Southwest Rapid Rewards - Wi-Fi rollout

Well today we announced plans to install Wi-Fi in all of our aircraft. Dave Ridley has a blog post here (http://www.blogsouthwest.com/blog/southwest-selects-wi-fi-our-fleet), and you can read the press release here (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=92562&p=irol-newsArticle_pf&ID=1323179&highlight=).

I just posed this question on the blog too, but I'm really curious why WN is going with Row 44's satellite service over Aircell's ground-based Go-Go service ... seems strange. Are there technical advantages, besides not being constrained by ground-based infrastructure (which doesn't seem like a problem for WN anyway), that led to this choice?

The only other minor :td: is that this still puts WN well behind DL, AA, and AirTran (I can never remember AirTran's code :mad: ... oh yeah, FL).

I just posed this question on the blog too, but I'm really curious why WN is going with Row 44's satellite service over Aircell's ground-based Go-Go service ... seems strange. Are there technical advantages, besides not being constrained by ground-based infrastructure (which doesn't seem like a problem for WN anyway), that led to this choice?

The only other minor :td: is that this still puts WN well behind DL, AA, and AirTran (I can never remember AirTran's code :mad: ... oh yeah, FL).

Here's the answer:

Bandwidth and speed! This solution provides more bandwidth than the air-to-ground versions offered by carriers like American, AirTran, and Virgin America. We believe that this solution provides the most “at office and at home-like” internet experience for our Customers.

By working with Row 44, we also have the ability to customize our product to best meet Customer preferences and evolving usage trends.

Sweet ... so it won't be a problem watching streaming porn ... errr, I mean, YouTube, on the plane.

And it just so happens it's not constrained by ground-based infrastructure which could be an advantage in the future. :D

Yeah, you can watch all the videos on our blog!

Will we be able to access the blog for free? For example, I know Delta and AirTran let you access their own website even if you don't pay.

Sweet ... so it won't be a problem watching streaming porn ... errr, I mean, YouTube, on the plane.

I would expect video and voice to be blocked. The former uses too much bandwidth.

Furthermore, I am skeptical that Row44's system has the capacity to provide reasonable service when it's serving hundreds of aircraft at a time, with several users per aircraft. I guess we'll find out.

Here's the answer:

[I]Bandwidth and speed! This solution provides more bandwidth than the air-to-ground versions offered by carriers like American, AirTran, and Virgin America. We believe that this solution provides the most “at office and at home-like” internet experience for our Customers.

A note that latency was not mentioned.

I would expect video and voice to be blocked. The former uses too much bandwidth.

Every time (regardless of whose planes/tech is used) someone says this, I just laugh. There is nothing that a VPN tunnel won't solve.

That said, voice will be bad--I tried various voice attempts on Connexion, and the satellite latency makes it nigh on impossible to actually have a call.

There is nothing that a VPN tunnel won't solve.

What if the system cuts the user's bandwidth way down, even below what typical users need, when it detects large file transfers of any sort. Wouldn't that do the job?

The only other minor :td: is that this still puts WN well behind DL, AA, and AirTran (I can never remember AirTran's code :mad: ... oh yeah, FL).

This is true, but I bet WN is leveraging this to secure better pricing from Row 44. With just about every other major signed up with Aircell/Gogo, Row 44 is in a position of needing WN's business, and fast.

I have heard that one of the price points being looked at is free coupled with a bearable amount of advertising.

I would expect video and voice to be blocked. The former uses too much bandwidth.

The two test flights I was on, video worked, quite well, actually. I didn't get a chance to see if skype worked, since I didn't want to be seen with my iphone up to my ear. I used video chat without a VPN tunnel.

I've always thought the Row 44 system was far superior to the Aircell one. With all these airlines flying around with Aircell, how long is it before their network clogs up? Plus you can use it to Hawaii, Canada, Alaska, Mexico etc. While they aren't WN destinations at the moment, they've laid the groundwork to serve them with WiFi jets. It's not like DL where they're stuck on continental US routes only.

I was quite pleased when I flew the on the WiFi jets last month.

A note that latency was not mentioned.

That said, voice will be bad--I tried various voice attempts on Connexion, and the satellite latency makes it nigh on impossible to actually have a call.

Randy,
We are trying to preclude voice transmissions: You will not be able to


Surf the web from a cell phone or similar device that is not Wi-Fi equipped (please note: many Blackberry devices on the market fall into this category)
Use a Wi-Fi device that does not have an Internet browser
Use voice connections such as VOIP (Skype

I have heard that one of the price points being looked at is free coupled with a bearable amount of advertising.I would think it would be difficult to have enough advertising to offset the price of full internet access. That being said, what I think may be more likely is that they could have certain sites that you can surf without paying with the sites themselves paying for the access.

With all these airlines flying around with Aircell, how long is it before their network clogs up? I would hope if and when that becomes a problem they will just add more satellite transponders, I believe satellite bandwidth is relatively scalable now.

Article from Computerworld on this subject (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136848/Wi_Fi_on_planes_is_growing_if_you_can_find_the_rig ht_flights_?taxonomyId=15&pageNumber=1)

The article argues that revenue from WiFi will be insignificant. The real draw is in selling more tickets which makes it more important to have the entire fleet active. Here is an excerpt from page 3 (Fialcowitz is a Row 44 Dude).


""Fialcowitz said Southwest and Alaska will set their own pricing for Wi-Fi on Row 44 technology and are testing prices from $2 to $10 a flight. Row 44's financial approach seems to be similar to Aircell's, he said, with one approach allowing airlines to share equipment costs and revenues and another allowing airlines to assume most costs and set pricing. It costs about $200,000 to equip a single plane with Row 44 technology, he said.

Prices charged for Wi-Fi will probably have an impact on luring a range of users, not just business travelers, airline officials said.

Young travelers will use the service for access to social networks, while business travelers will use it for work tasks, such as updating e-mail, so they can spend more time with family once they get home, American's spokeswoman said.""

What if the system cuts the user's bandwidth way down, even below what typical users need, when it detects large file transfers of any sort. Wouldn't that do the job?

Let me preface this by saying that Act 44 (I believe) is using Hughesnet for their satellite-->ground connectivity. Hughes does throttle it's terrestrial customers in essentially the way you describe. If Act 44 does the same....

Then business users would be best not to buy it. Not only that, I'll go further: as soon as that's detected by anyone with any savvy, the practice will be widely announced and ridiculed. I give you Comcast and bittorrent.

If I'm cut down while pulling down a 10meg Excel file, I'll be pissed--working on that file will probably be why I paid for access in the first place.

The problem is that there are actually other useful things to do with bandwidth than surf youtube or porn. I find that while connected to my corporate VPN, I average somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 meg/hr in traffic over long periods. That's entirely work related which does not include any video to speak of, although it sometimes does include voice.

For anyone interested, Row 44 claims they can run 30Mbit/sec down to the plane (max) and (in the bad news department) about 600kbit/sec up. So the downstream link is not the problem--god help you trying to re-up that 10 meg Excel file....

Randy,

Not really. I just moderate his sandbox. :p


Surf the web from a cell phone or similar device that is not Wi-Fi equipped (please note: many Blackberry devices on the market fall into this category)
Use a Wi-Fi device that does not have an Internet browser
Use voice connections such as VOIP (Skype



Regarding the first, that's not a shocker and pretty difficult/impossible at cruise anyway. The second one, I suppose, could be a downer though I understand the captive portal needs in order to authenticate and collect payment that demand a web browser.

The voice thing is what it is. I suppose I understand (from a pax comfort standpoint) why you don't want to do it, and technically it's difficult (satellite IP connections don't make for good sound quality because of the latency, regardless of the software).

I would think it would be difficult to have enough advertising to offset the price of full internet access. That being said, what I think may be more likely is that they could have certain sites that you can surf without paying with the sites themselves paying for the access.


Hopefully FT is one of those sites. :D

I would hope if and when that becomes a problem they will just add more satellite transponders, I believe satellite bandwidth is relatively scalable now.

Isn't the Aircell network the ground based one? There's only so much capacity those ground based towers have. I think.

Isn't the Aircell network the ground based one? There's only so much capacity those ground based towers have. I think.

I don't really see a problem with ground-based technology. I think it is cheaper to add capacity to ground-based systems than to satellite-based systems

I was rather impressed with gogo on AA, and I look forward to trying Row 44, but my experience showed gogo/Aircell was using the bandwidth and IP network built out by the wireless phone companies with modifications for up in the air connections. Wireless companies just add towers or capacity when needed (maybe not as fast as we would like, but they do spend billions all the time in this area).

Rasheed

I don't really see a problem with ground-based technology. I think it is cheaper to add capacity to ground-based systems than to satellite-based systems

Perhaps. I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination about these systems, so I could be totally off base here. However, when I try and use my Verizon air card when a lot of other people are using the cell networks, it really bogs down. I can't imagine the Gogo system is any different, since it's based off cell towers.

I've used the WN system, and it was fantastic. The biggest drawback to that Gogo system is it's limited to the continental US. Is that a big deal for WN right now? No, but in the future if they start flying to Mexico/Canada/Alaska/Hawaii, you can have one system that works the same flying AMA-ABQ or LAX-HNL.

As for speed, it's not that bad, actually. It's not close to DSL/Cable. I have a few speed tests that I did when I flew PHX-SJC last month, and I'll post them later when I get a chance.

I've used the WN system, and it was fantastic.

It had better be fantastic when at most 3 other aircraft are sharing the system with you. When 300 other aircraft are sharing (a guesstimate of the number of Southwest aircraft above 10000 feet at a given time), your experience could be very different.

I don't really see a problem with ground-based technology. I think it is cheaper to add capacity to ground-based systems than to satellite-based systems.It depends. You know how many ground-based nodes you need to cover the Contiental US? Dozens, if not hundreds. You know how many satellite nodes you need to cover the entire Continental US? One or Two.