January 25, 2008 12:54 PM PST

In-flight Internet: Grounded for life?

If Wi-Fi is available at thousands of Internet cafes on even the most remote beaches in Southeast Asia, why isn't it ubiquitous on airplanes in the United States?

For those travelers who desperately want to know, the answer is that it's nearly here.

Earlier this week, two major U.S. carriers, Southwest and American Airlines, both announced onboard Internet trials timed to commence later this year.

This follows JetBlue's already-launched, though minimal, service, as well as previous announcements for trials from Alaska Airlines and Virgin America.

Southwest said it would begin trials this summer with high-speed Internet service on four of its 737s. Alaska has said it would launch a trial in the same rough timeframe on one plane. Also this summer, American will launch onboard Internet service on its entire fleet of coast-to-coast 767s, and Virgin America plans on rolling out the service on all of its planes.

Yet, years after Boeing launched its much-vaunted Connexion service, which for a time brought fully functional high-speed connectivity to a series of foreign carriers, many passengers wonder why their countless hours spent aloft are still mostly Internet-free.

According to Henry Harteveldt, an industry analyst at Forrester Research who recently issued a report on the subject, the answer is that we're about to see a sea change that will likely bring Internet on board most major U.S. carriers.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that it's not going to happen overnight.

"It will probably be two years or so before we see the vast majority of aircraft in the U.S. with this," Harteveldt said. "But I do expect it will be on just about every airline."

"It will probably be two years or so before we see the vast majority of aircraft in the U.S. with (Wi-Fi on board). But I do expect it will be on just about every airline."
--Henry Harteveldt, analyst, Forrester Research

So why are we still waiting?

It turns out, according to Harteveldt and other industry observers, that the hype surrounding Connexion, which launched in 2004 with initial service on Lufthansa German Airlines, was never quite matched by realistic business considerations.

One of the major problems, according to Wendy Campanella, who runs business development for Row 44, which is providing satellite Internet service to both Southwest and Alaska Airlines, is that Boeing's system was simply too heavy.

"Their system weighed 400 pounds," Campanella said. "Basically, the size and weight of their system meant that it was only viable on wide-body (dual-aisle) aircraft."

And that was fine if you were flying Lufthansa intercontinentally. But the biggest air-traffic market in the world is the U.S. domestic market, and here, most planes are narrow-body, single-aisle planes that can't support equipment the size of Connexion's.

Harteveldt agreed.

"Connexion by Boeing was developed starting in 2000," Harteveldt said. Initially, "United, American, and Delta were going to be business partners, but after 9/11, they pulled out. So Boeing had to develop it alone. (It) was developed for twin-aisle planes like the 747. It was not optimized or sized down for single-aisle planes like the 757 or 737, and those types of planes make up the majority of planes flying in North America."

And that meant the service was doomed. Indeed, in 2006, Boeing pulled the plug on the project, and since then, there have been only the slightest ripples on the onboard Internet pond.

Harteveldt said that the lack of such service is not because airlines or passengers don't want it. In fact, he said, passengers are demanding it, and airlines are eager to provide it.

Wi-Fi in the sky

The problem, however, has been that getting such systems up and running is cumbersome and expensive, and there's no single standard.

For example, JetBlue, American, and Virgin America have selected air-to-ground systems that rely on wide networks of installed towers across the continental U.S. Southwest and Alaska have chosen satellite service from Row 44 that piggy-backs on existing Hughes Network Systems infrastructure.

Campanella argued that the satellite option is superior because it provides 30 megabits per second of capacity per aircraft, with an average expected throughput of 100 kilobits per second per user.

Further, she argued that satellite offers the promise of continued connectivity even when flying over water, something Harteveldt said would be important on domestic routes such as Houston to Miami, or from the northeast to Miami.

That thinking is one of the reasons Southwest went with Row 44's satellite service.

"We think it's a better solution," said Southwest spokeswoman Whitney Eichinger. "What you get with satellite is more customers are able to use the Internet at one time than they would with air-to-ground, and depending on the routing of the aircraft, you're able to take (it) over water."

See more CNET content tagged:
Connexion, Lufthansa, plane, airline, passenger


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Can't open a laptop anyway
I think one very important item is being forgotten. With the number of seats packed into airlines for flights in the US you can't comfortably open a conventional laptop with a 14" display...at least in coach.

If you don't mind working with the screen half open and praying the person in front of you doesn't recline it's doable ;)
Posted by bmon2002 (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Unfulfilled market
There's an unfulfilled market for an adjustable, non-metallic brace to fit between your armrest and the seat-back in front of you. Set it up when you get settled in your seat before the seatbelt light is turned off and the jerk in front of you won't be able to recline.

Right now I have to just shove my knees into the seatback, which is not difficult considering how the seat pitch has shrunk in the past few years.
Posted by AndrewRich (217 comments )
Link Flag
Electric Power Would Be Nice
I'd rather see electric power outlets in all Coach seats before WiFi. I'm lucky to get 2 hours on battery, and that's with the screen really dim.
Posted by Stating (869 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Absolutely agree, without an outlet to plug in, the wifi is pointless.

Although I would point out another possible barrier to adoption: reimbursement. If my company allows us to claim reimbursement of the wifi fee then I may use it. But if reimbursement is not available then I will not use it on a business flight no matter how cheap it is.
Posted by Constance Reader (5 comments )
Link Flag
Its not needed. There is enough cosmic radiation at high altitudes already, without adding wifi to the mix. Being inside a large metal tube makes the exposure even more dangerous. I would find wifi usefull on flights, but I don't think it is worth the health effects.
Posted by xacimo (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.