Wait Goes On For In-Flight Internet
from the holding-pattern dept
The idea of selling in-flight internet access seems like such a no-brainer: you've got people in an enclosed environment, plenty of whom are carrying laptops and are shut off from the outside world, whether it's from work emails or their IM buddy list. Still, nobody's been able to make it work: Tenzing never really got off the ground, while Boeing has now announced it will shut down its Connexion in-flight internet service by the end of the year. This isn't a huge surprise, as only a handful of airlines had adopted the service and usage was apparently pretty low. After 9/11 and the subsequent downturn in the US airline industry, no US airlines were willing to spend the $500,000 per plane to install the Connexion equipment, while users balked at paying up to $30 per flight for the service. It's hard to know if the assumed level of demand simply doesn't exist, or if it's a problem with pricing. In any case, with fuel prices hitting airlines' finances and causing them to shed weight on planes any way they can, and the potential impact of of new security rules on traveling with laptops, in-flight internet looks like it will remain grounded for the time being. Still, other companies are showing some interest in trying to make it work (again), while other airlines are looking to in-flight cellular calls as a new revenue stream. The technology isn't the issue here -- by all accounts, Connexion worked well, and in-flight cellular tests are going well -- but nobody's yet come up with a workable business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Again...
...just like the last story.
For me, it's a matter of price. I'd love to surf the web for the x amount of time in the air - anything to get my mind off of needing a cigarette, or the non-attractive lady sitting next to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Consumer
I swear, if we could get as much effort as what's put out by the mindless drones who clap and roar at Jon Stewart so much as breaking wind and put that towards the consumers of this country demanding what we want (service comparable to other countries AT LEAST)
Man, we might just have something there... have Jon Stewart or Colbert lead thier droves of retards out to these places and have them protest. Hell, they hardly understand why they clap in the audience, I'm sure they'd riot if told to as well.
And no, I'm not a repub, I just hate puppets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Angry Consumer
I have no idea what Jon Stewart or his so called 'drones' have to do with it though..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Angry Consumer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Angry Consumer
Airlines can't even make money with their existing models, let alone adding additional, unneeded expenses to their financial statements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, get back on the meds...
Anyways, the airlines got the right idea with inflight directTV, $5.00 x 100 people that $500 per flight instead of $30.00 per flight x 5 people =150.00. and that's only if there are 5 people who can get their company to pay for it, because no one in their right mind would spend $30.00 for strong bad videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#2, YOU SUCK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can live without internet for X hours.
"BOOM HEADSHOT!!!"
... On another note the instant messaging capabilities between 2 different in-flight 747's sure could make for some new and interesting terrorist acts.
Couldn't you fit a nice chunk of plastique in place of one of those extended-life laptop batteries? Just imagine an #irc channel with a dozen folks all awaiting a single keyphrase as a dozen planes near landing.
Or just do without the internet for a few hours and dont sweat it you internet crackheads.
~Tom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the airlines spending money on broadband at no additional cost to consumers, are you serious? Never happen. They are in enough trouble as it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can live without internet for X hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can live without internet for X hours.
HAH
BEEP....... BEEP........BEEP........
BEEP.. BEEP.. BEEP..
BEEP-BEEP-BEEP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WLAN
The only problem would be if 2.4 GHz signal interfere with the instruments, which it shouldn't, because 2.4 is used all over, and the chances of a plane encountering it are high already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WLAN
I don't really understand why price should be such an issue. If you are paying $1500-$2000 for the ticket in the first place, adding $25 to get a couple of hours of work (mostly email in my case) in is something I think most employers would pony up. If they don't, get another job as they obviously have there heads up in...wherever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay mohammed
IM from Mohammed: Yes. We go now.
Great idea. Give the towelheaded terrorists MORE tools to use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Idea for Users
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore research data; Pay attention to what people
Surveys said people wanted this service. Yet if you watch what most people do on airplanes, the priorities seem to be:
Eat, sleep, drink, watch movie, iPod, etc.
Also, Boeing bet the farm with $1B invested before they understood what customers really wanted. Looked like a sure thing. But that level of investment meant they had to be right and couldn't adjust as they went.
Our Disruption Scorecard shows two flaws in Boeing management's approach.
More at:
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/08/boeing_pulls_pl.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Battery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in flight broadband
AirCell's cellular based air-to-ground technology is orders of magnitude cheaper to insall and operate than Connexion's satellite based service. About $100k to install (vs. $500k or more for satellite systems). Passenger price is estimated about $10, not $30 like Connexion. No cell phone service will be available, so no listening to passengers talk for 6 hours while on a transcon flight. VoIP (e.g. Skype) will be blocked too, for passenger comfort. Airlines are not in favor of offering voice service either. So voice communication is not a likely feature in the near future. Some European and other foreign airlines are experimenting with voice service in flight. Its future there is TBD. - Source: AirCell PR guy. Trying to separate fact/fiction/hype as best I can. Cheers. - John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]