Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
There is still interest in this technology at Boeing and elsewhere, and there will probably be a BOF on the problems associated with large mobile networks at the San Diego IETF this Fall. Anyone interested in the technology at the IP level can let me know and I will make sure you get the announcements. As for the business side of it, there are other uses for network connectivity on a modern aircraft besides searching the web. Regards Marshall On Sep 10, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Robert E.Seastrom wrote: Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue of $11mil/yr. Now this is interesting. $80k/year, $25 a shot = 3200 users per aircraft per year. Assume long-haul aircraft that daily average two flights per day, 320 days per year (to keep it easy), that means the average number of users on a flight is... 5. Someone's marketing department was asleep at the switch, I think. Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) My recollection is that they were using fairly off the shelf stuff though, 3548s and Aironet 1200s if memory serves. It's poking holes in the fuselage for the antenna, and the satellite antenna itself, that costs the big bucks. ---rob
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a > system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only > generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline > revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue > of $11mil/yr. Now this is interesting. $80k/year, $25 a shot = 3200 users per aircraft per year. Assume long-haul aircraft that daily average two flights per day, 320 days per year (to keep it easy), that means the average number of users on a flight is... 5. Someone's marketing department was asleep at the switch, I think. > Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, > but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality > catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) My recollection is that they were using fairly off the shelf stuff though, 3548s and Aironet 1200s if memory serves. It's poking holes in the fuselage for the antenna, and the satellite antenna itself, that costs the big bucks. ---rob
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 12:24:52PM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:56 -0500, Netfortius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and > > Europe, > > and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. > > Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not > > travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of > > flying > > naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need > > for > > an Internet connection ... > > > The main issue, from what I read, is that too few airlines followed suit. > In particular, most American airlines were far too strapped financially to > invest in the necessary equipment. Duh. Did you ever read the numbers for Connexion? They managed to design a system which cost the airlines up to $1mil per plane to install, and only generated $80k/yr/plane total revenue (thats Boeing revenue not airline revenue). They had an opex of something like $150mil/yr on total revenue of $11mil/yr. Obviously there is no such thing as an FAA certified $50 Linksys WRT54G, but it never fails to amaze me how people are utterly shocked when reality catches up with their wild, unchecked, and stupid spending. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: [OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:08:56 -0500, Netfortius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and > Europe, > and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. > Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not > travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of flying > naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need for > an Internet connection ... > The main issue, from what I read, is that too few airlines followed suit. In particular, most American airlines were far too strapped financially to invest in the necessary equipment. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
[OT] Connexion {Was: Re: [routing-wg]BGP Update Report}
Just wondering this, myself. I travel fairly frequently between US and Europe, and Lufthansa was recently my choice, exclusively because of this service. Perhaps with the interdiction of computing devices on board (have not travelled since the UK incident, so I am not sure if the new rules of flying naked affect all flights?!?) there won't - obviously - be much of a need for an Internet connection ... Stefan On Saturday 09 September 2006 21:43, Brandon Galbraith wrote: > Was it merely not enough customers? or were there other issues? inquiring > minds is all =) > > -brandon
