In-Flight Broadband A 'Gogo'Aircell brands in-flight broadband service... ( old news - 10:49AM Thursday Mar 13 2008) tags: business · wireless · alternativesAircell, who will be providing in-flight broadband capability to both American Airlines and Virgin America, has officially named their upcoming in-flight broadband service Gogo. After spending $31 million to Uncle Sam for the necessary air-to-ground spectrum, the company installed 92 EVDO cell sites aimed upward, designed to provide 3.1Mbps connectivity to each Gogo enabled plane that passes overhead. The company is telling the press that caching and compression will deliver "2Mbps" to each customer, which obviously sounds a little dubious (maybe it's Juice Boosted?): Using compression and on-board caching, Aircell’s Gogo customers will experience broadband speeds of 2 megabits per second, Blumenstein said. Having not seen or tested the system, I am not quite certain on how realistic a number that is. The Gogo service will cost $12.95 for cross-country flights, and $9.95 on flights of three hours or less. The company says they plan to deploy some 500 antennas, giving them the capacity to support 250,000 broadband users at any one time. Aircell says commercial launch will occur sometime in the first half of this year, though the company's website notes it will only be available on major routes via American and all plans on Virgin America.
Related:- Cricket Unveils New Voice, Data Plans
- Fon Starts Exploring Femtocells
- Customers Unhappy With Early Clearwire Launches
- AT&T To Launch Femtocells Next Week
- Clearwire Launching In Chicago October 6
- Sprint Says They'll Play Nice With Google Voice
- Comcast Launches Wireless Broadband In Philly
- Verizon: Droid Tethering Will Cost $30 Extra
|
 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Make Flying Fun Again! Hot stewardesses in gogo boots... that'll do it.
Oh wait, this is something different.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|  | firewire9999
join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI | Re: Make Flying Fun Again! Plus you need to add in the old "Come Fly With Me" commericals from TWA (Transworld Airlines. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Re: Make Flying Fun Again! LOL. I thought of a good slogan. "Connect" to us via the Mile High Club. | |
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ | When the system fails, they can rename it GoneGone. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| Re: Make Flying Fun Again! said by GOLFnSUN  :When the system fails, they can rename it GoneGone. I kinda like the idea of in-flight Wifi. I know I would pay a premium on a ticket to use it. I am sure business travellers might as well.
Why do you think it would fail?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: Make Flying Fun Again! said by pnh102 :said by GOLFnSUN :When the system fails, they can rename it GoneGone. I kinda like the idea of in-flight Wifi. I know I would pay a premium on a ticket to use it. I am sure business travellers might as well. Why do you think it would fail? Just based on the track record. Every time they try this out it goes bust. Some will pay for this, but most won't. And when the airlines realize it is not profitable, they will probably just cut it the next time the airline industry hits a tough patch for profits.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Make Flying Fun Again! said by GOLFnSUN :Just based on the track record. Every time they try this out it goes bust. Some will pay for this, but most won't. I could see this being a problem on short flights as another poster has indicated, but I would imagine there would be a market for this on long-haul domestic flights (3 to 5 hours or more?).
However, I do agree that this system may be doomed from the start, as it uses a ground-based approach, which automatically rules out its use on most, if not all, international flights out of the USA.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
| | | | | | 
Dan
Hamilton Tigers?
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Eh? | Re: Make Flying Fun Again! Which are the only flights you'd need it. Other wise you have something to look at. Not just ocean for as far as you can see. | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Coffee, tea or me. | |
| jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | Sigh Why can't we just use our bloody cell phones already. Mythbusters proved that phones DON'T interfere. I'd rather use my OWN EVDO service than pay for theirs. However, back to reality, this is expensive. 10 dollars for three hours or less? Most flights from one side of U.S. to another are around 2 hours tops. This isn't much a bargain and I could only see business travelers utilizing this service. Maybe there's enough of them and a niche for it. I don't doubt they will make money. Will your average Joe use this much, probably not. The price is too high. I could settle with 5 dollars extra on top of the ticket. However, 10 dollars for maybe 1-2 hrs and 12.95 for international, isn't a good deal that will attract your normal customers. | |
| | 
factchecker
@cox.net
| Re: Sigh said by jc100 :Mythbusters proved that phones DON'T interfere. While I have my doubts that cell phones interfere with avionics, you have to keep in mind that the Mythbusters are not scientists and their results are not scientifically valid. Their testing in that episode is nowhere near as thorough as the type of testing that they do on planes and avionics. So, while their test showed no impact, a proper test may very well show interference.
As for using your phone in the air, even if you could, being in a tin can, moving at 400+MPH at an altitude of 20,000+ feet would make it a pretty crappy experience and it very likely would not work very well. Additionally, the problems cell providers would have on their networks as you phone/device switches from cell to cell are a good enough reason not to allow it.
As a side note, I agree with you comment about the price. The price point is high now, but it SHOULD come down over time. It is a new service with limited deployment. As the number of flights and users increase, price should, in theory, come down. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Sigh Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. Sure, someone's test might have showed different results, leading to the current bans. I don't dispute that. However, their test should at least serve as some credence to review the issue again. That is my point anyway.
As per hopping from tower to tower, that's what the airline is doing with EVDO already. I have that on my cell phone and the ability to use it on my laptop. I'd be doing no different than the airline itself. Jumping from tower to tower to maintain internet via my cell phone. Instead, I would have to pay them for a service I already have, in order to use it. Sure, that isn't the case with everyone, but the point stands, It's not reasonable in price (due to being new), and some customers already have the ability to do this on their own, if they were allowed. | |
| | | | 
zno
join:2002-01-08
Atlanta, GA
1 edit | Re: Sigh said by jc100 :Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. Sure, someone's test might have showed different results, leading to the current bans. I don't dispute that. However, their test should at least serve as some credence to review the issue again. That is my point anyway. As per hopping from tower to tower, that's what the airline is doing with EVDO already. I have that on my cell phone and the ability to use it on my laptop. I'd be doing no different than the airline itself. Jumping from tower to tower to maintain internet via my cell phone. unless you're jack bauer, i doubt your data card/cell phone will work in a flying aircraft. even if signals from the cell towers (which btw are installed horizontally) can reach your aircraft, signal from your handheld will probably not reach the ground. | |
| | | | | 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
1 edit | Re: Sigh Yeah...
Good in theory (use own EVDO on flights) - Bad in reality.
I accidentally left my cell on during a flight a while back. When I opened my bag and found it (@ 30,000ft) - sure enough it was complaining about "no signal".
C'mon you're in a metal tube going 600mph 6 miles above the earth and you think the "built in" antenna on the cell would actually do anything??? | |
| | | | TexasPlus
join:2004-06-16
Bedford, TX
·Millenicom
 ·ViaTalk
| said by jc100 :Well I agree and disagree some on the Mythbuster test. While they are not scientists, they do a good job of replicating results. I saw that episode. They did not use a modern airliner with modern avionic equipment in all phases of flight. While the Mythbuster test was entertaining, it was not anywhere close to a valid real world test.
--
"The world is a book; those who do not travel read but a single page." -St. Augustine | |
| | manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs:
| said by jc100 :Most flights from one side of U.S. to another are around 2 hours tops. I don't know what kind of planes you fly on, but flights that are coast to coast are much longer than 2 hours. From San Francisco to Boston took me around 5 and 1/2 hours. A large number of passengers gladly pay the $15 - $20 fee to rent the airlines portable movie players for entertainment, I would gladly pay $12.95 for unlimited broadband usage on a long flight going coast to coast. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Sigh Well you forget something manhole, MANY flights are not nonstop. My question then begins, is this for only ONE leg of the flight or both? I mean if it's 10 dollars each time you make a connection, that's not cheap. 20 dollars to use internet for 3-4 hrs? I was basing my facts on the basis you must change flights. Nonstop flights are only usually out of major areas and are much more expensive. Hence, the real question begins, is this for both parts of the journey or a single way? | |
| | | | manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs: | Re: Sigh I would assume it will not carry over, but who knows. If that is the case, use it on the longer of the two flights  | |
| | | |
Do some research
@nyct.net
| I would have loved to have that service on my 14 hr. NON-STOP flight from NY's JFK to Tokyo on my way to Bangkok, another 7 hr NON-STOP FLIGHT last December!
Would love to have that option on the many NON-STOP flights I take to Tucson, Las Vegas, LA & Frisco too!
Oh and those NON-STOPS aren't always the most expensive. Check Jet Blue for one example.
Any business travelers wanna chime in? | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Sigh I'm not saying there aren't low cost nonstops. However, my main point is that MOST are not low cost and MOST originate from only major hubs. Therefore, the bulk majority have to deal with transfers when flying. Who is going to spend 10 dollars PER FLIGHT to use this service being the avg flight maybe 1-1.5 hrs before transfer. This is by no means a bargain. Sure, it might get cheaper as it's widely adopted. Yet, at this point, the market seems to be business travelers only. | |
| | | | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
·ViaTalk
| said by Do some research :
I would have loved to have that service on my 14 hr. NON-STOP flight from NY's JFK to Tokyo on my way to Bangkok, another 7 hr NON-STOP FLIGHT last December!
Any business travelers wanna chime in?
Not a business traveler any more, but I would posit that these antennas will not be installed across the Pacific Ocean.  | |
| | RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by jc100 :Why can't we just use our bloody cell phones already. Take your EVDO-enabled phone seven miles from the nearest cell site, wrap it in aluminum foil and then drop it in a six foot deep hole. Please report back how much signal you have and what the data throughput is.
That is how your bloody cell phone will work enroute without expensive, low-capacity satellite repeaters onboard the aircraft.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| expert007
join:2006-01-10
Buffalo, NY
| Will It Fly? i just don't see it getting much usage from the folks back in steerage who are crammed into their seat anyway....and who wants to carry one of those screen things so that your oversized seatmate can't see everything you do?
Oh.....and manhole.....isn't your nickname an open invitation for some ruthless insults? | |
| TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB | IMO Just save the $12.95 and bring along a couple DVDs. | |
| stridr69
join:2003-05-19
San Luis Obispo, CA | Hmmmmm.... Whatever happened to just reading a book while in-flight. It's what I do.
| |
|
wirelessadvislor
@centurytel.net
| cellular towers can't take it The reason we do not allow cell phone users to use their cell phones is not interference, but strain on the towers, the towers hand off too quickly and to too many at the same time, because of the location of towers, how fast you are traveling, and how high up you are.......
It actually locks up cell phone towers..... | |
| | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | Re: cellular towers can't take it well, apparently cell towers is exactly what they're using, and according to them it'll be brilliant, but only when they do it =P
edit: BTW, there's no way in hell that a 3.1 Mbit backhaul can give each customer 2 Mbits, even if they compress the hell out of it, and throttle their subs. Better idea: Use the newly-built network to connect to peoples' existing EVDO cellphones/datacards, and then make it a roaming service, or a paid-by-the-hour service. That way, no middleman needed. | |
| | | |
|
|
