 | | Is this really an issue? Do they think customers are going to really flock to themfor free wi-fi. A few sure, but enough to justify this expense?
maybe i'm wrong
--
Where have the adults gone? | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Shared 45mbps to a Hughes satellite
The Row 44 system will weigh only about 150 pounds and its cost will be a fraction of Boeing’s Connexion.
The airline will continue to prohibit use of cell phones. Though they say nothing about using the WiFi hotspot on the plane with VOIP.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
 | | | Re: Shared 45mbps to a Hughes satellite said by Romney2012:The airline will continue to prohibit use of cell phones. Though they say nothing about using the WiFi hotspot on the plane with VOIP. I have serious doubts that VoIP would be even remotely useable over such a system. Remember, VoIP is one of the most latency sensitive applications out there, and latency is satellite broadband's major weakness (aside from very low bandwidth capacity but let's pretend that's not a factor).
Something like Teamspeak might work acceptably though, since it's not full duplex and sends voice traffic in a more "bursty" manner.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
|  CjaicemanPremium,MVM
join:2004-10-12
Parker, CO
kudos:2
 ·Comcast Business..
| said by Romney2012:For use by all customers on the plane, they will have a shared 45 mbps download to a Hughes satellite for over water capability. The Row 44 system will weigh only about 150 pounds and its cost will be a fraction of Boeing’s Connexion. The airline will continue to prohibit use of cell phones. Though they say nothing about using the WiFi hotspot on the plane with VOIP. I don't think most of the users would care too much about speed as long as it works at a decent rate. If I had internet while flying I think I would probably be on IM or checking e-mail. I might be surfing Youtube if it would move quick enough, but I wouldn't be trying to watch an HD stream or anything. They probably will limit the throughput of each person to 256/128 or 512/256. I could deal with that, its better than nothing.
--
HOT JAMZ 94FM
Listen Live at »sc7.shoutcaststreaming.us:8206/listen.pls | |
|
|
| | A major step forward! I've been wanting WiFi on planes for years, and I'm thankful for this step towards progress. I'd be willing to put up with the lack of physical space and uncomfortable seats as long as WiFi and an AC outlet are provided!
The folks over at Virgin have the right idea -- they have AC outlets, WiFi, PC's embedded in seats, tons of leg room, and many other cool perks. I would be perfectly happy to shell out the extra money for such premium features!
Hopefully this is a trend which will continue to gain momentum.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... | |
|
|  wruckman Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Re: A major step forward! It's all good as long as you read the fine print. Who knows what kind of privacy violations they will build into the "free" service.
--
William Ruckman
»ruckman.net | |
|
| | Free Wi-Fi Wouldn't an airline that had a higher percentage of business travel be more likely to differentiate themselves with free Wi-Fi. When I flew to Anchorage, me and everyone else on the flight were carrying tubes stuffed with fly fishing rods, not briefcases and laptops. | |
|
| | | Re: Free Wi-Fi I have flown Alaska Airlines DFW to Seattle many times for business. It seemed that many of the other travelers were there for business as well. American and Alaska were my only real choices for non-stop flights. I would switch back to Alaska if free Wi-Fi was an option. Four hours is a long flight, for me anyway. | |
|
|  Vazel
join:2006-09-30
Long Beach, CA | Alaska Airlines flies all over the place like any other airline. It isn't even based in Alaska it's based in Seattle. Though they do have their flight attendant training facility in Alaska. | |
|
 JoeyDeePremium
join:2004-07-23
Las Vegas, NV | How 'bout on time instead... Last time I had the misfortune to have to go to Seattle I ended up on Alaska Airlines. 1 hour late on the way up because they didn't have a full crew.
When the company's folks dropped me off at SeaTac they said, "No hurry. Alaska has the worst on time record in the area. Hands down."
They were right. 1.5 hours late because.... "...they didn't have a full crew."
Lousy airline. Free Wi-Fi needs to be in the terminal so you have something to do while you wait for your overdue departure. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: How 'bout on time instead... .. and I've flown them many a times, with friendly service, good fares, convenient, and mostly always on time for me.. etc.
The only fault I have with that airline is they killed three of my friends off the coast of CA near LA.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
|
|
|
