In Flight Wireless
It seems like Glenn posts once a week about the future of wireless during flight. Today, I’m living it. I’m on a trip for a client, on the client’s Boeing Business Jet — a modified 737.
At present, we’re passing over Ashland, KY.
And in a few more characters, I’ll be pushing “Publish.”
The future is here. It’s just that the airlines are unwilling, for whatever reason, to deploy it. Come on, guys. Faster please.
UPDATE: The plane landed safely yesterday, so this morning, I thought I would add a few more details.
The connection that I used on the flight wasn’t actually wireless — although wireless was available. I chose to plug an Ethernet cable into the jack in my seat. The connection speed wasn’t lightning fast. I would compare it to a good cellular broadbrand connection. So I’m not sure I would have wanted to try downloading a video from YouTube, but for getting work done, sending and receiving e-mails and blogging, it was awesome. I’ll try to find out on the trip home tonight what technology the jet uses for the connection and update this post once more.
Also, thanks to the great comments that are streaming in. Keep commenting, and I’ll try to respond to as many as I can.
UPDATE 2: Just realized I left this out of the post — full disclosure: Boeing is a client of my firm.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 7:25 am
“It’s just that the airlines are unwilling, for whatever reason, to deploy it.”
The reason is because there is a cost to the airlines to deploy it but no sure way to recover that cost.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 7:48 am
I hope your dangerous wireless computer signals didn’t make the airplane crash.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 8:36 am
LOL
Unsurprisingly, they did not. Indeed, one of my travelling companions used his laptop, with his own cellular broadband card, during takeoff and ascent until we reached 5,000 feet. Somehow the plane didn’t swerve off course.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 8:45 am
Well, note that the “business jet” has something that you can’t find on a normal commercial flight: enough room to open your laptop and see the screen.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 9:03 am
Well, um, er, yes. I concede that’s right. Although I will say that I’ve noticed lately there seems to be a little more room on the Boeing planes I fly than on the A319s and A320s. (Full disclosure: Boeing is a client.)
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 9:07 am
Marshall, can you describe some of the differences between a BBJ and a typical airline 737? (besides being able to easily open and read your laptop!)
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 9:12 am
Doc75,
Great question. I’m happy to try. In short, the BBJ is a 737 that’s converted for executive travel. We boarded through the same front left door that you would on a commercial flight. But once you’ve boarded, you know immediately that this is no commerical flight. The first 15 feet or so of the cabin are given over to service area. There’s a full galley, a place for the crew to sit, and closets and drawers for storage. You then pass through a doorway into the main cabin, where you find a mixture large, leather swivel chairs and couches position against the sides of the plane. At the back of the main cabin is a large conference table with six chairs. Behind that, there’s a hallway with entrances to the lavatory and a private office. And behind that, there’s a full master bedroom suite with its own fully loaded private bath. (BTW, the main cabin lavatory has a shower.)
I hasten to add that what I’ve just described may be unique to this BBJ. As I understand it, the BBJs are typically customized completely by their owners.
Overall, the interior was luxurious but not ostentatious. And the flight was the most relaxing and enjoyable I’ve had since I was very small.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 12:05 pm
sounds nice. FYI the primary reason for the ban on in-flight wireless devices is to prevent interference with terrestrial cellular service, not to protect flight systems.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 4:52 pm
Wow. That’s really interesting. I had no idea. How would it interfere?
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 7:10 pm
The interference is due to changing from one cell tower to the next more rapidly than the cellular infrastructure normally has to handle. That, and the problem of figuring out which cell tower should take that call at the moment when its signal is being received well by a dozen or more different towers due to them all being in easy line-of-sight of the cellphone.
August 6th, 2007 at August 6, 2007 - 8:28 pm
Cellular systems assume that you will be “visible” to only a small geographical area, and will not be travelling over 100 mph. Air-based cellular use violates both those principals. There are ways around this (you can put a “microcell” in the plane) but again, the airlines can’t justify the expense.
In short, the FAA doesn’t care all that much, it’s the FCC that cares a LOT. (Not to say the FAA doesn’t care, but it’s not a burning issue for them the way it is for the FCC).
August 7th, 2007 at August 7, 2007 - 3:12 pm
Wow. Thanks “Man” and “Ian” for that explanation. I really didn’t know that, and, frankly, it makes me all the more irritated that this seems like a problem we’re not willing to solve. Yesterday, on the trip back, I learned that the plane we were on actually utilizes a satellite connection which explains why we didn’t run into the issue you’re both explaining.
August 7th, 2007 at August 7, 2007 - 9:41 pm
Yes - both WiFi and the microcells that they have tested use a single downlink from the aircraft; the microcell causes all the phones on board to lock onto the “closest” cell rather than go looking across the nation.