In flight internet a step closer

[medhead]

I just read this about the steps being taken to get internet in aircraft. Seems that ACMA have decided on picocell technology using the proven and massively fast GRPS

In-flight internet still up in the air but drawing closer | The Australian

Telstra is offering an alternative based on wifi. Anyway, thought you might be interested.

 

[straitman]

I just read this about the steps being taken to get internet in aircraft. Seems that ACMA have decided on picocell technology using the proven and massively fast GRPS

In-flight internet still up in the air but drawing closer | The Australian

Telstra is offering an alternative based on wifi. Anyway, thought you might be interested.

Just to elaborate that this is referring to internet in aircraft in Australia.

 

[samh004]

Without reading up on it at all, I’d say DJ would be in the best position to achieve good speeds in the air as they already have TV signals beaming straight into each seat (though I realise that’s only incoming, not outgoing).

I can’t imagine paying any amount of money for built in GPRS speeds, it’s simply worthless.

I recall Google in the US wanted to use the previously used analog TV spectrum for internet, and that I could see being used in Australia, though the analog signals are still on for a while yet anyway.

 

[chrisb]

I can’t imagine paying any amount of money for built in GPRS speeds, it’s simply worthless.

I'm sure those addicted to their Blackberry and iPhone push email will appreciate it. You wouldn't really want to use it for web access.

 

[straitman]

I'm sure those addicted to their Blackberry and iPhone push email will appreciate it. You wouldn't really want to use it for web access.

Last Sept/Oct I used AA free internet on my iPhone all the way from DFW to SEA. The aircraft was a noisy 30+ year old MD80 so the iPhone was by far the best option.

 

[markis10]

Boeing could not get it to pay its way since 2000, I am not sure the business case is domestically any better. Its one thing to get a one way signal from a sat to an aircraft in terms of a large amount of data, with todays net being more duplex than most realise in terms of data transfer, getting that data off the aircraft could be expensive.

 

[medhead]

Without reading up on it at all, I’d say DJ would be in the best position to achieve good speeds in the air as they already have TV signals beaming straight into each seat (though I realise that’s only incoming, not outgoing).

I can’t imagine paying any amount of money for built in GPRS speeds, it’s simply worthless.

I recall Google in the US wanted to use the previously used analog TV spectrum for internet, and that I could see being used in Australia, though the analog signals are still on for a while yet anyway.

Ok, a longer summary is needed, if we're not reading up on it.

Basically the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) has almost completely decide to approve picocell's for use in Australian aircraft of all companies. (did i say that this story in the Australian newspaper is about aircraft and airlines in Australia and that ACMA is also approving the use of this technology in Australia, . well maybe not originally )

The inflight internet involves the devices communicating in aircraft with the picocell via GRPS. Apparently they will also use mobile jammers to prevent mobile devices from locking onto base stations. These jammers were previously inllegal but ACMA is going give approval for this application of jammers. Basically, the speed of the satellite link is irrelevant as it would be limited by the speed of the GRPS link in the aircraft. This system charges at international rates.

Telstra and presumably optus etc. are offerring to set up a system where the aircraft connects to 3G base stations along the flight paths and relay that to devices in aircraft via wifi (i guess). Advantage being that it is cheaper, uses your home 3G account and the airlines charge a small fee for the relay service. This is apparently used in the USA.

 

[samh004]

I'm sure those addicted to their Blackberry and iPhone push email will appreciate it. You wouldn't really want to use it for web access.

It’d be great for that, but I like to browse the web on things bigger than my iPhone sometimes

 

[markis10]

It’d be great for that, but I like to browse the web on things bigger than my iPhone sometimes

By the time ACMA do decide whats OK to use it will be irrelevant, anything they have had to do with in terms of the net and regulation has been one long discussion paper without any benefit to the consumer. If we do get net access, one thing is for sure, it will be slow and expensive!

 

[chrisb]

For once it sounds like we should slow down and see what Telstra has to offer.

 

[crazydave98]

Telstra and presumably optus etc. are offerring to set up a system where the aircraft connects to 3G base stations along the flight paths and relay that to devices in aircraft via wifi (i guess). Advantage being that it is cheaper, uses your home 3G account and the airlines charge a small fee for the relay service. This is apparently used in the USA.

Think about how many ground stations there are on flight paths from say SYD to PER, DRW, ASP, AYQ or BNE to ISA, EMD etc. Now how about those flights from SYD to AKL or say LAX? The advantage of picocells is clearly that because they are satellite based they can be used anywhere. IMHO the writer of that article was fed by Telstra - as far as I am aware he did not ask the airlines for comment and may not have even read their submissions to ACMA.

Moreover, satellite-based technoloy (as opposed to terrestrial ground stations) can also handle wi-fi internet connections as well as GPRS phone connections. The present limit to WiFi/Live IP is cost (expected to come down) and the satellite communications system installed in the aircraft, which are moving from the old "L" band to higher bandwidth systems such as Inmarsat's Swift64, SwiftBroadband or Ku-band satellite services (note this last part cut and pasted from following link aeromobile - the company whose solution QF trialled domestically and is also being put into our V Australia aircraft mobile phones on planes . AeroMobile)

As with everything else you read about aviation in the press - take this piece with sufficient salt to give you hypertension.

cheers

CrazyDave98

 

[harvyk]

Think about how many ground stations there are on flight paths from say SYD to PER, DRW, ASP, AYQ or BNE to ISA, EMD etc. Now how about those flights from SYD to AKL or say LAX? The advantage of picocells is clearly that because they are satellite based they can be used anywhere. IMHO the writer of that article was fed by Telstra - as far as I am aware he did not ask the airlines for comment and may not have even read their submissions to ACMA.

I'm with crazy dave on this one... The telco operators only offer 98% of coverage to Australian's (that "n's" got Telstra into a lot of trouble with one of their advertisements a few years back when they forgot to include it.). Most telco's coverage is great when your in major cities, but realistically how much time is spent in an A/C where your over a major city? Whilst the east coast triangle would probably be well serviced step outside that and coverage would probably be non-existant. Even inside the east coast triangle there are places with no reception (such as at our families holiday home near batemans bay)

 

[markis10]

You also need to look at the base stations themselves, the antennas have a very poor vertical radiation pattern for use with aircraft, for a reason!

 

[oz_mark]

You also need to look at the base stations themselves, the antennas have a very poor vertical radiation pattern for use with aircraft, for a reason!

The Gogo system talked about toward the end of the article achieves the outcome by building its own network of skyward facing base stations, rather than using the existing base stations. So, if they were going down this path, I imagine they would need to build a new network (although I am not sure what they would do out in the Bight.)

 

[drewbles]

Last Sept/Oct I used AA free internet on my iPhone all the way from DFW to SEA. The aircraft was a noisy 30+ year old MD80 so the iPhone was by far the best option.

I used GoGo Internet (on AA flights) extensively last year (during the free promo). Was brilliant. Great speeds and very useful.

The big catch with GoGo vs other options is that GoGo is ground based, beaming signals up to the aircraft rather than from above via satellite. The GoGo ground station network allows for certain routes in the US to receive and send signals without the significant latency of a Sat connection (Geosync satellites are around the 30,000km mark, whereas an aircraft is a lot lower to the ground so latency is lower).

The only way that could be done here is with extensive infrastructure, and that's not viable on the trans-con routes, due to lack of population/backhaul in the middle of nowhere. Satellite is the only real viable option for Australia (and over ocean transit of course) at present, and it's not all that wonderful (used to deploy a lot of satellite internet stuff in a past life).

 

[markis10]

The Gogo system talked about toward the end of the article achieves the outcome by building its own network of skyward facing base stations, rather than using the existing base stations. So, if they were going down this path, I imagine they would need to build a new network (although I am not sure what they would do out in the Bight.)

Again that would come back to not having a business case, for a start we dont have the population density flying to justify the investment, and then you need to look at the routes. Golden triangle might work but forget transpac, too many routing options.

 

[drewbles]

*summarising others thoughts*

The picocell idea is not new. It does not rely on ground stations to connect to, and is instead a base-station-in-the-sky. No ground base-stations are contacted, and for all intents and purposes the aircraft would operate as a 'country'. Both voice and data would be beamed to/from a geo-synchronous satellite.

It's similar in principal to Cruise Ships. Many large cruise-liners now have GSM/GPRS availability to passengers on board. When a passenger connects to the network, they are roaming and roaming fees apply for voice and data. Cruise ships are also generally the most expensive 'countries' to roam in, most being well over $5AUD/minute (even our service has it in the highest price band for countries, but it's typically lower than this).

The same would happen in an aircraft. Most maritime GSM/GPRS deployments are run by one of two companies, one out of Norway, the other out of Italy. These companies operate the cells on behalf of the cruise liners, and make their return off the call revenue. Aircraft would be the same, with a company installing a network in a plane and then charging other carriers to roam on it.

On other things...

Satellite != WiFi. They're two very different things. You can have a two-way sat connection and share it via wifi, but you can do that with a GPRS/HSDPA connection to. I've occasionally setup my 3G dongle on my laptop with wifi sharing via my laptop (dongle providing the 3G data, the laptop being the access point). This would then mean that anyone using the wifi connection on board would be sharing the one single HSDPA session. That would be excruciatingly slow (HSDPA isn't all that fast, and then everyone using it, with the latency of satellite up to the bird, back to the ground, back to the bird, and back to the aircraft) would be truly awful for anything but email.

This is why GoGo Works. It's ground based, and shares one pipe (large with lower latency that just goes plane-earth-plane) via a wifi connection, and they have the population density to be able to deploy ground stations with decent backhaul and hand-off much more easily.

 

[crazydave98]

For those interested, even in the USA, it appears that satellite based systems are competitive with direct air-ground links. This is the system chosen by the largest domestic operator in the USA - Southwest -- Row 44 --
Claimed bandwidth is "over 30Mbps".
cheers
CrazyDave98

 

[drewbles]

For those interested, even in the USA, it appears that satellite based systems are competitive with direct air-ground links. This is the system chosen by the largest domestic operator in the USA - Southwest -- Row 44 --
Claimed bandwidth is "over 30Mbps".
cheers
CrazyDave98

The problem here is latency. Satellite will not be nearly as good as GoGo's system. It's much more simple to implement from an infrastructure view, but then don't forget that satellites generally only have a limited 'footprint' and handoffs still have to happen between the birds themselves.

plane-bird-ground-bird-plane = a lot of latency. You're typically looking at around 150msec for one hop up and down, so this will effectively make it 300msec on top of usual transmissions.

Of course i'd be glad of any (useable) internet in the Air

 

[oz_mark]

plane-bird-ground-bird-plane = a lot of latency. You're typically looking at around 150msec for one hop up and down, so this will effectively make it 300msec on top of usual transmissions.

There are quite a few applications where the latency that comes from using satellites would be quite tolerable.