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.'"

Warflying?

[asiansteev]

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

Another reason to go wired

[Rob T Firefly]

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

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Actually they ditched it because...

[jpellino]

... 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...

Re:Weird

[mortonda]

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.

Re:Warflying?

[Dachannien]

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

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

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[steveo777]

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:plane-LAN to WAN?

[Nexx]

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:Warflying?

[Sponge Bath]

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

That could get you in trouble.

[raehl]

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:plane-LAN to WAN?

[jalet]

"32000 feet ought to be enough for anybody."

Bill Gates.

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[mgabrys_sf]

Never underestimate the bandwidth requirements for PRON!

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[bondjamesbond]

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

Re:plane-LAN to WAN?

[WilliamCotton]

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.