DailyTech - Qantas to Offer In-flight Internet Access

Submit News

Gadgets Qantas to Offer In-flight Internet Access
Wolfgang Hansson (Blog) - July 24, 2007 5:22 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

19 comment(s) - last by SmokeRngs.. on Jul 25 at 4:33 PM

Quantas A380 first class with 17" widescreen display (Source: APC Magazine)

Certain flights to gain Internet access and power for all seat classes

If the thought of a long flight without Internet access curls your toes, Qantas feels your pain. The Australian-based carrier plans to offer power for every seat on its new fleet of Airbus A380s, reports APC Magazine. The company will also retrofit existing Boeing 747-400 aircraft with premium economy seating with laptop power.

The internet access is provided by ONAIR. Those without a laptop can get web access and check email with seat-back entertainment systems.

The company also said premium economy seats would feature USB ports for viewing personal content on the in-flight entertainment system and RJ45 ports for wired access to the Internet. Media playback capabilities for the USB port are still unknown.

A similar in-flight Internet provider, AirCell, claims to offer speeds similar to ground-based digital-subscriber line systems with pricing no more than $10 per day while in-flight.

Pricing for the seatback Qantas service will be $5 for unlimited instant messaging use during flight and $8 for email during flight, with attachments costing extra, said George Cooper, CEO of ONAIR, the company providing the in-flight internet.

Those with their own laptops will have WiFi access to the Internet and private networks, but Qantas has not set pricing for WiFi or Ethernet access yet. Users of the Qantas in-flight Internet access will have to share the 432 kilobit per second connection with all other passengers on the plane.

Qantas will offer premium economy seats on flights to London, Hong Kong, and Johannesburg beginning February 2008. The carrier plans to add more routes when its fleet of Airbus A380s goes online.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hmmm

By TheWizardofOz on 7/24/2007 7:48:43 PM , Rating: 2

432kbps... Lets say Qantas is going to make this A380 not the superfilled 800 passenger jet with all economy class seats, but makes it a normal 550 passenger jet.

Let's say half of the airplane wants to go online. 432/225 = 1.92 ~ 2kbps

2 kilobits per second. That's 256 BYTES PER SECOND.

Thank you, I'll read my book or sleep.

RE: hmmm

By xsilver on 7/24/2007 8:32:05 PM , Rating: 2

If you can stay awake and go online for the whole 14 hour longhaul flight; I'd think you'd deserve a medal.

I think it will be closer to 20k so not great but I wouldnt expect anybody to be trying to BT or something while on a flight ;)

also I think the reason why qantas are doing this is that they are getting undercut on the lowend by a new carrier; so they're trying to move upmarket and retain customers with bells and whistles.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By Ajax9000 on 7/25/2007 1:19:40 AM , Rating: 2

Does Paris to Singapore count? 13h of insomnia allowed me to reaquaint myself with Lode Runner on the inflight entertainment system :-) ... plus a couple of movies.

BTW it was on Qantas. And it was an awards points upgrade to business class -- despite the constant supply of food and some drinks, and the better seats I still couldn't sleep.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By retrospooty on 7/24/2007 9:18:03 PM , Rating: 2

probably worth noting that people wont all be doing massive file downloads, typically they just browse, during this the bandwidth is idle most of the time.

I'd rather have the option than to not have it

Parent

RE: hmmm

By tuteja1986 on 7/24/2007 10:58:35 PM , Rating: 2

You know some people still use dialup so they wouldn't mind 2kbs per second and also i doubt more than 20 pessenger will use it in flight.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By GaryJohnson on 7/25/2007 1:36:38 AM , Rating: 2

Eh, 2kbps = 1/28th the speed of dialup (normally 56kbps, right?). Even dialup users might mind that. At that speed it would take ~18 minutes to pull up dailytech.com.

I agree that you’re not going to see anywhere near half the plane using this for-pay service simultaneously.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By InternetGeek on 7/25/2007 2:05:46 AM , Rating: 2

I can understand that bandwidth might be limited on an airplane, but I lose all interest on these options when they are charged on a per-email/per-attachment basis. I could live with bandwidth-based charges (the more you use, the more you pay), but otherwise these are just useless options, 'Me too' mentality if you will.

RJ45 and WiFi, I'm all for that. Not all laptops have wireless, though I think that applies to old laptops.

Here's an idea: Just retrofit all planes with a celular cell and let people pay for their roaming. Come to terms with phone companies the same way GSM is done, and both airlines and telcos can share their pie: Internet Access from the plane. Just imagine if they allowed people to stream their favorite digital radio?. People would fly economy, and make up for first-class charges only because of the internet!

Parent

RE: hmmm

By Exodus220 on 7/25/2007 1:06:33 AM , Rating: 2

I can see it now, a group of kids with their laptops getting all hooked up to play some World of Warcraft...that would make the time go by quicker.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By Flunk on 7/25/2007 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 2

If it was me setting up a system with limited bandwith like this all outgoing packets with destination ports other than 80 and 21 (I might have forgotten one) would be firewalled. Thereby limiting the users to http and email only.

I would also be limiting the maximum bandwith to each jack to about 20kbps. This way you don't have a few users killing all the bandwidth.

These guys are not stupid, I'm sure they are doing something like this.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By SmokeRngs on 7/25/2007 4:33:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I would also be limiting the maximum bandwith to each jack to about 20kbps.

I think you should probably revise those figures a little bit. I bought a 28.8 modem in early 1996 (and it was a nice upgrade over my old 14.4 modem). Your figures indicate everyone should have slower speeds than what I had over 11 years ago. The speed cap you propose is actually not much faster than the 14.4 modem I had before that.

There's no way I would pay that much to browse the net that slow. At my parents' house they connect at maybe 28.8 and I hop on the net at their house only if it's absolutely necessary. Normally it's just to update the virus scanner and do a couple of updates because my mother can't stand the slow speeds to do it herself.

I went without net access at home for more than two years because I couldn't afford anything except for dial up and it wasn't worth the money. I would rarely use it because those speeds are just too slow anymore if there is any type of other choice. I left my computers at a friend's house hooked up to the net through his cable connection and stopped by there every couple of days to do some things.

Parent

RE: hmmm

By theapparition on 7/25/2007 8:55:03 AM , Rating: 2

While your calculations are correct, real world usage is not near as bad. Most web browsing is "offline", that is, you download a page, spend a few minutes reading that, then click on another link. Rarely, is bandwidth taxed for normal users. It's for this same reason that cable broadband can approach 6-10mbps, even when the trunk into the neighborhood serving 100's of homes only handles 20-30mbps. Not everyone is online at the same time, streaming video, and running multiple torrents.

The downside is that if everyone of your neighbors starts streaming video, your bandwidth takes a nosedive (pun intended). Same will be true on the plane. But overall, I don't think it's as bad as it sounds.

Parent

Still No Cellphone?

By youdosuck on 7/24/07, Rating: 0

RE: Still No Cellphone?

By soydios on 7/24/2007 11:30:06 PM , Rating: 5

...because the rest of the plane doesn't want to hear you yakking the whole way. You can live without the cell phone for a few hours.

Parent

RE: Still No Cellphone?

By RobFDB on 7/25/2007 3:38:27 AM , Rating: 2

I wonder if there's any restrictions on Skype..

Parent

RE: Still No Cellphone?

By bhieb on 7/25/2007 10:15:35 AM , Rating: 3

Man no kidding, imagine the liability increase when we have to gang tackle the guy and beat him to death with his damn cell phone!

Parent

Well then

By FITCamaro on 7/24/2007 7:14:34 PM , Rating: 5

Good thing the A380 is on schedule. Wait....

$10 per day?

By dude on 7/25/2007 1:08:26 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
A similar in-flight Internet provider, AirCell, claims to offer speeds similar to ground-based digital-subscriber line systems with pricing no more than $10 per day while in-flight.

Let me assume it means per flight. Otherwise, would per day mean if we cross the time zone, it counts as a different day? Why would it be worded as such?

RE: $10 per day?

By jajig on 7/25/2007 2:07:01 AM , Rating: 2

LMAO maybe it's all a scam :D

Parent

Skippy's wings clipped but remaining resolutely kangarooesque.

By crystal clear on 7/25/2007 8:34:12 AM , Rating: 2

This is for all you guys from Australia-

Qantas spunks AU$100m on 'pterodactyl'

LogoWatch Designers have reacted with somewhat less than enthusiasm to Qantas's revamped logo - rolled out this week with the usual fanfare of trumpets.

The new-look roo, the fifth incarnation of the original 1944 marsupial, is an adaptation of the 1984 design which saw Skippy's wings clipped but remaining resolutely kangarooesque.

The press release explains the company felt "the time was right for a new adaptation of the airline's logo, in keeping with Qantas' increasing focus on contemporary design for its in-flight and on-the-ground products

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/25/qantas_log...