Qantas to offer only canned net content

[simongr]

AND then you get a passenger onboard like simongr who starts up their bittorrent

And aMule...

 

[tscharke]

And aMule...

didn't take you long to switch to the dark side eh-lah

 

[dot]

a little unclear here - are AA/Aircell and QF/Panasonic using the same ground-2-air wifi technology?

No - they are very different. What AA and VX offer via Aircell's Gogo service is aircraft direct to ground base stations (ie. Aircraft <--> Ground base station <--> Internet), so it will only work over the USA (but not over Canada where come flights temporarily leave US airspace). What QF is offering through OnAir is a Satellite based connection - (ie Aircraft <--> Satellite <--> Ground base station <--> Internet).

AA is not filtering
QF is filtering!

Because of the Satellite dependency and the costs of Satellite comms (in both dollars and latency):

• I would not expect the same bandwidth as Aircell are able to offer
• QF will filter the traffic enabled via that link to stop Bittorrent, VoIP and other high bandwidth or bandwidth hog protocols (like download tools that open multiple FTP connections).

Are they both routing the bandwidth to the passengers? and just that AA have chosen not to filter?

or

Is Aircell offering public access and QF using some private frequency which is then routed to passengers?

either way QF is screwed -as speed would then be severely limited on a flight full of happy lappy owners wanting a piece of silicon pie!

if that is the case then, I wonder why the satellite method wasnt considered by QF as I think(?) it offers higher speeds?

QF's OnAir system is via Inmarsat's Satellites

in the end tho one thing is certain - it would only take a couple of drop outs or to experience a dial-up like speed to put me off for good!

Thus blocking VoIP connections...

According to OnAir's web site the bandwidth that will be available to the plane (to be shared among the pax) is a maximum of 864 kbps (ref http://www.onair.aero/index.php?pid=219), I still think it would make for a reasonable browsing experience. Remember that most people will not have their laptops out at any one point in time, and of those that do, because of the nature of web browsing (people take time to read pages before going to the next page). I know of plenty of offices (where all users have a PC in front of them all day long) with 300 people and a 1Mbps connection, and they do just fine - not stellar, but certainly faster than dial-up speeds.

edit:: actually it doesn't make sense that Aircell are offering public access as it would then be available on all carriers!!!!! any techies out there in the know? Mal?

In order to use Aircell, you must have the Aircell transceiver installed on the aircraft, and presumably have some account with Aircell(GoGo). Then to share that connection among the pax, you would also need a WiFi access point and router mounted in the aircraft. So - it is not available to all and sundry unless they have all the appropriate hardware and accounts set up.

Its a pretty simple exercise to filter and cache the content inside the aircraft. This has the advantage of limiting the actual data transfer volume (for which Qantas will be required to pay). So rather than trying to block inappropriate content, it sounds like they plan to only permit access to a set of known suitable sites. Obviously Qantas' own site would be one that is permitted. But they have not indicated what else would be permitted.

My reading of the article in the OP is that for now, there will not be ANY direct access to the Internet, and that some Internet pages will be cashed on the aircraft to be served directly. Any links that go to content that is not cashed will fail. A real connection to the Internet will be deployed in 2009 some time once they are over their technical and regulatory issues.

 

[tscharke]

and there we have...The Official AFT Techie

thanks for clearing that up dot!

is it true about Aircell GoGo (terrible name btw!) possibly using the aircrafts as booster routers to extend coverage?

 

[serfty]

... My reading of the article in the OP is that for now, there will not be ANY direct access to the Internet, and that some Internet pages will be cashed on the aircraft to be served directly. Any links that go to content that is not cashed will fail. A real connection to the Internet will be deployed in 2009 some time once they are over their technical and regulatory issues.

... Qantas will instead offer only a limited selection of what it calls "cached internet content" and access to web-based email and chat services. ...

This indicates there will initially be a hybrid situation where use of network intensive functions like Outlook(/ Express) etc will not be permitted but other lower band width functions like browser Web mail and MS Messenger will be allowed.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

and there we have...The Official AFT Techie

thanks for clearing that up dot!

is it true about Aircell GoGo (terrible name btw!) possibly using the aircrafts as booster routers to extend coverage?

Not based on anything I've read. They are relying on their network of towers to do all coverage for the CONUS and aircraft are simply connecting the 'closest' tower a'la a normal mobile connection.

mt

 

[dot]

This indicates there will initially be a hybrid situation where use of network intensive functions like Outlook(/ Express) etc will not be permitted but other lower band width functions like browser Web mail and MS Messenger will be allowed.

Yes - now that I reread it, I agree too. Thx

 

[beardoc]

And aMule...

Surely you if you're an advanced P2P user you would have moved to USENET by now?

 

[Mal]

Every time I see this thread pop up, I can't help thinking that Qantas has changed their Tuna supplier or similar ...

I don't need or care for Internet content when I'm on a flight. I understand business customers are different, but I still see net as not that useful.

 

[simongr]

Surely you if you're an advanced P2P user you would have moved to USENET by now?

Couldnt be bothered - seemed a little too complex. And being a mac user I am struggling with aMule having no speed scheduling option.

 

[anat0l]

I'm guessing those caught up in the AA thing probably yelled, "it's my right to view cough so I'll view it if I **** well please!" (add on First Amendment **** ad nauseum...). Of course, we all know better than that......

Kind of reminds me of a dilemma some Harvey Norman stores were having when I was still working there. Some stores that had the digital photo labs had some reservations handling some prints for people who had used their cameras to take some rather...... inappropriate.... photos....

This kinda also borders on the case where SQ wanted to make it clear that no one will be scoring in the mile high club in its First Class twin suites.

 

[NM]

My reading of the article in the OP is that for now, there will not be ANY direct access to the Internet, and that some Internet pages will be cashed on the aircraft to be served directly. Any links that go to content that is not cashed will fail. A real connection to the Internet will be deployed in 2009 some time once they are over their technical and regulatory issues.

A proxied connection is not a direct connection. So implementing a caching proxy and content filter on-board meets the description in the article.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

A proxied connection is not a direct connection. So implementing a caching proxy and content filter on-board meets the description in the article.

Interesting viewpoint nm. IMO The Age is definitely referring to an onboard 'snapshot' of a selection of websites, rather than ability to interrogate sites interactively. I.e. I assume that port 80 is blocked. Of course, Fairfax could have it completely wrong and QF have implemented what you have described and are choosing to underplay the 'filtering' aspect and all the emotional baggage that comes with that approach.

If it's merely filtering, I guess a reverse ssh through port 443 should be enough to get around it. I wonder what shaping they do as well?

mt

 

[NM]

Interesting viewpoint nm. IMO The Age is definitely referring to an onboard 'snapshot' of a selection of websites, rather than ability to interrogate sites interactively. I.e. I assume that port 80 is blocked. Of course, Fairfax could have it completely wrong and QF have implemented what you have described and are choosing to underplay the 'filtering' aspect and all the emotional baggage that comes with that approach.

I guess we will have to wait to see what is actually implemented. But media articles are often dumbed down and don't reflect technical reality.

If it's merely filtering, I guess a reverse ssh through port 443 should be enough to get around it. I wonder what shaping they do as well?

Not necessarily. It depends on how the content filter policy is configured. I would not assume that port 443 would be permitted to all destinations. Its quite possible the content filter policy may initially be configured to only permit access to a small list of known acceptable sites.

Now that would of course open up a whole can of worms for which sites may be deemed acceptable and not. I hope we don't end up with a situation where a web site has to provide some financial benefit to Qantas in order to provide access through the filter. But the technology could certainly sustain such a policy.

 

[mainly tailfirst]

Not necessarily. It depends on how the content filter policy is configured. I would not assume that port 443 would be permitted to all destinations. Its quite possible the content filter policy may initially be configured to only permit access to a small list of known acceptable sites.

Now that would of course open up a whole can of worms for which sites may be deemed acceptable and not. I hope we don't end up with a situation where a web site has to provide some financial benefit to Qantas in order to provide access through the filter. But the technology could certainly sustain such a policy.

That's why I was wondering if QF was deliberately being 'vague' on the net access being offered. If they are using a whitelisting site to control access then I can imagine the 'network neutrality ' crowd going off. Pragmatically, I don't think they can get away with such a list simply because all the biz crowd who want to ssh back to work servers would complain if <smallbiz.com.au> wasn't available.

Shall be interesting to see net access they do employ and what servers they use to control it.

mt