Boeing Drops Wireless System For 787

K7DAN writes "It appears that state-of-the-art connectivity in Boeing's newest aircraft means a wired, not a wireless network. The Seattle Times reports that Boeing has abandoned plans to bring entertainment and information to passengers through a wireless system in its 787 Dreamliner due to possible production delays and potential conflicts with other radio services around the world. A side benefit is an actual reduction in weight using the wired system. Amazingly, the LAN cables needed to connect every seat in the aircraft weigh 150 lbs less than all the wireless antennae, access points, and thickened ceiling panels required to accommodate a wireless network (the design called for an access point above each row)." The article concludes: "The net impact, [a Boeing spokesman] said, is less technical risk, some weight saved, the system's flexibility and quality preserved plus 'a bit of schedule relief.'"

plane-LAN to WAN?

[Reverse Gear (891207)]

Wired seem to be a better solution for a plane anyhow, I wouldn't expect the need for moving around the plane with your laptop to be that massive, I mean people are usually pretty tied to their seats when going with a Boeing.
The problem probably is that different airline companies want different seating positions, but the article says that they should have solved this issue.

The article says nothing about how the LAN on the plane connects to the internet though. I think that is where the state of the art comes in, the only possible solution I see is through satellite connection, but with a moving plane I imagine that is going to give some problems.
Another problem in this is the bandwidth given by a satellite connection, if there are 20 passengers surfing the net that isn't going to give a lot of bandwidth pr. user.

Re:

[CheechBG (247105)]

You raise a very valid point, I am curious to see how they get around this myself. Not to mention the fact that satellite usually means about ~300ms latency right off the bat, not to mention the fact that the moron sitting next to me just HAS to email a 1GB Powerpoint presentation over VPN...

Re:

[CheechBG (247105)]

Not to mention the fact that I should have hiw Preview instead of Submit. Grammar (and reading!) nazi's flame away!

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

Not to mention the fact that I should have hiw Preview instead of Submit. Grammar (and reading!) nazi's flame away!

OK. "nazi's" should be capitalized, and you've used an apostrophe for your plural which makes it a possessive.

Re:

[steveo777 (183629)]

You forgot that 'hiw' isn't a word. The poster meant 'hit'.
Please turn in your Spelling Nazi insignia by the end of the day.

Re:

[Nexx (75873)]

Your signature sentence ends in an ellipsis, but you do not terminate it with a full stop. In addition, you use a comma where a semicolon is due. Please turn in your Grammar Nazi insignia ASAP.

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[bondjamesbond (99019)]

Gosh. All this time I thought that English majors weren't good for anything. Now, I'm certain.

Re:

[icebrain (944107)]

The "big idea" with the wireless system was to allow the IFE (in-flight entertainment)--TV screens on the backs of seats and such--to run over the wireless. That way, you wouldn't have to rerun wires if you changed the seating configuration. I think the need for an access point above each row was driven by a need to handle streaming video and games to eight or nine people in each row at the same time. Regular laptop access and all would have been secondary, I think.

Re:

[markov_chain (202465)]

Access point in each row, with 8 people per AP doing streaming video? That's nuts! I bet they couldn't make it work and wouldn't admit it.

Re:

[mike260 (224212)]

Agree.

Plus, I was under the impression that although 802.11 b/g has 11-13 'channels' there's only really 3 non-overlapping frequency-ranges. So each frequency would be fought over by 10+ APs, all stuffed inside a giant pringles-tube, all trying to shout each other down.

Re:

[mike260 (224212)]

They'd still have to rewire seats for power if they moved them about, so surely doing network cabling at the same time would be no great hardship. They'd only need to scatter a few switches around the plane with enough ports and capacity for the densest possible seat config.

Wifi seems like a really complicated way to move bits the few feet between the floor and the seatback.

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[frdmfghtr (603968)]

I think that is where the state of the art comes in, the only possible solution I see is through satellite connection, but with a moving plane I imagine that is going to give some problems.

Satellite connectivity for an aircraft wouldn't be that hard, really. I would expect the issues to be the same as with marine SATCOM, mainly tracking the satellite and having a clear view of the satellite. On an airplane the LOS issue would be pretty easy, since there isn't much that is above the airplane except empty space. As far as tracking the satellite, a flat-panel phased array antenna would do the job marvelously. In fact, that's one way that the former Connexion by Boeing [wikipedia.org] did it.

As far as bandwidth per user goes, how much does one passenger really need at any given moment? Sending and receiving email doesn't take a lot of bandwidth, and you can go on to do other things while your email client handles that. If you are web surfing, once the page is loaded, your bandwidth requirements are zero until you load a new page. It's not like anybody is going to try hosting a web server at 32,000 feet :)

Re:

[jalet (36114)]

"32000 feet ought to be enough for anybody."

Bill Gates.

Re:

[mgabrys_sf (951552)]

Never underestimate the bandwidth requirements for PRON!

Re:

[WilliamCotton (856410)]

It's not like anybody is going to try hosting a web server at 32,000 feet :)

Aw man, my Web 3.0 plans are out of the bag.

Satalite has massive bandwidth.

[raehl (609729)]

But also has massive latency.

Worst case, you can easily throttle bandwidth to a particular row or seat to keep one user from sucking up too much.

What will be interesting is if first class passengers get more bandwidth than cattle class.

Re:Satalite has massive bandwidth.

[drinkypoo (153816)]

All you have to do is use traffic shaping and specify that each person gets, minimum, their share of the connection. When they aren't, the traffic will be available to others. When they are, their traffic will be sent. All you need do is put the traffic in a separate bucket for each host, and then service each bucket with a packet in it once per sweep. Sounds like it should be a pretty simple connection to me. You could then put the first class passengers into a bucket and everyone else into another, and service the first class bucket twice as often, and implement the concept in your last sentence.

Re:

[Planetes (6649)]

This was essentially the point of Boeing's Connexion service but since Boeing canned Connexion it's essentially a non-issue. Connexion was the in-flight internet among other things. Whether or not an equivalent comes around in the future is completely up to the company and it's definitely not a priority among the 787 people in BCA.

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[tenchiken (22661)]

Some technical background. The wireless technology they were trying to use was actually draft 802.11n. Obviously part of the problem is the delays that the 802.11n stuff has had getting to spec. The secondary part of that is without a ISO spec, at least one large government(who might have a interest in pushing a native spec) refused to permit 802.11n in the airspace, claiming it might interfere with military applications.

Boeing pitched this solution pretty hard when they started selling the 787. The 787 overall appears to be a runaway success. It's the fastest selling commercial airliner in history. Airbus has been playing catch up, and currently is in their 7th revision of the plane they are trying to sell to compete with it directly.

So far the wireless is the only feature spec'd for the 787 that Boeing hasn't been able to make work. Given the huge technical risks (incredibly high usage of composites, larger electrical system, increased FBW, huge global supply chain, bleedless engines (normal planes use a portion of the planes airflow to power de-icing and air conditioning) etc. It really will be the state of the art when the plane flies.

Wireless would have been nice though.

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[Moby Cock (771358)]

Usually a rotating antenna fed from a 3-axis gyro. Modern aircraft use ring-laser gyros which are very accurate. The antenna always points to the same spot in the sky (assuming it can, on long flights the curvature of the earth can become a factor).

No surprise

[BadERA (107121)]

Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.

Not the same thing.

[raehl (609729)]

Considering every commercial airline's effort to offer WiFi to date has been scrapped either before takeoff (pun intended), or not long after launch. The costs are simply not supported by the revenue, simple as that. Other considerations like weight and maintenance complexity are secondary.

The costs for an ADD-ON system are not supported by the revenue. Putting a wireless system on an EXISTING plane means you have to:

- Take the plane out of service
- Partially disassemble the plane
- Run supplemental wiring
-

Not surprising.

[adamstew (909658)]

They would need to have cables running throughout the plane anyway to all the wireless antenna. Just put a hub in place of an antenna and run a few more cables to the seats. With all the shielding and such that a plane has, you'd probably need a boatload of antennas...Then you have to worry about extra shielding for all the onboard components, etc.

Besides, all this means is that the business traveler will have to carry around a 2 ft CAT 5 cable...big deal. I bet some creative laptop maker comes up with one of those airline power adapters that also integrates a CAT 5 cable in to it. Just plug the one end in to the back of your laptop, and plug in the power and network cables in to the appropriate ports on the other end.

Re:

[eln (21727)]

Besides, all this means is that the business traveler will have to carry around a 2 ft CAT 5 cable

My first thought was that they would just have cables permanently attached and resting in, say, the little pocket in the seat back in front of you. Then I thought, the most likely scenario would be for them to charge you $5 for a cable just like they do with headphones. Then, they could make the connector that goes into their network unique in some way so that your standard cable wouldn't fit, and you would b

Re:

[AeroIllini (726211)]

I don't think they would require you to bring a cable with you, since it's probably only a matter of time before they ban all cables of any kind from airplanes because they could be used to make bombs or something.

Or I could use a CAT5 cable to strangle the TSA representative who is telling me that my 4 oz bottle of hair gel is a danger to the plane and its passengers.

Re:

[Deadstick (535032)]

More to the point, why install wireless to save wiring the seats when you have to wire the seats for laptop power anyway?

rj

It all goes to show...

[ockegheim (808089)]

...if you're not moving around much, use a light little ethernet cable and save yourself all the hassle of wireless. It trumps wireless in speed, reliability and cost.

I can see...

[otacon (445694)]

how this makes sense for laptops as it shouldn't matter laptops generally have both, and there is no need to be mobile on a plane, but what about WiFi PDA's and the upcoming cell phones with wifi capabilities, both of those could be pretty important to an exec who needs to remain connected.

Re:

[FireFlie (850716)]

I guess WiFi PDA's will be SOL, but I'm sure most execs that need to connect to the internet via their cell phones will probably use their cell phone network's internet connection.

Waaaait-a-minit...

[Sunrun (553558)]

"Amazingly, the LAN cables needed to connect every seat in the aircraft weigh 150 lbs less than all the wireless antennae, access points, and thickened ceiling panels required to accommodate a wireless network (the design called for an access point above each row)."

So, obviously, they didn't spec this out with commodity hardware -- I'm guessing that and the extra shielding were to mitigate any radio interference that might mess with the avionics. But come on.. there has to be a wireless solution that us

Warflying?

[asiansteev (991271)]

You could probably just warfly some wireless connection from the ground if you really needed wireless in a plane, right?

Re:

[Sponge Bath (413667)]

William Shatner looks out the plane windows and sees a gremlin with a laptop and Pringles can on the wing.

Re:Warflying?

[Dachannien (617929)]

Unfortunately, most APs don't have a 30,000 foot range.

It's also really tough to see warchalking from that altitude.

Now all they need to do..

[zyl0x (987342)]

..is allow you to take your laptop on the flight.

Another reason to go wired

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

There's... someone on the wing! Some... thing! And it's... trying to... leech wifi! </shatner>

Actually they ditched it because...

[jpellino (202698)]

... it was going to be too hard to implement the system. Imagine this cockpit conversation:

"Denver, AA325 - Requesting clearance to LAN - over"
"Negative, AA325 - do not land - over."
"No, not land, LAN - over"
"Landover? No - this is Denver - over."
"Roger, Denver..."
"Sorry, Clarence, no clearance."
etc...

What about the connectors?

[Nkwe (604125)]

The challenge I see with wired Ethernet is the connectors. Is a standard cat 5 jack designed for multiple plug insertions and removals every day? How often would the jacks need to be replaced and can this be done easily?

RTFA

[vondo (303621)]

The article is not about internet access at all but distribution of inflight movies and entertainment. And there is not an access point at every row, but an antenna at every row (in the old scheme). If you read it, that's a receiving antenna that would then distribute the content to the seats in that row, not a transmitting antenna (access point).

Also, this plane is already several thousand pounds over the design weight, so I imagine that has something to do with this decision.

Would you like Network or Non-Network seating?

[LaughingCoder (914424)]

With wired they can sell premium seats with LAN, or cheaper seats without LAN. That would be harder to control with wireless.

150 lbs

[Psychic Burrito (611532)]

Two weeks ago:

Ask Slashdot: How Can We Convert the US to the Metric System? [slashdot.org]

Today:

"Amazingly, the LAN cables needed to connect every seat in the aircraft weigh 150 lbs less (...)"

How to convert the US to metric? Well...how about starting with yourself? ...

power over ethernet?

[speculatrix (678524)]

there are pros and cons of offering cables vs wireless. wireless would be fine for a bit of email and web-browsing especially if traffic shaping were used. cabling allows isolation of each switch port (and firewall off passengers from each other), and control of bandwidth would be relatively easy compared to wireless.

if they use power over ethernet then they can make the in-seat entertainment system a thin client and use at least *some* off-the-shelf hardware (remember that aircraft electronics, even in entertainment, have to withstands many years of use, far longer than any consumer electronics have to).

it also means they could use SIP phones for providing in-flight telephony and put them on their own vlans, likewise have vlans for security cameras and remote controlled devices.

Re:Weight saved?

[Dunbal (464142)]

How important is saving 150 pounds on a plane that weighs between 360k and 540k pounds on takeoff?

      It may seem small in comparison, but it's 150lbs less you have to pay fuel for, for the entire service life of the plane. While this probably wouldn't be a huge chunk of profits gone, why waste money? After a while the fuel needed to ship that extra 150lbs certainly adds up. I wouldn't want to pay for it!

Re:

[Silver Sloth (770927)]

It all adds up. If airplane designers aren't weight concious at all times then they're not airplane designers for long.

Re:

[MysticOne (142751)]

Umm, since when has wifi NOT been RF? I think it's overkill, but they don't have line-of-sight issues because the whole plane is within the line-of-sight of the APs. Now if they were doing optical or infrared wireless, that'd be different, but then everyone would need special hardware to use it and that'd just be a pain. But I'm pretty sure that wifi hasn't ever been anything but RF. :)

Re:

[SnowZero (92219)]

I would guess it was so they could use low-power APs. Probably easier to get FAA approval for something running in the bluetooth power range rather than a typical AP.

That could get you in trouble.

[raehl (609729)]

With 100Mbps ethernet connections at every seat, I wonder if they could sponser some killer LAN parties. Maybe show the current best players on the main screen? : )

Whatever you do, do NOT play cs_747!

Re:access point above every row?

[Tristandh (723519)]

Quick, call Boeing! They probably didn't even consider that! They'll love to hear the your expert opinion! Or: Ask yourself who'll know best. You or them.

Re:access point above every row?

[MaestroRC (190789)]

Obviously you don't know much about how wireless works. See, while 3 AP's may provide the proper *coverage* (ie: you can get a signal anywhere in the plane), it can't provide the *bandwidth*. Assuming they're using this for more than just some person's want to get online from the air, such as for in-flight entertainment (think screens at each seat) and possibly a VoIP phone-type setup to consolidate cabling (no seperate phone/video cables for each seat), it likely will use quite a bit of bandwidth. If each row has some 7-8+ seats (twin aisle configuration, likely it's 2/3/2 or 3/3/3), and designing for peak capacity (i'm sorry you can't watch your in-flight movie because your rowmates are all watching it already and those guys are online and that guy is on the phone), it's going to take a lot of bandwidth. Even at 802.11g/a speeds, you're talking at most 108Mbps (twin radio configuration) split across 7-8 people. Figure watching a movie uses 3-10Mbps, that's at nearly peak capacity right there, best case scenario.

Re:

[MaestroRC (190789)]

I didn't say that it's a 108Mbps standard, I said that with twin broadcasting radios (business class AP's), there would be a theoretical 108Mbps available from that *AP*. Yes, for a single radio on board an AP, there would only be 54Mbps available.

Re:

[mortonda (5175)]

I scanned the article summary above and thought that Boeing was going to a Weird network. I skipped right to the article to see the details and was disappointed.

Umm, then you obviously didn't read it, as it said they had AP's above every row. Sounds weird to me.