airplane. (Score:2)
Why are you constantly tracking your position every time you get on an airplane? You already know where you are: You are on an airplane. Leave the airplane's position up to the navigator and watch the damn movie.
Even better... (Score:4)
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Have you had a FedEx plane drop from the sky and land on your house recently? I thought not.
________________________
Re:Hacking? (Score:2)
It wouldn't be very reasonable to pay $7 for a cold ham and cheese sandwich either. But wait, this is air travel we're talking about. If they can charge you $7 for a 23c sandwich at the airport, I'm sure that they can charge whatever the fuck they want once you get in the air.
________________________
Re:Wireless?? (Score:2)
Remember 2 things about aircraft:
1) every kilo is precious. Adding ethernet wireing to every seat is going to add hundreds of kilos to the weight of the aircraft.
2) Aircraft are old, and retofitting them expensive. It's a lot easier to set up a wireless LAN than to go back and rewire the seats.
Not to mention the danger of tripping over the network cables in case of an unplanned rapid aircraft egress due to unforseen circumstances, the fact that only a small fraction of the passengers will want network access at any given time, and the electrical risk if the systems are connected to the plane (can you say FAA regs? I though you could).
Re:No GPS? (Score:4)
To get a 3D fix, you need at least 4 sats. (think of it as an algebra problem: you have 4 unknowns (x,y,z, and time) so you need 4 equations (4 birds) to solve for it. If the GPS receiver only gets 3 birds, it fakes it by assuming you are on the Earth's surface, and using that as the 4th equation.
Since you were in a big metal can with only a small hole next to you, you probably only got 3 birds.
However, you were in violation of airline regs using a GPS receiver on an aircraft (unless you had permission from the captain). You just didn't get caught.
The problem is that almost all modern radio receivers, be they GPS, cell phone, or cheap transistor radio watch, are a superheterodyne design: the incoming signal is mixed with a second signal to create a third signal at a fixed frequency. That second signal, called the local oscillator or LO, radiates from the receiver and can interfere with other signals. That's how the police "radar detector detectors" work: they listen for the LO of your radar detector.
You can demonstrate this by taking 2 old AM radios, and placing them next to one another. Tune one radio to 600 kHz, then tune the other to about 1055 kHz. Move the tuning around, and you should hear the first radio start to squawk. That's the second radio's LO being received by the first radio.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
nlh
As a boeing employee... (Score:2)
I have seen my fair share of hackers here, like people all day hacking away on a sun workstation to improve GPS. "modernization" is the buzz word right now, actually...
It is AMAZING to walk through a Boeing facility and see all the technology out in the open...
Everything here has to be thoroughly tried and tested to make sure that it can't be f*ed up. You don't send a satellite up if it has a problem, because your client (i.e. the Air Force) won't offer you another contract, and may go with someone like Lockheed.
I do not work on Connexion, but I have full faith that Boeing will deliver another successful, beneficial, and wonderful product to the public.
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Given today's knowledge about building robust wireless communications protocols and equipment, there's no real engineering excuse for airplane electronics to be "vulnerable" to consumer electronics. Somebody's either being lazy or there's some other reason why they keep this requirement.
(A friend of mine was wondering whether they didn't like cell phones competing w/the on-line airphones, since when you're at 35000ft, your cell phone can probably contact a bazillion line-of-site cell phone towers - if the signal can get through the skin of the plane.)
Re:1337 H4x0R D00dz (Score:2)
This doesn't need to happen if we ACT NOW! If everybody go to a vacant and lonely room that just needs some attention, we can bring room suicide rates down to a minimum. Bah! I think I'm wasting my time. You folks just don't care anymore. *sniff*
- Steeltoe
Re:Satellite uplink? (Score:2)
"The service will offer e-mail as well as Internet and intranet access through a satellite link"
--
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
First off, at least 50% of any flight I've been on somebody has been using some kind of electronic device. Be it a CD player, laptop, game boy or whatever. Plus some planes even have radios for you to listen to (through the arm rest). The airlines use microwaves and that's going to cause much more of a problem then some wireless lan cards. Also, a lot of flights have phones that you can use on the plane, that's not much different.
Now, about the crew and pilot.. They offer alchol on plane, and the pilots arn't off getting drunk. What's to make you think they're gonna be surfing pr0n or IMing their friends.
--
Re:No GPS? (Score:2)
I wouldn't count on the altitude being correct, the presurized cabin screws it up.
--
Re:No GPS? (Score:2)
"Altitude via air pressure (barometer)"
--
Re:No GPS? (Score:2)
"Altitude via air pressure (barometer)"
--
Re:No GPS? (Score:3)
The eTrex Summit I had does to it by pressure, It said it was accurate up to 13ft, and it showed 4 sats connected (max on that screen, I probably had more). If you go into the diag screen it actually shows you the pressure. It was saying I was at 5k feet.
However, you were in violation of airline regs using a GPS receiver on an aircraft (unless you had permission from the captain). You just didn't get caught.
I didn't have permission, and they did see it. They didn't have a problem with me using it (flight attendents). They never did ask the captian.
--
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Ritalin... it's not just for breakfast anymore.
we have some goddamned STOCK avionics (well, stuff built to original spec) and those damn things were built in the 50's and 60's.
Fine. As long as it doesn't send the plane into a reciprocal mixing-induced tailspin when Uncle Bob forgets to turn off his cell phone, we'll get along just fine.
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:3)
The planes are. The avionics aren't. That's all that matters.
How the parent post got modded up to 5 Insightful is disgusting, either that or
It was modded up to +5 because the poster nailed the issues square on the head. The idea of EMI/RFI from Part 15 devices bringing down a commercial jetliner is either laughable or it's horrible, and either way, it shouldn't be the passengers' problem.
They already have net connection... (Score:2)
Why would you think that they're "loaning everyone a wireless network card?" It sounds more to me like you jack something into your seat (probably ethernet, but who knows?) and then the whole plane shares the 5 mbps satellite uplink.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
i got a better idea (Score:3)
Forget that, how about 0wNz0r1Ng the plane itself!
Re:Flying helpdesk (Score:2)
Out of the cubicle and into the cramped, uncomfortable, weirdly-pressurised, and anger-inducing airplane? No thanks.
make first class pay (Score:2)
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Sure, the chance of a cellphone actually causing an aircraft to crash are very remote, but when we design airplanes we don't allow even remote possibilities. There are numerous multiple redundant systems which would only ever be needed in very unlikely failure conditions, but if passengers found out that they were being removed then they would be very unhappy.
The proposed wireless LAN is a slightly different matter since 802.11 tends to use lower power than cellphones and it works at a higher frequency where there is less chance of coupling into the wiring. Finally, I imagine that the airline will provide their own LAN cards which they have tested to make absolutely sure that they meet the frequency and power specifications. How do you know that your cellphone hasn't developed a fault causing it to radiate significant amounts of power on non-cellphone frequencies? Perhaps it doesn't do it now, but maybe it will next time it gets knocked, or if the temperature changes? Perhaps it has a loose solder joint?
And as for it being the airlines responsibility to make their aircraft passenger proof. Well, maybe they should be proof against my 100W ham radio transmitter? Perhaps it should be safe for me to heat my own meals on board with a gas stove?
And if the FAA do give in and allow transmitters and one day an aircraft crashes and there is some evidence (but no proof) that a cellphone caused it. What will happen? Passengers (particularly but not exclusively American ones) will start sueing the airline, aircraft manufacturer, cellphone maker and the FAA. Pathetic!
Re:Your last words. (Score:2)
Re:Your last words. (Score:2)
Your concept of reality and humanity is so undernourished that in your dying moments you think you would tell some anonymous people on IRC that you think you might die. Big deal. Tell someone who cares, like your mom and dad.
And speaking of caring, in a crash your instincts would be to save yourself and then to save the people around you. No one in their right mind is going to take the opportunity to escape an aircraft that might blow up any minute and instead sit down at a terminal to write some buddies about the experience.
Re:Your last words. (Score:4)
Re: Crashing
From: Bertie the Bunyip
> This DC-9 is pitching around and around and headed
>for the ground.
>Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
Your use of the obsolete designator "DC-9" for the MD-80 aircraft indicates you know nothing about aviation. And motion around the axis of thrust isn't "pitching". It's called "roll".
You deserve to die.
Re:Isn't "Connexion" already trademarked? (Score:2)
Connexion is one of those rare companies offering BFOB (Big Fsck-Off Bandwidth) Services to anyone willing to pay through the nose to get their data on Connexions servers.
Sort of place you load your latest browser version to (like Netscape and IE).
Chances of slashdotting it: about same as The BBC [bbc.co.uk] i.e. nill *grin*
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
If it's so well known why haven't we all heard about it? Provide the evidence whilst making such a far-off opinion.
Probably 90% of planes in the skies have mobile phones in the ON position in the luggage bins, and as far as Accident Investigators have discovered, non has caused an accident.
Accidents in the Air are caused by cost-saving maintenance procedures and tired aircrew, not by some kids gameboy.
I may well have been trolled severely here, in which case well done *grin*
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:4)
The reason that the Bluetooth and 802.11 crowd keeps working on this is that there is some hope for movement by the FAA/CAA/Other regulatory bodies. The arguments are pretty simple..
1) 2.4GHz is already polluted by wideband radiation in planes, since they use microwave ovens to heat the food. So there can be some level of confidence that you 802.11 tranciever isn't going to bring the plane down.
2) Electrical interference is a function of both the strength of the interferer and the succeptability of the interferree. Plane equipment is supposed to be built to stringent succeptability requirements. When someone says you phone/pda/toothbrush will interfere with the plane, ask why the equiment on the plane is operating outside the succeptability requirements mandated for planes. The responsibility to make interference not be a problem has be foisted on the passengers. This is a bad thing. Passengers forget to turn phones off all the time. It should be the job of the plane manufacturers to make planes safe in the presence of passengers.
3) There is lots of lobbying going on.
However being charged money to get on the net is not really a necessity is it? One person sets his laptop up as a gateway/NAT router and everyone else sets up as an ad-hoc 802.11 network. That would save people a bit of cash.
If all you wanted to do was play quake with your peers, you wouldn't need net access at all. 802.11 can work peer to peer. You don't need an AP just to communicate between a group of machines.
So lobby lobby your MP/Senator/FAA rep/garage mechanic/EU minister to change the rules. It will improve the quality of your traveling life.
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
Well, a joke or a troll, I can't quite work it out. If the latter, is anyone going to bite and point out that the EM interference problems only apply to older airliners?
I think that wowbagger does have a point about the FAA currently disallowing such things on all airliners despite it being safe on modern ones though.
I'm more interested in which country's laws apply to your online activities, anyway (besides France's, which as we all know apply to the entire world and possibly several others :).
Re:Clarification of cellphone rules... (Score:2)
"Attached to" or "resting on"? I'm not attached to the ground, and I have a pretty lively, bouncy gait when I walk, so would it be illegal for me to walk and talk on the phone?
Jump! Jump! Jump!
Re:Run a webserver... (Score:3)
Just run a webserver on your laptop when flying with the plane...submit it to slashdot: enjoy the feeling of being slashdotted 10000feet above the surface.
It's likely you'd get just dial-up speeds on your connection. The data rates mentioned in this part of the article are FOR THE ENTIRE PLANE:
Passengers will need to bring their own Internet connection device--a laptop computer, for instance--to use the service, Carson said, and the service operates at data rates of 5 mbps for incoming traffic and 1mbps for outgoing.
The very next paragraph indicates that bandwidth, when split up among the passengers doesn't look so speedy::
The speed will depend on the number of Internet users during each flight. Connexion by Boeing spokesman Terrance Scott says customers will have a minimum Internet hook-up equivalent to a 56K modem but should be able to get higher speeds.
Though unstated in the article, I wonder how long it would be before some kind of bandwidth limiting may be imposed on the passengers; otherwise, a couple people streaming audio/video/pr0n to their laptops could saturate the connection.
Besides the data rate, also consider ping times -- from what I understand the communications from the plane go by way of satelite. Don't know if they'll use low earth orbit sats or geosynchronous; but if the latter, you'll have some major roundtrip delays, too.
Run a webserver... (Score:2)
Re:We already got them in some libraries... (Score:2)
Bryguy
Doesn't say a damn thing about onboard wireless (Score:2)
Of course, this does raise the interesting question of what the local-to-the-plan LAN is like. I imagine you could get a Doom/Quake/etc. game going on the plane between you and your buds without too much hassle.
Your last words. (Score:4)
Imagine being in IRC and explaining to your friends that these are your last moments. Kinda freaky. You could start spouting your passwords, or leave a love note. Think of the things people wished they could say on the way down.
I actually first thought of this with cellphone text messaging, but the problem is you don't have signal (at least with ground-tower based service) until you are near ground. So if you were quick, you could fire off a "So long..." to one of your buddies just before impact.
With the 'net though, you could discuss the entire situation much sooner. Write entire emails.
Geez, maybe I should stop now. I have a 10 hour plane flight tomorrow after all...
Porn (Score:2)
Re:Run a webserver... (Score:2)
1337 H4x0R D00dz (Score:3)
Re:Have to post as AC for this one (Score:2)
Yeah, there's no technology involved in airplanes. Or do you mean "tech" as in Amazon?
Wireless? wha? (Score:2)
My first impression was they would be decking the planes out with rj45 ports and then allowing you to connect your laptop through your eth card using a cat5 patch cable. Surely that would be a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the long run, then using costly wireless ethernet cards and setting up a decent WAN. Not to mention possible problems with interference etc.
Re:Intentional Radiators on Planes (Score:2)
The general prohibition is there because the aircrew has no way of knowing what kind of ham gear or Eurostandard jammer J. Random Ape has brought onto the flying coffin--er, aircraft.
Boeing will give its subs hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to certify this technology for flight. It will know exactly how it affects every input register and control signal in the cockpit. The FAA will have a DER sign off on the results and buglist. (Note: the DER can't fail a certification for having bugs, only for failing to document them. At that point the manufacturer is certified to know what's wrong with his stuff and to have taken responsibility for it. The government doesn't protect you, it protects its own ass from liability. And there's no recursive requirement to test the tests. This is what you get when you let industries write their own government regulations.)
When Boeing's 802.11b flies, you still won't get to use your cellphone.
--Blair
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Now extend this to hard-wired equipment on an airplane:
Attention ladies and gentlemen, this is you captain speaking. We may be experiencing a few bumps, as our support tech needs to turn off all electrical power to the airplane for just a few moments. Don't worry, at least half of all power failures DON'T result in crashes.
Connexion (Score:2)
I imagine there's no real reason why customers can't choose their OS given that it will be BYOC, but it will interesting to see how network and performance requirements will be addressed.
Thing is, on short haul I wouldn't want to be checking my email or replying to memos - I'd want to get away from work on timeframes such as that, and game and entertainment up. :)
Re:Do we need this? (Score:2)
According to who? Sorry bud but I've used a gameboy, CD player, laptop, and a host of other electronic equipemnt on planes ranging from little Beechcraft turboprops up to 747-400s. As you might have guessed from the fact I'm typing this message that none of the planes have crashed. Nor did I or any of the other of hundereds of passengers doing the same thing get yelled at. Class B electronic devices, which things like tha Gameboy are, emit almost no radation. Go ahead and grab your scanner and check one some time. What's more, planse are actually pretty resiliant to stray RF frequencies. Once when we were landing someone actually had their cellphone ring. They'd forgot to turn it off for the whole flight. Yet, we didn't crash, nor were there any problems with the landing. See, most of the electronics on the plane are sheilded against stray RF and aren't affected. The rules are in place as a "just incase" sort of thing. After all, things like Cellphones, etc won't normally work when you're inflight (too high up) so why have them on? Yes, RF on the right band could potentially disrupt communications or electronics, but it's highly unlikely to find a consumer device that does that. At any rate, any normal portable consumer electronic device emits so little radation as to make no odds.
For all of you that think this isn't allowed (Score:2)
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil
aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the Part 125 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
made by that Part 125 certificate holder operating the particular device to
be used.
Please note section (b)(5)......
Flying helpdesk (Score:4)
I've left my tech support period behind me, luckily. But for the new people this might well be a nice alternative than sitting in a cubicle all day.
Time zones (Score:4)
Re:At least it will attract customers.... (Score:2)
So, what happens when a traveller opens his laptop and sees two different 802.11 networks to log on to? He will probably just pick the first one in the list. Imagine the fun that can be had acting as an "inflight ISP." (Logging, rerouting, etc)
Give the airline about a year before they finally catch on.
______
Delay... (Score:2)
Daniel
"To be is to be the value of a variable" -- W.V.O. Quine
international regulations (Score:4)
what laws will govern what i do?