Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Aviation

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 526 posts

Re: Starlink Aviation

#111

Post by threeseed »

thot_experiment wrote: post #56
parker_mountain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a problem left to etiquette I fly regularly, and it will absolutely become a problem on day 1.

This seems so backwards to me, why would you want other people to behave the way you want them to when you can just put in earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, have self control and not get annoyed, etc etc. It seems crazy to me that people consider something so minor to be uncouth or whatever. I think in general the onus to take care of something should be on the person getting annoyed and only until you've exhaus…

Why ban smoking on the plane when you can just breathe through a mask and deal with it ?

Earplugs, noise cancelling headphones etc are imperfect just like masks are.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#113

Post by francislavoie »

langsoul-com wrote: post #71
schappim wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it is not a client hardware issue, but a lack of coverage at your latitude.

Could be regulation and legal issues as well. Probs is.

I know many Canadians (including family) who've gotten theirs. That's not the issue in this case.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#114

Post by cube00 »

smaddali wrote: post #66
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

I think technology itself is enabler here. Airlines have to figure how to price the convenience of video calls vs privacy/solitude/disturbances to the co-passengers. i think having dedicated video call booths priced per 5 min chunks can address the issue.

Given high value placed on every square inch of the passenger cabin if that booth isn't being used as much as they'd earn from the extra seat they could sell instead, it's never happening.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#115

Post by apendleton »

eganist wrote: post #105

Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…

I assume airlines looking to outfit whole fleets aren't finding out about pricing through the website, and probably aren't paying sticker price for either the equipment or the service. I guess the Gulfstream set probably isn't price sensitive, so may as well charge a boatload for these kinds of one-off installs for rich people?

Re: Starlink Aviation

#116

Post by FireBeyond »

zuhayeer wrote: post #100

Once upon a time, all plane transmissions were pretty much air to ground. As inconsequential as it may seem, the positioning of antennas above the plane are a bit metaphoric for flipping things up side down. Looking out into space instead of back to earth. Also notable that SpaceX keeps finding these cool (revenue generating) use cases to further cheapen the cost of sending things up to space. Pretty much dogfooding…

> In-flight wifi (and otherwise all other transmissions) have pretty much always been air to ground

This has not been the case for several years. Most in flight Wifi is now being provided by Viasat which, as the name suggests, is air to space.

Even Gogo started rolling out satellite service in 2015.

Very few services are now air-to-ground.

Random pictures: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I7Yfd.jpg https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/DSC00...

Re: Starlink Aviation

#117

Post by ralusek »

MBCook wrote: post #58
ralusek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

Have you been around people in the last 10+ years? Etiquette will fail. If this ability is there, the airlines need rules. People will use it.

Etiquette can be enforced.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#118

Post by deepsun »

zuhayeer wrote: post #100

Once upon a time, all plane transmissions were pretty much air to ground. As inconsequential as it may seem, the positioning of antennas above the plane are a bit metaphoric for flipping things up side down. Looking out into space instead of back to earth. Also notable that SpaceX keeps finding these cool (revenue generating) use cases to further cheapen the cost of sending things up to space. Pretty much dogfooding…

No post body was provided.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#119

Post by apendleton »

zuhayeer wrote: post #100

Once upon a time, all plane transmissions were pretty much air to ground. As inconsequential as it may seem, the positioning of antennas above the plane are a bit metaphoric for flipping things up side down. Looking out into space instead of back to earth. Also notable that SpaceX keeps finding these cool (revenue generating) use cases to further cheapen the cost of sending things up to space. Pretty much dogfooding…

> In-flight wifi (and otherwise all other transmissions) have pretty much always been air to ground

Would be curious to see a citation. My understanding was that of the major providers of in-flight Internet, only Gogo was air-to-ground, and that pretty much everybody else (Thales, ViaSat, etc.) was either Ku- or Ka-band satellite, which has been winning out because it still works over water.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#120

Post by dfdz »

eganist wrote: post #105

Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…

> flex, not a tool

Suppose that a plane has 250 seats and makes 50 trans-con flights a month.

Airline A decides to advertise having fast internet access in their flight, and raises ticket prices by $2 a seat to fund it.

(250)(50)(2) = 25000

Airline B stays with slow barely usable internet.

Which ticket do you book?

Post reply on HN